TIL: Everyone who has been alive less than 1 Billion Seconds and has over 1 Billion Dollars needs to have their wealth forcibly redistributed because you can’t even pretend they “worked for it”.
Net worths are guessed (you literally can’t perfectly accurately audit total net worth in any practical way) price tags. When it comes to individual assets like stocks, that price tag is dictated by the market (basically, everyone other than the owner) that essentially assert “if you sold this, I’d be willing to pay $X to buy it from you”.
A price tag is not cash. An asset becoming more valuable is not equivalent to the mint printing bills. And owning shares in businesses that are actively involved in the economy is literally the opposite of “hoarding”.
The wealth gap between the very top and the destitute was MUCH smaller 100 years ago. But poverty was MUCH more common then, too. So then why do so many act like that gap widening is at fault for the poverty that still exists?
It would literally vanish. Wealth is not cash. If Amazon disappeared one day, not a single person’s (poor or not) bank account would get bigger as a result.
not a single person’s (poor or not) bank account would get bigger as a result
Likely not, but I’d like to think the social reforms with an attack on the wealthy would bring some of our rights back and help with our standards of living issues our poor currently face thanks to the wealthy systematically disabling the things that brought prosperity and protected people. While you call it murderous envy, others might call it true social justice.
It’s not their stuff that’s wanted overall, to me it seems like hope is what’s in question here. They stand in the way of hope, voting doesn’t work, so I wonder if violent removal would.
Literally a nonsensical statement. Stuff overall worldwide is way better now than it was 100 years ago, and there were way fewer billionaires (even when adjusting for inflation) back then.
Stop making excuses. Nothing’s in your way other than your victim mentality.
How do those boots taste? That kind of shit right there is exactly how we backslide. Life expectancy is also higher than it was 1000 years ago. The only reason we left the first gilded age was a whole lot of legislation that’s been dismantled in the last 40 years, that if we go uncorrected we’ll be more impoverished than we were in that time period you referenced. “LOL” - as if to say it’s great that two generations can’t own a home, pay for healthcare, or retire. Real funny shit, asshole.
Me: There is less worldwide poverty than there was 100 years ago.
You: bOoTlIcKeR
It really is sad how emotionally-charged tantrums are the go-to response to the simple questions that interfere with your preconceived narratives.
P.S. Just because I had it handy, I’ll quickly debunk one of your lies: the home ownership rate is literally higher today than it was 40 years ago, lol. So much for “two generations can’t own a home” after those ‘40 years of dismantling’. If every time one of you dopes accused someone of being a “bootlicker”, you spent that time acquiring an actual fact, you’d be much better off.
Maybe if you weren’t dismissive of facts and cherry picked timeframes that support a narrow point of view, you wouldn’t be such an unpopular ass. (Oh shit I can link stuff too, oh man, fuck, that means you might have to look at information too). Also, you’re a piece of shit scumbag that’s now on the block list. Fuck off and have a shitty life.
I mean, yeah. Most people don't even come close to that when adding up everything they earn in a lifetime. So to get a billion before 30, where more than half of your life was in school and growing up. Not much to generate wealth for investments. Building companies takes time and money too and you're not going to be a billionaire from working enough regular jobs.
This is not news at all. In fact it was sent every single time until something broke in Apple’s validation servers and nobody could launch any app a few years ago. That brought this whole phenomenon to light and Apple changed it to reporting once per week. Edit: Ah I see this is also an old article. That makes sense now.
However they should just send a blacklist to each system obviously. That’s a much more privacy-conscious method. Their stated goal is to be able to block malware, but there can’t be that many.
At a time, white supremacy tactics thrived in elected positions, from local to Fed. No longer are we going to allow this to continue.
Keep educating citizens on their rights to hold office, in school boards, state positions, and the presidency, and this kind of shit will finally die like it should have ages ago.
Braxton assumed office by default in 2020 when he filed for office and no one else, including the incumbent, did the same.
The defendants, listed as former mayor Haywood “Woody” Stokes III and his town council, held a secret, special election, preventing Braxton from appointing his town council. During their special election, the previous town council re-elected themselves, and ultimately reappointed the previous town mayor.
Hm… I think I’m more shocked by people not realizing they have a right to vote. Secret cabals, nepotism, corruption, etc. in politics are more like “water is wet”, or “creek water may be full of dung”.
It sucks to slog through voter suppression efforts every day online and then find an entire town being suppressed. THIS… THIS…THIS… POST is the cumulative result of the efforts of ANYONE who tells SOMEONE else to withhold their vote for a political stance. You ARE a vote suppressionist! 👈👈👈
If you are online supporting the idea of withholding ones vote in order to advance a political agenda, you are enacting voter suppression. Layed out pretty simply for you.
No, I was being funny… but now I’ll be crystal clear:
IF you were referring to a generic group, THEN say so and we’re fine, but you could have made it more clear.
IF you were accusing me of being a vote suppressionist, THEN explain precisely what lead you to that idea, and we can see where the misunderstanding came from.
ELSE, I will assume you’re not discussing in good faith (trolling as you say) and hit the block button.
You replied to jarfil with the words “this post”, it isn’t clear if “this post” refers to jarfil’s comment or to the article itself. Also, the use of “You” leads the reader to imply that the “You” is jarfil, rather than “You” meaning ‘anyone who tells someone to withhold their vote for a political stance’.
(rant)I’ve kept this nick since back in the 1990s, when I had to spell it over the phone while creating an account, because client support said “Oh, like Garfield?” and I found it funny… since I also liked cats, the comic strip, hated Mondays, and loved lasagna… a couple decades later Google decided that “Did you mean: jar file”, and since becoming a brony, the full jar thing has become a very unfortunate coincidence. But I refuse to change it, I was there first!..
Withholding votes no, but IMO the American voting system (at least at a national level) seems pretty broken to me. FPTP, the weird bias to rural areas etc.
Really it should be changed so that it doesn’t always result in this eternal standoff between the two major parties.
Ireland, Australia and New Zealand dumped FPTP and were better for it. It’s just that the US has this kind of romantic idealism about the original founders, as if they were always right and their ideas still hold as much merit in this day and age of voter influencing through digital means, so I don’t really see it happening there. But it should, in my opinion.
Right now it seems like every major election is choosing between bad and worse there and voting for an outsider is just a lost vote.
In that sense I can understand the reluctance of voters to actually show up. Especially in states that aren’t swing states.
The common thread with any definition of voter suppression is that it reduces voting. Being encouraged to vote and in such a way as to increase its power is as close to the opposite of voter suppression as you can get.
Call it something else if you like, but it ain’t voter suppression.
If they are an incorporated plece, and they get the whole shebang of taxes, funding, elections, etc., then they need someone to run it, or a “government”.
Guess it sometimes could be hard to tell, with all the varying rules, but people who live there… are there places in the “deep US”, where people live in anarchy?
(sometimes it might also be the case where an incorporated town, through depopulation, ends up with nobody willing to act as mayor, but that’s different)
I might be wrong, but it seems to me like unincorporated places would depend on county level, or some larger place, good boys telling you what to do. I’m guessing it also comes with a budget, taken out of the residents taxes, for stuff like services, police… elected official’s pay… and similar.
At a population of 133, it sounds more like a HOA, but dunno.
Many saw it as a thinly veiled effort to intimidate Black voters.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Nooooooooooooooooooo. No, no. Clearly Texas judge Reuben Gonzales Jr. was simply following the law damning a black woman to prison for five years because she was told she could vote provisionally.
The story yesterday about the Georgia Republican who knowingly illegally voted NINE TIMES and received a handshake and a copy of the home game is just a feel-good story they put in there to distract from the important things like stock market and how old Biden is.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but 5 years seems way too high for voting when you’re not allowed to. There’s real criminals out there with less jail time. If anything, a fine or some community service would’ve done it.
You’re not wrong. The penalties are wildly out of touch with reality because the issue is wildly out of touch with reality, for two reasons.
Post-Trump, Republicans need to make voting penalties harsh because it creates the impression that it’s a real issue that needs to be tackled, instead of what it actually is, a statistical aberration. Then when they cry fraud about any election they lose, they can point to these cases to act like it’s a real thing.
The pre-Trump reason, it creates a chilling effect on voting among the most at risk and the least educated. Now anyone who reads this article and even theoretically might be voting illegally because of a prior conviction, will simply not vote as it’s safer. Those voters are more likely to be poor, black, or from cities, which are all groups more likely to vote Democrat.
It’s classic voter disenfranchisement, goes hand in hand with tough voter ID laws, gerrymandering and rolls purges. The goal is simply to have less people voting and for their vote to mean less, because less voter turnout means less Democrat votes.
Remember this when people try to make you apathetic about your vote. If it really didn’t mean anything, they wouldn’t try so hard to stop you.
theguardian.com
Newest