4 ms·
This is good. I won’t say a bad thing about it. I just always wonder if there’s a better way. Would it not be better to use the money to ~~bribe~~ donate to po
by Apreche 2y ago
This is good. I won’t say a bad thing about it. I just always wonder if there’s a better way.
Would it not be better to use the money to ~~bribe~~ donate to politicians instead? Two billions dollars can change the results of elections and sway a lot of policy at the local, state, and federal level. It’s a matter of wealth amplification, that two billion could have altered the course of several billions in government budgets. Like a big lever moving an absolutely enormous boulder.
Why donate to non-profits fighting for something when you can just win the fight by changing the law? Rather than donate to a non-profit that helps the homeless, wouldn’t it be more effective to directly change the policies that lead to homelessness in the first place?
Evil Republican megadonors do it, and it’s working great for them. Where are the non-evil leftist megadonors? If it’s an oligarchy, it’s not impossible to have a good an kind-hearted oligarch.
- e40 2y agoGeorge Soros? It’s interesting how reviled he is to his counterparts on the right.
- ZeroGravitas 2y agoHe directly challenged Putin by supporting democracy in Eastern Europe which explains a lot of the bad press he gets. I wonder if you can do good without triggering that particular geopolitical hot potato, which was close to Soros's heart given his upbringing.
- bdangubic 2y agowe JUST saw in the election few months ago that Kamala’s 1.6bn dollars spent wasn’t enough - you cannot just buy the election, you need money but you also need other things…
- ivewonyoung 2y agoYet there is a lot of outcry that Elon Musk bought the election with his ~100 million dollars. It's all political bias in play.
- bdangubic 2y agohe bought it with $44bn though when he bought twitter :-)