CableMonster @ CableMonster @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

1,568

Joined

1 yr. ago

Sure and if you believe that trump is going to "END DEMOCRACY!!!" and "THERE WILL NEVER BE ANOTHER ELECTION!!!!!!!!", then you believe the propaganda.

So the rhetoric does not increase violence just as long as you agree with it?

So you are claiming that if republican types would feel strongly enough to split from the country, and the military (which is a majority republican) would be willing to kill people with the same ideology because they did an oath long ago? And you actually think there would be a winner in a civil war?

If Trump is orange Hitler then it would be good stop him by any means necessary. If your claim is "If Trump takes power that will end democracy" how is that not rhetoric for violence?

So how then how does your team claiming democracy will end if they win not ramp up rhetoric for violence?

I do want someone better than trump, but there has not been a good candidate in my lifetime (I am in my 40s), so I am not going to hold my breath that one of the two teams will give us someone good.

Why do you think all the soldiers would go to one side?

I see people constantly saying that democracy will end, there wont be elections again, they will do all kinds of evil things, etc. How is that not ramping up rhetoric for violence?

I think that is what modern civil war in america would be, the country is too split for some kind of army situation. The urban-rural divide makes it rather strange.

Age was only part of it, the biggest part was that Biden was noticeably mentally degraded for years.

do you believe there are fewer non-white employees than would be expected given the population of candidates?

No.

do you believe all the fortune 100 companies colluded to replace whites with non-whites?

Colluded implies wrong doing, but giving preferential treatment to minorities due to their race has been a semi-legal thing since I was a kid (and maybe longer), so no not colluded, did out in the open.

Do you believe DEI functions at all 100 biggest companies have power to compel almost all hires be non-white?

Yes

Do you believe the prior round of layoffs was likely racially balanced?

I dont know, but not radically or it would have been reported over and over and over and over and over.

Now you answer my question.

So long story short, do you believe that there was no preferential higher of non-white applicants over black applicants? This is a simple yes or no answer.

That sounds like a fair thing to ask for.

So cops are good as long as they do what you want?

I am sorry I didnt pretend anecdotes were foreign policy.

I dont get what the controversy is then.

I get that you guys dont like it, but she was chosen for her gender and probably also her race. If you dont like it then stop voting for their pandering.

I agree, and lets keep going with everyone else.

This is just silly, the hiring represents 1/10 or so of the white to their representation there is no way slightly higher rates of non-whites being laid off would account for this unless they laid off exclusively non white people or specifically chose white people to hire back. To believe this you would have to show some crazy statistics on the front end of who they laid off.

Why isnt the much more logical thing that happened that they have DEI programs that puts a higher demand on hiring non-white applicants?

Are you claiming that this data does not show preferential hiring of POC over white people?