this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
568 points (99.0% liked)

politics

23377 readers
3390 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thatradomguy@lemmy.world 1 points 19 minutes ago

I really do think it would be fun to compile all of the billionaires in the world and just have them fight to the death in a gladiator kind of rig. Would be awesome.

[–] vane@lemmy.world 0 points 19 minutes ago* (last edited 19 minutes ago)

Bill Gates seeks redemption by giving away blood money and blackmailing younger fellow satan worshipers. What a jerk. Fuck him.

[–] selkiesidhe@lemm.ee 8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds more like someone has seen the world turning on the worthless shit that are billionaires NOT that someone has seen the light and wants to make the world a better place...

[–] Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 13 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Credit where credit is due, Bill Gates has been putting his money where his mouth is for decades now.

[–] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 7 points 47 minutes ago

Yeah, TBF that foundation has done a lot of good.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 2 points 39 minutes ago* (last edited 39 minutes ago)

We don't don't need princes or kings doing PR. If we taxed billionaires out of existence we could fund that and so much more. This guy doesn't get to make up for whatever he was doing on Epstein's plane, at least not without coming clean first.

[–] seeigel@feddit.org 20 points 4 hours ago

No need for envy. He owns enough farmland that he can easily top Musk by rising prices to let many more children starve to death.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Well he can't exactly kill the world 's richest, can he? Its a stronger indictment about the risks of wealth inequality than about the morality of the rich.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 12 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty sure he doesn't care

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago) (1 children)

Or he considers that a good thing. It's more likely that you think.

He's a breeder and a eugenicist. He believes the strong/successful should reproduce (how many kids does he have now?) and those less fortunate should die off.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] the_q@lemm.ee 42 points 6 hours ago (19 children)

Remember there are no good billionaires. No amount of "good" they do will ever be enough.

[–] DogOnKeyboard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago

Why can't we be better?

[–] Transtronaut@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, but that's why it's great to see them fighting each other. Nobody else seems able to do it better.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago

Fighting lol.......

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] StonerCowboy@lemm.ee 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Lmao Bill Gates ......you can save them you got 100s of billions as well

[–] eletes@sh.itjust.works 37 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Gates, 69, on Thursday announced plans to spend virtually his entire fortune over the next 20 years, during which time he estimates his foundation will spend more than $200 billion on global health, development, and education against $100 billion over the previous 25 years. The Gates Foundation will close its doors in 2045, decades earlier than previously envisaged.

Yeah sounds like he's trying

[–] peaceful_world_view@lemmy.world 1 points 52 minutes ago

That's great and all but the problem still exists that individuals are able to amass SO much wealth and power and get to decide where it goes. Billionaires should NOT exist.

[–] StonerCowboy@lemm.ee 9 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Now the rest of the billionaires can jump in but the greedy fucking dragons won't.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

God damn, you outrage addicts can't let one single thing be good, huh

[–] StonerCowboy@lemm.ee 1 points 7 minutes ago

There's no such good thing as a billionaire you bootlicking dimwit.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 135 points 9 hours ago (15 children)

Cool story, Bill. Who did you donate to? Why did you cut your philanthropic efforts to fight climate change and disease? Why have you and your buddies fought for minimizing and coopting government for years? Bill isn't innocent in all this, it's just a good time to blame Elon. Don't get me wrong, Elon 100% deserves it, but that doesn't mean that Bill isn't playing the PR game here.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 97 points 8 hours ago (5 children)

Why did you cut your philanthropic efforts to fight climate change and disease? Why have you and your buddies fought for minimizing

The problem is that billionaires should not exist but come on. $80 billion already donated. $7 Billion more just for Africa. Hundreds of millions in malaria research.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/11/17/bill-gates-foundation-pledges-7-billion-to-support-africa-health-and-agriculture/

Could he do more? Sure. But attacking someone who is doing a little because he isn't doing more doesn't seem fair.

Years ago Elon said he was disappointed when he met Bill Gates because Gates only wanted to talk about philanthropy and climate.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

This is the way. If classical conditioning reliably alters human behavior, we know negative conditioning against the 0.1% will indeed work, but never as well as positive reinforcement. It’s only for lack of opportunity to reward the good that we resort to punishing the bad, so when opportunities to use positive reinforcement present themselves, jump on them!

Concretely, if tomorrow the wealthiest of the world became avid philanthropists like Gates and divested as much as he has, the impact would be singular. It would feel like the first daybreak in human history. We’d still need to fix the systems that gave us monsters, but the friction preventing necessary reform would vanish. Encouraging this behavior is absolutely correct. Disregarding this behavior in order to exact personal vengeance makes it ever more unlikely to occur.

Thank you for your forward-thinking, non-reactionary contribution.

Edit: moved postscript

[–] audaxdreik@pawb.social 33 points 7 hours ago (6 children)

The problem is that the theft begins by simply becoming a billionaire in the first place. You don't get to be one by playing nice and not exploiting a lot of people and rules along the way. Sure the government could be blamed some for not having enough regulations in place to prevent/stop that, but capitalism ensures that businesses exploit any available loophole possible to maximize profit, otherwise you're a bad business.

While I can respect a lot of those philanthropic efforts, those should not be his decisions alone to make. That money should've been paid into taxes and distributed in agreed upon ways. $7 Billion dollars to Africa is just great, but it could do a lot of help here, too. I have no issues with sending $7B to Africa, but that sure seems like something the people should agree upon first, through some sort of national aid, and not as an effort to spare the conscience of an aging billionaire.

Fuck all billionaires. Every. Last. One. Forever.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 19 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

The problem is that the theft begins by simply becoming a billionaire in the first place.

That's why that was my first sentence!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Chastity2323@midwest.social 13 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

While I can respect a lot of those philanthropic efforts, those should not be his decisions alone to make. That money should've been paid into taxes and distributed in agreed upon ways.

As a capitalist, all of his solutions are capitalist. His efforts to slow climate change are primarily technological, with a focus on unproven horseshit like carbon capture rather than proven improvements like better, less car centric urban planning and reducing meat intake. He would never even consider an strategy of economic degrowth to fight climate change even though available evidence shows that that is exactly what we need.

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 10 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (3 children)

I think we're well past the chance of urban designing our way out of the climate collapse.

We need to make major changes in our consumption to even make a dent, but I say our best shot is cold fusion and carbon capture. Those are obvious longshots.

We've created a runaway greenhouse gas effect. Even if we cut emissions to 0 temperatures will continue to climb.

Obviously cutting emissions to 0 would give us more time to fix this mess though

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] diffaldo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 6 hours ago

Gates has history of lawsuits against open source projects. And he actively donates against any real systemic change. For example he has invested heavily in carbon capture technology which is useless to making impact to climate change.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 39 points 9 hours ago (14 children)

So are you Bill. You utter piece of shit.

Fuck all Billionaires

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 29 points 8 hours ago

"I haven't killed as many kids in so short a timeframe," is the implication here.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] vegeta@lemmy.world 47 points 10 hours ago
load more comments
view more: next ›