Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
this guy sucks so much
Socialist is a bit too mild term for him.Wait. You're a socialist ? Ahh I see now
the most charitable interpretation for him is that he is extremely naive and is donating an insignificant amount to people who actively resist efforts to save the planet in order to get them to take his calls where he talks about how climate change is real and they ignore him and continue doing exactly what they were doing before.
Agreed.Not just charitable. Most likely, surely?
The rest of your post is just hating a billionaire for what billionaires do. Which is fair enough. That’s your perogative. As billionaires go, Musk’s likely legacy puts him miles ahead of almost all of his peers in terms of having a positive affect on the world. So it just comes across as a bit predictable and unfair to single him out for your bile. If you care about the future of the planet anyway.
So long as billionaires exist (and they’re not going away any time soon) the world needs more billionaires like him and less like the anonymous 1%ers locking down crazy fortunes for their progeny, without giving a shit about anyone else.
Not just charitable. Most likely, surely?
The rest of your post is just hating a billionaire for what billionaires do. Which is fair enough. That’s your perogative. As billionaires go, Musk’s likely legacy puts him miles ahead of almost all of his peers in terms of having a positive affect on the world. So it just comes across as a bit predictable and unfair to single him out for your bile. If you care about the future of the planet anyway.
So long as billionaires exist (and they’re not going away any time soon) the world needs more billionaires like him and less like the anonymous 1%ers locking down crazy fortunes for their progeny, without giving a shit about anyone else.
So long as billionaires exist (and they’re not going away any time soon) the world needs more billionaires like him and less like the anonymous 1%ers locking down crazy fortunes for their progeny, without giving a shit about anyone else.
how is that most likely? It's far more likely that he gives money to both sides in order to get them to leave his businesses alone
And I haven't singled him out in any way. All billionaires are thieves and bastards
You keep screaming into the void, dude. Whatever works for you.
Keep carrying water for people who dont care if you live or die whose direct existence harms the lives of thousands of people not fortunate enough to grow up as a rich white man in apartheid south Africa, dude. Whatever works for you.
Tell me what you think the most likely explanation is.
Locking down a crazy fortune without giving a shit about anyone else is exactly what hes doing bu the way. That's literally what having twenty billion dollars is. He laid off people making five figures a month ago yet is worth twenty billion dollars. He does not give a shit about anyone but himself .
To have a voice at the table. With Republicans as well as Democrats. In an absurd political system where the only way to get heard by these political parties is to give them lots of money.
People used to say the same shite about bill gates. The idea that unless elon gives all his money away as he earns it that he's scum doesn't hold much weight.
Why didnt Jews just donate to the nazis?
Godwins Law. Nice and early too. Good one.
Not sure what that’s got to do with a post about the American political system?
You're being ridiculous now.Why didnt Jews just donate to the nazis?
How much influence does 40k realistically buy you? All big business donate to all big parties... I don't think 40k would get you a seat at a table in a political landscape that spends billions a year.
You're being ridiculous now.
Drink a cold glass of water, count to 100, and read the nonsense you have been posting here.Why didnt they? It would get them a seat at the table. If einstein had donated $16,000 he could have gotten reinhard heydrich to listen to what he had to say.
Drink a cold glass of water, count to 100, and read the nonsense you have been posting here.
Engage in the discussion or feck off. The analogy makes perfect sense.
Why didn't X just donate a small amount of cash and get Y to change a fundamental belief about themselves and everything they stand for?
Because it was a racist regime that believed and started to implement the total extinction of the Jewish race? You see a little difference here?Engage in the discussion or feck off. The analogy makes perfect sense.
Why didn't X just donate a small amount of cash and get Y to change a fundamental belief about themselves and everything they stand for?
Didn't know Hitler was fond of lobbying to be honest.
Because it was a racist regime that believed and started to implement the total extinction of the Jewish race? You see a little difference here?
No. It's lunacy to compare those two situations.Republicans are absolutely commited to the ideaology that climate change is a hoax. You see the similarity here?
Your point was that donating to people in power made them listen to you. I'm pointing out how that isnt the case.
Republicans are fanatically opposed to any idea that climate change is happening or that it is caused by human activities. The idea that someone who donated $38,000 is going to cause Republican politicians to go against their position, the position they ran on, the position of their supporters and the position of corporate interested donated far more is absolutely absurd.
If he's paying for a voice at the table to have the GOPs ear on climate change and other issues affecting humanity he's getting royally ripped off
Because the buying of political power/influence was one of the major charges against the Jew by the Nazis. Doing so would have been futile and used as evidence that the Nazis were correct in their assertions.Why didnt they? It would get them a seat at the table. If einstein had donated $16,000 he could have gotten reinhard heydrich to listen to what he had to say.
There is no point on engaging on the debate when you're points are:Engage in the discussion or feck off. The analogy makes perfect sense.
Why didn't X just donate a small amount of cash and get Y to change a fundamental belief about themselves and everything they stand for?
From Godwins law to a text book straw man in consecutive posts. Internet arguing 101.
Obviously, I never said or implied any of the above. I said it gives him a voice at the table. Presumably this is important to him for the good of his business. And his business seems to have two main priorities. Making money (like every other business, ever) and driving a cultural change away from fossil fuels and onto renewables.
Throwing a few grand at a repellant political party seems a small price to pay to help the latter bit.
He was rich as a kid (he wasn't
There is no point on engaging on the debate when you're points are:
- He got raised on an apartheid regime, so he's evil.
- He was rich as a kid (he wasn't).
- All billionaires are evil.
- I hope he dies.
- Why Jews didn't gave money to Nazi.
It is a pretty idiotic discussion to engage on. The IQ drops with every post.
Its absolutely not helping. Scott fecking Pruitt ran the EPA. Rex Tillerson was secretary of state. They are taking his money and laughing while they spend it on adding to the Pacific trash flotilla.
It is. But his agenda isn't the bluster about saving humanity. It's to enrich himself.but he must think that the money will help his agenda.