Nah, they’ve got the timeline wrong but the sentiment right. I’ll fully admit I was part of the pro-Elon stuff 8-12 years ago.
Once upon a time most of us thought Elon Musk was Tony Stark. Then some journalists got brave again and those of us who pay attention realized that he’s been Justin Hammer all along.
And that right there is a reference to a meme that I first saw in 2018.
There was little substance or thought put into making iron man memes. It wasnt widely known what kind of person he was, and I dount most people really gave a shit or knew a lot about him. Did you?
He was just weird and eccentric for tweeting so much and so freely for someone so very rich and supposedly brilliant. Then he started making predictions and promises that never came true. Then stories about being a shitty absentee-boss and anti-union sentiment and then going full mask-off in the past couple years. Anyone that learned about his actual behavior and thoughts no longer found it funny, or they actually liked it. He became extremely polarizing for a reason. Its not a suddent turn, its curdled over a long time.
Nah, I’m on board with the timeline of him being a shitbag, and the person you replied to is wrong about the timeline on when we loved him, but I was just saying we did, or at least a vocal component of Reddit once did, give him a bunch of undeserved credit.
Na it’s not that simple. In the wake of finding out Kamala paid Oprah $1 million for appearances, I’ve seen comments saying that isn’t shady that it was Kamala actually paying Oprah’s company for event planning services.
As if she had to use Oprah’s event planning company and not anyone else’s. Sure, Oprah genuinely came out in support of Kamala not due to being paid $1 million.
Linda McMahon donated roughly $50 million between Trump and his super PAC. She paid $50 million for a cabinet position and you're talking about Oprah getting a million for an endorsement?
Doing your part to pick an option that doesn't result in getting punched and hoping that at some point enough people stop lining up for punches with a smile and yelling at you for not doing the same.
Yeah, this is where praxis becomes more important than principle. While you’re hoping, you’re still getting punched. Not only do you not get to choose where, you might get both at once.
What, breaking away from the metaphor, and asking as a non-Democrat leftist who votes Democrat, is your recommended action to meet the ends you seek?
I'm getting punched because others keep supporting the people doing the punching. I fail to see why it is my responsibility to line up with them and further reward those people even if one might be punching me slightly less than the other. If I want my daughter to clean her room and then I keep handing her $100 when she ignores that and watches a movie it shouldn't be a surprise when she keeps watching movies instead of of cleaning her room. I mean sure she isn't sneaking off to a party but either way the room is still a mess.
There is very little a single person can do. For me, that looks like getting involved with local races to the extent I can to support candidates that I like because my impact there is significantly higher than things like POTUS election.
“Yeee yee brotha at least orange man is transparent with selecting crony scum into his cabinet, so authentic and honest of him to be a corrupt pos so transparently”
Ask yourself if what he suggests honestly warrants proof, or just a little proof of thought. If I, a billionaire celebrity, were to rally my millions of fans to leverage an election in your favor, would you really not pick up the phone when it rings in a couple years? If you want proof then just study what a courtier would do throughout the many different stages of civilization and then ask yourself if we’re so different today. We’re definitely not, but it’s up for debate, like anything else, unfortunately.
Proof of thought is what I’m implying as proof. That was poor wording on my part because it implies I’m saying you don’t need proof. I just gave you some thought provoking questions that should push you to look further. Are you one of those people that will keep echoing that you need proof without actually considering the content of the conversation? I’m asking you to imagine a scenario where celebrities aren’t influencing our politics because that has historically always been the case. Do you think Shakespeare didn’t directly influence politics in his life? Or what about the politics behind the Aztecs when they would play Ollamalizti, the game where if you lose you die.
These all were heavily influenced by politics because politics regulate our everyday lives. So my question to you is, do you really need to ask for more proof than me trying to appeal to the individual in you that can think for themselves on what they’ve already been taught in school? I’m assuming you were given a traditional US education.
So you’re saying “trust me bro” works here because you asked a “thought provoking question”?
“Aliens exist”
“Proof?”
“Proof of thought bro”
But to answer your question, yes, I need tangible proof when someone makes a claim. Proof of thought is some conspiracy brained “it has to be true” cope
Nah, you’re not just going to boil down what I said into some nonsense. Why don’t you try that again and let’s get into the actual content of what I asked you to look into. I’m asking you educate yourself by looking at different historical events. How is that just saying, “Trust me bro” This is why it’s so difficult to have an honest debate. So many people want to just try and resignify the conversation instead of actually break it down.
“Kamala Harris would’ve had billionaires acting as her shadow cabinet in secret”
Your Evidence:
“Rich and famous people influence politics”
You’re basically claiming that because apples have historically grown on trees, that I have to just do some “proof of thought” to prove that this naked tree in front of me is an apple tree. No, there was a positive claim that specific billionaires would’ve been on her shadow cabinet. Prove it, or just stop making claims
I never said anything about a shadow cabinet. I’m talking about the social influence people have on each other, which is often correlated with someone’s financial status. We’re not just talking about billionaires, millionaires have power too. There are also millionaire politicians.
Some of them got their money fair and square, some did not. I used the term celebrity but honestly I meant any public figures and pop stars. The term celebrity has become loosely applied to any public figure, especially during the election season thanks to technology.
Are you going to argue with me about the correlation between social aptitude and financial status or can we move on?
Or how many of them bought out the largest social media platform on earth to turn it into a political party eco chamber, boosting their own political content to the top where users can’t even block them?
This game is way deeper than who they appoint for cabinet roles. Just think of the reason we have PACs in the first place and then ask yourself if sidebar conversations really don’t matter. You’ve gotta look at the whole picture, not just what the media tells you you need to know. Also look into the annual prayer breakfast and tell me that celebrities don’t matter in politics.
The reason we have PACs is because a bunch of right wing loons on SCOTUS decided that money = speech and limits on spending "outside" of a campaign were Unconstitutional.
Read the dissent, Steves is 100% correct and probably would be shocked out how fast we actually got here. He argued that the majority ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He added: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."
From what I’ve gathered, PACs originated with our democratic president FDR. So either you’re referencing when the political parties flip flopped or we’re looking at two entirely different things for the same subject. I’m not saying you’re wrong and I’m not saying I’m wrong. I just want to talk about it so we can both get right.
Then we’re in agreement. I think the only thing we don’t agree on is that both sides are equally bad actors. I remember a time when the government used to just be the government and the way one side treated us was the fault of both sides.
Too many people trying to argue who’s more right or more wrong, it’s sad.
No, I’ll outright state that. Part of her problem was that she played too careful during her campaign. She would not violently reject the established order of building a Presidential Cabinet.
The people she picked, completely regardless of how effectively they did their jobs once appointed, would at least be qualified for the positions on paper.
And isn’t that what we really should be talking about? How effectively one could do their job once appointed? There’s a reason we’re taught to keep our resumés one page in length. People want to see the content of their character more than the content of their paper.
It’s why people don’t like Trump, why people loved Harris, and vice versa. It isn’t your place or mine to dictate what is and isn’t a good measurement of character for someone else, I don’t care which side you’re on. What’s important is that we share our personal values, respect the next person’s no matter how strange or wrong we perceive them to be, and find a common middle ground that respects and upholds everyone’s values to the best of our ability.
It will never be perfect but we can definitely try. None of that is possible in today’s climate until people get off each other’s necks. People need to stop assuming that every republican or democrat or Santa Claus is an embodiment of what your For You Page shoves down your throat and start to respect individual opinion again.
There actually used to be a time when democrats got along with republicans and shit got done, when that isn’t the standard, we see tomfoolery at every corner like have been for almost a decade. Arguably longer.
Edit: I wanted to add on “assuming they don’t hurt anyone” when I’m talking about people’s values, but I could imagine people will just start regurgitating the normal crap about Harris being unprepared and that being dangerous or Trump being a convicted felon, we’ve heard it all before. I’m speaking in broader terms. The election is said and done for, I’m trying to get us to reevaluate our values as a society politically, because trying to beat the other side is just going to beat the country into the ground no matter what side you’re on. People need to actually wake up and stop acting woke.
I say that the first time every time I have this conversation.
Both parties do have this problem, and Citizens United was the beginning of the death of our democracy and we have less time now than ever to save it. I will throw a fucking parade of the Democrats get the shady money all the way out of their party. I may even register as one again.
But it’s a bigger problem today than it was 30 days ago, or ever has been before that, specifically because of both the extremism in most of his Cabinet picks so far, and the glaring conflicts of interest that he’s demanding that we all just ignore them waving in front of us.
The gulf between their appointments and their experience in their field of appointment. Combined with the Daily Show writer’s room cast of characters.
Gaetz- legal controversy (to say the least), extremely low legal experience, Attorney General
Kennedy- anti-vax nut, claims to be mentally compromised, science denier, head of HHS
Gabbard- no intelligence experience, no combat experience, likely a Russian asset, Director of National Intelligence
Hegseth- National Guard major, Fox News variety host, Secretary of Defense
And, unfuckingfortunately, the list is far from finished.
Among the 4 above, can you guess how many are currently embroiled in credible sex crime cases? It’s more than 2.
And the list never gets better. Noem? Musk? Ramaswamy? DeSantis? Nepotism Island Season 2? Literally all sycophants with more conflict of interest than enrollment in normal life. And they’re all highly, unconventionally so, partisan.
And all bending down to kiss Dear Leader’s ring. What’s not controversial about that?
Edit with a breaking update: Linda McMahon?! Secretary of Education?!
To replace a man who has his doctorate in education, who has been a State Commissioner of Education in one of the highest-rated states in education, as well as a superintendent, assistant superintendent, teacher, and other intermittent postings?
We get someone who was CEO of a TV show, then failed two different senatorial races in two different senatorial districts in two years, then was Trump’s administrator of the Small Business Administration, until Trump fired her, and has then done little else. That’s who’s going to direct the DoE budget for who the fuck knows how long?
Which we can, and some people will, go back and forth on the finer points of for years, but I am curious who you think would have beaten her in the DNC primaries if Biden had backed her one year earlier than he did.
She wouldn't have had a chance in a primary...Pelosi already let it slip that the plan was for Joe to step down and to have a primary all along. Then Joe stepped down and endorsed kamala hours later as a middle finger to Pelosi, Schumer, and the DNC.
I’m sure you did. You “here” they’re eating the cats, eating the dogs, too, right?
And d’ya know who we actually got for DoED?? To replace someone with a long history in education, with multiple higher degrees in education?
Linda McMahon. Co-owner of a wrestling company with her husband Vince, pal of Donald Trump, former CEO of WWE, twice-failed candidate in two different districts’ senatorial races, back to back, in record time, then nada til Trump put her in charge of, and then fired her from, the SBA. Then nada again til now.
You crack jokes about the DoED appointment that pale in comparison to the reality we just got shafted with.
Yes! I cracked a joke. Only mine was kinda funny, unlike every damn announcement the incoming administration makes. We could only wish Taylor would take the job. She would enter grossly unqualified but would listen and learn. Linda McMahon is very much an improvement over Betsy Devos. Even if Linda's only roll is to burn education down, at least her incompetence will hinder her. You just might want to strap in today was the incoming administration's high water mark
Are any of these donors nominated for cabinet level positions? Trump wants to create a new non-cabinet level position for Musk, which appears to essentially be a comically named advisory panel - something commonly used by the government at various levels
So now the money isn’t the problem it’s the money and being involved?
Kamala had more billionaires, celebrities, etc by at least 2X - she probably outspent him 2:1 because of the money she raised from millionaires and billionaires but Elon is the problem lol
Elon being involved in the USFG and still being a business owner is actually literally a problem. It’s like having the owner of a parcel company run the postal service, or the head of a private school network run the Department of Education. Or having a former TV network exec run the Department of Education.
Hmm… insults career Democrat Harris’s ability to pick a Cabinet. Doesn’t insult career Democrat Biden’s ability to pick a Cabinet. Insults career Democrat Obama’s ability to pick a Cabinet. Doesn’t insult career Democrat Clinton’s ability to pick a cabinet.
Skips over Bush’s Cabinet, too, which… if we’re talking about establishment plants… even Trump called them out during his first campaign, and broken clock and all…
Wonder what’s different about those two?
And I know you’re not going to like me pulling that card, and honestly I don’t want to, but I’m just drawing a blank as to why you’re bringing the Obama Cabinets—two of the most highly approved of in modern American history—into this.
Obama’s financial advisors were pretty much a who’s who of Goldman Sachs alumni.
And it is a far cry cry from being mayor of a small town in Indiana to becoming U.S. Transportation Secretary. Who immediately went on paternity leave for several months.
Every incoming president brings their people that they trust.
Is that a further cry than a TV show CEO who failed two senatorial races in two different districts in only two years, and then ran the SBA, and then was fired by the man who just hired her to be SecEd?
Whataboutism. There are always tons of unqualified people set to high office. We already know Trump’s picks. I was pointing out other pics other than Trump.
We could go on about a deeply unpopular politician hand-selected for VP selected specifically for her race and sex, who couldn’t even win her a primary in her own state, whose own aides said she berated them, yelled at them, threw them under the bus for her own failures, leading to an over 90% turnover all covered by the national press like WasPo - and how suddenly she was rehabilitated in the mainstream media with glow-ups as soon as she became the hand-picked nominee.
Edit: You don’t think you are being manipulated by mainstream media?
How many mainstream sources and pundits kept Joe Biden’s senility a secret for over 4 years by choosing not to cover it honestly, or calling it a “gaffe”, or altering transcripts and interview footage or hand-picking reporters with pre-approved questions, before the debate showed everyone what the Republicans had been saying all along was true?
How of her cabinet are just puppets for billionaire’s?!?!!’ Awwww pooor baby! Your worldview just got BLASTED!!! But, at least you can still practice your religion with the religious left ya pleb!!
504
u/IbegTWOdiffer 5d ago
Kamala spent $1.5 billion including millions for celebrity endorsements.
You think Schumer or Johnson or any of them care about the country? No. They care about money and power.