You imply that anyone anti DEI policies is a white nationalist and therefore a racist.
At Its core DEI policies are basing selection and given preference to certain races. Therefore DEI is at its core a racist policy. Please explain how it is not.
Or explain what you mean by white supremacists turning DEI into something it's not. Please tell us what it is?
Policies already existed prior to DEI to ensure that people were not discriminated based on race or handicap. DEI policies have changed that from discrimination into active favouritism.
No I didn't imply that. I said that there is a White Nationalist movement set out to confuse people about the true meaning of DEI. It is only a concept. The word Diversity means just that Diversity! Same with equity, and inclusion. If applied properly it does what it says. Please show us an example of this prejudice? If you can show that us these policies, showing favoritism towards one group over another then you're right.
It is obvious when you see the politicians that oppose DEI, that most are all stodgy Old White Men. I haven't seen any women, or Black people so opposed to it. As I already mentioned Affirmative action, was introduced long ago to break up the White male majority in the workforce, and to give handicapped people a place in the workforce. As someone else stated before, they lost a promotion due to it, and someone inadequate was given the position. Which turned out to be a wrong move, then it was hopefully corrected. So you see, it was a well meaning idea, but had flaws in its application.
I agree with everything you said but as much as people may dislike Trump, he is the only president so far that dares to question how the money is being spent. The only people against looking into it are the ones that made the budget and the ones benefiting from that money. Everyone else seems to be on the side of checking where the money is really going and what for. For example, Yes congress approved a new roof but should the government pay that bill before we have that roof and are able to make sure it is built the way we agreed and with the material we agreed upon. I can't see that as a bad thing and I don't know a single person that run their house any differently.
That is a good idea to do this. I do believe that most of the programs were by both parties, and both benefit from them. I agree it is a good idea to do some house cleaning. But it should be wisely done. There are so many projects to look into it will take a long time.
I think they should start with the oil, coal, mining, and deforestation industries first. Not a food, and medicine aid program. This should have been done all along, before things got out of hand. Some form of an accountability office, I assume it would have been called.
Your example of a roof building is a Good One, but as we all know, things have been built and later found out the contractors, builders, or someone did shoddy work and overcharged. They asked for money up front to buy materials, labor, etc, and that was given to them, only to find out later, there was a problem, like not using the proper materials, overcharging, overtime pay that wasn't done. The list goes on and on.
Another classic example of this is the medical field. Hospitals, pharmacies, and doctors are notorious for overcharging or charging for goods, and services not rendered, to the insurance companies, which then try to recoup their costs and pass the costs on to the patients. For example An aspirin should not cost $10.
