From all the bullshit this classical old American guy said in his inauguration, what struck me was the claim that the whole world is ripping off the United States. Since I have heard many Americans repeat this bullshit (or the other bullshit that no country in the world has done more than the US in order to reduce carbon emissions :lol: )

As we are witnessing in former communist countries (where all property belonged to the state) and as we can read in history books, almost all wealth accumulated in the hands of the few started with some kind of injustice. Call it a war, occupation, genocide, theft, bribery, corruption, fraud, slavery, usury or whatever you want, there's not a single nation in this world that can convince me that its wealth started with fair work and fair distribution. Though there are hard working individuals and hard working nations (and the opposite to these), there was a chaotic age in the history of every nation when some people benefitted a lot and others were used, ripped off, oppressed and murdered. The wealth accumulated by the first and the poverty/woes that burdened the second in one or another way have been inherited by their descendants to this day (though there are exceptions for every norm). Hence, Trump's statement that the US is the only country ripped off by everyone is contradicted by both reason and historical facts. If Trump was right, the US should have been the poorest country in the world (but that's not the case at all). Trump being surrounded, also, by the same billionaires who flirted with Biden and Obama says a lot on how wealth was made by these billionaires and why the best capitalists in the US do not want big government for the people, but they are always looking for big contracts with the US government. Who is ripping off whom?

No, whatever you were quoting lied, you were just happy enough to repeat it uncritically. Will you not even correct yourself and say he was speaking about illegal immigrants?

Illegal immigration is a crime punishable by law in the United States. If one doesn’t want to be called a criminal, there are legal means through which to immigrate to a country. The anti-immigrant sentiment is that which conflates the two.

I agree. Typically nations that are in peace might be vulnerable to sanctions, but a country that is transforming to a wartime economy doesn't care so much about it. They are already playing that game at a totally different cost level.

60 million deaths in WW2? I thought it was more like 20-30 million.

The difference is, it appears it won’t be filled with the typical symbolic crap, like when Biden violated the agreement with the Taliban by wanting to pull out of Afghanistan on September 11th, the anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks. And all that other cheapened rhetoric which serves only to further divide the people in that Slavic conflict.

It requires you to factor in people’s race or gender or sexuality as a factor in how you treat people. Do you do that? — NOS4A2

I try. When I've failed to do that, I've offended people needlessly. I've seen other people who've underestimated individuals because of their gender. I've worked with other managers who used language that is racist and sexist. All these things are related to DEI.

I've worked in environments in which my workers were entirely male. We sometimes interacted in ways that would be offensive around women. I came to learn this sort of behavior is inappropriate. This is DEI.

I worked for Exxon-Mobile when the company began off-shoring jobs, to take advantage of cheap labor - and I led a group of 150 people based in Malaysia, Brazil, and Colombia. I was glad I'd received some DEI training specifically addressing their cultural perspectives.

No, whatever you were quoting lied, — NOS4A2

He absolutely said those things, on "Truth" Social. Here's the full text:

The so-called Bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a Radical Left hard line Trump hater. She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way. She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart. She failed to mention the large number of illegal migrants that came into the Country and killed people. Many were deposited from jails and mental institutions. It is a giant crime wave that is taking place in the USA. Apart from her inappropriate statements, the service was very boring and uninspiring one. She is not very good at her job! She and her church owe the public an apology! t

Trump told several lies here. The quote I gave contained no lies.

Using race as a factor in how to treat people or hire people or talk about people is racist, I’m afraid. You mentioned whites and assumed I was concerned about them, for example, even if I never mentioned nor even believe in such a grouping. This is how quickly your DEI training has morphed into routine racism and I am left to believe you employ the same logic to people you affiliate with any other race.

In anti-racist circles we don’t discriminate or even believe in such false demarcations.

You identified no lie. I referred to "apparent logic' - I drew an inference. An incorrect inference is not a lie. If you think my inference was indeed incorrect, then explain Trump's negative reaction to the Bishop's comments - specifically her statement that the vast majority of them are 'not criminals' but rather “good neighbors," (which is absolutely true) - which tacitly acknowledges that there are some criminals. Is it reasonable to expect a Christian bishop to focus on the minority that are criminals to a man that routinely overstates the situation and almost never demonstrates empathy? Is there something wrong with preaching a value consistent with her faith?

Well shoot, I still can’t find the phrase “illegal” in your quote or in the one you cited, even though that’s the word he used. Maybe you can bold it for me:

“She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart," said Trump, adding that Budde didn’t mention that some migrants have come to the United States and killed people.”

His apparent logic: because some immigrants have killed people, no immigrants (nor LGBTQ) are worthy of empathy.

The difference is, it appears it won’t be filled with the typical symbolic crap, like when Biden violated the agreement with the Taliban by wanting to pull out of Afghanistan on September 11th, the anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks. And all that other cheapened rhetoric which serves only to further divide the people in that Slavic conflict. — NOS4A2

???

The divide is already there between the Russians and the Ukrainians. And Russians with others non-slavs.

ACTUALLY....

The crap did start with the Peace process made by Trump's administration. And here I can give some logic to Trump when you think about it. Because the reasoning just WHY the US was in Afghanistan was that otherwise it would be a "terrorist haven" from where the terrorist would somehow swim to attack Continental US. This idea was repeated again and again, that it made somehow far more sense to Americans than the Domino-theory from the Vietnam-era. If so, then the obvious point for Trump was that Taleban promised not to attack the US and not to be a "terrorist haven".

Well, the Taleban hadn't been in the first place the instigators of the 9/11 attacks, only the financier of the attack as a guest in Afghanistan. Hence it was obviously effortless for the Taleban to agree with this, because their objective was Afghanistan to be their Emirate (as it is now). Not attacking the US. This deal totally undermined the the Republic of Afghanistan: naturally the Taleban continued the fight, yet didn't attack the US.

Imagine if similar peace agreement was done by North Korea during the Korean war. I assume that gladly Kim Il Sung would agreed not to attack US forces or the USA, then dealt with Chinese help with the feeble South Korea.

Hope Trump has learnt the lesson of not trying to have a peace at all costs. Like with the Taleban. Because that was really crap.

:D "You know what I'm saying, right? You know what I'm saying." Don't know who the interviewer is, but they probably actually know. And Spain isn't "low" (let alone "very low"), it's a reasonably civilized democracy, "higher" than a lot of countries.

I don't know the context of why he said that, but I bet it is due to something related to our low contribution to NATO; and yet we have been increasing the spending in the past years because of the Ukraine crisis. I still think that is a waste of money, time, and resources. I don't understand the point of contributing to a useless army organisation that split the world in half, and some members even threaten others. Now Trump is threatening Denmark (a founder member of the treaty!) on the Greenland issue.

Well, he will indeed increase the tariffs on our products anyway xD :lol: . It doesn't matter if it is 10% or 100%.

No, "DEI" is just a three-letter word to these people — Christoffer

Are you specifically referring to people for whom this is the case? Cause otherwise, you're shitshooting.

I don't know anyone who thinks DEI is a good thing, or has resulted in good things for the institutions and governments who have brought it on. I don't think its fair to simply say these people aren't thinking. I happen to agree with them, ad have quite a bit to say abnout it.

For some people, the principle of not having race-or-sex-based policy is enough. And i think that's reasonable.

That may be your experience. Plenty of DEI courses/resources/people(and some i've been forced into undergoing) are extremely discriminatory. There is a reason people aren't that keen on being told their skin colour means they are unable to do X, or cannot avoid thinking Y etc.. etc.. The very concept of 'Whiteness' in this context is despicable. You can't reverse the behaviours minorities have felt the brunt of and call it "inclusion". I think most telling, is the extreme anger and abuse that comes the way of people calmly trying to discuss this (outside of this forum).

Sorry I didn't include this in the earlier reply, felt it needed its own.

Re: DACA he has more recently said he's going to find ways to ensure they can stay. Otherwise, thank you.; Hadn't seen things quite so direct before.

The birthright thing... I have thoughts. I don't think that's capable of use as a cudgel.

Cancelling refugee status already granted, while adminstratively kind of sensible on paper given his differences with the Biden admin, is absurd and bordering on evil. What a shame..

Fwiw, I have no issue with teh Bishop. I have no issue with Trump having an issue with her either.

DACA he has more recently said he's going to find ways to ensure they can stay. — AmadeusD

He said that in 2017 too. A few months later, tried to terminate their protected status. SCOTUS stopped it. He can just as easily change his mind this time around, and try to find a way around the SCOTUS ruling.

Fwiw, I have no issue with teh Bishop. I have no issue with Trump having an issue with her either. — AmadeusD

Her message was perfectly reasonable. His criticism was not - it was irrational, rude, and full of lies.

Excited about this executive order.

DECLASSIFICATION OF RECORDS CONCERNING THE ASSASSINATIONS OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, SENATOR ROBERT F. KENNEDY, AND THE REVEREND DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declassification-of-records-concerning-the-assassinations-of-president-john-f-kenned/

He can just as easily change his mind this time around, and try to find a way around the SCOTUS ruling. — Relativist

Sure, but I doubt it.

I disagree about hte Bishop, and that's fine.

I disagree about hte Bishop, and that's fine. — AmadeusD

I said Trump's post was irrational, rude, and full of lies. Do you think it was rational, polite, and factually true?

, you know there's such a thing as redheads, yes?
They have reddish hair.
I don't know of any particular discrimination against them on that account, and neither should there be.
If there were, then DEI could apply to discriminators.
Something similar goes for people that require very large shoes, and whatever.
Yet there is discrimination that ought not be, to which these efforts are a reaction.
You may complain about whatever implementation details of course.

It's hardly new...

The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. — paraphrasing Plato

And you can also commit injustice by doing nothing. — Aurelius

Often injustice lies in what you aren't doing, not only in what you are doing. — Aurelius

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. — paraphrasing Burke

Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. — Mill

Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. — Wiesel

I said I disagreed about the Bishop. Not quite sure why you're asking about Trump's post?
oh for fucks sake there's absolutely nothign defensible about sex and race based hiring or policy practices.

Relativist I said I disagreed about the Bishop. Not quite sure why you're asking about Trump's post? — AmadeusD

I was trying to understand what you were actually disagreeing with when you said, "I disagree about the Bishop"? I thought (mistakenly?) you were disagreeing with my assessment of Trump's post.

Of course there is. Doing nothing means it perpetuates injustice, because there is already discrimination. It's been funny seeing people argue doing nothing resolves problems. Where some are arguing to pretend categories applied by people don't even exist or shouldn't exist. Which is quite possibly even funnier. I love dumb people who are convinced of their inconsistent belief systems. Even when it's pointed out to them ad nauseum on this very forum, they persist because they're not capable of reflection.

Oh dear. Standing by and doing nothing? Is that what you guys think?

The very first step to ending racism is to quit being racist. One cannot banish this demon by evoking it, institutionalizing it, and by teaching it in corporate board meetings. It’s why a couple years ago racial college admissions were roundly ruled unconstitutional: it violated the equal protections clause. Your interventions consisted in denying many people of Asian descent access to Harvard, not because they oppressed someone or did anything wrong, but because they had the wrong racial characteristics.

And that’s why claims of justice around this topic is a huge farce. You don’t in fact distinguish between the guilty and the innocent, the perpetrator or the victim, you distinguish only between so-called races, even where doing so is completely unjust and evil.

Ironically, those institutions that considered race in admissions were less diverse than those that didn’t.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/14/private-selective-colleges-are-most-likely-to-use-race-ethnicity-as-a-factor-in-admissions-decisions

I request no one interact with NOS4A2 because he abuses - has long abused - the site and the format. He deals in outrageousness and refuses reply on being questioned.

oh for fucks sake there's absolutely nothing defensible about sex and race based hiring or policy practices. — AmadeusD

You are correct - except when those policies are in force to remedy existing prejudicial practices. And in the US, racial prejudice dies hard, thus equality policies will have even a prophylactic function.

You are correct - except when those policies are in force to remedy existing prejudicial practices. And in the US, racial prejudice dies hard, thus equality policies will have even a prophylactic function. — tim wood

It all depends on what we want of our institutions. If we want them to be a reflection of society, it might make sense to hire people from certain ethnic background or gender.

Take the judiciary. We want people with the most thorough knowledge of the law and sharpest argumentative skills to populate the judiciary. We also want the judiciary to be diverse in order to facilitate the exchange of ideas from different perspectives, expose cultural biases it may have and display in practice that people are judged by their peers and not by a class of people foreign to them. Those two values, legal knowledge and argumentation and equal representation may be contradictory. The language of law is steeped in tradition, its practices are culturally formed and people with a greater command of the jurisdiction's tongue are at a great advantage in law school. That might lead to the judiciary being populated by a certain class of people. However, representation is important in law, the law of the land is based on a common network of trust, a legal order we subscribe to. Without fair representation such a legal order is unstable, because certain classes of people may lose their faith in it. Therefore it may well be necessary to remedy this dynamic and engage in policies that advantage certain groups normally at a disadvantage.

Look at this piece by Ronald Dworkin
here

It all depends on what we want of our institutions.... — Tobias

Dworkin's behind a paywall; please summarize. Does it occur to you to ask why perhaps any one class of people might have a greater facility in some endeavor than another? The question presupposes one or the other of two possibilities, one essentially racist in itself, the other itself evidence of the need for some affirmative action.

As to the qualifications for any profession, are you one of those who wants all practitioners to be above average?

We know even from posts here on TPF there is no such thing as race. We expect, then, in any setting free of racism - or any other kind of prejudicial discrimination - to find equal representation of all kinds of people, or if not to be able to determine why not. When that day arrives of equal opportunity and equal representation, then will be the time for affirmative action to be put to rest, but not until.

I very much agree.

Didn’t think I’d be writing that in 2025.

United States of Kakistan
24January25

Pete Hegseth confirmed as Sec'y of Defense — FOTUS 47's Cabinet

:rofl:

Yet another chilling action to loosen the administrative constraints on Trump's power:

Trump uses mass firing to remove independent inspectors general at a series of agencies

The Trump administration has fired more than a dozen independent inspectors general at government agencies, a sweeping action to remove oversight of his new administration that some members of Congress are suggesting violated federal oversight laws...The Washington Post, which first reported the firings, said that most were appointees from Trump’s first term.

Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio calls for retribution in chilling interview with Alex Jones hours after prison release

Among the criminals pardoned by Trump is Enrique Tarrio. Tarrio was given a 22-year sentence after being convicted of seditious conspiracy for planning the break-in of the Capitol on 1/6. The message this sends: loyalty to me is more important than rule of law.

Tarrio was a guest of Alex Jones, where he said, “The people who did this, they need to feel the heat, they need to be put behind bars, and they need to be prosecuted."

“Success is going to be retribution,” he added. “We gotta do everything in our power to make sure that the next four years sets us up for the next 100 years.”

Since they would feel unconstrained by law, they have a lot of power to wield. The parallels to Hitler's brown shirts do not seem hyperbolic.

C.I.A. Now Favors Lab Leak Theory to Explain Covid’s Origins

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/25/us/politics/cia-covid-lab-leak.html

Narratives are turning.

US freezes almost all foreign aid

The US was the world's largest humanitarian donor. No more.