partial_accumen

The key word here is “paying”. Nothing you provided in reply qualifies for that term.

I'm not following you here, please clarify. The only time I used the term "pay" was in the context of the zero sum example. I don't think that's what you're referring to. The next time "paying" is used is you saying it. So I guess I need to ask what you mean when you said "paying their way up the 'ladder'". Can you explain what you're meaning there?

That cartoon is just a variation on zero-sum, isn't it? The wealthy man in the middle is trying to convince the man in the helmet on the right that he must lose if the immigrant on the left is to gain.

That conversation didn't go that way, but I think the answer to why the poor voting would vote for the GOP is addressed by the (possibly misattribution) Ronald Write quote:

“John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” ― Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress

The “logic” that anyone on SNAP is capable of paying their way up the “ladder” is complete horseshit.

By his own admission, the mother of JD Vance (VP) was on that era's equivalent of SNAP (Food Stamps). Her son became a US Senator and now sitting VP.

"He explained, “I was raised in a working-class family. My mother required food assistance for periods of her life. My grandmother required Social Security help to raise me. And she raised me in part because my own mother struggled with addiction for a big chunk of my early life. I went to college on the GI Bill after I enlisted in the Marine Corps and served in Iraq.”"

source

I have to credit a random Redditor from 10 years back or so that had some excellent analysis I haven't seen elsewhere or since. This Redditor's thesis was that the GOP have two core concepts:

1. Society is zero-sum. For someone to gain something, someone else must lose something.
2. Each person has a certain class level in society and that each person should stay in their class. If you are poor, you should stay poor. If you are rich you should stay rich. Attempting to move up into a higher level class should be restricted by any means of government possible.

Looking at these two together explain nearly every GOP initiative or position. So lets apply it to your question:

Why is he so against feeding the poor?

Applying the first concept: For the poor to be fed (gain), those that are not poor have to pay (loss). The GOP in power are largely rich, so they see the poor being able to eat through SNAP as a personal loss to the GOP.

Applying the second concept: SNAP may allow someone to spend what little other non-SNAP money they have on things that would advance them into a higher social class such as:

• more education to be able to earn more for higher skilled work
• more efficient transportation allowing them to access higher paying jobs either farther away or at more available hours
• specialized tools that could be used to earn higher income

So the GOP don't want the poor to be fed because they believe the poor should be poor and stuck there forever.

Honestly, outside of people traveling for emergencies, we as Americans need to stop giving airlines or money.

This is an odd take. Are you advocating for people to travel by car/train/boat or for people to stop traveling at all (except for emergencies?)

For the record, Bill Gates is complicit in the genocide in Gaza

https://timschwab.substack.com/p/is-philanthropy-profiting-from-genocide
https://www.mintpressnews.com/microsoft-israel-surveillance-azure-idf-gaza-genocide/290534/

For both of these to support your argument, you must be saying that owning stock in a company that benefits from business or weapons that benefit Israel makes the stockholder "complicit in the genocide in Gaza". If you're saying that than probably about 60% of Americans would be "complicit in the genocide in Gaza" as they have stock including index total market funds or S&P 500 funds which have fractions of shares in many of those same companies.

That seems like an overly broad definition to me, but if that is your definition, then your claim is true.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/11/11/bill-gates-should-know-better-how-israeli-occupation-ravages-environment-palestine

This one just talks about Gates being involved with Israel on climate change actions without any Gates involvement in Gaza. So have to assume your position is that being involved with Israel on issues affecting all of us globally is also an endorsement of genocide. That too, seems like an extreme position.

Yep, thanks for the fact check. Peter Theil is certainly a trump advisor helping shape policy but he doesn't hold an government office. I've corrected my post.

As a taxpayer, let me just say: I'm very happy you are able to get that funding for food! It is possibly the best use of our tax money to make those of us going through hard times able to get basic nutrition. Feel zero shame for using SNAP. Today its you that has the need. Tomorrow it could be me. We're in this together. I hope your future gets better and you won't need SNAP, but until then, please know that every penny you get for SNAP I'm happy that I had even a tiny part in helping you. Be safe, friend.

here in Canada.

yeeted

En Français SVP

Isn't there an entire government office in Quebec that comes up with new words en Français for Québécois French? Do they have a contribution for "yeet" yet?

He also claimed he felt it through his Kevlar vest. Didn’t know sandwiches are more powerful than bullets.

Clearly this was a Subway sandwich with an armor piercing tungsten penetrator ingredient. Evidence submitted by the prosecution cited Subway corporation's recent advertising campaign featuring the slogan "I can't get enough of that tungsten!". This branding campaign was, of course, a backpedal from Subway's previous offering of a Depleted Uranium penetrator which was largely shunned by sandwich consumers as being 'unhealthy'. /s

Edit: Redacted a mistaken identity

I'm not sure you understand what this article is or how our markets work.

The simple fact that somebody was able even to bet a billion is insanity that should never be possible to begin with. Nobody should have a billion dollars, let alone have so much that you can just safely bet a billion dollars

He doesn't have a billion dollars. He's a hedge fund manager that manages (at least) a billion dollars collectively of other people's investment money. Its that money he's betting.

Them he’s betting.yhst the economy will crash, basically, and we’re okay with that shit.

No, he's not. He's betting against only two companies: Nvidia and Palantir. He has a relatively small bet against Nvidia ($187.6 million), and HUGE bet against Palantir ($912 million). I'm not sure I'd bet against Nvidia yet, but Palantir is co-founded by Peter Theil, ~~trump's deputy chief of staff which job has a large influence on White House policy. If you ever watched the TV show The West Wing, this would be the Josh Lyman character's job.~~

We already know trump's favor swings widely and if politics are going against trump (as recent news show) then its not unbelievable that Theil might get the boot or at least trump would punish Theil by killing lucrative government contracts to buy Palantir services.

All of this should be illegal as fuck, and this guy belongs in a jail cell

The point of shorting a stock exists so that the market can express a view that they believe a stock will fail. This is an important "canary in the coal mine" for the rest of the market. The other option is a policy that you can't criticize a company with any meaning and investors continue to put money into failing/risky companies without this important indication of the risk.

Frankly I don't like your idea of jailing someone that says "The emperor has no clothes".