top 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 105 points 1 year ago (24 children)
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago

    This is a good attitude. The cynicism is well-earned, but ultimately self-defeating. Not all wealthy people are intentionally and actively hostile, and even if they are, sometimes it is effective to turn enemies into allies, maybe just temporary ones, or even just avoid fighting the least rewarding ones at all if it's not going to cost you anything and lets you combine your forces to focus on the battles that really matter. This is class war, and war calls for strategy. Fight smart and spend our limited resources wisely. Trump and Muskrat are about a million times more direct of a threat to our survival than JB Pritzker or the Waltons. You don't have to trust any of them, but it's a strategic blunder to waste time and energy attacking the ones who aren't attacking us. Don't depend on them if you don't have to, but let them try to help, if they can.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Well said. I'll take this or Gates or Buffett over the Murdochs, Musks, Kochs, Thiels of the world.

    We need all the powerful allies we can get.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    It helps when they say they'll get rid of their billions after death, like Gates recently said. I don't particularly trust them to actually do that, although his and Buffetts actions do suggest they don't just want to hoard wealth like an dragon. They like influence too much to prematurely give up that wealth, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Worth noting that in the case of Gates at least, he has already given away $100 billion and I think committed another $200 over the next 20 years. There is some sound reasoning too that he shouldn't just dump it all at once, as it's harder to track corruption.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    He is “donating” to his own charity, where he won’t have to pay a dime in taxes as his children inherit the foundation… it’s a tax and financial trick, don’t be fooled by it. Gates is not our friend.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Even if he donated to other charities, it still wouldn't be taxed, because the incentive is indeed to donate to charities in the first place. If I was him, I'd do the same because at least I could better track how the money got spent.

    Can you show me a dime of that $100 billion already allocated that went to things like improving health systems in Africa, and fighting things like Malaria, AIDS, and Tuberculosis that instead went back to himself or his kids?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The Gates Foundation was expelled from India after they were found to be making women infertile without their knowledge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Gates Foundation was expelled from India

    They were not found to be making women infertile, and they currently have an office in Delhi, India.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I think that's giving her way too much credit... She'll never be one of us

    But the purity tests are a very real problem. Everyone moving the right direction today gets a pass. When they break off, they're fair game

    Simple as that, we have to care about winning a hell of a lot more

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You should read up on her history, how she came up, and what she's done with her wealth so far. You assume she moved today, and hasn't always been there, and that assumption may be a failed test all its own. Even just reading the article hints at this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Billionaires have publicists. Forbes itself was basically made to glorify the ultra wealthy. Every last part of her story is sanitized for the public, I think the Walmart family were actually the trail blazers of the practice

    A billionaire isn't a person. They're an avatar for their wealth. I mean that literally - they are slaves to their own dragon hoard.

    Their wealth isn't real, it's speculative - so if a Walmart heir gets drunk on video and it goes viral, on paper their whole family loses money on paper. As do the other shareholders...aka, the other billionaires.

    And so, they don't go out in public without careful preparation - instead, the ultra wealthy spend most of their life in places with tight information control. They don't get to go outside freely, but they can fly across the world on a whim to visit these places

    And so, their social circle is made up of people they interact in those places - namely, billionaires who are also sitting on similar ephemeral dragon hoards. Ones that overlap with the other hoards

    And that's why there's no good billionaires - they're interdependent. They can't just wake up and decide to go off script... They'll be shunned at best, maybe have their wealth cut off, maybe literally put on house arrest or straight up assassinated... It's not like the law applies to billionaires

    Anyways, the point is this:

    She's a fucking dragon. Sometimes dragons are useful, sometimes they're pointed at your enemies. Sometimes they even do good things

    But dragons aren't persons. They don't love like people do, they don't have morals like people do. They don't walk among us or care if we die horribly.

    When a dragon is on your side, no they're not. Their hoard always comes first

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't think billionaires should exist. There should be laws preventing that kind of wealth inequality.

    That being said, this one gained her wealth through inheretance, not (direct) exploitation, and she has ranked as the highest woman philanthropist in giving away wealth by percentage. She gave away nearly a billion a year at one point. To good humanitarian and political orgs.

    I don't think billionaires should exist. But while disconnected from reality, I don't think they are all evil, either.

    I mean, most of them, sure. But maybe don't die on the hill against this one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    She married into it, that's how she inherited it. I'm not even making a moral stance on exploitation - I'm saying that to be a billionaire, to continue to exist as one, you become an avatar for your hoard

    Every sane billionaire is living like a normal person. They're working the job they love, living in a nice but practical house, and no one (sometimes not even their spouse or children) knows their bank account is endless

    I'm not dying on a hill for her or against her. She's free to do all the good things she likes. I hope she does. I'm not going to interrupt someone doing something I agree with

    But she's still a fucking dragon. Make no mistake. Let her do all the good things in the world, but if the winds change and her hoard is threatened she'll turn on you. Never forget that

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Not all. elon is still a nazi.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If Elon wants to swap sides we should encourage it.

    If democrats cozy up to elon, it's not elon who has changed sides.

    Throw a chair into the proverbial ring.

    kiss the proverbial ring.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Trumps tarrif policy is costing her millions a day, I wouldn't be surprised to see other billionaires come out against Trump, especially if they can hide their real reasons behind things like this.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Is she the one that has something like 100+ DUIs that she has had swept under the rug?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    A broken clock is right two times a day. The rich do not share our concerns.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So is maga gonna boycott walmart now?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    She’s just mad that tariffs are hurting her wallet

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    Gotta be it. The Walton family have been pro-Republican anti-labor forever. Makes you wonder how many undocumented people WalMart has working for them in stores and warehouses, plus are employed in working with all the cheap produce and dairy they sell.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Wow a billionaire paid for an ad, One Ad... From what half a second of her daily earnings...

    Wake me up when it's an ad campaign.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Mon Walmartha

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    It's all fun and games for ICE until the people start shooting back.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You know thing are bad when billionaires start being good.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Not good. Acting on its own self interests, which isn't always a dure thing.

    Those self interests aligning with ours, however, is, an indicator that this is not just an extinction level threat, because there are lots of those where they don't ever, but a fucking bad one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    This isn't "being good".

    This is simply her acting against tRump out of self-interest which coincidentally also happens to be acting against the same source of problems that the rest of us face.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    There was probably nothing good in TV. She's gonna have her butler heat up some nice popcorn and enjoy the show.

  • source
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    If you look up 'disingenuous' in the dictionary, there's a picture of that woman.

    Edited 'ingenuous' to 'disingenuous'. That's what I actually meant. Bloody proof-read, Almacca!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 52 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 114 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    The cynic in me says "Trump is fucking with my money with the tariffs."

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The enemy of my enemy is my frenemy...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Maxim 29. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.

    That doesn't mean you can't work with them, or that their actions can't be useful, but be careful, and be aware they are not necessarily an ally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    The cynic in me says, who gives a fuck what a wealthy out of touch woman says in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad when anyone is on our side, it's always good to have powerful allies, and it is mildly interesting from an academic standpoint when wealthy people are anti-Trump. But her expression of support or dissent, even amplified in a newspaper ad, is no more impactful or valuable at the end of the day than yours or mine. Unless she is literally financing change (which doesnt include opinion piece ads) or has the ear of those in authority who can actually make change happen, her money, status and name mean nothing.

    The headline may as well be your neighbor's cousin Darren yelled out of his window "go protest Trump". Like thanks for the moral support Darren, but why are we even talking about you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 160 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I was initially suspicious after just reading the headline. But after reading the article, I am… slightly less suspicious.

    She isn’t an heiress in the sense that most people would think of the term. That is, she wasn’t born into the family and has never been involved with the “family business.” Rather, she married a Walton heir who died, and she inherited her wealth from him.

    All I’m saying is that, wealth and surname not withstanding, she could be a decent person with decent motives.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I get it.

    But I'll say this, any billionaire that ACTUALLY cared about progressive causes could make huge strides by simply funding grassroot movements, instead of whatever the fuck this ad is supposed to do.

    It wouldn't even cost that much, just pump money into youtube creators and organisers and you'll actually make a difference.

    Republicans are winning because they are winning the propaganda game, becuase they are well funded by the Kochs, Musks and other billionaire assholes

    Until they do they all this stuff is just bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    It's remarkably cheap for a billionaire to do this shit. Bezos bought wapo for $250M

    It'd frankly be dead cheap for a billionaire to setup and run a progressive newspaper and/or fund a hundred YouTube progressives and progressive politicians.

    Heck, they could setup and operate a general union fund and support union campaigns and union relief funds. They could indefinitely support striking workforce. Doing that just once would completely change how companies interact with unions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Well the right has been pumping money into Washington for the last 60 years. They run thinktanks that falsely justify any bullshit bill or budget they want to pass. They own 6/6 national tv networks. They own the social media networks. They own the influencers.

    It's cost more than a few billion to fight back against that.

    edit: They've got the majority of churches too. Somehow. I really never understood how people could hold rightard beliefs and the teachings of Jesus in the same head simultaneously.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    The fucking Heritage Foundation, our current situation really is the culmination of almost 70 years of rightwing efforts. It's long but worth checking out Robert Evans BTB episode: "How Conservatism Won" in which "Robert sits down with David Bell to discuss how a consortium of rich failsons got together to fund a network of right wing think tanks and shift American culture in a fun new direction. (note: it was not actually fun at all)."

    The tl;dr is basically the rich hated FDRs New Deal and immediately set to work to undo everything he did.

    They do not share our American values (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness). They do not value freedoms (speech, press, religion, etc) the same way that many of us do. They want a return to the gilded age with them as the robber barons and gentry and everyone else as a permanently toiling underclass.

    It's worth remembering that one of the primary ghouls/traitors responsible for the attempted overthrow of our government on J6 was Roger Stone, the same traitorous ratfucker who began his career working for Nixon and has a fucking Nixon tattoo on his back. It's really impossible to overstate just how fuckin' bad these people are and they're winning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I listened to those episodes only days before the November election. Sigh. Our country is lost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure it is, we may well be walking into Civil War 2.0 though.

    I feel like a true reckoning after the first Civil War never happened. A whole bunch of traitors were allowed to go home, heads held high, and assume the reigns of power. The proceeded to rewrite the memory of what happened. Making it a story of honor and tradition instead of hate and exploitation. Every one of them should've had their lands confiscated and their leaders hanged. The land should've been given to freed peoples as reparations, 40 acres and a mule and all that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I think it is a mix of Reconstruction being cancelled and the perpetrators of the Business Plot going unpunished for their attempted coup of FDR.

    By just giving slaps on the wrist, the failsons of our society get to pass on their beliefs and resources to their children. We need to at least remove the latter. Their wealth can be used to fund our institutions, such as NOAA, CDC, FEMA, infrastructure, universal healthcare, and more.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    any billionaire that ACTUALLY cared about progressive causes could make huge strides by simply funding

    youtube creators and organisers

    LMAO. How about maybe paying their employees what they're actually worth, and not evading taxes at every opportunity?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    How in the world did I manage to agree with a Walton about something?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    She better be there.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Didn't Walmart donate to Trump's campaign?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago*

    Oh nyoo, first the tariffs, and now the gov hit her right on her slave-wage labour (subsidised by food stamps) costs??

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    I'm curious about what happens when Trump's policies really start biting into the rich's bottom line. I would guess when mainstream media starts going negative on Trump, he's gone too far.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    That's nice. Pay your employees better.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    If only she took out an add Trump supports might actually see, then this might look less like virtue signaling.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Hahaha trust me bro, she's one of us.

  • source
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Cause if you can trust anyone in today's world its some aged billionaire who got her money because daddy was a greedy asshole who destroyed main street bushiness world wide.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    the lesser evil

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Leopard eating faces. They contributed to Trump's campaign and learned they were not tariff exempt. Womp womp.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Broken clocks and soforth.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Fuck you rich bitch, use your insane net worth to buy some politicians.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The Republicans have kind of been purging themselves of Anti-Trump these last few elections, and the DNC are already the party who would remove Trump in a heartbeat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Uh huh

    That's why when the Supreme Court gave the President dictatorial powers Trump was immediately arrested for all of his actual crimes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I think we're holding the parties to different standards, here. If people had voted Democrats back in then we wouldn't need to rely on a King to remove him.

    Also, the SCOTUS actually gave themselves tge power to decide what is or is not an official act of the presidency.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    First unlock the deodorants!

  • source