ewsieg

So I don't disagree with you at all, but... What if we're in this Groundhog Day because of your reasons provided, as it's no longer about race but class now.

I don't think I shared this story, I know I was hesitant early on as most people here are Michigan based and I didn't want to cause any trouble. I'm going to keep some details generic to ensure this doesn't come back on anyone. In the last few years, someone I know well was part of an executive team from one hospital organization that was doing a town hall at a hospital they had recently acquired. While one of the whilte male executives was talking, a new DEI director walked through the cafeteria they were in. This exec took a moment to introduce the DEI director and encourage people to reach out to him and participate in DEI activities. He went on to say he had a story to share. He said that after their org first hired a DEI director (another person originally) he went to her and said he wanted to start a white group. She was shocked (and so was the crowd), but he explained that he wanted to be an advocate for DEI and felt without a group for whites, he would not be able to meet with other whites and try to figure out how they could be part of the solution. She went on to explain that he didn't need to be black to attend the group for African Americans or gay to be part of that group. So on and so forth. She promised him that they would be inclusive and he would be not only learn from them, they would be happy to learn from him. So for years, he would attend one of the groups for several months, before moving to another. She encouraged him to share this story, she thought it was a great example of the benefits of DEI. He claimed what he learned was invaluable. Now the person that shared this with me had only been with this organization for a short time and he said he wasn't the only one that gasped when he heard this other exec talking about wanting a white group. But as the story went on, he realized it was a good story. The next day this person logged into work to learn HR wanted to have a meeting with him. 12 people went to HR and said the exec should be fired and everyone one else on the exec team should be reprimanded for not stopping him. Soon it was determined that it was 1 manager and his 11 employees. Some of those employees told HR that the manager said they shouod submit a complaint as it would help ensure if there were layoffs, they would be spared. Plus as the team was more than 50% minority if they were laid off after complaining about a white guy talking about wanting a white group, they would get a settlement. This information was eventually shared with the exec team. While no one got fired, HR forced the exec that shared the story to get on a call with the team and apologize for his hateful comments. And it wasn't even a 'you apologize and it's over'. It was you apologize and we'll see what their reaction is. Eventually nothing further happened. This isn't a horrible story. No one got fired, no one was really even reprimanded outside of a forced apology. But there are a lot of people that have some similar stories and the refusal to accept this on the left is why it's a big deal on the right.

While the Trump Presidency thread goes deep into his daily activities, I figured a summarized version might help point out the good and bad in his presidency. Obviously I suspect there will be a lot more bad, but IMO he has so much bad, that horrible things he does, tend to drown out the really horrible things he's done. So, I plan on weekly putting the good and bad of the last week here. Others are free to do the same. Note: I'm starting this in part because of all the issues i've had with Trump, the one I mention this week truly got my blood boiling and I felt it was drowed out. The good - blank The bad - His decision to stop sharing Russian intel with Ukraine and forcing that change with other Ukraine allies as well. This does not cost money, this was done to punish Ukraine and nothing else. People died as a result as Russia took advantage and hit Kyiv and other areas harder than they have in quite awhile. Their blood is on his hands. Honorable mention on bad - The search on all things 'gay' and other keywords, in an attempt to rewrite history.

And while DEI defenders will point to the 'mission statement' for DEI, most people (or I guess most old white guys and a larger amount of hispanics and AA's apparently too based on the last election) also equate DEI every time they hear about another school attempting to be renamed because Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and even Dianne Feinstein aren't worthy. I get that's not the national dem party doing these things, but the party takes on the actions of its followers. DEI began to take on these local actions and the national party wanted the praise for anything DEI related that it felt put it in a good light, but none of the baggage.

Everyone but the Asians...those guys can f off, amirite?

Because the only portion of her plan that she could enact by herself would have increased the cost of housing (what was it, 25k to every first time home buyer?) Minds well add 25k to the sale price of every house once that is enacted. It would have increased inflation concerns, not lowered them. Eventually it might take the feds to help with some lower priced single family housing, but she had no details on how felt the feds could control that.

Well, good thing she wasn't good candidate then, otherwise she would have been completely blown out of the water. If I was voting based on her 'housing' plan, I probably would have voted for Trump too.

You are correct on Harris, she only ran on 'she's not Trump', which was good enough for me, but not enough. Overall the pendulum swung way left within our electorate on DEI, which folks on both sides recognizing it went too far. That said, the Dem party expressed no concerns and openly endorsed DEI with no faults. They ignored news that identified concerns regarding DEI overload and blew off concerns. And in true political form, the side that recognized the pendulum was way off, used it to their advantage and no longer cares about evening out that pendulum, they are swaying it as far as they can the other way, potentially wiping out many good aspects of DEI. In the end there is always going to be a balance between appeasing the far end of your party and trying to make sure they turn out and vote for you, and also keeping a message out that invites independents to vote for you as well. The GOP, for all the faults of Trump, their far right will vote for him regardless. They don't have the problem the Dem party has with their far left.

I'm sure there are some. But, as we all know, if something goes wrong in your life, it's Obama's fault.

The Dems certainly are not entitled to anyones votes, but they can determine how much effort a group is worth in obtaining. The dems chose to push DEI ideas championed by the far left. I know of countless examples that even my democratic voting friends felt went too far, but the dems felt it was important to court those far left votes that they downplayed any DEI concerns. Do those hard line DEI supporters think we're better off now? So yeah, if climate change is your thing and the Dems aren't doing enough for you, I guess vote MAGA and let's see how that works out for you.

I would prefer a democratic party that focused on class politics instead of identity politics, but i'm also a conservative and i'm hoping for a party that I could really get behind and realize my chance is better with a dem party, not a Trump party.

I don't think you're wrong, but MB isn't either. There is a difference about the far left and the far right in each party. The far right may not think a republican is going far enough, but they will always get in line behind them. The far left will attempt to humiliate and ostracize their person if they aren't doing everything they want. Do most come around and still vote for their democrat, yes, but some abstain, some splinter off to the Stein's of the world, and for the rest that still do vote, they have given every independent out there cannon fodder against the dem they are still voting for. In short, I can understand MB's rant, but it's in part due to the conviction of your far left. While you don't want it hurting you, not sure you want to try and quell that conviction either.

Right after the bolded part is where I put my little jab at Trump. I agreed with many points Trump had against NAFTA, but was upset when he threw that away. All that said, I was one of the few that said the USMCA was a better deal (not amazingly better, but better) I almost feel like he must be trolling his own followers just to see if they will back him over it.

Unfortunately they are doing quite well in connecting to their voters via memes on Twitter.

I would assume DTE also will be affected by natural gas tariffs as well, think that's only 10% though, but would effect every natural gas plant that they, regardless if they get their gas via Canada or not.

Can't speak to their reliance, but I know the St. Clair power plant in Ontario connects to the grid on our side of the St. Clair river.

I'm not very political on Facebook, but I just posted a few days ago that if you are a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons, but have any fear whatsoever from your neighbors, you were be derelict in your duty not to pursue them now. Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, Baltic States, Poland... so on and so forth.

I certainly expect that's what he wanted, but generally Trump would say something stupid but his admin would then follow up with some specifics. In this case, I've seen Canada/Mexico response that this wouldn't be good, but nothing even from them on what they were asked to do. I specifically just searched and see that several days ago, Mexico offered up a proposal to put a tariff on Chinese goods and for Canada to follow suit. Bessent said it would be a 'nice gesture' but no other details. So Trump is essentially making Mexico and Canada guess on what they can do, rather then the US sitting down to explain their concerns?!?!? I know the daily crap Trump does is news worthy, but the full story on this needs to be pushed by the media so everyone knows just how stupid this action is, so when the economic pain hits, the right people are blamed.

I feel like I seek out and consume more news than most. I also think most of you on this board are above average consumers as well. So with that, can anyone tell me exactly what Canada and Mexico were supposed to do in order to avoid the Tariffs. I understand that he feels the USMCA is a stupid deal and only a stupid person would sign it, and I agree with the latter portion, but I have not heard any specifics on what he was hoping to accomplish by threatening tariffs.

He threw in "illegal" protests which covers him, but obviously any protest that makes the news he'll deem as Illegal. I'd like to know how he feels he can demand colleges to expel students.

You don't get it Romad. This essentially forces Russia to invade Ukraine again. It's a known fact Russia will attack Ukraine if their only deterrent is all of NATO. But a security agreement tied to some mineral rights, you know, not like that last security agreement that Russia chose not to honor and the US is now agreeing not to honor, it's like a magical wall built on their border that Russia simply couldn't get past even if they wanted.

We need a 'nervous laughter' or 'lol, followed by crying' emoji for this.

I never said she said that, I said the administration she was a part of is what said that. This very board relayed that sentiment that inflation wasn't an issue early on and was very slow to come to terms with it. And you are right that she said the other stuff you mentioned, but again, she only had 107 days to get that message to everyone, including folks that don't regularly pay attention to the news. And why was that again? Could it be because of the lie Biden's handlers engaged in until that fell apart in the debate which even low news volume voters were talking about the day after the debate?

For low volume news consumers, they only heard 107 days worth of her saying she would reduce inflation due to the fact that the president we were told was sharper than ever showed he was no longer sharp one of the few times his people allowed him to do more then a 1-2 minute script in front of a camera. Plus she was part of the same administration that said there was no inflation, so maybe they weren't too keen on believing her. As for Trump providing details on his plans which would increase inflation, us avid news consumers on this forum saw that, but the low volume folks, they just heard him blame Biden and say he would fix it. Again, my point is not everyone consumes the news like we do and unfortunately those that don't consume the news can make choices in line with people that are ape**** crazy (MAGA), but it doesn't mean they are the same nor should be treated the same. I'm just advocating for not writing those voters off and not trying to reach out to them.

I'm not looking to debate everything related to these things, i'm pointing out some of the high profile news items from the last several years which most people were aware of and saw a radical change in how they were covered from the start to now. Lab leak was conspiracy theory, thinking Biden might be too old, how dare you say that! Inflation, what inflation? Oh that inflation.... well it's not that bad, ok, it's bad, but we're the best at handling it.... For low volume news consumers they were dealing with inflation, they were shocked when lab leak was determined to be a possibility. These weren't your MAGA voters, but they did vote for Trump in part because of this stuff.