@nonehitwonder
Well I sure do agree with you on their lack of success.
But can it be said so objectively? What do you think they'd say?
Look, all I'm saying is we have our perspective and they have theirs and they sure aren't going to change their ways.
All we can do is fight back and actively strive to change things.
@11backslashes
@shadowdancer @11backslashes I'm a bit confused by all the people in my replies trying to both-sides this particular point, whether to attempt comedy or rueful cynicism, but it feels like a bad-faith interpretation of a pretty clear statement.
If being objective means putting personal feelings aside to make an assessment based on facts and measurable results, then I would maintain that, objectively, the job of running everything being done is being done poorly. If the job were "acquire all the wealth at the expense of anyone but yourself," then objectively they could be considered a success, but that, I hope you can agree, is not what the job is supposed to be.
Otherwise I'm on board with your position that it's up to us.
@nonehitwonder well… our prime minister for 14 years is born in 1967. Not much better I can tell you…
(In his current role he’s calling orange D daddy…)
@nonehitwonder Okay but to be fair Bruce Springsteen was pretty competent at leading the E Street Band at that age so your premise fails. In this essay I will address...
/s
It seems a lot of "rich" white guys are just easily bought and/or blackmailed.
@nonehitwonder The fundamental misunderstanding here is that those people are working to make things better for everyone. They're not.
They're working to make things better for all rich, white men. In that endeavor, they're doing very well.