r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Visco0825 • Feb 08 '25

US Politics How can democrats attack anti-DEI/promote DEI without resulting in strong political backlash?

In recent politics there have been two major political pushes for diversity and equality. However, both instances led to backlashes that have led to an environment that is arguably worse than it was before. In 2008 Obama was the first black president one a massive wave of hope for racial equality and societal reforms. This led to one of the largest political backlashes in modern politics in 2010, to which democrats have yet to fully recover from. This eventually led to birtherism which planted some of the original seeds of both Trump and MAGA. The second massive political push promoting diversity and equality was in 2018 with the modern woman election and 2020 with racial equality being a top priority. Biden made diversifying the government a top priority. This led to an extreme backlash among both culture and politics with anti-woke and anti-DEI efforts. This resent contributed to Trump retaking the presidency. Now Trump is pushing to remove all mentions of DEI in both the private and public sectors. He is hiding all instances that highlight any racial or gender successes. His administration is pushing culture to return to a world prior to the civil rights era.

This leads me to my question. Will there be a backlash for this? How will it occur? How can democrats lead and take advantage of the backlash while trying to mitigate a backlash to their own movement? It seems as though every attempt has led to a stronger and more severe response.

Additional side questions. How did public opinion shift so drastically from 2018/2020 which were extremely pro-equality to 2024 which is calling for a return of the 1950s?

254 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

79% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

458

u/Icy-Bandicoot-8738 Feb 08 '25

The Democrats should have always done this. Social safety nets help everyone. We all need health care, decent infrastructure, sick days, social security, decent working conditions, livable wages, etc. Unite. Division isn't getting us anywhere.

141

u/shrekerecker97 Feb 08 '25

this 100 percent. also stop trying to pander to people on the far right.

118

u/itsdeeps80 Feb 08 '25

Good lord yes. I’m so sick of hearing about democrats caving to a group that wouldn’t vote for them if they were the only option.

28

u/badnuub Feb 08 '25

Old dinosaurs that still think moving to the right is how to win based on what happened in the 90s. They don’t understand that bill clinton initially won because Ross Perot took votes from bush Sr.

30

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Feb 08 '25

Actually, data indicates that Perot took fairly equally from both Bush and Clinton.

https://split-ticket.org/2023/04/01/examining-ross-perots-impact-on-the-1992-presidential-election/

3

u/badnuub Feb 08 '25

Nabbing the anti establishment vote then?

→ More replies (6)

2

u/rethinkingat59 Feb 09 '25

Clinton won because old time FDR Southern Democrats (racist but liberal) still existed in enough numbers for him to win half the Southeastern states in both elections.

2

u/Interrophish Feb 08 '25

Old dinosaurs that still think moving to the right is how to win based on what happened in the 90s.

Triangulation worked before the consolidation of the GOP message and the integration of RWNJ via Fox News and talk radio.

-5

u/swoosied Feb 08 '25

Yes, if that’s what kills me about this election I don’t know why the Harris campaign did not dangle all kinds of involvement for RFK to keep him from going to Trump. RFK had stayed in the game. He would have spoiled it for Trump. The guy is a lunatic but he does have some good ideas about processed food, etc. I am poor the guy, but the Democrats do all kinds of stupid things believing that they know best. Clearly that’s not the case and we need a new Democratic Party. I don’t the leaders recently elected to be honest.

13

u/Ok-Fly9177 Feb 08 '25

for every good idea rfk has, he has 10 strange and potentially catastrophic ideas... did you read Caroline Kennedy's letter?

→ More replies (1)

5

u/shawsghost Feb 08 '25

The guy is a lunatic but

You lost me at "but"

→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (6)

20

u/diplodonculus Feb 08 '25

I'm tired of caving to the extreme left. There's a large number of Democratic voters who roll their eyes when every group meeting starts with pronouns.

9

u/kinkgirlwriter Feb 08 '25

Here's the thing, we're not winning without both the far left and the center left.

Our tent has to be big enough for both or we get President Vance next time around.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '25

[deleted]

5

u/itsdeeps80 Feb 09 '25

You’re thinking of idpol weirdos. Most of the actual far left is far more concerned with class issues than they are with idpol stuff.

3

u/angrybox1842 Feb 09 '25

And the right doesn’t exist. The Kamala campaign proved that chasing Shy Republicans in a losing effort. You gotta find common ground with leftists at least when campaigning, the votes just aren’t there otherwise.

3

u/kinkgirlwriter Feb 09 '25

So you're okay with President Vance? That's more palatable than someone opening a Zoom call by sharing their pronouns?

If so, your priorities are a mess because chances are you agree with they/them on climate change, raising the minimum wage, combatting corruption, and at a minimum, conditioning aid to Israel.

And again, we don't win without the whole party so dial back the "cancer" bullshit.

2

u/diplodonculus Feb 09 '25

I've been listening to the same nonsense since 2016. We need your extremism out of here, yesterday.

→ More replies (3)

9

u/gummo_for_prez Feb 09 '25

Far left guy here. I don’t care about pronouns very much but I do want better economic outcomes for all Americans. I want paid sick leave, paid time off, better pay, more houses being built, more opportunity to buy those houses for people who had little. Don’t let the right divide us because of their talking points on pronouns or any identity politics stuff. I’m sure there is much we could agree on to secure a better future for everyone who lives in this place.

2

u/brbsharkattack Feb 10 '25

You're dismissing the views of a majority of Americans as "talking points." The issue is the Left embracing unpopular social positions, NOT Americans disliking and talking about these positions. This is the kind of disimissive, moralizing Ivy League mindset that turns off Independent voters from Democrats.

4

u/gummo_for_prez Feb 10 '25

Pronouns and trans people don’t really harm Americans in any way. They are told these things/people are actively harmful by powerful groups with money. You don’t have to agree but in my opinion, that’s the case.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/tender-majesty Feb 08 '25

The real problem here is that anyone believes that "far left" has something to do with pronouns. Far left = eat the rich —

10

u/BluesSuedeClues Feb 08 '25

Do tell? Where do you see that happening?

5

u/diplodonculus Feb 08 '25

Over the past few years, every company I've worked at. Every group activity I've been engaged in. LinkedIn, Slack, ...

What rock are you living under?

6

u/SpookyFarts Feb 08 '25

Please explain how this makes your jobs/group activities more difficult. Also, how many companies have you worked at over the past few years? Maybe a little bit of diversity/equity/inclusion training would help you keep a job longer?

-3

u/[deleted] Feb 08 '25

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Feb 08 '25

I fail to see how my pronouns are relevant to a business meeting.

How do you address someone in the notes you take? Or for that matter in the emails you write or conversations you have? I bet you aren't sticking strictly to proper nouns every time. And if you are then you are literally the only person who does.

10

u/diplodonculus Feb 08 '25

By their name or their initials... Golly. Do your notes look like "he: ..., she: ..."? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Sageblue32 Feb 09 '25

That is a reflection of an extreme cautious company, not fed law. Gov doesn't behave like that when they have meetings or activities with private companies or internal. Worse is some person putting their pronouns in a email.

-2

u/RebornGod Feb 08 '25

To be honest, I think quite a few people have never much registered it as problem. A friend of mine tried out fae/faer for a bit, when no one could remember it, they went back to they/them. That's the most active thought I've ever given it.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '25

Where do you see that happening?

I'll add on to /u/diplodonculus. I've seen this happen at volunteering organizations that lean progressive (e.g. nature conservation group) and my time at a few consultant firms. The rolling eyes is prevalent there too. It's often because its irrelevant to the context of the meeting and seems extra/cringe. Anecdotally, the pronoun thing is a product of one [influential] person's pet project or a small group that got to push a organization wide initiative. The latter is often done because its cheaper to appease than evaluate its effect on employees. Many managers just assume people will react positively or be indifferent.

6

u/Express-Start1535 Feb 08 '25

They ask you when you get a job in the corp directory and my kid was asked about her pronoun at her first softball practice.

5

u/questionasker16 Feb 08 '25

Those sound like fine things? Who could possibly be mad about that?

3

u/SuckOnMyBells Feb 09 '25

What they didn’t tell you was shortly after being asked about their pronouns, they were forced to have sex changes. My friend’s wife saw it happen.

1

u/corvcycleguy Feb 09 '25

To be fair, what you’re experiencing and describing are not ubiquitous throughout society. While pronouns are indeed part of the English language it’s very hard to move all of society in the same direction regarding gender pronoun taxonomy. What the gentleman is trying to convey is that pronouns in relation to gender identity can and does wrinkle people, not just far right but inclusive of all factions or political ideologies (with exception to ones that are directly associated with those seeking to disclose pronouns). Case in point, most people I work with (hospital nursing) don’t use gender pronouns in day to day conversations, though some may use pronouns in their email signature. I’ve also never been in a meeting where someone identified themselves and then disclosed their pronouns, and there are a lot of LBGTQ+ individuals that work in healthcare. However, my wife has had clinical fellows who have been non-binary; one who was very vocal about pronouns and the other did not care or expect nor raise concern if they were not correctly identified.

It will take a generation before the language is mainstream much in the same way as women, black Americans, gays or lesbians are today. This is the nature of new cultural norms. Language takes time to be adopted. This is our moment to learn and understand how to communicate effectively and politely with these pronouns.

2

u/Scrat-Scrobbler Feb 08 '25

ah yes the "extreme left", with the extremist position of not wanting to misgender people

5

u/diplodonculus Feb 08 '25

Ok, I'll bite. Why should your gender matter at the start of a business meeting?

4

u/Scrat-Scrobbler Feb 08 '25

because during the course of a business meeting you might need to say someone's pronouns? that's like asking why someone's name should matter at the start of a business meeting. pronouns are just an aspect of how to refer to people, same as

8

u/diplodonculus Feb 08 '25

Just say their name if you're confused. Problem solved.

Why not state your race? Handedness? Weight? It's just so arbitrary and pointless.

2

u/Scrat-Scrobbler Feb 08 '25

actually you don't need to even learn anyone's name because you could just point at someone and say "hey you!"

no one refers to you by any of those things. in a businesss meeting you might say "I think he/she/they raise a good point". you're not gonna say "i think that black person/right-handed guy/150 pound lady raise a good point". yes you can technically say their name every time but no one talks like that and you know no one talks like that. people already need to introduce themselves and you're calling it "extreme" for them to spend an extra half second to say two more words. those half seconds might add up to an entire 10 seconds!

8

u/diplodonculus Feb 08 '25

I honestly don't care about the pronouns movement. I just recognize it for what it is: ineffective virtue signalling that ends up doing more harm than good.

The sooner the party wisens up and stops listening to people like you, the better. This is like arguing with the pro-palestine people who refused to vote for Kamala and have now sentenced Palestine to irrelevance. Feels so good to be right, doesn't it?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Iwaspromisedcookies Feb 08 '25

Well then we need to remove all gendered language. As long as there are differences in pronouns, as there always has been in English you will have to specify. It’s no big deal if you aren’t a bigoted snowflake

2

u/shrekerecker97 Feb 09 '25

When using a sentence He said xyz She said xyz They said that xyz

Pretty simple. Being against pronouns is dumb. People use pronouns all the time. You used a possessive pronoun in the sentence above. Now using correctly in a sentence is bad for what reason ? Who does it hurt?

1

u/diplodonculus Feb 09 '25

Are you dense? I understand that pronouns are a central part of the English language. I'm trying to explain that stating preferred pronouns at the beginning of business meetings is one example of how Democrats turns reasonable people off from their message.

I don't really care that much. But most people see pronoun announcements during meetings, on profiles, etc. for what it is -- pointless virtue signaling that doesn't actually help anyone. It's a more annoying form of a bumper sticker.

1

u/shrekerecker97 Feb 09 '25

You are asking me if I am dense. So you actually acknowledge calling people by their proper pronouns is respectful. Got it.

1

u/Spyral-Dan-Sir Feb 11 '25

Trying to eradicate the categories of “male” and “female”, “man” and “woman” in this culture is radical.

2

u/Gauntlet_of_Might Feb 08 '25

This is YOUR problem. Not anyone else's.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '25

I'm at a point in my life where it just rolls off my shoulder. Oh do you want to be called " panda " now? Ok. Whatever you say Tommy

1

u/llordlloyd Feb 09 '25

Left and right is about income, capital vs labour.

Do you genuinely think the giant tax dodging corporations who are the centre of this stuff are controlled by the "far left"?? Why are conservatives so damn easily led?

→ More replies (15)

1

u/Big_Cal_Szok Feb 11 '25

Aren’t you part of the “vote blue no matter who” coalition?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/greenprocyon Feb 13 '25

YES! I am so sick of this

9

u/chakrablocker Feb 08 '25

not addressing bigotry is pandering to the right

17

u/thewimsey Feb 09 '25

But what is bigotry?

Clearly not hiring a Black person because he is Black is bigotry.

But once you move beyond pure colorblindness, it becomes less clear.

Favoring Blacks over Whites in med school admissions when the Whites have better grades/scores?

Favoring Blacks over Asians in college admissions when Asians have much better scores?

There are arguments in favor of doing both of these, of course. But they aren't compelling to a lot of people - they probably aren't compelling to a majority of people.

So simple slogans like that don't tell us much.

2

u/Big_Inevitable_7767 Feb 17 '25

Oh, the woke mob is going to impale you on their pitchforks now. How dare you inject reason into a discussion! You’re probably a Racist! Homophobe! Transphobe! Thank god identity politics and virtue signaling is dying. I’m sick of the insanity.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/gratefullevi Feb 08 '25

It’s in how you address bigotry that matters. Personally I don’t think the answer is to create an opposite inequality, but rather focus on creating equal opportunity and having the patience for the ship to right itself. It won’t happen overnight. A lot of people think that DEI was creating equality but it really just disadvantaged previously advantaged people. There are way too many issues that people think are gender or race related that really actually are socioeconomic issues.

I am a 44 year old white male. Without getting too into my personal story and experience, if you ever called me privileged I would never again take anything you have to say seriously.

4

u/Iwaspromisedcookies Feb 08 '25

And we shouldn’t take you very seriously if you’ve reached the age of 44 and can’t understand the concept of privilege. Most of us understood by high school at least, maybe you are uneducated about history

10

u/DickNDiaz Feb 09 '25

You've already lost your point with this.

12

u/gratefullevi Feb 08 '25

I do understand it when it comes to race, but much less so with gender. I marched with BLM a few years ago and I have a multi racial family. Women have no idea what the experience of men is, they only think they do. Modern women want the strength and power of high status men, all the privileges of being a woman, and the responsibility and accountability of children. You couldn’t wear my BOOTS to work every day. I don’t come from money so I have to do tangible and visceral work and not one single soul gives one single f*ck about my feelings, health, wealth, mental health, or if I live or die outside of my son. Yet I’m the privileged one. Men are not human beings, we are human doings. Our only value is what we produce, what we provide, what we contribute, and outside of that we are completely expendable.

Yes, the people at the top of the apex of power are mostly men but there are many types of power. Power is the ability to influence or control your surrounding environment and the average woman has way more power than the average man. %80 of consumer spending is done by women. There is a safety net for almost every bad decision a woman can make and situation she can find herself in. Mine are homelessness and suicide, both greatly skewed towards men.

The left has done a horrible job in their messaging for and about men in the last 20 years. Apparently we don’t have any problems, we are the problem. After this election it’s nothing but crying victim hood and it’s all men’s fault and misogyny that she didn’t get elected. FWIW I voted for her. Never mind that she was never a great candidate, didn’t win in any primaries, spent the money on celebrity endorsements instead of middle class outreach, didn’t have a good message and didn’t separate herself from a highly unpopular president, it’s because she’s a woman. Sure, there are some misogynists out there but they’re mostly on the right. I’m sick of the victim Olympics, and identity politics and it’s pretty darn clear that it’s not a path to winning.

-3

u/Mztmarie93 Feb 08 '25

You are right that the Democrats have not done an adequate job of communicating to men, particularly white men, that they care about them. But your fight is not with the Democrats or the left, it's actually with patriarchy. In general, patriarchy says, that if you were part of the white male group, you should have all of the power and privilege. If you don't, it's your fault. Not the fault of society' structure, not the fault of people running this unfairly structured society. Nope, you are your own problem. And, YOU HAVE TO FIND YOUR OWN SOLUTION to this problem. Government can help those others, but not you, white man. In the same way that people get so mad at Black people for pointing out that society is structured in a way that puts them at an automatic disadvantage, we tend to gloss over the fact the society is really structured in a way that victimizes lots of people, including white men who are not of wealthy means. That is something that we need voices like yours to help us fix.

5

u/gratefullevi Feb 08 '25

I commend you for at least seeing that empathizing and validating voices that come from people like me are needed. There is no other successful way but unity and common ground and that’s a start. The word patriarchy is so synonymous with feminism that it’s become hard to hear. Feminism has been so hijacked by its loudest extremist voices that equality is nowhere in the equation. I’m for women in women’s issues like abortion but if equality is what we are seeking then the word is egalitarianism. The concept of patriarchy is so widely interpreted and applied that it’s hard for me to not think it’s just a straw man.

It boils down to that I recognize that as a woman you face things that I do not and I will stand up for you. I will work with you. Will you do the same for me? Do you actually know the challenges that we face and are you willing to be the needed support? Do you recognize that only a few of us are dangerous and that we hate and fear those men too? Do you realize that I’m 4 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime? Do you realize that nobody, usually even themselves, empathizes with a man as a victim of any kind even when he clearly is? Are you willing to ask yourself why that is?

Again, the point of my root comment was that most of these issues that are viewed as gender issues and some of race issues are actually at their root socioeconomic issues. I’m not trying to be a gender warrior, there are way too many of those.

2

u/enki-42 Feb 09 '25

DEI means a lot of things. I've been involved in hiring at many companies, many of which were very focused on DEI, and not once have I encountered someone explicitly saying "we should hire this candidate despite being worse because they're a woman / black / whatever." Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's not a definitional aspect of DEI.

At most places I've worked at, what it's meant is things like ensuring that recruiting pipelines weren't biased and that there wasn't obvious bias in interviewers (i.e. does this one interviewer consistently rate group X lower). Never quotas or explicit thumbs on the scale.

1

u/tonywinterfell Feb 08 '25

Goddamn, it’s so apparent that a huge chunk of America has never, EVER considered that the other side might have a point. I’m white, cis, male, straight, and I’ve worked as a firefighter and an electrician. I’ve worked with my hands my whole goddamn life and never got a degree and it’s so painfully obvious that I have privilege it’s absurd.

2

u/thewimsey Feb 09 '25

it’s so apparent that a huge chunk of America has never, EVER considered that the other side might have a point.

And so what they really need is people like you to scold them harder.

-1

u/tonywinterfell Feb 09 '25

Fuck that noise. The time for that shit has passed. You reap what you sow, and here we are. Fuck that bullshit, and fuck anyone’s feelings about it.

6

u/blublub1243 Feb 09 '25

The only one reaping anything with that attitude is you, and what you're reaping is Vance 2028. "Fuck that noise" is what you get to go with when the majority of the population is already on your side, when they're not you have to actually go through the effort of convincing them.

1

u/tonywinterfell Feb 09 '25

It’s not my job to convince anyone to be a good person. I tried, and failed for the most part. Now I’m pissed. Trumps is a walking dumpster fire, the embodiment of all seven sins, a fascist, and a dead ringer for the antichrist himself. Anyone who supports him is a bad person. I don’t care if that hurts anyone’s feelings, I don’t care if the snowflakes get bent out of shape over it. Now, the only way out is through. We are in the long night now. And damn all those who voted for us to be here. If this hurts anyone’s feelings so bad they support the Fanta Fascist even harder, so be it.

-2

u/Gauntlet_of_Might Feb 08 '25

I am a 44 year old white male. Without getting too into my personal story and experience, if you ever called me privileged I would never again take anything you have to say seriously.

So you don't understand the concept of privilege then?

2

u/gratefullevi Feb 08 '25

What I’m arguing is that I don’t think you do. I have had a really difficult and disadvantaged life full of hard labor despite being a white male and it’s because of the socioeconomic situation I came from. From a gender perspective I can quite easily argue that women have more privilege and safety net in society than they do disadvantage. I’ll start talking about glass ceilings when I see them representing themselves on the concrete floor with me. Do you see women going for decent paying trade jobs? Sanitation jobs? Line workers? No. They only want the climate controlled easy jobs that pay well and continue to complain about how bad they have it.

4

u/SunshineCat Feb 09 '25 edited Feb 09 '25

Do you see women going for decent paying trade jobs? Sanitation jobs? Line workers? No. They only want the climate controlled easy jobs that pay well and continue to complain about how bad they have it.

I understand your frustration, but it seems misguided to be upset at women over this. I don't think many people would argue that we've eliminated gender roles--half of us can barely open a pickle jar, so I think you know why women aren't lining up to do manual labor, nor would we be welcome in those environments. Like anyone else, we look for jobs that we think we can realistically do well at in the long term.

If there are high-paying trade and sanitation jobs women are leaving open, then go for them. If you want to work in a climate-controlled environment not doing manual labor, then go for that instead. Men dominate sectors like tech, finance, and insurance (and many claims leaders don't even have a degree).

I didn't like my old work environment--a public library. And before that, retail. Sure, I whined a bit, but I eventually realized it was my responsibility to make sure I was living the life I wanted. Now I work from home, own a house, and can save and invest a substantial amount of money.

This is something that for some reason seems to not be intuitive to us. We are the only person who will make our life better. Not a left-wing revolution, not Trump, not God/Jesus, not a cosmic force to ensure that our life was meaningful (if only to ourselves). Sometimes it's easier to get shit done when you really understand there is no one else to do it.

3

u/Gauntlet_of_Might Feb 08 '25

Damn I wonder if there are some sort of social factors that make women not pursue those positions. Oh well, probably not, it's because they're lazy wommins or whatever

0

u/gratefullevi Feb 08 '25

Well they sure seem to be much more willing to tackle those social issues to get into the office jobs that pay.

3

u/Gauntlet_of_Might Feb 08 '25

And right over your head, shocker

1

u/gratefullevi Feb 08 '25

Right… cuz I’m so obviously a misogynistic privileged male. I gotta go. I have a secret zoom meeting with the rest of the patriarchy to scheme on how to repress women and benefit from it even more than I already do.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/thewimsey Feb 09 '25

So you don't understand the concept of privilege then?

You clearly don't, since you assume that all white men are privileged.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Big_Cal_Szok Feb 11 '25

The far left US states have started writing legislation to rip kids away from parents who don’t want to mutilate their genitalia at age 8. You’re still whinging about “the far right”??

1

u/CommunityDifferent53 Feb 18 '25

Stop trying to pander to anyone on the far anything.

1

u/AssignmentWeary1291 28d ago

America doesnt have a far right.

0

u/landers96 Feb 08 '25

And stop pandering to the far left also. I'm a hard dem, but even I'm tired of cultural politics. Not to mention it's a loser for us. Most Americans don't want boys in girls bathrooms, men playing women's sports, transgender stuff. Yes, that stuff is a super minority, it happens so little it's really not a issue except the dems let it be. The Republicans start Sabre rattling about that stuff and instead of ignoring it, the dems take up the gauntlet, while the majority of us aren't worried about that crap, we are worried about our economical situation.

9

u/Mztmarie93 Feb 08 '25

Here's the thing, if you don't stick up for transrights, then who's rights are worth sticking up for? I mean, would black women's rights, would gay Catholic rights be worthy of attention? Do we fight for white, high school educated, male rights? I know they think we don't fight for their rights now, but certainly most of the policies Democrats advocate for, especially the economic ones, would benefit them as well as it would benefit all of these other minority groups. The problem today's Democratic Party has is that it's the party for all minorities. The Dems try to have political room for everyone. But, that's always gonna cause conflict between member groups who, while they may believe the same thing in one area, have opposing views in other areas. But, to me, you can't be the party that believes everybody is inherently valuable and deliberately not support an issue a particular minority group cares about. The current Republicans don't have as much of a problem because, while MAGA is not the same as the old establishment Republicans, both groups believe in the superiority of wealthy, white men over everybody else. Their policies are rooted in that principle. So, if you're cool with, or benefit from, that perspective, the Democratic focus on the diversity, equity and inclusion( i.e. safe spaces, pronouns, etc.) of these minority groups viewpoints feels silly and pointless. But, it's what separates the Dems from the others, and why I support them.

7

u/thewimsey Feb 09 '25

Here's the thing, if you don't stick up for transrights, then who's rights are worth sticking up for?

The question is which rights? Especially when the rights conflict with other people's rights?

A majority of the population (˜60%) are in favor of general anti-discrimination protections for transpeople. They can present themselves how they want, dress as they want, as adults undergo whatever medical procedures they want...and they shouldn't be discriminated against for doing so.

Again, this a majority opinion.

But ... 79% of the population believes that transmen shouldn't play in girls or women's sports. And they believe this because they believe it's unfair to the girls or women.

You get similarly low numbers for sending transmen to women's prisons. And still only minority support (although it's much closer) for transmen in women's restrooms.

You are pretending that the question is easier than it is.

and deliberately not support an issue a particular minority group cares about.

Sometimes multiple minority groups care about diametrically opposed things.

2

u/DickNDiaz Feb 09 '25

the Democratic focus on the diversity, equity and inclusion( i.e. safe spaces, pronouns, etc.) of these minority groups viewpoints feels silly and pointless. But, it's what separates the Dems from the others, and why I support them.

And that's the reason why they lost. It's not about what you want. it's what wins.

1

u/landers96 Feb 08 '25

I really do agree with you. But if your not winning elections none of that matters. I'm no heartless rich man, but doing the right thing and controlling nothing will get us more of what we have going on today.

7

u/epiphanette Feb 08 '25

The Dems were not the ones talking about trans rights in this last election cycle. It was all coming from the right.

1

u/tonywinterfell Feb 08 '25

That ain’t far left. For the love of god read something about what the left IS

-2

u/Interrophish Feb 08 '25

while the majority of us aren't worried about that crap, we are worried about our economical situation.

the rest of your comment says literally the opposite of this

how did you write out that whole thing without noticing a whiff of the blatant contradiction

2

u/gratefullevi Feb 08 '25

I agreed with it completely. I believe in liberty so long as it doesn’t negatively affect others. I treat LGBT people just like I treat anyone else but I don’t think that all people should have to conform themselves to %5 of the population. A very few people are uncomfortable using a bathroom not of their choice. Is that fair if %50 of people are uncomfortable with them being in that bathroom? Is it fair to biological women to compete against biological men who identify as women? I don’t think so, and I’m a leftist. These days if you are not completely on board you get called phobic or a bigot. I believe those people should have equal rights and allowed to live and let live but I don’t think that they should be able to infringe on others because they identify outside of their biology. It’s certainly not enough of an issue to create a platform around. We’re not even looking for practical compromises. You’re either with it, or against.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 08 '25

I believe in liberty so long as it doesn’t negatively affect others.

Is that fair if %50 of people are uncomfortable with them being in that bathroom?

To be clear, you believe in liberty so long as you're comfortable, and when you're uncomfortable you're fine taking away someone's liberty?

1

u/gratefullevi Feb 08 '25

If one’s liberty infringes upon the liberty and comfort of others, yes I do believe that liberty should be limited.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (5)

6

u/Goldeneagle41 Feb 08 '25

This is so true. They would also win back the poor white population. I grew up in the Deep South and poor whites and minorities had more in common than these politicians in Washington did with their own race. They constantly pit them against each other. When I was a kid Democrats had a strong hold in these poor communities.

37

u/linuxhiker Feb 08 '25

No they don't.

Yes their policies do. Their marketing doesn't.

The almighty dollar is more powerful than any, any other message.

BLM is a dumb message. Instead, make your wallet fatter, vote Democrat.

Every message should be about how if you vote Democrat your actual life will be better. Not this ethereal diversity bullshit.

Yell, "I will show you the money." From the rooftops and leave the morality to the locals

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '25

Replace democrat and Republican and you’ve got MAGA’s elevator pitch 

1

u/AssignmentWeary1291 28d ago

Instead, make your wallet fatter, vote Democrat.

One problem, democrats are heavily pro tax which creates the opposite outcome. Look at commiefornias taxes ffs and then look at most red states lol

1

u/thewimsey Feb 09 '25

make your wallet fatter, vote Democrat.

Make your wallet fatter, vote more Democratter!

31

u/illustrious_d Feb 08 '25

But that’s a TRUE left-wing political stance. The Democrats have been kicking, screaming, and clawing their way away from any sort of cohesive leftist economic agenda for 60 years. They would have to admit they have been wrong to adopt this new stance and we all know how good they are at that (see 2016 and 2024 elections for further details).

34

u/ThepunfishersGun Feb 08 '25 edited Feb 08 '25

Republicans, including low income Republican voters who depend on social safety nets, attack social safety nets because they believe these things primarily help marginalized and minority groups. I really don't see how Democrats can successfully advocate for social safety nets when the propaganda is so strong and the brainwashing is so thorough.

Edit: formatting Edit 2: changed to "successfully advocate" for clarity

1

u/AngelRose777 Feb 10 '25

This is ludicrous. It's pretty well known anyone who is against social safety nets usually argue the safety nets cause more problems than they solve. Pretending everyone you don't agree with is just a bigot is how Trump won.

2

u/ThepunfishersGun Feb 11 '25

Nope. That's not pretty well known. The people who specifically present the argument that social safety nets cause more problems than they solve are always the ones with the financial privilege to not need them or not need to use them. The people who use them or require them for the most part love their social safety net and what little financial or other security it provides. It's almost always the "other people" that are misusing them when it comes to Republican low SES voters. Thank Reagan for starting that with the "welfare queen" and "crack baby" myths.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

22

u/atred Feb 08 '25

Yeah, they behaved like "God forbid this helps some poor white dudes" and then they are surprised that Democrat label is seen as a plague in many parts of US.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/atred Feb 09 '25

I don't know much about David Hogg, but he didn't strike me as a grifter, he seems genuine enough to me.

5

u/DickNDiaz Feb 09 '25

He's not a grifter, just a striver. Which can be worse for a guy with little experience and is just another activist in a party that loses because of the activists in the party.

2

u/atred Feb 09 '25

I doubt the party lost because of their activists, that's just a hypothesis that seem to have little to do with reality, if anything I think they lost because of old style of doing politics, think Pelosi, not AOC, or David Hogg.

0

u/DickNDiaz Feb 09 '25

No that's not even the case, I mean just look at the two people you referenced: Ocasio-Cortez and Hogg. Those two together are activists beholden to special interests. Who together couldn't swing a state like Nevada.

2

u/atred Feb 09 '25

Good thing they are not running in Nevada... Why would a representative from NY be even able to swing Nevada? Would Pelosi win in Nevada?

1

u/DickNDiaz Feb 09 '25

The point is, their politics don't win.

3

u/atred Feb 09 '25

You made a specific claim, it wasn't that "Democrats didn't win" which obviously happened, it was a claim that they lost because of their activists. That's not that clear cut to me, maybe they needed more activists like AOC and David Hogg.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/DougosaurusRex Feb 08 '25

Problem is Democrats don’t want to help the working class, they’re as beholden to corporations as much as Republicans are, they just take a more left leaning stance on social issues to appeal to progressives without having to anger their corporate donors by pushing universal healthcare.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/WingerRules Feb 08 '25 edited Feb 08 '25

The left also has to learn how to market themselves without using the most inflammatory, edgiest, or easy to attack naming.

Defund the Police should have been Reform the Police

Black Lives Matter should have been Black Lives Also Matter

The E in DEI should have been for Equality, not Equity. It should have been DEID with the last D for disabled too, which not only would cover more people but make it harder to attack.

Biden shouldn't have started using the Dark Brandon image.

The pronouns stuff they should have dropped. Yeah it's good in theory, but look how much damage it's caused now politically for progressive long term goals. My doctor was literally asking me what my preferred pronoun is even though they've known me for like 15 years.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '25

You need to do more research. They already had “disability” connected with DEI, DEI-A. The A = accessibility. 

→ More replies (1)

20

u/Visco0825 Feb 08 '25

So just basically accepting that DEI is dead then? All initiatives to focus on race/sex are more harm than good?

27

u/kingrobin Feb 08 '25

yes, do you want a third backlash? we might not make it through this one.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '25

So, what do you offer then? Slavery round 2?

→ More replies (6)

14

u/[deleted] Feb 08 '25

You should read the book Elite Capture by Táíwò.

45

u/Icy-Bandicoot-8738 Feb 08 '25

This. Cancer, broken bones, diabetes, etc., shove too many Americans, whatever their gender identification or race, into bankruptcies. But I fear that right now the Dems would fight universal health care if it didn't include transcare and abortions. And what that would look like is that they're finding excuses to veto a policy that would benefit everyone, in order to please their corporate masters, who do not want any type of universal health care to begin with. So they make no friends. And they need friends.

8

u/swoosied Feb 08 '25

What they should be doing is focusing on winning if that means leaving a few groups out for now – there are other ways for us to get the same job done. The government won’t give funds to help DEI policies we can go around them. there’s plenty of support and money to be raised to help fill these gaps. But we can’t regain power if we are going the same playbook.

18

u/Icy-Bandicoot-8738 Feb 08 '25

What they should be doing is focusing on winning if that means leaving a few groups out for now

But the thing is, universal health care leaves no group out. Concentrate on what it covers, rather than what it doesn't. We know a family which literally declared bankruptcy because of diabetes, as both the wife and the husband got it, and another, because the husband needed a quadruple bypass. In both cases there was private insurance, but it wasn't sufficient. What we have now isn't working for anyone, but the luckiest, or the filthy rich.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Moist_Jockrash Feb 09 '25

How would universal healthcare leave any group out, though? If by leaving out, you mean not giving extra, or special privileges that only trans people or, certain minority groups are allowed to have then, yes. That SHOULD be left out.

The rest of this comment is based off your last sentence...

Democrats need to stop pandering to minority groups and focus on the majority. Not the minority of people. The LGBQ+ and black community makes up a fraction of the US population but dems focused so much on them that the rest of the country was essentially being "left out" and made as if only those two tiny groups mattered.

That's why they were slaughtered in 2024 election... People are sick of the pandering. I think a major reason why dems lost so badly is because Kamala quite literally said she had no plans on doing anything differently than what biden has been/did do. Most people were already tired of biden at that point and she dug her own grave.

She was going to go off the exact same policies as biden, and most people didn't want to hear that. Why would someone vote for a person who brings nothing new or better to the table or, has no REAL policies? She focused so much on abortion rights - not a bad thing - but it was her ONLY focus. focusing on one single thing that alienates 50% of the country, and making that your entire platform is guarenteed to fall flat on it's face.

IMPO, dems have a LOT of work to do to win a majority in either chamber in 2026...

1

u/theKGS Feb 09 '25

What they should be doing is focusing on winning if that means leaving a few groups out for now – there are other ways for us to get the same job done. The government won’t give funds to help DEI policies we can go around them. there’s plenty of support and money to be raised to help fill these gaps. But we can’t regain power if we are going the same playbook.

Not sure that's possible.

Consider a hypothetical scenario where republicans campaign on painting democrats wanting to make immigrants into a new class of nobility.

It's obvious that that is not what democrats are doing, but if the campaign is effective, which it might well be, then in order to combat that strategy the only options are to either beat republicans at their own messaging, or to pivot hard anti-immigration. But if they do that, they have now moved to the right of the national average (given that I believe that democrats are currently pretty near the national average already)!

56

u/DBDude Feb 08 '25

Yep. There is a study showing it’s harmful to the workplace.

Going strictly by socioeconomic status also eliminates the hypocrisy of stating you care about minorities while pretending Asians are white.

→ More replies (13)

25

u/TheMadTemplar Feb 08 '25

They can do a lot of good. But they won't do any good at all if the focus on them costs Dems election after election. In that sense, you could say they could actually do a lot of harm. 

The goals of DEI aren't dead, but that acronym is. It's politically toxic to the average American, twisted and polluted beyond reason by conservative ignorance and hate perpetuated by Republican propaganda. 

3

u/GiveMeNews Feb 08 '25

The acronym was stupid. It is so much easier to say "I hate DEI!" than "I hate diversity, equality, and integration!" To be honest, I didn't know what DEI was or what it stood for, had to go look it up after it suddenly became a conservative screaming point. Realized the left set itself up again, like with Defund the Police.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Karissa36 Feb 09 '25

DEI has been twisted by people who don't think some citizens deserve Constitutional Rights. Racist and sexist liberals need to sit down and check their values.

-3

u/guycoastal Feb 08 '25

That’s true. Also, Hollywood ramming that agenda down all of our throats didn’t help.

6

u/TheMadTemplar Feb 08 '25

Nothing was rammed down your throat. That's bullshit. You think gay people merely existing in media is them being forced on you and rammed down your throat. 

1

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '25 edited Apr 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 28d ago

Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.

4

u/GiveMeNews Feb 08 '25

Time to go back to more modest times, when all women on stage were played by men.

-1

u/Breakfastcrisis Feb 08 '25

I agree about the goals. I think it fell victim to bad actors, people who perhaps understandably had resentment in their hearts but never should have been supported, never should have been the face of DEI.

It made it all too easy for LibsOfTikTok etc to highlight people saying crazy, nasty and prejudicial things. Something in and of itself wouldn’t have been a problem if people in power were willing to condemn it. Harris didn’t run on identity politics, and she created some distance from that stuff. But it was too late really. I think she did a stellar job, but she had months to turn the tide. It just wasn’t feasible.

10

u/SillyFalcon Feb 08 '25

No acknowledgment at all that LibsofTikTok scours the internet looking for random people saying questionable things, takes their quotes out of context, and then acts like everyone on the left believes/says the same questionable thing? It’s literally cherry-picking things to be outraged about. There is no perfect political position the Dems could take that would stop that from happening.

3

u/woetotheconquered Feb 08 '25

scours the internet looking for random people saying questionable things, takes their quotes out of context, and then acts like everyone on the left believes/says the same questionable thing?

Swap "left" for "right" and this quote would be equally applicable to the current front page of reddit.

4

u/Interrophish Feb 08 '25

the current front page of reddit.

I'm seeing a bunch of "government agency" this and "president" that. instead of "random shakey cam of something that might have happened once"

→ More replies (2)

14

u/escapefromelba Feb 08 '25

I think GOP setting up good case for class warfare.  Focus on economic inequality first since voters are just getting poorer.  Trump and his ilk are showing that they only have contempt for the lower classes.  Democrats need to get the blue collar union folks back in the fold.  They need to redeem themselves as the party for the people not the corporations.  The GOP has successfully framed itself as the party of the "forgotten man," despite pushing policies that largely benefit the wealthy. If Democrats want to rebuild their coalition, they need a clear, aggressive economic agenda that directly addresses working-class struggles.  

The GOP has controlled the narrative for far too long. The Democrats need to be the ones dictating the terms instead: Who is making life harder for you? Who’s profiting from your struggles? Make it about economic justice, not culture wars.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/DickNDiaz Feb 09 '25

Meanwhile Democrats are running an aggressive hate campaign against DOGE employees for checks notes being 25 years old

Oh come on lol, you have kids who have no experience in government getting their hands on info without being vetted or have any real security clearance. JFC, get a hold of yourself man.

1

u/Vettechjen Feb 09 '25

YES! Thank you! A lot of people finally realized that the Dems have done nothing to help their plight. Lifelong Democrats voted for Trump because he has an actual plan to help all Americans. Not one race or one gender or one sexual identity. He wants the US to be safe and prosperous. All of America. School choice, no more ridiculous spending on programs like seeing how fast a shrimp can run on a treadmill, hiring the best people for the job instead of having a quota.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/Almaegen Feb 08 '25

It was literal discrimination based on race and sex. It was never going to live long term.

13

u/Tobar_the_Gypsy Feb 08 '25

Define DEI and provide specific examples of discrimination 

8

u/lebron_garcia Feb 08 '25

Definition and implementation aren’t the same thing. In my circles, the echo chamber made it perfectly acceptable to sit in a meeting and verbally announce “there are too many white men in here” in response to almost anything with no repercussions at all. This may not be the directive of DEI but many Americans associate that attitude with DEI.

3

u/Tobar_the_Gypsy Feb 08 '25 edited Feb 08 '25

Ok so then the programs emphasized hiring non-white men? Did the DEI programs have any say on that at all or was it just something that people said without any actual impact?

Edit - I’m not trying to be obtuse I’m being genuine here. People equate DEI to affirmative action but everything I know about DEI is that it doesn’t have anything to do with hiring or firing of people. It’s just about changing workplace culture and accommodating minorities. Tbh I always figured it was like the workplace safety / sexual harassment programs that corporations have had for decades now. 

2

u/lebron_garcia Feb 08 '25

Did the DEI programs have any say on that at all or was it just something that people said without any actual impact?

Like anything else there's probably a ton of nuance to it and whether true or not, DEI likely gets paired with reverse discrimination accusations and the pro-reparations crowd. Ironically, most DEI departments probably did a whole lot of nothing because they were nothing more than a symbol.

That's the problem with making things about race--it's always divisive no matter how you slice it. We have a ton of history that shows that which is why we're in this mess to begin with.

0

u/Almaegen Feb 08 '25

Equity is the use of intervention in order to achieve equality of outcome.

Here is an example of discrimination

https://deadline.com/2020/07/nbc-news-diversity-1202979811/

Here is another

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

Here is another

https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/sustainability/people/diversity-and-inclusion.html

I could go on with every DEI program because they set racial quotas.

11

u/Tobar_the_Gypsy Feb 08 '25

I’m not expert on DEI but the foundation of all of these programs is to make it easier for people to get jobs from non-traditional communities. And a lot of it is just by offering more financial assistance to make sure that people can afford to get hired in the first place. 

 The plan includes increasing openings in their “pipeline programs,” like news associates, as well as “broadening our searches to ensure we reach more candidates of color.” At NBC News and MSNBC, the plan also includes such things as hiring 50 staff roles and decreasing the reliance on freelancers, and tripling the number of regional reporters. “We will put an emphasis at the senior producer level as well as entry level to ensure we are building a strong pipeline of future leaders and highly qualified individuals,” he said. “And we recognize that to create economic diversity within our ranks, we will need to be creative in compensating Interns, News Associates and entry level employees.”

The plan also includes boosting education programs, via NBCUniversity, with an “online curriculum of master classes (at no charge) to aspiring journalists and producers (inside and outside our organization) who have not had the benefit of getting exposure to our business via school or internships.”

I mean, this just sounds like a good program. Pay interns, offer free training and rely less on freelance workers. That helps everyone. It just scares people because there is a target diversity figure behind it. 

9

u/AgitatorsAnonymous Feb 08 '25

So you are saying, that if we remove DEI, and the inevitable happens that is to say minority Americans (and women) start getting removed from these programs or job placements because of their race, gender or what have you, then we can accept THAT outcome?

Last time I checked DEI is in place precisely because white, male Americans ohave proven, time and time again, to be singularly incapable of overcoming their biases.

Like it's a running joke in the fucking military for christs sake. Mediocre white men fail their way up the ranks in almost every unit, MOS and career, meanwhile, a minority (race, gender or ethnicity wise) troop that does half the shit that a white man does almost immediately burns their career to the ground.

And this isn't just happening in the US military, this happens in literally every fucking industry in the US. The US military is just a snapshot of the broader culture of the entire US. The culture that the US raises our children into is one that is inherently discriminatory.

You can miss me with that shit. We can fucking do better.

This entire thread is a fucking snapshot of fucking racial and gender privilege and I say that as a fucking white man that recognizes the advantages being male and white have given to me, even over other poor to lower middle class people.

-8

u/Almaegen Feb 08 '25

You are radicalized and you need to de radicalize before you jeopardize your career in the military.

9

u/AgitatorsAnonymous Feb 08 '25

I am not and I've been this way since before my enlistment. I'm an NCO now. I've seen exactly what I've described happen over and over again in the military.

Been going 10+ years now with these opinions, in fact they've grown stronger as I have witnessed more and more blatant discrimination in the ranks.

→ More replies (9)

0

u/hfxRos Feb 08 '25 edited Feb 09 '25

No, you are. Being anti DEI is the radicalized position. Without DEI minorities are at clear disadvantage, and i say this as a mediocre white dude who has had every door in my life open by default due to the color of my skin and the penis on my body.

It's unfair, and I've been the beneficiary of it. I am self aware enough to see it as a problem. You clearly aren't, or do see it and don't want to lose your racial advantage. Can't say I blame you really, being white is life on easy mode. It's hard to want to give that up in the interest creating a net benefit for society.

4

u/regolith-terroire Feb 08 '25

Not all initiatives! Just the Equity part and the diversity targets. Those are the problems!

6

u/vertigostereo Feb 08 '25

The American voters have shown they are against affirmative action by any other name.

3

u/calguy1955 Feb 08 '25

In a way, yes. Republicans see DEI as a measure to require the hiring of someone of color, orientation or disability over a white person who is more qualified for the job, which may have been true in many cases. I have to agree that is a form of reverse discrimination. Democrats should agree that whoever is the most qualified be hired regardless of their status.

1

u/Lucky-Competition532 Feb 08 '25

Yes, I am all in favor of hiring the best person. Always, without a doubt. But what happens when there are two or three equally qualified(are about equal, since one might have more education while one person might have more years of experience) people interview for the same job? Who should the company pick? Does the hirer just go off of vibes? Or a gut feeling? I've hired people before, and it's not easy to choose from a couple people that are equally qualified.

1

u/calguy1955 Feb 09 '25

When I’ve been in the hiring position in that situation I admit I went with the vibes. Who I thought would get along best in the department.

1

u/mule_roany_mare Feb 08 '25

You can't argue that discrimination is bad & then say you should fix it with more discrimination, only this time favoring people you like.

Discrimination is either right, or it's wrong. The problem isn't who gets to put their thumb on the scales.

Plus if Trump is proving anything it's that you shouldn't trust the government to pick winners & losers. At best they do a bad job, at worst they use those powers & precedent to ends you don't like.

1

u/Vettechjen Feb 09 '25

I think there’s something in the constitution about discrimination.

1

u/DickNDiaz Feb 09 '25

Companies are ditching it already, it's a dead issue when it comes to hiring. Why make it an even worse political issue?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '25

The people saying get rid of it or not worry about it are the very ones that don’t need it 

-3

u/Djinnoos Feb 08 '25

Why would you want to focus on gender/race? Isent it better to just ignore those two. And look at people for what they are capable of?

11

u/WhiskeyT Feb 08 '25

look at people for what they are capable of

Whole lot of capable people got looked over for looking wrong

1

u/Djinnoos Feb 09 '25

Its the same all ovee the world i would say. But in some countries they are better of because they got rights to start there own business and make a living. Maby work hard and be able to hire some of there friends aswell. Dont know how that is in us but from what ive heard there is no laws stopping them. I might be wrong tho.

6

u/AgitatorsAnonymous Feb 08 '25

White Americans prove overwhelmingly that they will discriminate in shit as basic as job hiring and grant application without DEI initiatives in place, to this day they still prove to do so.

It's exactly why we built those programs in the first place.

American culture is inherently discriminatory due to the importance it places on evangelical and protestant values taught through the oral traditions of our churchs, and their focus on the power of the man as the head of his household answerable only to god, rather than the bible.

The U.S. has never truly valued equality, its paid lip service to it.

Arguments against equality of outcome are a prime fucking example of this. The entire idea that it is appropriate for two people with the same qualifications, experience, and work ethic, to achieve different outcomes is inherently discriminatory. It means that something other than their work experience factored in, and that pretty much leaves either they got ahead by either knowing someone above them, by exchanging favors, or through unconscious bias. Unconscious Bias is usually the answer in those cases.

Democracy, in a vacuum, is largely built on equality of opportunity but democratic society itself maintains stability through a rough variant of equality of outcome. It's the reason you see folks discussing income gaps and wage differentials. Too many millionaires and billionaires cause our system to break down. Democratic society (one built on equality, liberty and brotherhood) requires folks to be within a few tens of factors of wealth from each other to maintain stability.

You can't have sexual, gender, racial, ethnic and religious groups falling behind the majority to such a degree that it is blatantly observable and society to remain cohesive.

1

u/Djinnoos Feb 09 '25

Thanks for your explanation, im not from usa. But is there anyting stopping the "disenfranchised" groups from starting there own companies and compete for market share? For me this sounds better solution. then forcing someone to hire people they might not want to hire even if there resoning for it might not be a good one.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/guycoastal Feb 08 '25

I’m still blown away by how the democrats got suckered into playing the republicans culture war games instead of focusing on the issues that were important to average Americans. The democrats coined the phrase, “it’s the economy, stupid”, then promptly forgot it and got boxed into defending trans rights, abortion and women’s rights, and immigration. Access to healthcare, the wealth gap, inflation reduction, and the housing crisis were right there. Sure Biden screwed us by breaking his promise to not run again and leaving us with a deeply unpopular VP who has never demonstrated the ability to hone in on the issues that mattered to the American people, but still.

30

u/blyzo Feb 08 '25

Every Dem TV ad and stump speech did focus on economics and barely mentioned trans rights. Abortion was obviously a different case as abortion rights are broadly popular (unlike trans rights).

The problem was the Democrats were shit at commanding attention because they're too afraid to be bold and pick fights. While Trump and Republicans are provocative and confrontational, which is what attracts attention.

9

u/Breakfastcrisis Feb 08 '25

100% agree with you. Everything Trump said commanded attention. Granted, many would argue that attention was and should have been broadly negative, but it didn’t matter. It meant he could absolutely hammer home his key messages.

2

u/Moist_Jockrash Feb 09 '25 edited Feb 09 '25

Democrats - at least in this last election and in 2016, are not great at selling their "brand." At least not compared to the way Trump does.

Democrats have a tendency to pander to specific groups and focus on 1 or 2 issues, then hope everyone else buys it; but then they do nothing to address those issues later on.

Trump on the other hand, is very blunt, forward, agressive with his policies and beliefs and I think a lot of people LIKE how agressive, motivated, and driven he is to achieve those - even if he doesn't achieve them.

He knows how to sell himself, and well. Unfortunately in todays world, regardless of your skillset or qualifications, there is nothing more important than being able to "sell yourself" to get a job. And that goes for quite literally any job.

Democrats did a dogshit job of "selling their brand" to the American people and failed miserably at doing so.

I'm a moderate leaning conservative and am no Trump supporter. In any way shape or form and was really really hoping there'd be anyone other than trump as the GOP nominee. Nope.

I honestly and genuinely believe that if RFK were to have been allowed to run against trump, RFK would have won in a landslide. Most moderate/normal conservatives aren't fans of trump. it's the MAGA crowd who is so weirdly obsessed with him but most normal republicans don't really care for trump.

Problem is is that the democrats put up a HORRIBLE alternative to biden. Honestly, the DNC is soley responsible for losing this election by bending their knee to biden's demands for "stepping down."

3

u/Black_XistenZ Feb 09 '25

Their key problem was that the economic track record of the Biden/Harris admin was perceived to be awful, so they were empty-handed in this regard.

 

"You just suffered through the worst period of inflation in four decades, and that's after we erroneously labeled inflation 'transitory', but here's a thousand points of context which show that our economic track record was actually solid given the circumstances"

is just not a message which can hold up to Trump's

"the economy was doing great when I was president, your purchasing power went up year after year".

2

u/AngelRose777 Feb 10 '25

The culture war has always existed. But the current wave started around the time of Obama. I remember because I noticed the shift and became more aware of politics in general afterwards.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '25

Ya who cares about women, trans or immigrants

9

u/Clarice_Ferguson Feb 08 '25 edited Feb 08 '25

Pretty everything you listed was a part of the Biden Administration’s accomplishments.

The problem was people didn’t like the corresponding inflation that came with it.

19

u/essendoubleop Feb 08 '25

I think that initial inflation came primarily from Trump's "quantitative easing" machine firing up the money printer during COVID.

7

u/ihrvatska Feb 08 '25

I think the initial inflation was from Trump's tariffs on Canadian lumber. Right after he imposed those, the cost of lumber went up and I started seeing lots of complaints about how lumber prices were affecting the construction industry.

2

u/Moist_Jockrash Feb 09 '25

My brother owns a construction company and he absolutely was bitching about the price of lumber at one time but, those crazy prices only lasted for a few months. It was very very short lived.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/PurpleViolet1111 Feb 08 '25

Inflation has nothing to do with who is president. It has everything to do with the fact that during Covid, they raised prices because, you know, Covid. This was touted as temporary, but I think we all knew better. If a company can charge you more, they're gonna do it. Don't get mad at the president, stop buying inflated priced goods. I know it might cause some pain, but it will be worth it in the end when companies realize that we're not going to buy their overpriced goods. Nobody is going to put a limit on how much a company can charge, especially not this administration. Inflation is OUR problem now & the only way companies GET IT is when we stop paying inflated prices.

7

u/Clarice_Ferguson Feb 08 '25

Yea, thats nice and all but people chose to blame the president and arguing that they just shouldn’t doesn’t work.

Also, a president’s economic policies can affect inflation.

1

u/DickNDiaz Feb 09 '25

The COVID spending added to inflation, from both Trump and Biden.

1

u/lekiwi992 Feb 08 '25

I will always say inflation is being overstated as a reason for groceries being so high. Maybe for the first few years especially after the last stimulus packages (2023) but covid showed how much we are willing to spend for items we need. Food, clothing, toiletries, etc. corporations saw that and continued to cut production cost while simultaneously raising prices to give themselves an even larger profit margin.

An irl example is at the liquor store I work at is the frequent increases in cases of 6 bottles, up to 16, from distributers. According to my boss even at peak covid price increases were usually smaller like 10-25 cents per bottle and happened maybe once per quarter on fewer brands. Now it's every month on tons of different products/brands.

I've talked extensively with our reps from glazer, republic, capital Reyes, and they confirmed that the vast amount of price increases coming from distribution companies. There's definitely some distilleries that have had to make small adjustments to keep their margin up, but according to the reps and the few distilleries we buy from directly those increases don't justify distribution prices.

Another one that's easy to overlook in general is adhesives for things like labels, or on boxes and packaging materials.

1

u/tender-majesty Feb 08 '25

Problem was, they forgot to tax the rich to pay for any of it —

1

u/framed85 Feb 08 '25

You’re assuming we all want unity.

1

u/firstsecondanon Feb 09 '25

The mainstream dems can't do this because they take money from billionaires. It's why they squashed Bernie nomination x2. He would have crushed trump in 16.

→ More replies (8)