Nah, women can. The Democrats just keep picking bad candidates. That’s all.
AOC is great, but probably still a bad candidate.
I would go with Taylor Swift. It’s about charisma and following, and at least some proven progressive credentials. She fits the counter-counter culture narrative perfectly.
I agree with you, but her “exploitation” is basically using the tools capitalism handed her. The worst that could be said for her is that she might be aware of her privilege and not doing anything to give that up. But here’s the thing - what rational actor within capitalism who amasses any power would just give it all up? Benevolent intentions only get you so far, and principle rarely gets anyone anywhere in this world.
Edit: Unless it’s all bullshit, she’s probably done more good with her wealth than any other billionaire I know. Which might not be saying much, but says a lot for her candidacy as “not a complete piece of shit”. Something few ultra wealthy can claim.
How so? Trump’s supporters figured out how people think. No amount of righteous rationalism or appeals to people’s better nature wins elections. Populism is what wins. I mean obviously right?
Nah, women can. The Democrats just keep picking bad candidates. That’s all.
AOC is great, but probably still a bad candidate.
I would go with Taylor Swift. It’s about charisma and following, and at least some proven progressive credentials. She fits the counter-counter culture narrative perfectly.
Are you saying want taylor swift as president?
Yeah. Not because she’s qualified for the job, but because I think she could win it for the left. That is all.
We already picked a game show host… is this actually worse? 🤷♂️ at least she’s a billionaire that pretends to care about people
I think there is some reason to believe she actually gives a shit.
Nobody becomes a billionaire without exploiting many, many, many people.
But yeah, she might also believe that she’s a good person
I agree with you, but her “exploitation” is basically using the tools capitalism handed her. The worst that could be said for her is that she might be aware of her privilege and not doing anything to give that up. But here’s the thing - what rational actor within capitalism who amasses any power would just give it all up? Benevolent intentions only get you so far, and principle rarely gets anyone anywhere in this world.
Edit: Unless it’s all bullshit, she’s probably done more good with her wealth than any other billionaire I know. Which might not be saying much, but says a lot for her candidacy as “not a complete piece of shit”. Something few ultra wealthy can claim.
We know poor people can’t get elected as well.
This is the kind of thinking that got us here.
How so? Trump’s supporters figured out how people think. No amount of righteous rationalism or appeals to people’s better nature wins elections. Populism is what wins. I mean obviously right?
Are you saying kamalacaust and taylor swift are basically the same candidate? smh.