It's ok to be angry about capitalism
- Thread starter XsjadoBlaydette
- Start date
This only works if they…you know, end up doing what you wanted them to do. Usually that never happens, or at least nearly as well as was promised on the campaign trails.
The big one I’m waiting for to have any weight -
Trump inner circle shares McDonald’s meal as Donald Jr. jokes 'Make America Healthy Again starts tomorrow’ | Fox News
President-elect Trump and members of his inner circle, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appeared to share a McDonald’s meal aboard Trump’s private plane.
www.foxnews.com
Hope that’s at least the Euro McDonald’s…RFK realizing this will go viral is like, “Aww shit.”
African American people were enfranchised in 1965. Three years before MLK was murdered for his involvement in the civil rights movement.
Good lord, dude.
Was traveling through time t'other day and you'd never guess who made a congressional cameo
Completely unrelated but just found these t-shirts exist on Amazon lmao
Yellow one ain't as bad as I'd thought too
Sadly still relevant doc publicly available
Completely unrelated but just found these t-shirts exist on Amazon lmao
Yellow one ain't as bad as I'd thought too
Sadly still relevant doc publicly available
Last edited:
I don't think he could do a worse job than the US has done since the last 3-4 decades. I had to learn what foods were actually good for you because school told me to eat the opposite of what is healthy.This only works if they…you know, end up doing what you wanted them to do. Usually that never happens, or at least nearly as well as was promised on the campaign trails.
The big one I’m waiting for to have any weight -
Trump inner circle shares McDonald’s meal as Donald Jr. jokes 'Make America Healthy Again starts tomorrow’ | Fox News
President-elect Trump and members of his inner circle, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appeared to share a McDonald’s meal aboard Trump’s private plane.
Hope that’s at least the Euro McDonald’s…RFK realizing this will go viral is like, “Aww shit.”
So they can't vote now?
Of course they can. A right that was attained, in some part, through violent acts.
That's an entirely different question, isn't it? You were initially disputing that violence was ever necessary to effect change.
Lina Khan Goes Out With a Bang
The failed Kroger-Albertsons merger offers the clearest proof yet that the new antitrust movement is breaking through.
www.theatlantic.com
The gladiator wins again.
Fair enough.
So, to what Elizabeth Warren was saying: she's not endorsing violence, but saying that it's a foreseeable outcome when people are in a terrible situation and have no other recourse.
It's fair to say that it's not as simple as just voting in people to make healthcare accessible. Both main parties obstruct accessible healthcare, and political realignment will take years or decades. In that timeframe, untold thousands more will die of conditions that are treatable. And in such a situation, frustration will sometimes manifest as violence. She's right.
I don't have much sympathy for people that cause their own problems. Stop voting for shitty candidates/parties. If 9% of people would vote for a joke candidate like 10 years ago, I don't think it's nearly that hard to convince people to vote for a real 3rd party candidate(s). Majority people already think both parties suck.
Vote 2016 Remembers: Deez Nuts, failed independent candidate for president
WASHINGTON (ABC7) - On Election Day 2016, we look back at one of the most memorable candidates of the bunch.An independent from Iowa by the name of Deez Nuts shocked us all in August 2015 with (relatively) high poll numbers.A public policy poll in North Ca
wjla.com
People who vote for third parties are exactly as likely to be refused treatment by rapacious insurance companies as anyone else.
If you get enough people voted in that will write/pass legislation that's not influenced by healthcare corps, then something will happen. Stop voting in people that aren't helping you, that's the solution.
Ultimately the problem there is that you have the person that won't help you, the person that will actively harm you and also rans that have no real chance of winning because you can't get a large enough critical mass of people to vote for them. You have better odds of getting someone you want to run in a major party primary and take that spot on the ballot.
Unless it's a Democrat in which case the party will manipulate the primary however much they think they need to. I like to point to the 2016 Dem primary in my state as an example, where Hillary won the state by one delegate despite only getting ~35% of the vote and losing in every county. She didn't even take 2nd place in every county.
If 9% of people voted for Deez Nutz, I don't think it would actually take that much of a movement honestly. With more and more people ignoring mainstream/legacy media, it will only get easier and easier.
OK. So let's say person A has a deadly medical condition, which their insurance company refuses to cover.
At the next election, they go to the polls and vote for a candidate that wants to write/pass legislation to cover it.
Has that person's situation now been resolved?
One might argue a function of a political party is to ensure that the only candidates that their members can vote for are up to the task of running the country. After all, in the UK, the Conservative Party membership of late keeps consistently voting for the most unelectable, right-wing cranks (Liz Truss, anyone?), and the party has learnt that the only way to stop them is to make sure they rig the candidate selection process for who is put forward as candidates to vote for.
The problem, perhaps, with the USA is that the political system is so resolutely hijacked by special interest groups and money, which means that the function of the party to control who can be voted for is rigged to the party's backers rather than voters, to the point they'd rather lose than see the "wrong" candidate win. The Democrats credibly are worse than the Republicans on that score.
An update to the saga of Thames Water that I've been banging on about.I originally posted about Thames Water in the 'anti-woke' thread (though Bedinsis was right that it was better placed here)-- talking about how since privatisation in 1989, they financed millions in shareholder payments every year through borrowing, often with shareholder payments alone dwarfing the year's profits. Then the owner company can just sell off, leaving someone else to finance the debt.
Hence how they've gone from near-zero debt as a publicly-owned utility, to >15billion pounds of debt today.
Well, an update: the government is considering a contingency-- to transfer most of that 15bn debt directly to the public purse.
Thames Water nationalisation plan could move bulk of £15bn debt to state
Exclusive: Under Whitehall blueprint for water company some lenders could lose up to 40% of their moneywww.theguardian.com
I'd love for someone to explain the benefit of utility privatisation and how it squares with our experience here in the UK. Because right now, I'm staring at my own bills rising by 40%, and 15bn added to public debt paid by my taxes, just to bail the fucking company out.
This is hardly the first time this has happened. In 2014, Network Rail's 30bn debt it had accrued as a private entity was transferred to the public.
I'd ask what went wrong, but then I remember that this is the intended function of the Conservative Party: squeeze value from public assets, transfer it directly to private shareholders, then make the public pay for it. Rinse and repeat-- emphasis on the 'rinse'.
Ofwat, our water "regulator", has decided that Thames Water can increase customers' bills by 35% over the next 5 years, to plug the gap they created in their own finances by accruing £14bn debt and using the loans to pay shareholders.
Separately, Ofwat has fined them £18m for continuing to pay out enormous dividend payments to its shareholders-- £37.5m in 2023 and £158m in 2024-- without meeting minimum performance levels.
Thames Water to pay £18m penalty after breaking dividend rules
Regulator says it will claw back £131m in ‘unjustified’ payments as it announces bills can rise by 35% by 2030
www.theguardian.com