Want to send this to a friend but tried fact checking it first by looking for the tweet on Sander's page and couldn't find it. I almost never use Twitter so maybe I'm missing something. Anyone have a link?
Edit: Nevermind, found it. I was looking at his other account
I recommend we allow billionaires to launch themselves into space, on their own dime. Occupy Mars! For the billionaires! So much free real estate waiting to be claimed!
Then the real trick is: once they've self-exiled, don't let them come back. And they will try to come back, trust me. They truly have no idea how much Mars sucks, they are NOT the brilliant clever people they have convinced both themselves and everyone else they are. Let them play their games, then laugh when they discover the consequences.
I read a fictional book about the fall of capitalism, and it included a part about the rich people who had tried to settle in orbit. When the people took over, they sent up a message saying no more supplies would be sent up, and then closed the channel. The rich got what they deserved.
The one issue: what if billionnaires try to keep access to their own wealth through those channels restricted? That is, others can't claim it. They have proxy defence...
They can try, but how can such "wealth" exist without mutual consent? Their entire concept of ownership is predicated on money. We have all bent the knee and pledged allegiance to the concept of "money" but what happens when people no longer choose to remain loyal to it? How do they plan to keep those channels restricted? How much do you have to pay your proxies to protect things on your behalf when money is no longer something that is driving value in people's lives anymore? How long can you keep money working as a motivating factor when the systems built on it start breaking down?
They have built their lives and plans on the same lies that we have. Those lies are only real because we have all willingly suspended our disbelief and chosen to believe them because it suits us to do so. If it no longer suits us, we no longer need to continue believing, and no matter how hard the small number of billionaires and larger numbers of millionaires insist on believing, it won't matter. Once enough people stop believing in the lies, it'll become crystal clear that the wealth was just an illusion all along.
I expect violence, from both sides, the only question is how long it will last and how severe it will be and what things will look like when it ends. I truly hope for something better, and I believe that with wisdom something much better is possible, but I'm not naive enough to expect it.
It's all paper wealth, 99% of it is not tangible assets.
LIkely the companies they own can just vote to revoke those shares, increasing every other shareholders' value in the process. Will likely first need a new law allowing it in the first place as I'm not sure if that's legal currently.
Governments are more powerful than individuals, as long as governments are able to answer to The People rather than the oligarchs.
So it all depends. Can we take our government back, or no? If we can, a gentle reminder that taxing the wealthy IS the compromise and the carrot. The stick is guillotines.
I agree in general, but I don't even fucking care if we have billionaires (although trillionaires most definitely goes too far on what to allow).
If we have amazing social safety nets and appropriate fair taxes that are proportional to wealth, if our wealth inequality decreases drastically, we have universal health care, universal basic income, protection of human rights..... if someone still manages to be a billionaire and we're protected from undue political influence from that shit, then....... fine, fuck it, I don't fucking care.
So I agree, but it's not the highest thing on my list if we get all the other shit right.
While I agree that all would be great, it's the power they hold with the money and they won't hold the same power if us little people have those rights. Like imagine if everyone had enough of a safety net to protest one of the disgustingingly rich person's ideas? They'd blow a gasket thinking they can't be told otherwise.
The entitlement that comes with that weath is part of the issue is all I mean, that's why these people with their wealth fuck up things. They are the idiot yelling at the minimum wage person but have the resources to buy the freaking franchise to get their way. They never learned no (or forgot) and that sometimes things don't work out for them. That's what we usually teach toddlers and young kids in general. They just made so much that they have no respect for anyone else or society.
No more billionaires is a good ideal to forward society to be better.
Okay if there's a unicorn billionaire out there that is cool but if they were cool they'd be pushing for all the stuff mentioned in the previous comment.
They are a noticable chunk of the reason that things are like they are now but I rarely hear one pushing for anything on your list and fewer doing anything about it.
Maybe a bit harsh and I missed some people who try but really can't think of anyone in the billionaire club that cares about the wage slave but wants to exploit them instead.
I owe you a longer reply but dialysis is early so bed now but I basically agree.
Only will argue that Dolly Parton was about as good as it gets - she didn't make billionaire because of her philanthropy. Not perfect, some of it is good PR, but also I think a pretty decently ethical multimillionaire. :)
Imagine a system where a certain amount of funds were allocated to elections, that amount was divided by every citizen, and we were each given the option to allocate our percentage to the candidate(s) of our choice, with whatever funds aren't allocated by citizens divided evenly between all candidates.
We have something like this in Australia. Candidates receive a fixed amount, maybe $2.50, per first preference vote, provided that they achieve more than 4% of all votes.
The 4% requirement avoids creating an incentive for every idiot to register a political party so they can get a few hundred dollars from the Electoral Commission.
The effect is to essentially tie what you proposed into the election itself.
We do still have private donations, but I think they're somewhat restrictive, and the public funding lessens the benefit of private donations.
Kind of, except that if you throw your funds at a grassroots candidate, you're helping to give them the ability to convince other people to vote for them in the actual election, and you could choose to (for example) give all of your funding to that grassroots candidate but still vote strategically in the general.
I think it's quite reasonable to want to promote a third party candidate and help them get a foot in the door, while recognizing that they don't have a real chance to win the election this time around. Sometimes voting against a candidate is what's important. However, I'm not going to get into the strategic voting debate right now, can we at least wait until late October to be at each others' throats about this shit again?
I can see the idea. We don’t really have “third party candidates” here in Sweden, but we do have parties governing on like a city, regional, and state level, and you elect to all three.
State has a bar you need to get past to have a seat, and I’d love to see the pirate party gain a good foothold. I’m unlikely to vote for them because they just don’t do much visible work, so I’ll vote for the left or the environmentalists since they are established and visible.
If the pirate party had more funds, maybe they’d be more visible and have a bigger chance to make a change.
Yeah, that's it exactly. I'd like to be able to help promote the candidate I'd really like to get elected, but I don't feel good about voting for them until they get some wide-spread recognition. I already donate money to candidates I don't intend to vote for for that reason; our two-party system (in the US) is obviously awful but pretending it doesn't exist and that a vote for a candidate that will end up with 5% of the total vote isn't wasted is just helping the party I'm least likely to vote for to win.
Did you ever consider that maybe Sanders wants to reach people who aren’t already members of his choir? And that a Twitter is a good place to find them?
I highly doubt the number of users who keep their Twitter to follow people like Sanders is more than 1% of the userbase.
If Sanders was only posting to twitter, I'd agree with you, but it's just one of several platforms. But it's like saying he should only post campaign videos to peertube. Yeah, YouTube and cable networks are evil, but if he didn't put the videos there no one would see it.
It's better to get the message out to everyone, then work on legislation to prevent companies like twitter from being horrible in the first place.
For the means of space travel, I propose the use of trebuchets to both ensure a speedy delivery and significantly reduce the chance the package will be returned to sender.
Also a LOT more environmentally friendly. I mean I'm sure that if we shot up all billionaires into space using traditional rockets, we'd still be going net positive in terms of climate impact on account of just how much they ruin over their lifetime, but trebuchets are inexpensive and easy to reuse. Rockets and their fuel, not so much.
Because most Americans don't know anything about Bernie, or maybe at most they know of a few extreme quotes Fox News or CNN have spit out from him. Educated well-informed voters are a tiny, tiny subset of actual voters.
Decades of fascist propaganda means minimal support for human rights. The relentless attack means the Overton window is pushed so far over that even "centrists" are right-wing.
35 replies
Want to send this to a friend but tried fact checking it first by looking for the tweet on Sander's page and couldn't find it. I almost never use Twitter so maybe I'm missing something. Anyone have a link?
Edit: Nevermind, found it. I was looking at his other account
https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/2091942362570207330
I recommend we allow billionaires to launch themselves into space, on their own dime. Occupy Mars! For the billionaires! So much free real estate waiting to be claimed!
Then the real trick is: once they've self-exiled, don't let them come back. And they will try to come back, trust me. They truly have no idea how much Mars sucks, they are NOT the brilliant clever people they have convinced both themselves and everyone else they are. Let them play their games, then laugh when they discover the consequences.
I read a fictional book about the fall of capitalism, and it included a part about the rich people who had tried to settle in orbit. When the people took over, they sent up a message saying no more supplies would be sent up, and then closed the channel. The rich got what they deserved.
The one issue: what if billionnaires try to keep access to their own wealth through those channels restricted? That is, others can't claim it. They have proxy defence...
They can try, but how can such "wealth" exist without mutual consent? Their entire concept of ownership is predicated on money. We have all bent the knee and pledged allegiance to the concept of "money" but what happens when people no longer choose to remain loyal to it? How do they plan to keep those channels restricted? How much do you have to pay your proxies to protect things on your behalf when money is no longer something that is driving value in people's lives anymore? How long can you keep money working as a motivating factor when the systems built on it start breaking down?
They have built their lives and plans on the same lies that we have. Those lies are only real because we have all willingly suspended our disbelief and chosen to believe them because it suits us to do so. If it no longer suits us, we no longer need to continue believing, and no matter how hard the small number of billionaires and larger numbers of millionaires insist on believing, it won't matter. Once enough people stop believing in the lies, it'll become crystal clear that the wealth was just an illusion all along.
I expect violence, from both sides, the only question is how long it will last and how severe it will be and what things will look like when it ends. I truly hope for something better, and I believe that with wisdom something much better is possible, but I'm not naive enough to expect it.
It's all paper wealth, 99% of it is not tangible assets.
LIkely the companies they own can just vote to revoke those shares, increasing every other shareholders' value in the process. Will likely first need a new law allowing it in the first place as I'm not sure if that's legal currently.
Or the government takes control of those shares.
Governments are more powerful than individuals, as long as governments are able to answer to The People rather than the oligarchs.
So it all depends. Can we take our government back, or no? If we can, a gentle reminder that taxing the wealthy IS the compromise and the carrot. The stick is guillotines.
They shouldn't even exist. And yet, the current status is exactly what capitalism will always inevitably lead to. Capitalism is the problem.
Billionnaires shouldn't exist.
I agree in general, but I don't even fucking care if we have billionaires (although trillionaires most definitely goes too far on what to allow).
If we have amazing social safety nets and appropriate fair taxes that are proportional to wealth, if our wealth inequality decreases drastically, we have universal health care, universal basic income, protection of human rights..... if someone still manages to be a billionaire and we're protected from undue political influence from that shit, then....... fine, fuck it, I don't fucking care.
So I agree, but it's not the highest thing on my list if we get all the other shit right.
While I agree that all would be great, it's the power they hold with the money and they won't hold the same power if us little people have those rights. Like imagine if everyone had enough of a safety net to protest one of the disgustingingly rich person's ideas? They'd blow a gasket thinking they can't be told otherwise.
The entitlement that comes with that weath is part of the issue is all I mean, that's why these people with their wealth fuck up things. They are the idiot yelling at the minimum wage person but have the resources to buy the freaking franchise to get their way. They never learned no (or forgot) and that sometimes things don't work out for them. That's what we usually teach toddlers and young kids in general. They just made so much that they have no respect for anyone else or society.
No more billionaires is a good ideal to forward society to be better.
Okay if there's a unicorn billionaire out there that is cool but if they were cool they'd be pushing for all the stuff mentioned in the previous comment.
They are a noticable chunk of the reason that things are like they are now but I rarely hear one pushing for anything on your list and fewer doing anything about it.
Maybe a bit harsh and I missed some people who try but really can't think of anyone in the billionaire club that cares about the wage slave but wants to exploit them instead.
I owe you a longer reply but dialysis is early so bed now but I basically agree.
Only will argue that Dolly Parton was about as good as it gets - she didn't make billionaire because of her philanthropy. Not perfect, some of it is good PR, but also I think a pretty decently ethical multimillionaire. :)
But very few are.
Imagine a system where a certain amount of funds were allocated to elections, that amount was divided by every citizen, and we were each given the option to allocate our percentage to the candidate(s) of our choice, with whatever funds aren't allocated by citizens divided evenly between all candidates.
We have something like this in Australia. Candidates receive a fixed amount, maybe $2.50, per first preference vote, provided that they achieve more than 4% of all votes.
The 4% requirement avoids creating an incentive for every idiot to register a political party so they can get a few hundred dollars from the Electoral Commission.
The effect is to essentially tie what you proposed into the election itself.
We do still have private donations, but I think they're somewhat restrictive, and the public funding lessens the benefit of private donations.
...thats pretty much an election in itself.
Kind of, except that if you throw your funds at a grassroots candidate, you're helping to give them the ability to convince other people to vote for them in the actual election, and you could choose to (for example) give all of your funding to that grassroots candidate but still vote strategically in the general.
Wait so you want to promote one candidate, while voting for another?
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the campaign anyway?
I think it's quite reasonable to want to promote a third party candidate and help them get a foot in the door, while recognizing that they don't have a real chance to win the election this time around. Sometimes voting against a candidate is what's important. However, I'm not going to get into the strategic voting debate right now, can we at least wait until late October to be at each others' throats about this shit again?
I can see the idea. We don’t really have “third party candidates” here in Sweden, but we do have parties governing on like a city, regional, and state level, and you elect to all three.
State has a bar you need to get past to have a seat, and I’d love to see the pirate party gain a good foothold. I’m unlikely to vote for them because they just don’t do much visible work, so I’ll vote for the left or the environmentalists since they are established and visible.
If the pirate party had more funds, maybe they’d be more visible and have a bigger chance to make a change.
Yeah, that's it exactly. I'd like to be able to help promote the candidate I'd really like to get elected, but I don't feel good about voting for them until they get some wide-spread recognition. I already donate money to candidates I don't intend to vote for for that reason; our two-party system (in the US) is obviously awful but pretending it doesn't exist and that a vote for a candidate that will end up with 5% of the total vote isn't wasted is just helping the party I'm least likely to vote for to win.
We have a similar system, every party gets X amount, which has to be paid back by parties who don't get 1% of the vote.
It completely undermines the message when you put it on Musk's twitter.
How? If you want your message to reach the most people, you have to spread it where people are.
Twitter still has half a billion users. It would be stupid to not post there.
Yeah but who cares about logic and results when you can have ideological purity?
People use it because people like Sanders post there.
It's not stupid to get governments and public servants away from that cesspit.
Did you ever consider that maybe Sanders wants to reach people who aren’t already members of his choir? And that a Twitter is a good place to find them?
I highly doubt the number of users who keep their Twitter to follow people like Sanders is more than 1% of the userbase.
If Sanders was only posting to twitter, I'd agree with you, but it's just one of several platforms. But it's like saying he should only post campaign videos to peertube. Yeah, YouTube and cable networks are evil, but if he didn't put the videos there no one would see it.
It's better to get the message out to everyone, then work on legislation to prevent companies like twitter from being horrible in the first place.
For the means of space travel, I propose the use of trebuchets to both ensure a speedy delivery and significantly reduce the chance the package will be returned to sender.
Also a LOT more environmentally friendly. I mean I'm sure that if we shot up all billionaires into space using traditional rockets, we'd still be going net positive in terms of climate impact on account of just how much they ruin over their lifetime, but trebuchets are inexpensive and easy to reuse. Rockets and their fuel, not so much.
Put them in one of those subs that imploted under water and just yeet them towards Mars.
I'm down with this as long as we launch the subs with trebuchets.
You're right, Bernie, you often are. So why don't Americans ever actually support you enough for anything you say to happen?
Because most Americans don't know anything about Bernie, or maybe at most they know of a few extreme quotes Fox News or CNN have spit out from him. Educated well-informed voters are a tiny, tiny subset of actual voters.
Decades of fascist propaganda means minimal support for human rights. The relentless attack means the Overton window is pushed so far over that even "centrists" are right-wing.