DEI Is Dying in the Private Sector

Diversity, equity, and inclusion sound good. But DEI programs divide people more than they empower.

President Donald Trump ended federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

Even before, companies were having second thoughts.

Victoria's Secret changed "diversity, equity, and inclusion" to "inclusion and belonging."

Now, even woke Disney, despite squandering 270 million shareholder dollars on a moronic new version of Snow White, joined the mob of companies dropping DEI programs.

Why? Diversity, equity, and inclusion sound good.

The problem is that DEI programs were captured by activists who obsess about victimhood. They divide people more than they empower.

"Diversity, equity, and inclusion," says activist Robby Starbuck in my newest video, "don't mean what they pretend to mean."

Before Trump ended federal DEI programs by executive order, Starbuck ended them at some companies merely by using the power of speech. His strategy: Warn companies that he'll tell his social media followers what stupid things they do.

Remarkably, that worked!

After he criticized John Deere on Twitter for encouraging "preferred pronouns" and holding woke diversity trainings, John Deere quickly dropped those policies.

Toyota, Target, and Harley Davidson did, too.

"Why did they listen to you?" I ask.

"We go to them like any other investigative journalist and we say, 'Hey, we have a story we're working on.'"

Then, if they don't change their policies, he goes public—posting the policies and his criticism on YouTube, Twitter, etc.

One week after he posted that Toyota sponsored pride parades and divided workers into identity-based groups such as LGBT, black, and Christian, Toyota stopped sponsoring LGBTQ events and opened employee groups to all workers.

Coors has been requiring DEI trainings and donating to pride events. All it took was Starbuck looking into the company, and they stopped.

So did Jack Daniels, McDonald's, Walmart, AT&T, Lowe's, and Ford.

"I like diversity," I tell him, suggesting DEI programs were good.

"They sound warm and fuzzy," says Starbuck. "It's why at the beginning, it got a lot of buy-in.…I want to include everybody. I don't want to be mean. What it actually turned out to be in reality looked more like crazy trainings, overtly racist hiring practices, diametrically opposed to the very warm, fuzzy sounding words they try to sell."

I think private companies should be able to have whatever policies they want. Customers and workers can buy other products or work someplace else.

But over the past few years, DEI mandates became so prevalent, you couldn't avoid them.

I'm a Chase Bank customer. The bank is run by a very smart guy, Jamie Dimon.

Just last year, Dimon said DEI is "good for business; it's morally right; we're quite good at it."

But after Starbuck revealed JPMorgan's policies, Dimon quickly changed his mind.

"I saw how we were spending money on some of this stupid shit," Dimon said, "and it really pissed me off.…I'm just going to cancel them. I don't like wasted money in bureaucracy."

In my years of reporting, I've never seen changes this fast.

DEI activists are angry about it.

The president of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation says, "We will not be erased!"

"What existed before DEI?" replies Starbuck. "Did black people not exist before that?"

On The View, host Sunny Hostin claims, "This will specifically harm women…African Americans and Latinos."

"What she's actually saying is that minorities are not going to be able to get jobs if the sole thing you're looking at is merit. The way I was raised, you call that racism," replies Starbuck. "She's being racist."

I push back: "They're just saying, 'We have a history of disadvantage. We were slaves in this country.'"

"None of them were," he points out. "I'm Cuban. I could say my family went through this and that. I didn't go through it. I'm not going to claim their disadvantage as my own."

"We're not going to fall for the same stupid stuff anymore. We're going to judge people based on merit."

COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

Comments

[Chumby]

Public sector DEI now needs to take the room temperature challenge.

[Rossami]

Never heard of the "room temperature challenge" before. Now that I've looked it up, all I can say is that's dark.

[Chumby]

DEI should DIE

[MWAocdoc]

Part of the "disadvantage" folks have suffered from was caused by the very people who claimed to be helping them. "DEI" is an example of the socialists going too far. It is not hard to claim a moral high ground over achieving equal justice under the law. We achieved that legally quite a while back. If your goal is equal protection under the law, all you have to do is punish officials who violate that principle. On the other hand, if your goal is not simply equality of opportunity but your real goal is to impose socialism and destroy capitalism, using special privileges as an excuse to sneak your real objective into the law would be a great strategy. It is obvious to anybody who cares to think that the current culture wars are resulting from the backlash caused by socialists trying to go too far beyond a general consensus into the realm of blatant prevarication.

[SQRLSY]

Some people are more equal than others, because people who looked like them (the more-equal ones) were victims in the past. And the DEI lecture-givers assume their own moral superiority. Shit just doesn’t fly that way, any more.

[Longtobefree]

Well, at least they stopped bragging about it - - - - - - - - - -

[sarcasmic]

Another thing that progressives and Trumpians have in common is that they both oppose diversity, equity and inclusion when it comes to thought.

[SQRLSY]

Yes.... MY WAY is the ONLY Right Way to think and stink!

(Else ye are a LEFT-TIT!!!)

[Truthfulness]

You're deeply mistaken. "Trumpistas" never tried to coerce companies to censor speech from the opposition. That was from your side.

[SQRLSY]

https://futurism.com/the-byte/twitter-suspending-more-people TWITTER UNDER "FREE SPEECH ABSOLUTIST" ELON MUSK IS ACTUALLY SUSPENDING WAY MORE PEOPLE THAN BEFORE. . .Twitter-in-the-Shitter under Elon Musk of the Elongated Tusk now follows in the shit-steps of “Parler”!!! Twat and UDDER slurprise!!! Parler censors liberals per Techdirt https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/29/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like/

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/parler-shuts-down-as-new-owner-says-conservative-platform-needs-big-revamp/

Parler shuts down as new owner says conservative platform needs big revamp
Parler sold to firm that says conservative Twitter clone isn't a "viable business."

The free market has spoken, and says that shit doesn’t like cuntsorevaturd CensorShit either!!! Are You Deeply and PervFectly Butt-Hurt? If so… Start up Your Own PervFect web shit-site!

[Super Scary]

We've certainly come a long way from "DEI doesn't exist you sexist, racist chud!"

[Azathoth!!]

DEI does not sound good. It never has.

Diversity and Inclusion are near antonyms --how do you include people you're structurally trying to maintain the difference of?

DEI is the left trying to pretend they support the ideas the right fought for and enacted in the face of the left's opposition BETTER than them.

The right fought for equality before the law.
The left fights for equity --equality of outcome.

One is possible. One is a fever dream that requires someone to decide what the best outcome for all is.

And the left wants to be that someone.

The right fought for letting the natural process of assimilation take place by forcing the state to ignore innate difference

The left fought to keep people separated in distinct race and class strata --and when stopped, changed their rhetoric --but not their goal. Diversity. Division. A house divided upon itself cannot stand.

This is their modus operendi as Orwell warned --to distort language so much that we are tricked into placing their collars on our necks in the cause of a liberty that will die with the placing of the collars.

Few today understand that the Berkely Free Speech movement was not about free speech --it was about letting leftists speak freely, without refutation, without needing to respond to criticism. It was about silencing the people questioning them.

Just like it has always been.

DEI was never good. It was always just another leftist lie.

[MWAocdoc]

I was there during the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley and the majority of the activists were indeed about free speech. I also was closely associated with the Trots during the Vietnam War protests and they had a motto: "Find out which way the masses are heading and put yourself at the head of the movement." This is what explains the disconnect between libertarian sentiments and actual outcomes.

[Truthfulness]

Those people did not believe in the freedom of speech. They wanted to control what people were saying. I would wager that many of those Trots still living were proud of the Biden administration’s censorship.

[thollman]

"The right fought for equality before the law.
The left fights for equity --equality of outcome"

Exactly. Equity is the opposite of meritocracy. It is a very Marxian term. People discuss DEI but say Diversity AND Inclusion. The two are not the same. A company can implement Diversity AND Inclusion to make sure they aren't staying within their own subset in looking for talent. Get rid of the "equity" and go back to "equality".

[MollyGodiva]

DEI is non-discrimination.

It is dying because companies are afraid of Trump retribution if they keep it. This is fascism.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

DEI is non-discrimination.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

Thank you, Molly O’brien.

[SQRLSY]

"Freedom is slavery."

Yes... I would dearly LOVE to be free of excessive tariff-taxes for my declared-by-Trump-to-be-SINFUL decisions to sometimes buy un-American products! Butt my freedoms here have been declared and enforced to be my SLAVERY to businesses that DEMAND protectionism! (Donate to Trump... Your PervFected business, too, can be PROTECTED from better, un-American producers!)

[sarcasmic]

DEI is just refried Affirmative Action. Such things always end in quotas, because that's the only way to measure "success". The result is indignation, animosity and lost productivity as a result of choosing employees based upon everything but their qualifications for the job.

[Liberty_Belle]

The alternative is that everyone stops being racist, sexist, classist, and / or any other "-ist" you can think of. But so far there is no way to enforce thought.

" If all of mankind where angels, we'd have no need for laws. "

Some people enjoy being jerks; like , truly enjoy it like an ice-cream cone.

[Square = Circle]

But so far there is no way to enforce thought.

Not that that's going to dissuade you from trying.

[sarcasmic]

How do you implement laws against perceived injustices without creating real injustices?

What happens is quotas. There’s no other way to measure if they’re more or less diverse, etc. “Blacks are x percent of the population, so we’re only hiring black people until x percent of our workforce is black.” Now all the non-black people are being discriminated against. How’s that fair and just?

[MWAocdoc]

By actually investigating evidence of systematic, organized discrimination. The reason "quotas" are inevitable is because they represent possible evidence of systematic discrimination. The reason they are BAD evidence is because of the many other possible explanations for outcomes besides intentional discrimination. It's much harder to convict an individual or a group of individuals for discrimination under criminal law than it is to simply assume discrimination based on a superficial quota discrepancy and punish the suspects under regulatory administrative law.

[Truthfulness]

DEI is a perfect example of "systematic, organized discrimination". And MollyGodiva supports it. Therefore, MollyGodiva supports criminal activity.

[Overt]

"The alternative is that everyone stops being racist, sexist, classist, and / or any other “-ist” you can think of. But so far there is no way to enforce thought."

Liberty Belle, everyone! "The world has racism so MY racism is okay!"

[MollyGodiva]

I will push back on that MAGA lie till the end of time.

[sarcasmic]

I'm MAGA now? Pretty sure every MAGA in these comments thinks I'm a leftist.

[MollyGodiva]

I don't know you exact political persuasion. I am not calling you a MAGA, I am calling the lie MAGA. DEI was a non-issue until about a year and a half ago when Trump brought it up and falsely equated DEI with affirmative actio and quotas. The anti-DEI people are going after accommodations for disabled people and purging government websites of information on achievements by minorities and women.

[sarcasmic]

Except that it is affirmative action and quotas. When affirmative action was sold to the public they promised no quotas. It became quotas anyway, because as I said above there’s no other way to measure if a policy is achieving its goal. DEI is the same thing in a different package. The result is quotas based upon superficial characteristics, while tolerating zero diversity, equity or inclusion of ideas. Must be lockstep in thought. But as long as you can let HR check off a box then you’re hired.

[MollyGodiva]

"Hidden Figures" is a book everyone should read. It tells the story of young black women in the 1940s and 50s who were recruited by Langley Laboratory in segregated Hampton VA to be computers (human calculators). These women had high level math skills and were ignored because of their race and gender. Given the opportunity they did very well and made major contributions to aeronautics and space flight. That is DEI, opening doors and lowering barriers to qualified people.

[Zeb]

Isn't it great how far we have come since the 40s? You don't need equity to hire qualified people. You just hire the best qualified people. People who let their racism interfere with that will not get the best people. You act like everyone is just waiting for an opportunity to be super racist against minorities in hiring. I just don't think that's the case.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Oh, bullshit. Whatever minuscule portion of that is correct, it wasn't DEI, and it was racist. Noblest intentions can still be racist.

[sarcasmic]

That was like four score years ago. Society has changed since then.

[mlwjr]

No. No it’s not. You either a liar or clueless. Actually it’s probably safe to say a liar. If DEI is just giving intelligent minorities the chance they deserve can you explain the huge disparity in test scores and graduation rates for minorities in higher education

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""When affirmative action was sold to the public they promised no quotas. It became quotas anyway,""

That is the problem for DEI. Quotas are illegal. The DEI committee at my job knows this are not doing it, but they can't seem to find something else to do. There was talk of shutting it down.

Best I can tell it has created a six figure position that spends it's time trying to figure out something to do. While recruiting for a committee hoping someone new has an idea.

[I, Woodchipper]

Every day she posts I'm just more astonished that someone can possibly be as retarded as molly

[SQRLSY]

Citation? Besides Your PervFected Tinfoil Hate-Hat?

[I, Woodchipper]

check out the cite bro

[SQRLSY]

Wanting evidence is now to be mocked! Gotcha! I BLEEVE in Your PervFected Hate-Hat! Who needs more evidence anyway? Only retarded LEFT-TITS want evidence!

[Overt]

Woodchipper, just say this:

" I won’t prove it for you, because Your PervFected Mind is already fossilized. No citations from me; I know when I am wasting my time."

SQRLSY takes that as logic.

[SQRLSY]

Overt the PervFect Pervert is ass capable of changing shit's Already-PervFected mind, ass a camel is capable of passing through the eye of a sewing needle.

[Think It Through]

DEI has never been a non-issue to anyone concerned with fairness and merit. Not for one day, not for one second.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

You are talking about the theory of which does not require hiring a DEI director or department.

[Zeb]

It's not a lie and it's been around long before "MAGA" was coined. DEI demands discrimination based on race, sex, etc.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"I will push back on that MAGA lie till the end of time."

Well, you are a racist lying pile of lefty shit, so we expect this of you.
Fuck off and die, asshole.

[Rossami]

You keep saying that and it's still just as untrue as the first time you said it.

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

Communists call everyone who's not a Communist a Fascist.

[Square = Circle]

DEI is non-discrimination.

DEI is exactly the opposite of "non-discrimination."

[I, Woodchipper]

DEI is non-discrimination.

Every day you achieve new levels of retardation.

[Chumby]

^ This

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

BeforeTrump ended federal DEI programs by executive order, Starbuck ended them at some companies

Definition: during the period of time preceding a particular event or time.

In a sentence: Before Molly wrote this, she didn't read the article.

[Zeb]

No, DEI is overt discrimination as currently used.

[I, Woodchipper]

DEI is literally a false front and excuse for overt anti-white-male discrimination.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

It's dying because it's proving useless to companies.

[Get To Da Chippah]

DEI is non-discrimination.

We saw DEI in action quite recently, and it was explicitly discriminatory.

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1885851119508685236

Once the DNC reached a certain number of male or female chairpersons, anyone else of that gender was automatically excluded from eligibility to be elected.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

I sure hope you get to experience real fascism some day, and then compare it to the little masturbatory fantasies you have.

[Overt]

"DEI is non-discrimination."

This is a great example of how these people operate. They say something patently untrue and just repeat it over and over, hoping that if they say it enough, people will give up trying to rebut it, or miss the utterance once and a while.

For the record, DEI is by definition discriminatory. It ascribes "White Privilege"- the notion that a person has certain traits and behaviors solely because of their skin color. It peddles Equity- and has very clear explanations of how it should work. This is a common picture shown on DEI slides:

https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1200/1*Sbu0UfWk6FZGoUIYFGqrUA.png

It is INHERENTLY discriminatory. It says that you should treat people different based on biological attributes. In this case, height, but we all know who they mean should actually get the boxes.

[Junkmailfolder]

Diversity is not a value. It is value-neutral; otherwise, it's implicit that homogeneity is bad. That once you have enough _______ (insert whatever stupid reductionist trait that's currently in vogue), the value decreases.

"This guy has a lot of skills and knowledge that our team needs but he shares some superficial characteristic with others in our group, so he's worth less to us."

You either enlarge the meaning of "diversity" to the point it's meaningless, i.e., you embrace the fact that every single person is diverse, or you simplify it so much that you are now judging people's worth on an arbitrary characteristic that (usually) provides no value in and of itself.

Inclusion is stupid. Exclusion is something you practice every day and is a primary tool of human interaction.

Equity is plain evil.

[John C. Randolph]

DEI is non-discrimination.

Stupid lie is stupid. "DEI" is just the latest bullshit euphemism for racial discrimination, and that's wrong even if you're only doing it against whites and asians.

-jcr

[Liberty_Belle]

While it's debatable whether it was achieved in law on paper, it still is shown this very day to not be equal in law in practice. Minorities are still charged harsher and longer for the same crimes by both supposedly unbiased judges and juries of normal folks. Could you imagine if lowlife rapist Brock Turner (or whatever he is calling himself these days) was a minority ? Inversely, would the Central Park 5 have been so condemned, even publicly by Rump, without proper evidence & a coerced confession under duress if they were white ?

[sarcasmic]

When white people are a minority in this country (and it's a matter of when not if) they're still going to be treated as the oppressive majority.

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

What does this have to do with corporate DEI?

[I, Woodchipper]

haha the central park 5? you buy into that nonsense?

[Liberty_Belle]

Out of curiosity, what do you find nonsensical about it ?

[Truthfulness]

Read Zeb's reply below. You should consider the thought that yes, there is an argument for justifying what those five guys got.

[Zeb]

Minorities are still charged harsher and longer for the same crimes by both supposedly unbiased judges and juries of normal folks.

There are so many variables at play there that I don't think that is such a simple thing to claim. I'm inclined to believe it. But I think we all need to question assumptions like that. What does "the same crimes" mean? No two crimes are exactly the same in every detail. Does it mean they get longer sentences on the same charges? Different charges for the same activities? Are habitual offenders being considered as a separate category? Is there some correlation other than race that fits better or makes more sense? There is a lot of diversity within races. Often you get more useful information looking at education, poverty, geographical location, etc. rather than race only.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""There are so many variables at play""

Progressives are not good thinkers. That requires too much.

[Liberty_Belle]

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2413&context=articles

University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository : Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences

Here is a pretty detailed study if you have the time for a read. TLDR, they narrowed to Federal for better recordkeeping & controlled for initial charges through convictions for homogeneity.

[Truthfulness]

The study "Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences" by M. Marit Rehavi and Sonja B. Starr concludes that significant racial disparities exist in federal criminal sentencing, particularly between Black and White defendants, even after controlling for various factors. While the study is thorough and widely cited, its findings can be challenged on several methodological and interpretive grounds. Below, I’ll outline potential refutations to its conclusions without reproducing the study verbatim or relying solely on its narrative.

First, the study heavily relies on regression analysis to control for variables like offense type, criminal history, and arrest circumstances. However, this approach assumes that all relevant factors influencing sentencing are adequately captured and measured. In reality, unobservable or omitted variables—such as defendant demeanor, quality of legal representation, or prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining—could disproportionately affect outcomes in ways that aren’t necessarily racial. For instance, if Black defendants are more likely to face underfunded public defenders due to socioeconomic factors (not directly addressed as a race-specific variable), this could skew sentencing outcomes without race itself being the causal driver. The study’s claim of racial disparity might overstate direct bias by conflating it with systemic inequalities not unique to the courtroom.

Second, the study emphasizes disparities in sentence length, particularly for Black defendants, but its focus on federal data may not generalize to the broader criminal justice system. Federal cases represent a small, selective subset of prosecutions, often involving more serious crimes or multi-jurisdictional issues. This selection bias could exaggerate disparities if, for example, Black defendants are disproportionately targeted for federal prosecution due to geographic or crime-type patterns (e.g., urban drug trafficking vs. rural white-collar crime). The study doesn’t fully disentangle whether the disparity arises from sentencing itself or from upstream decisions like charging or case elevation, which weakens its attribution to judicial bias.

Third, the authors’ interpretation of prosecutorial influence—suggesting that initial charging decisions drive much of the disparity—can be questioned. They argue that prosecutors’ choices (e.g., applying mandatory minimums) disproportionately harm Black defendants. However, this assumes prosecutors act with racial animus rather than responding to objective case characteristics, like evidence strength or witness cooperation, which may vary across demographics for reasons unrelated to race. Without direct evidence of intent, the study’s reliance on statistical correlation risks overstating bias and underplaying situational factors.

Additionally, the study’s use of arrest offense as a baseline for comparison might not accurately reflect culpability. Arrest data can be noisy—subject to policing practices, community crime rates, or even defendant behavior post-arrest (e.g., resisting arrest)—and may not align with the final convicted offense. If Black defendants are more likely to be arrested in contexts that escalate charges (e.g., high-crime areas with heavier police presence), the disparity could reflect pre-court dynamics rather than sentencing bias. The study controls for some of this but admits limitations in fully accounting for such complexities.

Finally, the study’s policy implications—calling for reforms to reduce prosecutorial discretion or mandatory minimums—assume the observed disparities are unjust. Yet, sentencing differences could, in some cases, reflect legitimate judicial responses to case-specific details not captured in the data, like recidivism risk or crime severity within broad offense categories. By framing all unexplained gaps as racial bias, the authors may overlook alternative explanations, such as regional sentencing norms or individual judge variation, which could dilute the race-specific narrative.

In short, while the study presents compelling evidence of statistical disparities, its conclusions about racial bias in sentencing can be refuted by highlighting methodological limits (omitted variables, selection bias), alternative explanations (systemic rather than racial factors), and the leap from correlation to causation. The disparity might exist, but its roots and meaning are less clear-cut than the study suggests.

[Michael Ejercito]

So judges and juries are all racists?

And have you noticed that the people whining most loudly about this also call for stricter gun control laws which will be tried by these same racist judges and jurors against people not even accused of hurting anyone?

[MWAocdoc]

This is a true statement. What we're disagreeing about is what to DO about that! Many of us are saying here that not only does "DEI" fail to help eliminate the problem but that it does far more harm than good, both in reducing the prevalence of racism - its touted goal - but also in unanticipated collateral areas. If officials discriminate based on race either intentionally or out of professional laziness, they should be fired and possibly punished. If there is systematic institutional racism, the policies responsible should be expunged or revised; and the mission of law enforcement should be changed permanently to avoid de facto discrimination.

[charliehall]

Banning DEI allows White incompetents like Hegseth and Waltz to get hired over more qualified minorities. Biden's SefDef was SEVEN ranks higher than Hegseth attained in the military.

[Square = Circle]

What does DEI have to do with Cabinet-level appointments?

[MollyGodiva]

Hypcorocy. The anti-DEI people claim they want merit to be the sole factor in hiring but the Cabinet-level appointments were all objectively unqualified for their roles.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Biden’s SefDef was SEVEN ranks higher

Does this explain his skill in handling the AFG goatfuck withdrawal?

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

Explains his skill not telling chain of command he was not available.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Those were some real ghetto slacking off skills.

[sarcasmic]

Loyalty to Trump is the only necessary qualification.

[Zeb]

Whether or not that's the only qualification, general alignment with the president on policy is probably going to be a qualification for any cabinet appointment for any president.

[sarcasmic]

Trump said his biggest mistake was not surrounding himself with people who were loyal to him. To him. Not to the law or the Constitution, but to him. That's quite a bit different than surrounding yourself with people who have similar opinions, and letting them influence you. It means your opinion is the only opinion, and anyone who doesn't like it gets kicked to the curb.

[Marshal]

It means your opinion is the only opinion, and anyone who doesn’t like it gets kicked to the curb.

This is a lie, it's a strawman sarc creates because his support for the left works best if the right is evil rather than wrong. And since demagoguery is the left's electoral tactic his fits in. In fact Vance expressed disagreement with him in the leaked texts.

When Trump demands loyalty he's referring to a good faith effort to implement the policies as decided, something every executive must have. Unfortunately in his first term he found out the bureaucracy was weaponized against him preventing him from accomplishing much, so naturally he is emphasizing this in his second term. This is why sarc hates him, the thought of losing the electoral advantage of the government funding hundreds of thousands of reliable Dem voters has him panicking.

[sarcasmic]

When Trump demands loyalty he’s referring to a good faith effort to implement the policies as decided, something every executive must have without any regard to the law or the Constitution.

There. Fixed that for you.

Have you been paying any attention at all? Anyone who puts the law and the Constitution before him will face consequences. If they’re a federal employee they can kiss their job goodbye. In the case of federal judges, he’s trying to remove them from office. Anyone who stands in his way will face retribution for their disloyalty. Trump doesn’t give a flying fuck about the law or the Constitution. Those things are impediments to his agenda of xenophobia, protectionism, and revenge.

As far as demagoguery goes, Trump is the very definition of a demagogue. All he does is stir up hate. Hatred for immigrants, hatred for foreigners, hatred for immigrants, hatred for anyone who disagrees with him, hatred for economists, hatred for academics, hatred for judges, hatred for poll workers, hatred for federal employees... It goes on and on and on. And you've bought it hook, like and sinker.

The only difference between an Obamabot and a Trumptard is that Obamabots scream "Racist!" while you scream "TDS!" That's it.

[Marshal]

There. Fixed that for you.,

You lied again you mean. Vance disagreed with him and isn't facing consequences. Meanwhile Dems who disagreed with civil rights violations or unconstitutional projects like racial discrimination in government are simply excluded from politics altogether. The fact that their sorting is vastly more comprehensive and happens far earlier does not make it better. Rather the reverse. But I'll note there were no high-profile resignations among Dem politicos or the people implementing these illegal programs because, like you, none of them give a shit about the constitution or any law whatsoever. Race preferences were granted for decades while those implementing them lied about doing so. Obamacare was passed using a method legally available only for budgets. Campus Title IX is based on a completely unfounded and corrupt reading of the CRA, was issued illegitimately, and violates constitution requirements as well.

Trump is the very definition of a demagogue. All he does is stir up hate. Hatred for immigrants, hatred for foreigners, hatred for immigrants, hatred for anyone who disagrees with him, hatred for economists, hatred for academics, hatred for judges, hatred for poll workers, hatred for federal employees…

So his tactics are the same as left wingers huh? It's pretty amusing you're so outraged by being treated like you treat others. A smarter person would think about that more. But you're you so there's no hope for improvement there. So yes, Dems drug us down and now we have to live with it. What we're not going to do is pretend Trump is somehow unique.

The only difference between an Obamabot and a Trumptard is that Obamabots scream “Racist!” while you scream “TDS!”,

Maybe, but the difference between us is that my assertions fit the evidence and yours are simply whatever the left-approved talking points are for the circumstances under discussion.

[sarcasmic]

Vance disagreed with him and isn’t facing consequences.

He cant’ fire the VP you idiot. And it’s all a performance anyway.

So his tactics are the same as left wingers huh?

Yes, they did it first so it’s ok. It has been made clear that it’s ok to do what angers you when others do it because they did it first.

Maybe, but the difference between us is that my assertions fit the evidence

You admit to making stuff up!

and yours are simply whatever the left-approved talking points are for the circumstances under discussion.

I don’t know what the talking points are. Do you? Ohhh, you're making that up too.

[Marshal]

He cant’ fire the VP you idiot

Is firing someone the only possible consequence? Maybe should ask Pence. One of is an idiot anyway.

they did it first so it’s ok

ok is not the right term, unavoidable is better. This is better than your position that it was ok when Dems did it.

Maybe, but the difference between us is that my assertions fit the evidence

You admit to making stuff up!

It's amusing you think this conclusion can be reached from this statement. But maybe you don't speak English, that would explain a lot.

I don’t know what the talking points are.

And yet in 100,000+ comments you've always repeated them. What a lucky statistical outlier you are.

[Zeb]

I don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be. Trump ended up with a lot of disloyal people in his first term. Not people who were loyal to the constitution, but people who wanted to undermine him.
If you just want to be pure libertarian cynic, that's fine. But practical politics is still going to happen. I think that while many of Trump's actions may not be completely "OK" from a constitutional standpoint, they are predictable and to be expected given how he has been treated over the past 8 years. And there isn't an alternative available that has any kind of popular support who is fully committed to constitutional government.

[Square = Circle]

The anti-DEI people claim they want merit to be the sole factor in hiring but the Cabinet-level appointments were all objectively unqualified for their roles

That doesn't really have anything to do with the question I asked charliehall, which is what DEI ever had to do with Cabinet-level appointments and how "banning DEI" had anything to do with current cabinet members being confirmed.

And no one is qualified for any of these positions. The US federal government is too big and will collapse under its own weight, as evidenced by Biden's team of super-duper-qualified experts failing at everything at every turn.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"Hypocrisy."

You have it like some people have fleas

[John C. Randolph]

Biden's SefDef was SEVEN ranks higher than Hegseth attained in the military.

And he was hopelessly incompetent. He did a hell of a lot of damage to the morale of service members by pushing a non-stop agenda of guilt-peddling pandering to the lefturds.

Hegseth is doing the best job of running the DoD than anyone I can remember since at least the Regan administration.

-jcr

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Moved.

[SQRLSY]

I am moved by yer moves!!! I move that we move this meeting to a more comfortable, relaxed setting!

[Zeb]

"Equity" only sounds good if you have no idea what it means in this context. Otherwise it is evil commie bullshit.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

The equality fetish was bad enough when people applied it to first "opportunities" and then to outcomes, but at least the commies pretended that they aimed for people to be the same.

The equity cunts do not even pretend to want equality. They simply want preference and power, and then will declare which people get more--because they say so.

[Marshal]

"Diversity, equity, and inclusion," says activist Robby Starbuck in my newest video, "don't mean what they pretend to mean.",

Exactly. Left wingers lie. They sold affirmative action as advertising in black targeted media and making sure students in majority black schools were told the college entrance requirements. But the program they implemented was race preferences equal to the difference between a 4.0 and a 0.0 GPA. Literally the most important factor evaluated for college acceptance was skin color.

This is unconstitutional but the courts went along with it because they're very nearly as corrupt as academia, media, NGOs, and the bureaucracy.

[jabbermule]

The one word in DEI that I find the most troubling is “Equity.” It implies that everyone who works for an organization should have ownership in that organization. Ownership without creating anything, without risking any capital, or without putting in 80 hours a week at that organization in the startup phase with practically zero pay simply because you have a great deal of passion for the venture and will do anything to help it succeed. Then the spoiled, entitled Johnny-come-lately types want to come waltzing in years later after all the hard work and sweat has been been put into making it successful, and they demand some kind of ownership without having risked a damn thing. Fuck them.

[John C. Randolph]

Hear, hear!

-jcr

[thollman]

"Equity.” It implies that everyone who works for an organization should have ownership in that organization". Some may read it that way, but the word "equity" in DEI has been defined as "equality of outcome". Diversity AND Inclusion can be a useful goal in a company, but it is not the same as DEI, which includes the Marxian equity.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

'Victoria's Secret changed "diversity, equity, and inclusion" to "inclusion and belonging."'

VS needs to change fat and tranny back to sexy and actual women if they want to regain market share.

[Chumby]

Victoria’s Secretions

[SQRLSY]

With Special Cumtributions from Spermy Daniels! Dear Leader approved; Presidential Quality!

[Truthfulness]

We get it, the VS models are too old for you and your ilk. Shrike sure ain't interested in them!

[John C. Randolph]

I think it's too late for them. They built a business on selling clothes to women who want to attract men, and then blew it by groveling to people who were never their customers. Sending hippos out on the runway was as stupid as McDonald's kowtowing to their haters.

-jcr

[VinniUSMC]

I had the misfortune just the other day of happening upon the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Instagram page. It didn't take long to find the DIE.

[John C. Randolph]

I think that Musk's purchase of Twitter basically broke the seal on the lefturd echo chamber, and now that people can see that they're not alone when they object to guilt-peddling racist bullshit from the lefturds, the naked emperor is in retreat.

-jcr

[VinniUSMC]

Butbutbut, if you see how all of the black people in the military are being "erased by the DOD" from their websites, it's proof that DEI is needed! Definitely not evidence of the deep state engaging in malicious compliance. Nope, it's just a bunch of MAGA white supremacists trying to erase any acknowledgement of black people.

-This message brought to you by the great woke minds of Molly, charlie, and sarcjeff.

[Moderation4ever]

While I agree with the John Stossel that DEI has gone a bit over the top. The pronoun thing is the best example of this. The basic idea is good that employers, government and private, need to make an effort recruit diverse pools candidates for hiring. Employers are not really using merit if they are working for diverse pools of candidates. We have seen that the anti DEI push has scared group like the Army from recruiting at black engineering conferences. This is a mistake. We don't need to dump DEI we need to get it back to the core ideas.

[Tony]

Private firms engage in speech and hiring practices I don’t like, therefore the federal government should threaten them. As a libertarian.

Now that DEI is the latest code word for black or gay or woman, as we can see by the Trump shitshow deleting decorated military leaders from websites merely for being black and calling them DEI medal recipients, we can finally return to the paradise that is having highly qualified white men in power like Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

TDS-addled lying pile of steaming shit drags strawman all the way from home:

"Private firms engage in speech and hiring practices I don’t like, therefore the federal government should threaten them. As a libertarian."

Fuck off and die, asshole

[Azathoth!!]

DEI is a white man with a boot standing on the throat of another white man telling the PoC he's got under the other boot that he's doing this for them as he strokes his blond hair.

[thollman]

Does anyone not notice that the "E" in DEI stands are "equity', which stands for "Equality of Outcome". Diversity AND Inclusion can be a useful goal when it is not bolted tight to a Marxian equality of outcome. There are other problems with DEI, but it starts there.

[TJJ2000]

Good. DEI is nothing but Leftards religious State.
As-if the worst stain on history isn't from [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] and a Religious State.