4 ms·

What do you mean day by day. We have known this to be the case, for quite some time, yet majority of the public still thought that a convicted felon was good e

What do you mean day by day. We have known this to be the case, for quite some time, yet majority of the public still thought that a convicted felon was good enough to be president.

dijit 8mo ago
I think that's the exact irony that the parent is eluding to. It's all about the kids, unless, idk, you're rich enough?
- kelseyfrog 8mo ago
  Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth[1] lies squarely in the center of the foundational belief that those who've acquired such means have done so because they reflect "the highest type of man, the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished." It takes only a brief glimpse of the real world and its most wealthy to recognize that an abundance of virtue is not what's reflected in reality. In fact, the benevolence Carnegie describes, serves as a smoke screen for cruelty, degenerate acts, and the slaughterhouse of the soul. We've sold out every moral for a bait and switch and it's well past time to reneg on the social contract. 1. https://www.carnegie.org/about/our-history/gospelofwealth/ https://www.carnegie.org/about/our-history/gospelofwealth/
  - rob74 8mo ago
    I think you've got that quote backwards. In full it reads: > Unequally or unjustly, perhaps, as these laws sometimes operate, and imperfect as they appear to the Idealist, they are, nevertheless, like the highest type of man, the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished. Or (to shorten it a bit): "These laws (of capitalism) [...] are nevertheless [..] the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished". So this is only an unlimited belief in the virtues of capitalism, not in the virtues of rich people. From the introduction: > Carnegie believed in giving wealth away during one’s lifetime, and this essay includes one of his most famous quotes, “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.” Carnegie’s message continues to resonate with and inspire leaders and philanthropists around the world. I really wonder what Carnegie would think about his successors dismantling USAID?
    - kelseyfrog 8mo ago
      I believe the connection he was making was that the laws, results, and people profiting from the system all represent the best of humanity. That said, whether read forwards or backwards, the point still stands. I appreciate your attention to detail.
    - brigandish 8mo ago
      I would say it's more like "this is the best we have, not necessarily good", hence the reference to idealism and justice, much like the sentiment in Churchill's famous quote, "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried".
  - CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
    Andrew Carnegie wrote and lived in an era without an income tax. In that era rich men were expected to be broadly philanthropic, to steward their wealth for the good of the common, to act with generosity and responsibility. Because the state did not provide a safety net, the wealthy faced immense social pressure to act as stewards of the public good. In today's era those expectations do not exist. The public-facing, gilded age palaces, which by their public nature tend to enforce good behavior by forcing them to physically interact with the society they profited from, have been replaced by private, gated bunkers behind tall hedges blurred out on Google Maps. The wealthy wear jeans and hoodies to "blend in" or appear common, when they are very much not. A rail tycoon in a 10X beaver tophat might offer a beggar something on the street. A tech mogul in a hoody might not even get solicited. Income tax - and broadly speaking many other changes to the social contract between upper and lower classes, like the bureaucratization of welfare - has not just allowed but incentivized the wealthy to shirk the responsibilities of old, and outsource their morality to a (corrupt, as many have pointed out) government. And it's not good. There is no honor in giving anymore.
    - kelseyfrog 8mo ago
      If we repeal the income tax, virtue will return to the wealthy. Is that something you believe?
      - CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
        Improbable. It's hard to un-ring a bell once rung. Was adding critical context to the Carnegie citation.
        uncletscollie 8mo ago
        [dead]
      - coupdejarnac 8mo ago
        Are you really asking this? For real? You're shooting the messenger.
    - 8mo ago
- hn_acc1 8mo ago
  It's all about the kids when you need a certain segment of the population to vote a certain way.
- echelon 8mo ago
  It's never about kids. If they cared about kids, they would have school lunch and wouldn't starve. It's about control and monitoring of civilians. And creating a dragnet to ensnare any new politicians and business leaders. Freedom of speech is insufficient. We need freedom of privacy and from monitoring and tracking.
rootusrootus 8mo ago
That is the uncharitable interpretation. I think it is at least as likely that voters consistently get to chose between a turd sandwich and a giant douche, so it will always be possible to accuse them of preferring a terrible candidate. Also, nitpick: it was neither a majority of the public, or a majority of the eligible voting population, or even a majority of the people who voted. I think a really good first step, at least in the US, towards making our candidate selection better would be to mandate open primaries.
- Gigachad 8mo ago
  I think your interpretation is uncharitable. One of the options is a fraud and a pedophile and the other wasn’t. They absolutely were not equally bad.
  - DaSHacka 8mo ago
    You're right, the other was Kamala Harris, who was far worse.
  - rootusrootus 8mo ago
    I think he's guilty, and even so I don't believe we actually have anything that proves him a pedophile any more than Bill Clinton, for example. Continuing to call him a pedo just looks like more partisan politics, which uninterested people (who still bother to vote) tune out. Dems need to figure out how to run more interesting candidates. In 2024 they thought everyone wanted status quo, and it turns out that as housing prices go up and up, along with wages staying flat, people want to blow things up. And Trump seems to be that guy for them.
    - thrance 8mo ago
      We absolutely have proof that Trump is, in fact, a pedophile. Still doubting that is weirdly delusional, more probably plainly dishonest. > Continuing to call him a pedo just looks like more partisan politics, which uninterested people (who still bother to vote) tune out. Exactly the contrary is true. The Epstein stuff has caused an unprecedented dip in Trump's popularity. The more it's talked about the angrier the people get at him and his friends. > Dems need to figure out how to run more interesting candidates. Indeed, here's hoping for a true Democratic Tea Party, let progressives run the show. They've proved more than capable of motivating the masses, in New York and other places...
notjtrig 8mo ago
Only 22% of the public voted for Trump.
- otterley 8mo ago
  This is a completely useless statistic, and I'm not even close to being a Trump fan.
- ActorNightly 8mo ago
  Way more people didn't vote, and not voting against Trump is just as bad as voting for him.
  - otterley 8mo ago
    There are many reasons why people didn't vote, and it's not all because they sat out the election. Minors can't vote. Felons can't vote. Non-citizens can't vote. Those three groups of people comprise a substantial proportion of the total population. About half the country wasn't registered to vote. (Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/2024-presidential-election-voting-registration-tables.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/2024-pre...) If GP had written "22% of the eligible voting population" or "22% of registered voters" hadn't voted for Trump, those would be more meaningful facts.

What do you mean day by day. We have known this to be the case, for quite some time, yet majority of the public still thought that a convicted felon was good enough to be president.

dijit 8mo ago

I think that's the exact irony that the parent is eluding to. It's all about the kids, unless, idk, you're rich enough?

kelseyfrog 8mo ago
Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth[1] lies squarely in the center of the foundational belief that those who've acquired such means have done so because they reflect "the highest type of man, the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished." It takes only a brief glimpse of the real world and its most wealthy to recognize that an abundance of virtue is not what's reflected in reality. In fact, the benevolence Carnegie describes, serves as a smoke screen for cruelty, degenerate acts, and the slaughterhouse of the soul. We've sold out every moral for a bait and switch and it's well past time to reneg on the social contract. 1. https://www.carnegie.org/about/our-history/gospelofwealth/ https://www.carnegie.org/about/our-history/gospelofwealth/
- rob74 8mo ago
  I think you've got that quote backwards. In full it reads: > Unequally or unjustly, perhaps, as these laws sometimes operate, and imperfect as they appear to the Idealist, they are, nevertheless, like the highest type of man, the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished. Or (to shorten it a bit): "These laws (of capitalism) [...] are nevertheless [..] the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished". So this is only an unlimited belief in the virtues of capitalism, not in the virtues of rich people. From the introduction: > Carnegie believed in giving wealth away during one’s lifetime, and this essay includes one of his most famous quotes, “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.” Carnegie’s message continues to resonate with and inspire leaders and philanthropists around the world. I really wonder what Carnegie would think about his successors dismantling USAID?
  - kelseyfrog 8mo ago
    I believe the connection he was making was that the laws, results, and people profiting from the system all represent the best of humanity. That said, whether read forwards or backwards, the point still stands. I appreciate your attention to detail.
  - brigandish 8mo ago
    I would say it's more like "this is the best we have, not necessarily good", hence the reference to idealism and justice, much like the sentiment in Churchill's famous quote, "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried".
- CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
  Andrew Carnegie wrote and lived in an era without an income tax. In that era rich men were expected to be broadly philanthropic, to steward their wealth for the good of the common, to act with generosity and responsibility. Because the state did not provide a safety net, the wealthy faced immense social pressure to act as stewards of the public good. In today's era those expectations do not exist. The public-facing, gilded age palaces, which by their public nature tend to enforce good behavior by forcing them to physically interact with the society they profited from, have been replaced by private, gated bunkers behind tall hedges blurred out on Google Maps. The wealthy wear jeans and hoodies to "blend in" or appear common, when they are very much not. A rail tycoon in a 10X beaver tophat might offer a beggar something on the street. A tech mogul in a hoody might not even get solicited. Income tax - and broadly speaking many other changes to the social contract between upper and lower classes, like the bureaucratization of welfare - has not just allowed but incentivized the wealthy to shirk the responsibilities of old, and outsource their morality to a (corrupt, as many have pointed out) government. And it's not good. There is no honor in giving anymore.
  - kelseyfrog 8mo ago
    If we repeal the income tax, virtue will return to the wealthy. Is that something you believe?
    - CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
      Improbable. It's hard to un-ring a bell once rung. Was adding critical context to the Carnegie citation.
      - uncletscollie 8mo ago
        [dead]
    - coupdejarnac 8mo ago
      Are you really asking this? For real? You're shooting the messenger.
  - 8mo ago
hn_acc1 8mo ago
It's all about the kids when you need a certain segment of the population to vote a certain way.
echelon 8mo ago
It's never about kids. If they cared about kids, they would have school lunch and wouldn't starve. It's about control and monitoring of civilians. And creating a dragnet to ensnare any new politicians and business leaders. Freedom of speech is insufficient. We need freedom of privacy and from monitoring and tracking.

rootusrootus 8mo ago

That is the uncharitable interpretation. I think it is at least as likely that voters consistently get to chose between a turd sandwich and a giant douche, so it will always be possible to accuse them of preferring a terrible candidate. Also, nitpick: it was neither a majority of the public, or a majority of the eligible voting population, or even a majority of the people who voted. I think a really good first step, at least in the US, towards making our candidate selection better would be to mandate open primaries.

Gigachad 8mo ago
I think your interpretation is uncharitable. One of the options is a fraud and a pedophile and the other wasn’t. They absolutely were not equally bad.
- DaSHacka 8mo ago
  You're right, the other was Kamala Harris, who was far worse.
- rootusrootus 8mo ago
  I think he's guilty, and even so I don't believe we actually have anything that proves him a pedophile any more than Bill Clinton, for example. Continuing to call him a pedo just looks like more partisan politics, which uninterested people (who still bother to vote) tune out. Dems need to figure out how to run more interesting candidates. In 2024 they thought everyone wanted status quo, and it turns out that as housing prices go up and up, along with wages staying flat, people want to blow things up. And Trump seems to be that guy for them.
  - thrance 8mo ago
    We absolutely have proof that Trump is, in fact, a pedophile. Still doubting that is weirdly delusional, more probably plainly dishonest. > Continuing to call him a pedo just looks like more partisan politics, which uninterested people (who still bother to vote) tune out. Exactly the contrary is true. The Epstein stuff has caused an unprecedented dip in Trump's popularity. The more it's talked about the angrier the people get at him and his friends. > Dems need to figure out how to run more interesting candidates. Indeed, here's hoping for a true Democratic Tea Party, let progressives run the show. They've proved more than capable of motivating the masses, in New York and other places...

notjtrig 8mo ago

Only 22% of the public voted for Trump.

otterley 8mo ago
This is a completely useless statistic, and I'm not even close to being a Trump fan.
ActorNightly 8mo ago
Way more people didn't vote, and not voting against Trump is just as bad as voting for him.
- otterley 8mo ago
  There are many reasons why people didn't vote, and it's not all because they sat out the election. Minors can't vote. Felons can't vote. Non-citizens can't vote. Those three groups of people comprise a substantial proportion of the total population. About half the country wasn't registered to vote. (Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/2024-presidential-election-voting-registration-tables.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/2024-pre...) If GP had written "22% of the eligible voting population" or "22% of registered voters" hadn't voted for Trump, those would be more meaningful facts.