rational_lib

Nah they would just invent new races. What's the point of race? What does it mean exactly? Notice that the races in the US at least roughly align with economic classes.

That's not an accident. Obviously without the concept of races, people would still have different skin color and hair, but the implications would be entirely different. Culture, neighborhoods, etc. wouldn't be separated. And most importantly, it would be ever so slightly harder for rich people to make the majority feel like they're in the same group as them as opposed to some "other".

So if there was only one race, the rich would need to invent new ones.

the vast majority of people will always accept a pretty lie over an ugly truth

I'd argue this is true temporarily.

A lie is like putting something on a credit card. It can make things look better in the short term, but the debt builds. Maybe you can get lucky and win the lottery (or get a pandemic to use as an excuse) and pay off the debt temporarily, but keep following the same strategy and the debt will build again. And when the debt grows larger than what you can repay, and people figure this out, they start to get pissed.

Maybe Trump can survive the current crisis in his popularity, but eventually he's going to be no more popular that Pol Pot is today.

The reality is his name is redacted because he's a Republican, and he can't be prosecuted because he's a Republican.

What "shaking the ruling class" did luigi do? They shrugged it off and went right on with the most massive corrupt looting in American history. When billionaires can afford their own private armies, or better yet bend the public one to their will, they don't give a fuck about your pea shooter.

Stopping them requires taking their money. And that means winning elections and taxing the living shit out of them.

No major social media is being crowdbacked by communities outside of what lemmy itself is.

But that's exactly where the Democratic party could help. Their primary activity is fundraising. With all the money they spend hiring pop stars to sing at events, they could be creating an actual media presence for themselves instead.

Imagine doing such a bad job as mayor that even as an incumbent, you're polling behind Curtis Sliwa.

It's part of why they lost and a big part of why they'll keep losing. Everyone says they have no message. But how would we know if they did? They have no place to put it.

Here's Elon just before the 2024 election telling Tucker Carlson:

If Trump wins that Epstein client list is gonna become public. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome

I'll just point out the risk of what I'll call "Joe Roganing" here. Elon pretends he hates both parties while there's no election coming up. Then when the election arrives he "makes up his mind" and endorses Republicans. This allows him to 1) attract people fed up with both parties just to hand them to Republicans, and 2) have a credible that that forces Republicans to do his bidding.

You're on a bus with 9 people. 1 guy takes up 2/3rds of the bus by himself. 3 people take up 90% of what remains, and the last 5 are stacked on top of each other on the last remaining seat.

The one guy with 2/3 of the bus says he wants to throw two of the other passengers off a cliff at random so he can have their seats. 2 of the 3 in the next segment think this is a terrible idea and say we should keep things as they are, with one voting for it because he thinks somehow everyone will benefit from the top guy having more space. The bottom segment votes 3-2 in favor of the idea, because they hate the people in the second group for taking up space they could use, and like the idea of possibly throwing them off a cliff.

Well that would eliminate the whole point of corporations, which is to make it easy to raise money.

Let's start with an understanding of why corporations suck in the first place. The root of all good and evil in a corporation is limited lability. This allows investors to not have to worry that they're going to lose more than their investment, so they don't need to think too hard before putting their money in some company they just heard of. This is great for investors and for the corporation.

But this comes with a cost to everyone else. There's the direct cost that if the corporation ends up owing people money through excessive debt, negligence, or illegal activities, they can declare bankruptcy and the investors don't have to worry any paying for those (other than their losses on the stock). But I suspect the more pernicious effect is that the investors' lack of concern over their investment as anything but a vehicle of profit basically leads them to pick sociopathic CEOs and demand profit maximizing behavior at the cost of social good and even long term stability. And since all this sociopathic activity is really great at amassing money, it's kind of a big power boost for sociopathy overall.

However, the ease of investing can be a good thing for society too - basically it allows a lot of people to retire at some point, and allows for rapid funding of new ideas. So is there a way to get corporations back under control without throwing out the baby? I tend to think we should tax corporations higher if nothing else, as it is we do the opposite thanks to Trump's last tax cut plan.

Ackman is also a part owner of X, and that platform will also definitely be a big part of an effort to defeat Mamdani.

Edit: a family member just asked me what I think of Mamdani wanting to put a tax on all hiring, saying he proposed a 35% tax on the salary of all new hires. I googled this, and the only results are on X. The fix is in.