| ▲ | ActorNightly 5 hours ago |
| What do you mean day by day. We have known this to be the case, for quite some time, yet majority of the public still thought that a convicted felon was good enough to be president. |
|
| ▲ | dijit 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think that's the exact irony that the parent is eluding to. It's all about the kids, unless, idk, you're rich enough? |
| |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth[1] lies squarely in the center of the foundational belief that those who've acquired such means have done so because they reflect "the highest type of man, the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished." It takes only a brief glimpse of the real world and its most wealthy to recognize that an abundance of virtue is not what's reflected in reality. In fact, the benevolence Carnegie describes, serves as a smoke screen for cruelty, degenerate acts, and the slaughterhouse of the soul. We've sold out every moral for a bait and switch and it's well past time to reneg on the social contract. 1. https://www.carnegie.org/about/our-history/gospelofwealth/ | | |
| ▲ | CGMthrowaway 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Andrew Carnegie wrote and lived in an era without an income tax. In that era rich men were expected to be broadly philanthropic, to steward their wealth for the good of the common, to act with generosity and responsibility. Because the state did not provide a safety net, the wealthy faced immense social pressure to act as stewards of the public good. In today's era those expectations do not exist. The public-facing, gilded age palaces, which by their public nature tend to enforce good behavior by forcing them to physically interact with the society they profited from, have been replaced by private, gated bunkers behind tall hedges blurred out on Google Maps. The wealthy wear jeans and hoodies to "blend in" or appear common, when they are very much not. A rail tycoon in a 10X beaver tophat might offer a beggar something on the street. A tech mogul in a hoody might not even get solicited. Income tax - and broadly speaking many other changes to the social contract between upper and lower classes, like the bureaucratization of welfare - has not just allowed but incentivized the wealthy to shirk the responsibilities of old, and outsource their morality to a (corrupt, as many have pointed out) government. And it's not good. There is no honor in giving anymore. | | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If we repeal the income tax, virtue will return to the wealthy. Is that something you believe? | | |
| ▲ | CGMthrowaway 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Improbable. It's hard to un-ring a bell once rung. Was adding critical context to the Carnegie citation. | | | |
| ▲ | coupdejarnac 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you really asking this? For real? You're shooting the messenger. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rob74 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you've got that quote backwards. In full it reads: > Unequally or unjustly, perhaps, as these laws sometimes operate, and imperfect as they appear to the Idealist, they are, nevertheless, like the highest type of man, the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished. Or (to shorten it a bit): "These laws (of capitalism) [...] are nevertheless [..] the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished". So this is only an unlimited belief in the virtues of capitalism, not in the virtues of rich people. From the introduction: > Carnegie believed in giving wealth away during one’s lifetime, and this essay includes one of his most famous quotes, “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.” Carnegie’s message continues to resonate with and inspire leaders and philanthropists around the world. I really wonder what Carnegie would think about his successors dismantling USAID? | | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I believe the connection he was making was that the laws, results, and people profiting from the system all represent the best of humanity. That said, whether read forwards or backwards, the point still stands. I appreciate your attention to detail. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hn_acc1 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's all about the kids when you need a certain segment of the population to vote a certain way. | |
| ▲ | echelon 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's never about kids. If they cared about kids, they would have school lunch and wouldn't starve. It's about control and monitoring of civilians. And creating a dragnet to ensnare any new politicians and business leaders. Freedom of speech is insufficient. We need freedom of privacy and from monitoring and tracking. |
|
|
| ▲ | notjtrig 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Only 22% of the public voted for Trump. |
| |
| ▲ | otterley an hour ago | parent [-] | | This is a completely useless statistic, and I'm not even close to being a Trump fan. |
|
|
| ▲ | rootusrootus 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That is the uncharitable interpretation. I think it is at least as likely that voters consistently get to chose between a turd sandwich and a giant douche, so it will always be possible to accuse them of preferring a terrible candidate. Also, nitpick: it was neither a majority of the public, or a majority of the eligible voting population, or even a majority of the people who voted. I think a really good first step, at least in the US, towards making our candidate selection better would be to mandate open primaries. |
| |
| ▲ | Gigachad 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think your interpretation is uncharitable. One of the options is a fraud and a pedophile and the other wasn’t. They absolutely were not equally bad. | |
| ▲ | ActorNightly an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >a turd sandwich and a giant douche Ah yes, the famous conservative talking point of "well yeah, my side is bad, but your side is just as bad". From a pure performance standard across economy and quality of life, its pretty clear that Democratic policies always end up as net positive, while conservative policies may seem good in the short term but allways end up bad long term. But to see this you have to understand politics, and understand the effects aren't always immediate. However, the situation this time around is way simpler. Basically in 2016, you could be excused for voting for Trump. Things were going well enough that mattered, Hilary was not the best candidate, and maybe a little mix up needed to happen. In 2020, if you voted for Trump, you are absolutely clueless about politics and have no idea what is actually good for the country, but at least its all political reasons. In 2024, it wasn't about politics - it was a choice between either allowing a convicted felon who tried to overthrow US government (with Supreme Courts saying he did nothing wrong mind you) back into a position of power, or not. As it turns out 7/10 people who either voted for trump or didn't vote are ok with the rich and elite getting away with what they want. So generally when people act surprised about anything that happens in regards to Einstein or any other things that Trump will do, like interfere with elections and possibly go for third term, just remember that those people don't actually care. This is what they want. | | |
| ▲ | socalgal2 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > From a pure performance standard across economy and quality of life, its pretty clear that Democratic policies always end up as net positive, All one has to do is point at San Francisco as this us provably false. Dems have been in charge their for decades and it's arguably not working. | | |
| |
| ▲ | Jcampuzano2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is the most uncharitable take and common of the people who try to play the middle or wave away their decision to vote for Trump. The decision was quite literally between a known criminal and already even at the time known to be likely pedophile (and now it's basically a fact) and someone who is none of that. |
|
