The bizarro world of Trumpian National Socialism

[jmdrake]

Considering that I take pride in having a great deal of racism and I still hire black candidates if they are the best candidate for the role -- and I have indeed done that -- I would say that racism is not a significant factor impacting the success of blacks in professional environments.

I have not ever however hired a female candidate as they have never been the best candidate for the role. I was once provided an entire slate of female candidates (how does that happen? hmm. DEI.) and I rejected all of them. The HR team was not happy with me but they found actually qualified candidates and I did hire them.

 

[CaptUSA]

Again, that's all free market. But you don't actually believe in the free market do you?

Sorry, I haven't been following this thread and don't really want to. But I do want to dispel myth that this is the free market at work.

Having seen these corporate boards operate first hand, here's what happens.

Central governments print money>that money goes to institutional investors friendly to those governments and willing to do their bidding>those institutional investors, flushed with government money, buy controlling interests in corporations>they then put the "right" people on their boards>the companies institute government-influenced policies and then say "this is what our investors want so it's free market".

Now, we can quibble over whether the government starts that chain or whether those institutional investors start the chain (really, it's just the ruling elite working in concert), but this is a far cry from the free market!

 

[jmdrake]

Sorry, I haven't been following this thread and don't really want to. But I do want to dispel myth that this is the free market at work.

Having seen these corporate boards operate first hand, here's what happens.

Central governments print money>that money goes to institutional investors friendly to those governments and willing to do their bidding>those institutional investors, flushed with government money, buy controlling interests in corporations>they then put the "right" people on their boards>the companies institute government-influenced policies and then say "this is what our investors want so it's free market".

Now, we can quibble over whether the government starts that chain or whether those institutional investors start the chain (really, it's just the ruling elite working in concert), but this is a far cry from the free market!

That's what counts for "free market" in today's America. The same government funds are equally available to the Elon Musks of the world as they are the George Soros' of the world. The Koch brothers, Peter Thiel, Donald Trump and every other billionaire your side champions has eaten from the same government trough. So it's not accurate to claim DEI is coming from the government based on you analysis..

 

[CaptUSA]

That's what counts for "free market" in today's America.

To whom? Not to us!

The same government funds are equally available to the Elon Musks of the world as they are the George Soros' of the world.

As long as they do what the Global Elite want - probably. Although, I wouldn't say "equally available".

So it's not accurate to claim DEI is coming from the government based on you analysis..

ESG came about from the UN Global Compact in 2004 which was promoted and put forth by the WEF. The same Global Elite that push for central banks to print money (steal from the poor in the form of devaluation) and create the metrics by which they decide to invest. DEI was a component of the "Social" part of ESG pushed by the Boards and instituted in the US through the Society for Human Resource Management conferences. It's got government's fingerprints all over it.

All of that is beside the point, though. When you say, "investors", that strikes the image of millions of individuals making individual decisions which culminate in those policies. But that's just not true. These things are very top-down and definitely NOT free market!

 

[Madison320]

I've never seen any actual documentation of the federal DEI score myth that you and others throw around. But thank you for admitting that you don't really care about whether or not DEI actually leads to lower quality employees. United Airlines program was voluntary. The CEO, who was trans at the time, believed diversity was a good thing and he didn't need pressure from the government to promote it. On the other hand Trump has used government force to attack voluntary DEI.



So? I could care less about your personal beliefs.



Okay. Your company has the right to implement whatever training program it decides it wants to. That doesn't mean there was some phantom "government DEI score" behind it. But you only believe in private business having the right to do what it wants when it benefits you. I get it. Integrity is easy to talk about and difficult to live by.




....Or they faced a voluntary boycott like Target did once it gave into Trump forced anti DEI mandates and found out that a lot of its customers don't support Trump's BS. There have also been voluntary shareholder pushes for diversity.

Disney investors reject a proposal to withdraw from HRC's diversity index

Disney shareholders rejected an investor proposal to withdraw participation in the Human Rights Campaign's corporate equity index, which rates workplaces on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer equality.

www.reuters.com

Again, that's all free market. The question to ask yourself i, do you really believe in the free market?

Neither one of us really knows whether these DEI programs are voluntary.

I concede I don't have hard evidence about DEI scores but I certainly do with the civil rights act.

I said a couple times now that Trump should not be pressuring businesses.

What trump should be doing is working on repealing the part of the civil rights act that makes it illegal for private employers to discriminate. That's clearly a violation of property rights.

This is typical of government. Instead of removing a bad law, they counter the bad law with another bad law.

 

[jmdrake]

Neither one of us really knows whether these DEI programs are voluntary.

I concede I don't have hard evidence about DEI scores but I certainly do with the civil rights act.

I said a couple times now that Trump should not be pressuring businesses.

What trump should be doing is working on repealing the part of the civil rights act that makes it illegal for private employers to discriminate. That's clearly a violation of property rights.

This is typical of government. Instead of removing a bad law, they counter the bad law with another bad law.

So Trump can:

1) Violate the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments

2) Deploy the National Guard internally and have them provide logistical support to jackbooted thugs who are kicking in doors of homes of natural born U.S. citizens under the phony pretense of fighting illegal immigration

3) Replace qualified black generals with less qualified white generals (Look up what happened with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

4) Bomb Iran at the behest of Israel

5) Force U.S. corporations to give a permanent equity share of private companies.

But according to you all of that's okay as long as he prioritizes makes sure you can discriminate against black people. That's your priority so it should be his. Okay. Whatever dude.

 

[jmdrake]

To whom? Not to us!

The energy that y'all put into fighting over whether a black person can get a job is nowhere near the energy y'all put into Elon Musk's subsidies or Trump's bankruptcies and bailouts. Not even kind of close.

As long as they do what the Global Elite want - probably. Although, I wouldn't say "equally available".

ESG came about from the UN Global Compact in 2004 which was promoted and put forth by the WEF. The same Global Elite that push for central banks to print money (steal from the poor in the form of devaluation) and create the metrics by which they decide to invest. DEI was a component of the "Social" part of ESG pushed by the Boards and instituted in the US through the Society for Human Resource Management conferences. It's got government's fingerprints all over it.

It's still not federally mandated. "Government fingerprints" are about as nebulous as saying "Project 2025." Everybody has his/her favorite conspiracy. The fact remains there is no federal DEI scores. Doing mental gymnastics to "prove" that is just mental gymnastics.

All of that is beside the point, though. When you say, "investors", that strikes the image of millions of individuals making individual decisions which culminate in those policies. But that's just not true. These things are very top-down and definitely NOT free market!

Besides the point? The "point" of this thread is about fascism. You know like Trump actually taking equity stake in private companies? Oh but let's all deflect from actual fascism so by complaining about the idea some corporations might voluntarily decide to do something that might help some black people. That's what we have to bitch about. Not fascism. Nope. Fascism is good.

As for "top-down" corporate governance, that's been a thing since the dawn of the modern corporate age in the late 1800s. In fact when has top down not been a thing? That doesn't mean there aren't shareholder revolts. Weak argument on your part.

 

[Madison320]

So Trump can:

1) Violate the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments

2) Deploy the National Guard internally and have them provide logistical support to jackbooted thugs who are kicking in doors of homes of natural born U.S. citizens under the phony pretense of fighting illegal immigration

3) Replace qualified black generals with less qualified white generals (Look up what happened with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

4) Bomb Iran at the behest of Israel

5) Force U.S. corporations to give a permanent equity share of private companies.

But according to you all of that's okay as long as he prioritizes makes sure you can discriminate against black people. That's your priority so it should be his. Okay. Whatever dude.

What are you talking about???? I'm one of the biggest critics of trump in this forum.

1.No
2.No
3.Yes, but it would be dumb.
4.No
5.No

 

[jmdrake]

What are you talking about???? I'm one of the biggest critics of trump in this forum.

And yet your priority for Trump is the Civil Rights Act. Odd.

1.No

Cool.

2.No

Great.

3.Yes, but it would be dumb.

It already happened.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5162682-trump-rejects-questions-on-caine/

If Biden had replaced a more qualified white general with a less qualified black one we would have never heard the end of it on here.

4.No

Cool.

5.No

Gotcha.

 

[Madison320]

And yet your priority for Trump is the Civil Rights Act. Odd.

You were talking about trump discriminating, and I responded with what he should have done instead as it relates to the topic at hand.

I never said how I prioritized the civil rights act in relation to other things trump needs to do (or not do).

 

[jmdrake]

You were talking about trump discriminating, and I responded with what he should have done instead as it relates to the topic at hand.

I never said how I prioritized the civil rights act in relation to other things trump needs to do (or not do).

The topic at hand is "The bizarro world of Trumpian National Socialism." (I had to look at the thread title to make sure this wasn't the wrong thread.) Trump has been attacking free enterprise in multiple ways. His attack on United Airlines is just one example. That said, National Socialism, closely related to fascism, has historically had a racial element to it. The Nazis didn't just want to redistribute wealth. They were especially concerned with the redistribution of Jewish wealth. It's embedded in their 1930 platform.

Nazi Party Platform | Holocaust Encyclopedia

The Nazi Party platform was a 25-point program for the creation of a Nazi state and society. Hitler presented it at the Hofbräuhaus Beerhall in Munich in February 1920.

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

I am familiar with the libertarian anti Civil Rights Act ideal. But it's laughable (and a bit disturbing) to see people cheering on Trump's attack on corporations doing their on diversity programs based on the idea that "Well the U.N. supports diversity therefore corporations must be liberated from it" or whatever cockamamie, convoluted "logic" that's being used to justify attacks on any free market push for diversity. This all smacks of circular reasoning. If things go your way it's freedom. If they go the other way it's Marxism just....well just because that's the only way to justify and unjustifiable argument.

 

[Madison320]

I am familiar with the libertarian anti Civil Rights Act ideal. But it's laughable (and a bit disturbing) to see people cheering on Trump's attack on corporations doing their on diversity programs based on the idea that "Well the U.N. supports diversity therefore corporations must be liberated from it" or whatever cockamamie, convoluted "logic" that's being used to justify attacks on any free market push for diversity. This all smacks of circular reasoning. If things go your way it's freedom. If they go the other way it's Marxism just....well just because that's the only way to justify and unjustifiable argument.

Except that you don't know that it's a free market push for diversity. There's a financial incentive to avoid discrimination lawsuits so it's logical to assume that some companies are doing DEI stuff to avoid those lawsuits.

 

[jmdrake]

Except that you don't know that it's a free market push for diversity. There's a financial incentive to avoid discrimination lawsuits so it's logical to assume that some companies are doing DEI stuff to avoid those lawsuits.

In the case of United Airlines I can say that it had nothing to do with some phantom "push to avoid lawsuits." If you want to imagine the tooth fairy exists I can't stop you from believing something stupid. But anyone actually informed on the matter would tell you that for decades now civil rights lawsuits are extremely hard to win even if you have "smoking gun" evidence. Simply say "Hey. Airline X doesn't have very many black pilots" is NOT enough to even get a lawsuit past the motion to dismiss stage. I can't stop you from lying to yourself though. United Airlines was not facing a lawsuit. They were facing a pilot shortage. They had a CEO that also liked the idea of having a more diverse lawsuit. I know this may be a shocker to you, but some people actually like having people from other groups working for their company and they don't need government force to do that.

AI analysis:
What supreme court case said that statistical evidence alone can not longer be used to prove racial discrimination?

The U.S. Supreme Court case you’re thinking of is Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989).

Key Point:​

In Wards Cove, the Court significantly limited the use of statistical evidence alone to prove racial discrimination—particularly in disparate impact cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Background:​

• Minority cannery workers sued, claiming that the company’s hiring and promotion practices discriminated against nonwhite workers.
• They relied primarily on statistical disparities showing that most skilled, higher-paying positions were filled by white workers, while minorities held the unskilled jobs.

The Court’s Holding:​

The Supreme Court held that:

• Statistical disparities alone are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact.
• Plaintiffs must identify a specific employment practice that caused the disparity.
• The burden on the employer is only to produce (not prove) a business justification—shifting more of the proof burden back to the plaintiffs.

Aftermath:​

• The decision was highly controversial and seen as weakening civil rights protections.
• In response, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which overturned parts of Wards Cove and restored broader use of statistical evidence in disparate impact cases.

---

In short:

Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio (1989) is the Supreme Court case that held statistical evidence alone can no longer be used to prove racial discrimination.

Has the Civil Rights Act of 1991 been limited by further court rulings?


Yes — while the Civil Rights Act of 1991 restored and expanded certain discrimination protections that Wards Cove and other cases had restricted, subsequent Supreme Court rulings have narrowed or limited its scope in various ways.
Here’s a clear summary of how:

---

Background: What the 1991 Act Did​

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was enacted largely to:

• Overturn Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio (1989),
• Reinstate broader use of statistical and disparate impact evidence,
• Strengthen remedies (e.g., compensatory and punitive damages in intentional discrimination cases),
• And clarify burden-shifting rules in Title VII litigation.

---

Later Supreme Court Limitations​

1. Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)​

• Issue: The City of New Haven discarded firefighter promotion exams when results favored white candidates, fearing a disparate impact lawsuit.
• Holding: The Court held the city’s action was itself discriminatory toward the white firefighters.
• Effect: Made employers hesitant to take proactive steps to avoid disparate impact liability unless they have a “strong basis in evidence” that they’d otherwise be violating Title VII.
  This effectively narrowed the practical use of disparate impact protections restored by the 1991 Act.

---

2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011)​

• Issue: A massive class action alleging systemic gender discrimination in pay and promotion.
• Holding: The Court ruled the class could not be certified because plaintiffs failed to show a common policy of discrimination.
• Effect: Made it much harder to bring large-scale systemic discrimination claims using the statistical patterns that the 1991 Act had aimed to protect.

---

3. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009) and Univ. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar (2013)​

• Gross (ADEA) and Nassar (Title VII retaliation) both imposed “but-for causation” rather than the more lenient “motivating factor” standard created by the 1991 Act.
• Effect: Raised the bar for proving discrimination and retaliation, limiting when plaintiffs can benefit from the Act’s burden-shifting and mixed-motive framework.

---

4. Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American–Owned Media (2020)​

• Issue: Whether claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (race discrimination in contracts) require “but-for” causation.
• Holding: Yes — plaintiffs must prove race was the determinative cause, not merely a motivating factor.
• Effect: Further restricted the reach of the 1991 Act’s “motivating factor” language in non–Title VII contexts.

---

Summary of the Modern Landscape​

Area	1991 Act Expansion	Later Limitation
Disparate Impact	Restored after Wards Cove	Ricci v. DeStefano made employers cautious
Class Actions	Facilitated systemic discrimination cases	Wal-Mart v. Dukes restricted them
Mixed Motive Liability	“Motivating factor” test allowed	Gross & Nassar replaced with “but-for” causation
Remedies	Added compensatory/punitive damages	Still limited by caps and procedural rulings

 

[Madison320]

In the case of United Airlines I can say that it had nothing to do with some phantom "push to avoid lawsuits." If you want to imagine the tooth fairy exists I can't stop you from believing something stupid. But anyone actually informed on the matter would tell you that for decades now civil rights lawsuits are extremely hard to win even if you have "smoking gun" evidence. Simply say "Hey. Airline X doesn't have very many black pilots" is NOT enough to even get a lawsuit past the motion to dismiss stage. I can't stop you from lying to yourself though. United Airlines was not facing a lawsuit. They were facing a pilot shortage. They had a CEO that also liked the idea of having a more diverse lawsuit. I know this may be a shocker to you, but some people actually like having people from other groups working for their company and they don't need government force to do that.

Do you think the part of the civil rights act that makes it illegal for private businesses to discriminate is wrong?

 

[nikcers]

DEI was part of the ESG social credit scores. Those corporations went on to score corporations by their DEI and reward corporations with investments that did DEI.

The government went on to fund these things through various funding packages both directly and indirectly because money is fungible.

Whether or not this grand strategy was the government or corporations that controlled the governments purse strings these policies have their roots in failed experiments going on 100 years.

 

[jmdrake]

Do you think the part of the civil rights act that makes it illegal for private businesses to discriminate is wrong?

Against the backdrop of centuries of legally enforced segregation? No I do not. I understand that you do but I find it bizarre that you even care. You didn't lose a job just because some employer was told "You aren't allowed to put no blacks need apply in your job ad." Now, do you think it's wrong for Trump to now be telling private companies that they cannot seek to have a diverse workforce or seek to have more minority own businesses sell through their stores (Target) or anything else that people have voluntarily done outside of the Civil Rights Act in order to promote diversity? And are you willing and/or able to actually talk about the thread topic? (Fascism) Or is your diversity obsession too great to do that?

 

[Madison320]

Or is your diversity obsession too great to do that?

Ha! Ha!

Pot calls kettle black!

The irony is the private portion of the civil rights acts is the textbook definition of fascism.

 

[jmdrake]

Ha! Ha!

Pot calls kettle black!

So I take it the answer to this question " And are you willing and/or able to actually talk about the thread topic? (Fascism)" is no. Gotcha.

 

[TheTexan]

United Airlines, facing a pilot shortage, went to HBCUs and encouraged people to attend.

When United Airlines launched its Aviate program, the first class was 80% women and coloreds. That's not filling a "shortage". That's filling an agenda.

You're insane if you think they didn't turn down white men with more flight experience so they could hire blacks and women for the same job.

7500 people applied and probably 90% or more were probably white men, yet 80% of the 30 people they selected were women and coloreds. They were the "Best candidates" ya sure ok.

 

[jmdrake]

When United Airlines launched its Aviate program, the first class was 80% women and coloreds. That's not filling a "shortage". That's filling an agenda.

You realize that 50% of the U.S. population are women right?

You're insane if you think they didn't turn down white men with more flight experience so they could hire blacks and women for the same job.

7500 people applied and probably 90% or more were probably white men, yet 80% of the 30 people they selected were women and coloreds. They were the "Best candidates" ya sure ok.

• The United Aviate Academy’s inaugural class application period had about 7,500 applicants. United Aviate+1
• Nearly 75% of those applicants were women or people of color. Senate Commerce Committee+1
• The first graduating class included 51 students. PR Newswire+1
• As of some point after that, United Aviate Academy has accepted about 240 students from the more than 22,000 applications they had received (but that larger figure is after the first year, so combines multiple years). Flying Magazine+2

In other words you have no idea what you are talking about per usual.