"Where are our leading lights?" ~ Jersey Girl

[Hound of Heaven]

Folks on the thread. This isn't about who is taking money from billionaires, who is not, or who will in the future. This thread is about rallies the purpose of which is to rally folks to fight against oligarchy.

When a politician stands at a podium and ask people to make a SACRED PROMISE, they're attempting to form a political CULT.

[Hound of Heaven]

[canpakes]

.
Oligarchy and billionaires are not synonymous terms.

‘Fighting Oligarchy’ doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with needing to dislike billionaires, as Hound implies. That seems like a conflation for purposes of setting up a straw man to attempt neutralization of efforts to address issues raised by oligarchy.

Per Wiki:

Business groups may be considered oligarchies if they meet the following criteria:
- They are the largest private owners in the country.
- They possess sufficient political power to influence their own interests.
- The owners control multiple businesses, coordinating activities across sectors.

If one wishes to divert to the subject of billionaires specifically, then one is closer to discussing plutocracy. Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t have a ‘Fighting Plutocracy’ rally.

Counting billionaires who support either candidate is also not entirely helpful, especially when the difference in the count is a few dozen, and we don’t know what, exactly, ‘support’ equates to. A billionaire with $1 billion in wealth doesn’t represent the same potential as one with 330 times that wealth, who - as example - provided a quarter-billion dollars to a single candidate, then is awarded his own government organization to eliminate other government entities as he alone sees fit.

As for plutocracy, the complete post-election accounting on both candidates of the 2024 presidential election still finds Trump having more higher-value single-contributor donations than Harris, while Harris accumulated more small-dollar donations than Trump.

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presid ... =N00023864

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presid ... 6915&src=t

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presid ... =N00023864

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presid ... =N00036915

Oh Canpakes, your post appears highly polished, …

My pixels are the prettiest.

… and anyone reading it without viewing the video link in the opening post would likely conclude that you are well-informed on the topic.

That’s your call. I simply disagreed with your false premise that Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are asking people to, as you say, “hate billionaires”.

For those who haven't seen the video, allow me to clarify it from the viewpoint of someone who remains unaffected by the woke virus. To begin with, it's essential to grasp the main point of the video mentioned in the opening post, it features two self-identified socialists standing behind a podium with a sign that reads "Fight Oligarchy."

OK. Sounds sensible. Do you believe that we should promote oligarchy?

Upon revisiting the speech, I focused intently on the points made by Cortez and Sanders. It is clear that both are convinced of the existence of an oligarchy comprised of billionaires in top positions, whose primary objective is to siphon wealth from the middle class and the poor to enrich themselves.

OK. Sounds like an economic reality to some extent; it’s not like billionaires are printing money in their basement. It tends to siphon in from elsewhere.

Cortez references billionaires eight times in her speech, while Sanders brings them up six times, consistently linking them to the Oligarchy that seeks to take wealth from the working class.

She could have a point. Think health insurance costs as an example.

This movement that Jersey Girl is so enthusiastic about is essentially the same old class warfare argument that socialists have been instilling in the middle class for many years. In the end, this so called movement is likely to falter, as the American public is unlikely to be swayed by two socialists attempting to blame all their everyday issues on Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.

Interesting. If true, that sounds similar to something else the public has heard lately. Namely:

“This movement that MAGA is so enthusiastic about is essentially the same old class warfare argument that Republicans have been instilling in the middle class for many years. In the end, this so called movement is likely to falter, as the American public is unlikely to be swayed by boat-driving MAGA owners of oversized pickups attempting to blame all their everyday issues on Carlos and Juanita.”

Weirdly, Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seem to be closer to whatever the truth is than you are. Wouldn’t you agree? Of course you would.

Indeed, a two socialist openly declaring from the podium that their primary objective is to create class divisions in order to combat those they consider evil is quite a revelation. It's a striking example of a socialist embracing their ideology.

This is disappointing, Hound. I was hoping to find something that would back up your false claim about Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asking people to ‘hate billionaires’. Instead, all you’ve got is to retreat to trying out your list of SCARY WORDZ!! like ‘socialist’. So tiresome.

For all the exmormons, what I find most unsettling is when she states that the purpose of everyone being there is to make a SACRED PROMISE to one another! Apologies, Cortez, but as someone who has left the Mormon faith, I am finished with making sacred commitments! I have moved on from my upbringing and have no interest in joining your political cult. If you expect me to pledge my allegiance to your socialist agenda through a sacred promise, then your movement, by its very nature, resembles a political cult!

Lol.

A ‘sacred promise’ to do what, exactly?

“To commit to building the kind of country we all deserve”.

If you’re scared by the word, ‘sacred’ (and you can’t spell sacred without scared), then you don’t have to participate in any commitment to building the kind of country we all deserve. I’ll expect that you’ll exit stage left on that one, because you’ve never been able to speak to any principle or belief that you have, in the midst of all of your name-calling and whining about ‘wokeism’ and ‘DEI’.

Great effort by Canpakes and Jersey Girl …

Thanks. Meanwhile, not-so-great effort by Hound to inject falsehoods and SCARY WORDZ!! into a sensible desire to commit to building the kind of country we all deserve.
; )

[canpakes]

.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:




Hound:

[Hound of Heaven]

.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:




Hound:

I'm a bit puzzled by the context and purpose of the meme you shared. Could you provide a succinct clarification of what it truly signifies? Moreover, sharing an image in a thread without any comment or relevant context, or posting unrelated content, is nothing short of a derailment!

[canpakes]

I'm a bit puzzled …

That seems typical.

… by the context and purpose of the meme you shared. Could you provide a succinct clarification of what it truly signifies?

Sure!

Moreover, sharing an image in a thread without any comment or relevant context, or posting unrelated content, is nothing short of a derailment!

You’re learning. : )

[Hound of Heaven]

I'm a bit puzzled ...

That seems typical.

... by the context and purpose of the meme you shared. Could you provide a succinct clarification of what it truly signifies?

Sure!

Moreover, sharing an image in a thread without any comment or relevant context, or posting unrelated content, is nothing short of a derailment!

You’re learning. : )

What I have learned is that for many years, there has not been a rule on this board requiring a harmless image to be accompanied by a written explanation to clarify the meaning behind the image. However, your determination to back your fellow progressive Some Schmo on his thread led you to remove one of my posts, turning it into your own personal thread. You then used that thread to attempt to justify the removal of my post, resulting in a new rule that an image must have an accompanying explanation of its meaning.

You should have just deleted the thread. Now you're stuck.

[Some Schmo]

Now you're stuck.

Projection.

Nobody is more stuck that you.

[canpakes]

What I have learned is that for many years, there has not been a rule on this board requiring a harmless image to be accompanied by a written explanation to clarify the meaning behind the image. However, your determination to back your fellow progressive Some Schmo on his thread led you to remove one of my posts, turning it into your own personal thread. You then used that thread to attempt to justify the removal of my post, resulting in a new rule that an image must have an accompanying explanation of its meaning.

You should have just deleted the thread. Now you're stuck.

I appreciate your repeated efforts at trying to wield grade-school reverse psychology, mindlessly repeating how I’m ’stuck’ for having moved your derail.

Given your preoccupation with and switch to that subject, should I move this new conversation redirection here by you about derails, into that thread so that we can talk about it? I think it’ll be a great place to move your derails about derails. : )