Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
- Status
God of Nothing
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2016
my penis would be painfully erect at the coming saltView attachment 3221232
Tucker Carlson To Speak At Iowa Summit, Raising Eyebrows And Speculation of a Presidential Run
ox New’s top-rated host Tucker Carlson will headline the 2022 FAMiLY Leadership Summit in Des Moines, Iowa this July, the group announced Tuesdaywww.mediaite.com
He'd win if the GOP had the balls to nominate him, and he would wreak havoc on both parties if he ran as an independent.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
I was assuming that some left-wing groups or funders are among the shareholders who would see a payout from it. I'm also not as keen to make definitive statements as you are, lacking any inside knowledge of my own, so declaring them unwilling is out. Especially if like I was assuming, they get some much-needed money.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
In total, the actual shareholder percentage that holds a strong interest in the democrats was only about 20%. Before taxes, that'd only be about 8.8 billion spread across a bunch of different people... many which have interests counter to eachother. Its simply too diluted to be of much use, and that is -before- taxes. While it is an injection of liquid funds, keep in mind that the official number for costs spent on the last primary election was 6.3 billion.... and add a 0 to that for the unofficial numbers for costs by non-candidate interests.
Its not a drop in the bucket, but it is also far, far from enough to really matter. And -far- less than they lose by losing twitter. Twitter was too important and losing it is actually going to massively magnify the already high costs. So selling it devalues the very injection of money they'd get.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2019
Come on. You make it hard not to poke fun at you.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
When you get up to the top, there’s no left wing or right wing, only money.
IIRC, most of the biggest shareholders are institutions whose only goal is to make money and to fuck over the common man in such a way that makes them more money, as opposed to George Soros types, who already have more money than they know what to do with and whose goal is to use it to perpetuate his sick ideology on the globe.
Like, the shitlibs are right - Elon Musk is a VERY dangerous man, because he has so much money that he can do shit like buying fucking Twitter and just shrug it off as a loss if it collapses. It’s just an unfortunate reality that the only thing that can possibly dethrone the globohomo oligarchy is an oligarch of our own. Even if I think Musk is an unfunny tryhard, I’ll still toss my lot in with him as the champion of the people.
Us normal folk are Level 1 shitters who, with enough time and coordinated effort, MIGHT be able to slowly chip away at the level 99 Globohomo Kraken. Only a Level 99 Billionaire like Musk has the raw damage potential to take out entire chunks of its HP bar while taking control if its most powerful minion. Nigga literally wololo’d Twitter, all he needs to do is change the blue theme red.
spinal gas chamber
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 19, 2020
Some are, some aren’t and a lot are institutional investors that get fired if they don’t get great returns - like Elon offering $54 per share when it was $34 or similar per share. That’s a takeover bid.
E: the guy above me crying about institutional investors apparently hates 401ks and has managed his money extremely well
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2013
And based on your job description, to what extent are the old guard of the GOP still in denial about what that implies, especially now that the masks are completely off?
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
Tucker running 3rd party would be one of the biggest spoilers in history.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
Surprisingly little. Well, surprisingly for you guys.
So, its a bit of a misconception that the GOP has had their head in the sand. They have been perfectly aware of the shifts of mood, the opportunities give, and the winds of change. They listen to their analysts predictions and ideas almost tot he point of it becoming a liability. The greater problem has never been denial, it has almost always been a reluctance to capitalize on the information.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
Whoops, my bad, sorry for daring to suggest that these massive financial juggernauts do not have the people’s best interests at heart.
If I extricated myself from the services of every institution and organization that I find morally objectionable, I’d be living in a shack in the woods.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2013
So would it be prudent to hew more towards apathy, some sense of loyalty from before everything went crazy, fear it’d impact their bottom line, just an abundance of caution, or something else entirely?
Forgive me if I’ve said something stupid, but from the outside looking in a lot of the time the GOP’s internal problems seem barely more tenable than the Dems’. I’m just spitballing, trying to hash out what exactly is really happening and why.
At the end of the day I’m more familiar with the Progressives’ insanity by virtue of having walked away from them and then dealing with their ever escalating cultishness since 2013.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
>Tri Color desert BDUs
>Not glorious Chocolate chip desert patterns.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
Sounds pretty conservative.
I know that, well before the Lewinski drama, there was a saying among the staff which was, "8 years for Bill - 8 years for Hill".
Bill's dick fucked that up for them, but Hillary dug like a tick into Democrat politics after Bill was out of office. She was gifted a guaranteed Senate seat, and then took on the role of Secretary of State for the first 4 of Obama's 8, where she made lots of big dick moves to get more money and power, like starting multiple wars.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
Also coming as someone who’s just looking in from the outside, the big difference you see between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the civil war between the RINO’s and the MAGA’s is out in the open, while the Democrats are fiercely warring behind a veil of unity, because in their ideology, disagreement is the cardinal sin.
spinal gas chamber
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 19, 2020
thing is, those massive financial institutions you are mad about are made up of lots of small investors
and their 401ks
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
Right, I have mentioned before the twin follies of the Democrats. let me describe the twin follies of the Republicans.
Obedience to Authority and Trust in Systems.
Just as with Democrats hyperfocusing on single solutions and ignoring problems with the now, so to do Republicans have a set of follies which sometimes are strengths but which explain their many failures.
Republicans follies are first that they place an extreme respect into hierarchy. They tend towards viewing the world as fundamentally a system of ladders and whoever is on a higher wrung should have gotten there purely through their own merit and thus they should be obeyed in any field that falls under their authority. This pairs well with an absolute trust in the systems at play. A belief that the systems created either governmental or personal have been made by those wiser than they and thus are capable of dealing with situations as they come up.
Now, if hearing this you think it sounds close to reality, you are probably more mentally right-wing and just as susceptible to these follies as any other person on the right-wing.
The overreliance on authority and the systems makes Republicans slow to capitalize on opportunities that occur outside those systems. They prefer the slow and steady route as a general class and may ignore opportunities which present themselves in the now and focus instead on longer term goals. Conversely, they tend to hyperfocus on issues that will occur later often choosing to forgo entirely opportunities that they are given due to not having a present solution for those potential problems.
And if any of this sounds familiar but reversed, its because it is. Effectively Democrats and Republicans both have mirror images of their strengths and weaknesses. This is why when they get together they tend to do better (For good or ill for the people) than if they were by themselves because their strengths can overcome the other's weaknesses.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
I don’t even know where you’re getting that I’m “mad” and “crying” about them. Again, apologies for having the audacity to suggest that those in charge of these financial juggernauts don’t care about the people.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2016
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2020
Bill Gates has some real shitty taste.
- Status