4 ms·

For Biden's inauguration the top ask was $1 million for companies and $500,000 for individuals. About 12 individuals paid the $500,000 price. The total was $61

by nabla9 2y ago

For Biden's inauguration the top ask was $1 million for companies and $500,000 for individuals. About 12 individuals paid the $500,000 price. The total was $61.8 million. Donations came from unions as well. Biden’s Inaugural Will Be Mostly Virtual, but Money From Donors Will Be Real https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/us/politics/biden-inauguration-donors-virtual.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/us/politics/biden-inaugur... Pfizer, unions, others donated $61.8 mln for Biden's inaugural https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pfizer-unions-others-donated-618-mln-bidens-inaugural-2021-04-21/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pfizer-unions-others-donate... Biden Inaugural Committee donors include Google, Microsoft, Boeing https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/09/biden-inaugural-donors-major-corporations-456907 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/09/biden-inaugural-don... Personal comment: Clearly Trump takes way more, but this is only difference in quantity, not unrepresented behavior. Clearly America has money in politics problem even without Trump. Journalism not providing the context is another problem.

latexr 2y ago
> but this is only difference in quantity As if that excuses anything. That reminded me of the time some country (Sweden?) with gun control had its first shooting in thirty years and the reaction in the US was “see, gun control doesn’t work”. For a large portion of things, quantity can be everything. “The Dose Makes the Poison”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison Either way, that is not the point. > Clearly America has money in politics problem Yes, it does. And whoever you give money to reveals who you support and is an indication of your beliefs and your character. Tim Cook either supports Trump (or his ideas), cares about money above all else, or is a spineless coward. It does matter which one it is, but neither of them is good.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  Tim Cook is a CEO and he answers to the shareholders. he does MUCH MUCH MUCH worse things to enrich his shareholders than donating measly $1m to Dementia Don :)
  - latexr 2y ago
    > Tim Cook is a CEO and he answers to the shareholders. This is a personal donation. You can’t weasel an excuse of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders¹ from it. No one has shares on his life. Tim Cook is a human being and has to answer to his consciousness too. His Twitter bio quotes Martin Luther King. https://x.com/tim_cook https://x.com/tim_cook > “Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'” - MLK. He also claimed in the past that ROI wasn’t his primary concern. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim... ¹ And those are getting old. The guy is filthy rich and powerful, there’s no one stopping him from being ethical. He might get fired, big whoop. Makes zero difference to his ability to live comfortably the rest of his life.
    - nabla9 2y ago
      This is a personal donation Cook made in Apple's benefit in the role of CEO. He would not do this if he was not Apple CEO. You can see the same in elections in the US and other countries. People in lobby groups and their lawyers give large public donations to candidates in behalf of their clients. Donation buys access. This established way to do business.
      - latexr 2y ago
        Yes, I agree with all of that. My points still stand: 1. You can’t claim a donation of personal money is a responsibility to shareholders. Shareholders don’t control your personal life. 2. More importantly, fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is a bullshit reason whose only purpose is to justify unethical behaviour. If you go against your values because of money, they’re not your values. 3. Tim Cook likes to claim he fights the good fight. He’s an influential and powerful person whose actions can influence the lives of millions of people, so what he says should be compared to what he does.
        nabla9 2y ago
        1. Is any person any less morally responsible for their decision when they work for the company or when they work as individuals. My answer is no. There is only legal and company branding decision, not moral ones. 2. Should companies and actions of their executives be treated as amoral (not having moral factor in their decision) or moral as a starting point. I think amoral. 3. Does anyone think that value statements from companies convey actual intentions? If not, why to always treat as PR and not talking points.
- nabla9 2y ago
  I feel like my comment provided a missing context that journalism rarely provides today. You seemed to interpret it as an excuse.
bediger4000 2y ago
It looks to me like journalists do provide context in some cases. Because the lack of context makes some people and policy look better than they would without context, it's worth trying to remember which people and policy don't get contextualized, and which do. For example, with some context, we can't tell that particular politicians floated policy proposals that were met with widespread pushback, then disavowed the policy. Later, when the uproar dies down, the politician quietly enacts the policy. Without the context, we don't see that politician as nearly always untruthful. By selective contextualization, particular politicians can be framed as fabulists, or framed as driven by circumstances, and therefore blameless.
archagon 2y ago
The difference is that Biden did not run on a fascist platform that promised to throw tens of millions into camps and imprison his political enemies. He was also not a twice-impeached felon who started a violent insurrection and tried to steal an election. Trump is a far-right criminal and not in any way a normal president. He would be rotting in a prison cell (if not strapped to the electric chair) were it not for the blatant corruption of the judiciary. Instead, he’s sitting on his golden throne and soliciting bribes from groveling and pathetic tech CEOs.
- MemesAndBooze 2y ago
  Don't you think you're exaggerating a little with the hyperbolic language?
  - archagon 2y ago
    If anything, I am downplaying his crimes for the sake of forum civility. He tried to steal the election. This is a documented fact. Members of his own party found him guilty of doing so and provided tangible evidence (phone calls, etc.) of his crimes. We all watched January 6 play out on TV. We all know about the fake electors. We saw the “honorable” judge Cannon defer his trial again and again and again. Except now that he won, we all apparently have to pretend that this shit was par for the course and/or never happened. Well, I saw it with my own eyes and it would take a pickaxe for me to forget it.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - archagon 2y ago
        I don’t watch MSM. It’s blindingly obvious what happened to anyone who’s not completely enamored with the far right. I’m not even sure which of the events I mentioned are factually contestable.

by nabla9 2y ago

latexr 2y ago

> but this is only difference in quantity As if that excuses anything. That reminded me of the time some country (Sweden?) with gun control had its first shooting in thirty years and the reaction in the US was “see, gun control doesn’t work”. For a large portion of things, quantity can be everything. “The Dose Makes the Poison”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison Either way, that is not the point. > Clearly America has money in politics problem Yes, it does. And whoever you give money to reveals who you support and is an indication of your beliefs and your character. Tim Cook either supports Trump (or his ideas), cares about money above all else, or is a spineless coward. It does matter which one it is, but neither of them is good.

bdangubic 2y ago
Tim Cook is a CEO and he answers to the shareholders. he does MUCH MUCH MUCH worse things to enrich his shareholders than donating measly $1m to Dementia Don :)
- latexr 2y ago
  > Tim Cook is a CEO and he answers to the shareholders. This is a personal donation. You can’t weasel an excuse of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders¹ from it. No one has shares on his life. Tim Cook is a human being and has to answer to his consciousness too. His Twitter bio quotes Martin Luther King. https://x.com/tim_cook https://x.com/tim_cook > “Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'” - MLK. He also claimed in the past that ROI wasn’t his primary concern. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim... ¹ And those are getting old. The guy is filthy rich and powerful, there’s no one stopping him from being ethical. He might get fired, big whoop. Makes zero difference to his ability to live comfortably the rest of his life.
  - nabla9 2y ago
    This is a personal donation Cook made in Apple's benefit in the role of CEO. He would not do this if he was not Apple CEO. You can see the same in elections in the US and other countries. People in lobby groups and their lawyers give large public donations to candidates in behalf of their clients. Donation buys access. This established way to do business.
    - latexr 2y ago
      Yes, I agree with all of that. My points still stand: 1. You can’t claim a donation of personal money is a responsibility to shareholders. Shareholders don’t control your personal life. 2. More importantly, fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is a bullshit reason whose only purpose is to justify unethical behaviour. If you go against your values because of money, they’re not your values. 3. Tim Cook likes to claim he fights the good fight. He’s an influential and powerful person whose actions can influence the lives of millions of people, so what he says should be compared to what he does.
      - nabla9 2y ago
        1. Is any person any less morally responsible for their decision when they work for the company or when they work as individuals. My answer is no. There is only legal and company branding decision, not moral ones. 2. Should companies and actions of their executives be treated as amoral (not having moral factor in their decision) or moral as a starting point. I think amoral. 3. Does anyone think that value statements from companies convey actual intentions? If not, why to always treat as PR and not talking points.
nabla9 2y ago
I feel like my comment provided a missing context that journalism rarely provides today. You seemed to interpret it as an excuse.

bediger4000 2y ago

It looks to me like journalists do provide context in some cases. Because the lack of context makes some people and policy look better than they would without context, it's worth trying to remember which people and policy don't get contextualized, and which do. For example, with some context, we can't tell that particular politicians floated policy proposals that were met with widespread pushback, then disavowed the policy. Later, when the uproar dies down, the politician quietly enacts the policy. Without the context, we don't see that politician as nearly always untruthful. By selective contextualization, particular politicians can be framed as fabulists, or framed as driven by circumstances, and therefore blameless.

archagon 2y ago

The difference is that Biden did not run on a fascist platform that promised to throw tens of millions into camps and imprison his political enemies. He was also not a twice-impeached felon who started a violent insurrection and tried to steal an election. Trump is a far-right criminal and not in any way a normal president. He would be rotting in a prison cell (if not strapped to the electric chair) were it not for the blatant corruption of the judiciary. Instead, he’s sitting on his golden throne and soliciting bribes from groveling and pathetic tech CEOs.

MemesAndBooze 2y ago
Don't you think you're exaggerating a little with the hyperbolic language?
- archagon 2y ago
  If anything, I am downplaying his crimes for the sake of forum civility. He tried to steal the election. This is a documented fact. Members of his own party found him guilty of doing so and provided tangible evidence (phone calls, etc.) of his crimes. We all watched January 6 play out on TV. We all know about the fake electors. We saw the “honorable” judge Cannon defer his trial again and again and again. Except now that he won, we all apparently have to pretend that this shit was par for the course and/or never happened. Well, I saw it with my own eyes and it would take a pickaxe for me to forget it.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - archagon 2y ago
      I don’t watch MSM. It’s blindingly obvious what happened to anyone who’s not completely enamored with the far right. I’m not even sure which of the events I mentioned are factually contestable.