178
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] droopy4096@lemmy.ca 19 points 7 months ago

Trouble is: Koch brothers are very much into the same things as Trump is but they want to be able to control POTUS not having to deal with lose cannon that shoots everything and everyone and is only predictable in his unpredictability. So I'd think that the same policies would be pushed forward but without as much drama and publicity. In the end everyone will end up just as screwed.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 9 points 7 months ago

They legitimately want Ayn Rand for president, they'd dig her up in an instant if they got their hands on a necromancer.

0 regulation government with handouts for them and none for us as their wet dreams. We have them to thank for the "Freedumb Caucus"

[-] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Didn't she die on public assistance?

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

yes :

she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our politial discussions. From there on - with gusto - we argued all the time the initial argument was on greed. She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn

she gave me her power of attorney to deal with all matters having to do with health and Social Security. Whether she agreed or not is not the issue -- Evva Pryor, legal consultant

In the end, she didn't accept Social Security, but pragmatically allowed Evva Pryor to sign her up under a Power of Attorney, apparently.

This way she got to cling to her naive beliefs about brutal anti-socialism AND not suffer for them.

"Benefits for me but not thee" as well as avoiding karmic justice, seems to be the hallmark of the modern American Republican, and I can see why she's the poster-child. The fact she took what she describes as 'hand-outs' gives her closet a skeleton the remaining Darth Koch can use to destroy her when Zombie Ayn Rand is no longer valuable.

But reading the excerpt, it's funny that this "tax and hand-outs" diatribe doesn't hold water when it's not "you being paid by these handouts and then paying to live" but instead "the state provides your first 5 basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, belonging, safety) for you based on voters' decisions" since there is no money given TO the individual. But that's just an observation based on the pittance I've read this morning; I don't want to get into some argument with a Rand fan about what the Prophet really meant.

[-] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

She was a piece of shit and a coward, based on what I gather from your reply. Thanks for sharing.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 7 months ago

Happened to a lot of conservative groups. Set the fertilizer perfectly for a plant they did not want.

this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
178 points (96.8% liked)

politics

18059 readers
2638 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS