Trump Responds to Apple Keeping Diversity Policies

[constructor]

America's descent into darkness and utter toxicity continues and I will continue to move away from american products and services (Elon Musk's are already categorically out of the question after his nazi salutes and his aggressive AfD support) – side with despots and dictators against your own allies, get the same amount of sympathy and support as them: none.

Cook's 1M$ bribe to Trump was already nauseating enough to get Apple into probation but this decision gets Apple at least a provisional reprieve. But we'll have to see how it goes...

 

[aParkerMusic]

So Republicans aren’t hiding behind the farce that they’re for “small government”?

And Trump is just a disgusting person. I’m glad shareholders had the balls to disregard his racist administration’s push to end inclusive policies.

They don’t have to. The Civil Rights Act of 1969 already makes illegal hiring decisions based on race and other traits. Suddenly Democrats are very confuse by this. Apparently you are to

You have to ask yourself: why are you so bothered by the idea that people should not be judged based on their skin color when applying for a job? Sounds pretty racist to me.

 

[Banan911]

Don’t mind me. I’m just a sane European reading all you posts and enjoying the ******** called United States 😅

Maybe I should go make myself some popcorn as well

 

[Veinticinco]

I'm amazed that Trump has the time to focus on stuff like this. There must be other things that's more important.

Like unilaterally renaming bodies of water?

 

[DownUnderDan]

I'm amazed that Trump has the time to focus on stuff like this. There must be other things that's more important.

True, but somehow he still manages to get his regular golf games in, which is his most important work obligation.

 

[Gengar]

They don’t have to. The Civil Rights Act of 1969 already makes illegal hiring decisions based on race and other traits. Suddenly Democrats are very confuse by this. Apparently you are to

You have to ask yourself: why are you so bothered by the idea that people should not be judged based on their skin color when applying for a job? Sounds pretty racist to me.

???

Nothing you’ve said makes sense.

Donald Trump has made multiple racist remarks about black people and Latinos, multiple sexist remarks about women, and multiple homophobic and transphobic remarks against LGBT people. He’s even trying to ban transgender people from the military right now. He also called Zelenskyy a dictator and sided with Putin (and installed Russian asset Tulsi Gabbard in his cabinet). Don’t be dense and try to defend his hatred. He is literally the root of all the divisiveness in this country that so many Republicans claim Obama caused.

And ask yourself why you and other conservatives are so bothered by leadership policies at a private corporation.

 

[Veinticinco]

Cook's 1M$ bribe to Trump was already nauseating enough to get Apple into probation but this decision gets Apple at least a provisional reprieve. But we'll have to see how it goes...

Not a bribe but a feudal kickback.

 

[constructor]

Not a bribe but a feudal kickback.

A turd by a different name will stink just as much!

And the substantial money I have paid to Apple in recent years in part has been funneled into that corruption which outright infuriates me!

(And no, Tim, that money was not actually laundered through your personal accounts!)

 

[unregbaron]

Why does Trump care? It’s not government money.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

You have to ask yourself: why are you so bothered by the idea that people should not be judged based on their skin color when applying for a job? Sounds pretty racist to me.

Remove all the DEI you want. You don't believe people are being judged by skin color or gender in hiring processes?

 

[imola.zhp]

Stop calling it DEI, spell (and say) the words out loud and follow up with which part you hate the most.

For example, "I hate diversity," "I hate Equality," "I hate Inclusion;" or have the balls to say you hate them all.

 

[BJMRamage]

DEI doesn't mean an incompetent minority is hired instead of a competent "white guy" but that a competent minority is to be included along with a competent or incompetent white guy. Instead of promoting only from within we reach out to a broader audience of candidates.

I'd like to say some of these comments posted earlier are surprising but after the past decade or more I can say it does fit the bill for Americans.

Sometimes a candidate is chosen because they bring "diversity" to the company...they aren't saying it brings a different skin color what they mean is a more diverse outlook and can bring different ideas to the table...occasionally this does not work out....then again hiring strictly from within can do the same. Stanley1913 (the water bottle thermos company) had a woman in charge of marketing and they decided to push new colors each year. this was a shift from the all-men's outlook of ours stuff is great why invest in colors. not to say a "white guy" couldn't have thought of this but they wanted to try a new approach with a different mindset.

and yes, some companies like a variety of skin colors in corporate photos as this shows they are as diverse as the nation.I think we have all seen hires that have failed regardless of how they look.

 

[jwdsail]

In an all-caps post on Truth Social today, U.S. President Donald Trump said Apple should fully end its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.

"APPLE SHOULD GET RID OF DEI RULES, NOT JUST MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THEM," he wrote.

Trump's post comes one day after Apple held its annual shareholders meeting, during which a majority of shareholders voted against a proposal that asked the company to consider abolishing its Inclusion & Diversity policies and goals.

The proposal was submitted by the U.S. National Center for Public Policy Research, which calls itself a "non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think tank." The organization said that DEI programs pose "litigation, reputational, and financial risks to companies, and therefore financial risks to their shareholders."

Apple recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal, labeling it as an attempt to "micromanage" the company's business operations. Apple said that it already actively monitors its operations to maintain compliance with applicable non‑discrimination laws. During the shareholder meeting, Apple CEO Tim Cook acknowledged that the company may be forced to make changes to its DEI policies in the future, as required by law. Trump believes that Apple should get rid of the policies, rather than modify them.

In any case, Cook told shareholders that Apple will always have a culture of belonging.

"We strive to create a culture of belonging where everyone can do their best work," said Apple, in its annual shareholders meeting notice.

Trump has criticized DEI programs since returning to the White House. Last month, he signed an executive order that "terminates 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' (DEI) discrimination in the federal workforce." In response, some other tech companies like Google have scaled back DEI policies in recent weeks.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Trump Responds to Apple Keeping Diversity Policies

Yes, the company with more CASH than many small countries should change what works for them... And they should defy their *shareholders that voted to keep DEI*... And they really need to water their lawn with Brawndo. It's got the electrolytes plants crave.

Sigh.

 

[idktbh]

it's a money laundering scheme. external associations, and I've collaborated with them, likely tied to shady funds, pay apple for 'diverse' hires, effectively washing their cash. It's not about equality, it's about profit. it was one of the worst work experiences I've ever had. disgusting.

 

[constructor]

DEI doesn't mean an incompetent minority is hired instead of a competent "white guy" but that a competent minority is to be included along with a competent or incompetent white guy. Instead of promoting only from within we reach out to a broader audience of candidates.

Ironically the current US administration is a massive example of firing everyone including absolutely competent minority members and shoving utterly incompetent white men into crucial positions instead!

That is actually exactly what they are pretending to rail against!

 

[ohsnap]

So everyone who is not a white straight male is a DEI hire? What does that mean for Tim Cook? Who were the two non-white non male members of the joint chiefs that Trump fired last week? Charles Q Brown and Lisa Franchetti. Now it looks like we’re back to pre civil rights era.

 

[PlutoPrime]

"We strive to create a culture of belonging".

Ain't that the truth. We will always be longing for a leader like Steve Jobs to come back and save Apple from the woke mind virus.

 

[iLuddite]

Orange man bad

 

[buckwheet]

I'm amazed that Trump has the time to focus on stuff like this. There must be other things that's more important.

He's incapable of focusing on anything important. All that stuff is way above his head... what a joke.

 

[BJMRamage]

Ironically the current US administration is a massive example of firing everyone including absolutely competent minority members and shoving utterly incompetent white men into crucial positions instead!

That is actually exactly what they are pretending to rail against!

so...many of his voters express anger toward people "not like them" taking their jobs, committing crimes, etc. He ran on their disgusts. many of his voters now see the removal of anyone not white/male and they think this is wiping away those bad hires and installing the people that "should" be there. but truly these are questionable hires with a lack of substantial qualifications....other than people that kiss up to DJT.

 

[Mity]

About the video: regardless, Asian Americans (especially men) often don’t benefit with or without diversity policies

It's not about Asians. Why reject anyone based on race?

 

[buckwheet]

Why is the government telling private corporations how to handle their internal affairs? Isn't the Republican Party all about reducing and limiting the role of government?

That's the knee jerk reaction, and the narrative conservatives sell, but in the vast majority of cases there are too many qualified candidates for a given position anyway, across races and genders, not too few. So race and gender barely matter as far as job qualification goes. The argument could just as easily be made that white males have been hired historically because they're white males—and often already friends or colleagues of the one doing the hiring—not necessarily because they're the most qualified. That's definitely happened plenty of times in the case of women losing jobs, so I can't imagine it's any different for minorities.

 

[F23]

Trump can't decide who Apple hires or not.

not yet

 

[Silverstring]

When people start claiming "the right side of history" is when I head for the hills. It's so alarming and un-American.

Totalitarian and communist regimes have frequently justified their actions by claiming to be on the "right side of history," portraying their policies as necessary steps in an inevitable historical process. The Soviet Union under Stalin, for example, used this argument to rationalize purges, collectivization, and censorship, asserting that these measures were essential for building socialism. Similarly, Mao Zedong’s China framed brutal campaigns like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution as vital to advancing communism, branding dissenters as obstacles to progress. North Korea continues to use this rhetoric to justify its dictatorship, presenting its policies as part of an unavoidable revolutionary path. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia took this to an extreme, committing mass killings in pursuit of an agrarian utopia they deemed historically inevitable.

While this argument is strongly associated with Marxist regimes, non-communist totalitarian governments have also invoked historical inevitability to suppress dissent. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, for instance, framed their ideologies as part of a national or racial destiny, justifying oppressive policies in the name of progress. More broadly, authoritarian regimes that claim their rule aligns with the course of history often prioritize ideology over governance, leading to disastrous consequences such as mass famine, genocide, and economic collapse. The danger of this mindset lies in its denial of pluralism and alternative viewpoints, allowing leaders to justify oppression under the guise of an unavoidable future.

So we’re just ignoring that:

• Stalin’s Soviet Union
• Mao Zedong’s China
• North Korea
• Khmer Rouge in Cambodia
• Fascist Italy
• Nazi Germany

…you know, didn’t end up on the right side of history?

It is, by definition, an assessment that can only be made in retrospect.

It’s not, “the right side of the present” for a reason.

 

[mansplains]

I'm amazed that Trump has the time to focus on stuff like this. There must be other things that's more important.

This is the fallacy of relative privation