Surprisingly Kevin Nash is a wrestler i don’t like as a person but he seems to have his head on straight about politics. Meanwhile the undertaker is a trump stooge, stone cold Steve Austin is a wife beating racist and Triple h is a supporter of the moron family he married into. Most of the wrestlers i grew up liking are conservative idiots, Chris Jericho is a Canadian trump supporter
Lots of getting hit in the head with folding chairs will turn ya conservative.
Somehow Mick Foley took the most chair shots but is one of the smartest and is anti trump
He is just the GOAT
I mean, look what happened to Fetterman after his stroke….
vince mchmon a contributor to the campaign, also his wife linda mcohman has been in trumps administration 2 times already. it make sense now since ufc and wwe have very similar audience, most are trump supporters.
Thats a shame about jericho. Had no idea.
Not only that but he’s a creep against women too. There were talks of sexual abuse and NDAs being signed and payoffs made to keep women quiet. His wife was at the capitol during the January 6th insurrection. He’s a disgrace to Canada
I came up with a rhyme for the occasion: “Happy 4th of july! If you are poor you will die!”
Your poem is very appropriate - you might want to break that down into two lines, give it a title, post it on c/[email protected], and don’t forget to add the [OC] tag.
Let’s just see how it does there. You can count on my up-vote.
But don’t feel obligated - strictly if you felt like doing this. Have a good day.
This reads like a promo-bot comment.
OP is always posting weirdos who pretend to be democrats in republican owned spaces, it must be his poopy pass-time
Make America the Great depression Again.
Independence Day doesn’t matter to you unless you have at least one billion dollars in your bank account.
Just like the OG Independence Day.
Because black/asian/latino billionaires are dandy and statistically not lobbying for their interest in detriment of humanity like white billionaires?
Ah yes, which black/browm/“yellow” billionaire was deported again?
In the US slightly over 96 percent of the top 1.1 million in wealth, are white. No billionaire is good, but he is talking about the US, where almost all the gross wealth inequity is in favor of white people.
So they are not any better? So putting the white there is pointless
When you are talking about the US specifically it is pertinent. I know you want strip racist aspects of these things from the conversation, but that is stupid.
Why would we talk about the US and why would the race matter there? Why are you adding the racist bits?
You can’t just say a thing without bothering to explain to a person who clearly doesn’t understand something
Did you not look at the post you are commenting on before you decided to comment? I do not understand how you didn’t know this post was about the US when the person in the post is talking about the US’s independence day holiday, and the announcement of the passing of US legislation on that day, but believed you had a valid opinion on the subject. The whole thing is about the US. If you read a post, and you are uninformed about what it is talking about, or otherwise do not understand it, maybe rather than commenting what’s what about it, you instead look it up, or ask someone first.
Kevin Nash, the person who made the post in the screen shot, is talking about the US when he mentions white billionaires. There is a long, detailed, well understood, history of racism within the wealth disparity of the US. Racism that favors white men. If you would like to know that history, you can look it up, it is an easy subject to find information about.
Yes, asking why white billionaires are worse is bait! Please make sure to treat it so and you might somehow justify for yourself why you don’t/can’t answer the question!
They do, but in the US at least, you’re less likely to be a billionaire in the first place among such populations.
That might be true, but it is also unnecessary to bring race into it. No war but class war is a phrase I really agree with, and making how white the 1% is part of the argument just plays into their game. Nothing would be lost in that argument if it was just happy 1% day.
Only one I know is Jensen Huang (nvidia)
And because there is less of them, that makes them better?
You heard anything about Jack Ma recently?
Sure, not sure how much I believe from the ccp propaganda tho!
Are you by chance saying that he is a better billionaire because he is “yellow”?
I’ll be honest, my thought was not fully formed when I posted. I saw “non-white billionaires” and it reminded how delightful it was how the CCP handled Jack Ma. I wish Elon Musk was treated a bit more like that, instead of being invited in oval office and being given a fucking department with a funky acronyms. Insanity doesn’t begin to cover it. Anyway, it appears there is some sort of white privilege going on, even within the 1%
You know he was disappeared because he spoke up against the ccp? Aside from having 2 cringe public speakings, did he even do anything Elmo worthy?
But the official story of him being a poor child of a very small village and starting a business with no capital that exports the non-agricultural output of very small villages outside of the capitalist bubble? That is not only self contradictory, not only an affront to the communists lifestyles tamp, but a fucking shit origin story… He could have held Mao’s balls when he birthed the nation or something!
You think Jack Ma is US American?
deleted by creator
I just want to point out that the debt itself is not an issue. The problem with this bill is its cuts in welfare and horrible distributional consequences, but the increased deficit and debt are not.
I mean… It can be both.
It could, but it isn’t. The US national debt is solely denominated in US dollars: A currency of which the US government is the monopoly issuer. Thus the US government cannot run out of money to pay its obligations.
Except that leads to inflation, which is a huge deal.
No, it doesn’t. What could lead to inflation is government bidding up prices by spending in areas where the resources are already fully employed. That can happen whether the government runs a deficit or a surplus. If the government spends on something where there is idle productive capacity, the spending is not necessarily inflationary, as the increased demand is easily met by an increased supply. If, on the other hand, the government spends on something where the production is already at full employment, they will be engaged in a bidding war against the private sector (a bidding war the government will always be able to win) which will drive prices up. My point is that both these scenarios are independent of whether or not the governemnt runs a deficit. It is simply a question of real resources.
