5 ms·

If the people who have the most to lose don't think that something is in the national interest, then is it really?

by givemeethekeys 11mo ago

xboxnolifes 11mo ago
They're also the people with the most ability to jump ship should something happen.
- coldtea 11mo ago
  aka zero skin in the game, and, worse, a lot to earn by doing favors and pushing for quick profits for their friends in the corporate and finance worlds
  - potato3732842 11mo ago
    It's the old world old money version of cashing out your tech bucks and retiring to Colorado.
mrcsharp 11mo ago
Disagreements about what is of national interest is always going to be a thing. In my opinion, having a country that doesn't have the means to build, at the very least, what is needed to keep its economy going is not in a good spot at all.
faichai 11mo ago
"think" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Are the people really thinking? I don't think they are.
- coldtea 11mo ago
  Those people are thinking just fine. With their wallets. Why would they prioritize national interests? Because they were elected to do so? After all they know they were actually elected because people were only given a couple of establishment approved choices, and in their naivety they happened to pick their side this time (after all they alternate between the two choices all the time). They also know they'll be fine and have their salaries, extras, and nice corporate post-politic sinecures whetever their performance. Just see Blair.
  - throwaway290 11mo ago
    > Why would they prioritize national interests? Because they were elected to do so? How about because they are human people like you and me. You don't think you are a bad guy who always does things only in your own interest right? So why do you think they are like that? How about if they really screw people over they know there will be mass protests etc.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - coldtea 11mo ago
      >How about because they are human people like you and me Oh, sweet summer child. >You don't think you are a bad guy who always does things only in your own interest right? So why do you think they are like that? Because I wasn't promoted and passed all the exams of a system designed to promote sociopaths, party interests, and corporate/financial/M.I.C. interests, nor did I have the sociopathic self-selection to want to get to the highest offices of power.
      - foldr 11mo ago
        Neither was Jeremy Corbyn, but he would have been Prime Minister if enough people had voted for him. Say what you will about him (I am not a fan), but he is not “establishment approved”.
        coldtea 11mo ago
        That's why he "didn't pass all the tests" and was undermined both by the media and by his own parties, and various establishment interests.
        foldr 11mo ago
        You said: > because people were only given a couple of establishment approved choices Unless you think Jeremy Corbyn was establishment approved (!), this is clearly not true. I’m not really sure what to make of your latest comment. Is your preferred world one where the media never criticize your favored politicians and the left wing of the Labour Party ruthlessly crushes internal dissent? If that’s what it would have taken to make Corbyn Prime Minister, then count me out.

If the people who have the most to lose don't think that something is in the national interest, then is it really?

xboxnolifes 11mo ago

They're also the people with the most ability to jump ship should something happen.

coldtea 11mo ago
aka zero skin in the game, and, worse, a lot to earn by doing favors and pushing for quick profits for their friends in the corporate and finance worlds
- potato3732842 11mo ago
  It's the old world old money version of cashing out your tech bucks and retiring to Colorado.

mrcsharp 11mo ago

Disagreements about what is of national interest is always going to be a thing. In my opinion, having a country that doesn't have the means to build, at the very least, what is needed to keep its economy going is not in a good spot at all.

faichai 11mo ago

"think" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Are the people really thinking? I don't think they are.

coldtea 11mo ago
Those people are thinking just fine. With their wallets. Why would they prioritize national interests? Because they were elected to do so? After all they know they were actually elected because people were only given a couple of establishment approved choices, and in their naivety they happened to pick their side this time (after all they alternate between the two choices all the time). They also know they'll be fine and have their salaries, extras, and nice corporate post-politic sinecures whetever their performance. Just see Blair.
- throwaway290 11mo ago
  > Why would they prioritize national interests? Because they were elected to do so? How about because they are human people like you and me. You don't think you are a bad guy who always does things only in your own interest right? So why do you think they are like that? How about if they really screw people over they know there will be mass protests etc.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 11mo ago
    >How about because they are human people like you and me Oh, sweet summer child. >You don't think you are a bad guy who always does things only in your own interest right? So why do you think they are like that? Because I wasn't promoted and passed all the exams of a system designed to promote sociopaths, party interests, and corporate/financial/M.I.C. interests, nor did I have the sociopathic self-selection to want to get to the highest offices of power.
    - foldr 11mo ago
      Neither was Jeremy Corbyn, but he would have been Prime Minister if enough people had voted for him. Say what you will about him (I am not a fan), but he is not “establishment approved”.
      - coldtea 11mo ago
        That's why he "didn't pass all the tests" and was undermined both by the media and by his own parties, and various establishment interests.
        foldr 11mo ago
        You said: > because people were only given a couple of establishment approved choices Unless you think Jeremy Corbyn was establishment approved (!), this is clearly not true. I’m not really sure what to make of your latest comment. Is your preferred world one where the media never criticize your favored politicians and the left wing of the Labour Party ruthlessly crushes internal dissent? If that’s what it would have taken to make Corbyn Prime Minister, then count me out.