this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025
543 points (96.9% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

6645 readers
395 users here now

Rules:

  1. The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
  2. Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
  3. If the reason your post is on-topic isn't in the article or self-explanatory, you must use a second (high-quality) source to explain why your post fits the criteria.
  4. Articles should be high-quality sources. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
  5. For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
  6. Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
  7. This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
  8. All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.

Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

You put out headlines with trump in the title to get the clicks. This is what you've been signing up for and now you're being replaced assholes.

This week, the White House sank to a new low on that front, holding a first-of-its-kind “New Media Press Briefing.” While inviting journalists from smaller, less established outlets to the White House is ostensibly a good idea, that’s not what the administration did. Indeed, instead of inviting actual journalists to the event, the White House populated it with a slew of friendly influencers who were all too happy to kiss the president’s ass and ask White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt the softest of softball questions. It was bullshit questions and bullshit answers all the way down.

Leavitt kicked the briefing off by bragging about the administration’s various “accomplishments” over the past 100 years, er sorry, I meant days. “As I promised at my first briefing as press secretary back in January, the Trump White House will speak to all media outlets and personalities—not just the legacy media who traditionally has covered this institution,” Leavitt said.___

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 136 points 1 month ago (4 children)

The funny part is that the same people bank rolling the presidency are the same people bankrolling the legacy media AND the social media influencers.

There is one group to blame for all this and it's not hard to find them .... anyone that controls billions of dollars of wealth, controls the country.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

There is one group to blame for all this and it’s not hard to find them

I'm told it is anyone who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I mean we’ve been on the path to fascism since Bush vs Gore, so maybe we can collectively shit on Nader for being an egotistical asshat.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

One of them being Russia is bankrolling most of it

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I'm genuinely curious to know whether the majority of Lemmyites believe Tim Pool gets more money from Vladimir Putin's bagman than Google's YouTube advertisements and SuperChat kickbacks.

So many Americans do not seem to want to believe their own network of oligarchs have deep pockets and a wide net of social media influencers. As though organizations like DailyWire and One America News Network and the Murdoch suite of publications simply don't exist. The Mercers, the Adelsons, the Kochs, The Thiel Foundation, The Hoover Institute, the American Enterprise Institute... its like they don't even exist.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

With every month that passes, a conviction grows in me: "Billionaires shouldn't exist."

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Without a doubt, I say there should be a cap on personal wealth, say 1 billion, because I can't really see why one person would ever need more than that to live comfortably. Then every dollar made over that goes straight to the federal government.

Essentially a new income tax bracket for only the wealthiest of individuals that is permanently set at 100%

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I don’t know about a hard cap. Shelves and caps tend to inspire “creative accounting” just shy of fraud, and we can curtail runaway capital accumulation by just making the curve more aggressive.

A simpler solution is public equity. This is an idea I’ve been selling for a while so I have a spiel. Tap below if curious.

Public Equity

Public corporations should not be taxed based on declared revenue. Instead, a portion of shares should be owned by the public such that taxes are paid by dividends.

Also, any direct funding or “stimulus” from the federal government should purchase additional shares. The government’s failure to demand equity on behalf of its people when increasing their shared national debt to fund large corporations would be considered gross fiduciary negligence in any other funding scenario. For example, full bailouts should result in a controlling stake, i.e. nationalization.

It eliminates poverty, easily solves a truckload of difficulties we have taxing these corporations and their shareholders, promotes overall economic health, and is above all more fair to everyone, including the wealthiest.

Specifically:

  1. If shareholders are paid, taxes are paid. It would no longer be possible for a company like Amazon to have $0 tax liability while at the same time distributing revenue to its shareholders.
  2. It skips the “trickle down” step. Share appreciation is reflected directly and automatically in public equity growth, so if the paper wealth of the richest citizen increases, so does the paper wealth of the poorest.
  3. It prevents runaway capitalism, the situation we find ourselves in, where a government is too anemic to reign in corporate greed and the public servants within it too starved to resist corruption.
  4. It offers more direct control of inflation, since the Fed can simply not reinvest a portion of dividends paid on shares.
  5. It makes Universal Basic Income (UBI) trivially easy to implement, since what we are describing is essentially a universal pension fund that everyone has fractional shares in.

Most importantly WRT principle, it more accurately reflects the value afforded to every public company by the actual public; i.e., the society in which it operates.

Edit: forgot to mention UBI

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Well, where are they, exactly?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Contributing millions to dark pacs, which bankroll media outlets either directly or through ad money.

Although now I’m sure they’re also buying shitcoins in closed door meetings at maralago as well.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think it's time to make an American version of the guillotine where we replace the sharp blade with a giant rock, and keep everything else the same.

It seems appropriate

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

The American version is calling up Israel for a bombing run.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Given the seeming plummet of intelligence in the US we should name it the Ungabunga. The fact that cavemen didn't live in caves and weren't dumb is the other half of the reason.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

People never lived in caves? Excuse me, what?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Maybe they’re conflating the word cavemen with neanderthals.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

That's the common interpretation though. Not in science of course.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean, archaeologists would argue that both did, there's simply less found evidence of neanderthals doing it, but it is there. Fires, butchered animal bones, clearly intentional burials, art, the only evidence they haven't found is a sign on a nail saying "home sweet home".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, caves seem pretty awesome to live in honestly. Compared to outside.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago

Right? Safety, radiant warmth, no wind or rain, no effort to build, it's ridiculous to say that people wouldn't use caves.