Are the richest rich best to run the country?

[OddBeMe]

Yes

No

[bobby_bush_eater]

No. This election we were truly fucked.

Either we support more wealth inequality and big businesses cutting corners and bending us over under the guise of inflation or we continue the disgusting liberal globalism that began with Biden and would've been so much worse with Kamala. Many of the big business stuff would still remain with the libs (donors/lobbying), most of the taxes they use would just make it impossible for the middle class to become wealthy and would cement old wealth then we'd have more bloated government agencies to solve problems like "homelessness" by shoving billions into gs jobs.

I don't like what Trump and Elon have been doing at all and I despise their exceptions of "cheap labor is fine cause I exploit it legally even though we make the laws".

The notion that had republicans known this they'd have voted differently is nonsense. Kamala legitimately reviled the founding fathers and European colonialism, she refuses to acknowledge who this country was built by and who it was for, I'd never vote for her, I don't see her as a US person the same way Trump is.

[Sevenpointfive]

i think to a certain degree, you do have to prove yourself as worthy. but i don't know if i'd consider trump or elon fully proven in practice. i would still rather a businessman in offices that run the business. lawmakers have no business outside of congress. and lawyers are the most untrustworthy of people in the world. i'd sooner trust an arab over a lawyer.

can someone please explain to me why there aren't 1 H. R. and 1 Senator per state? population size shouldn't matter. especially if you think the election is decided by swing states. it's incredibly stupid.

if you keep going in this direction, then social media influencers are going to be taking over your congress. we need a reformation of government and a complete flush out at every level of corruption.

my record is starting to break

turn the beat around - vicki robinson

[Anonymous]

No. Some of them might be very good at it, but being rich does not mean you’re either competent enough or trustworthy enough to run a country.

[OddBeMe]

Yes. I'd argue they have a billions of reasons not to work for our interest

[Opinion Owner]

Some rich people might honestly want to work for the good of the people, but I don’t think you can assume that the majority will do so. Or will have the skills to do so even if they do sincerely want to help.

[OddBeMe]

I would say less likely than politicians who work for the grass roots vote.

[Anonymous]

The richest have been running the country since the revolution. The majority of the richest backed Harris.

[OddBeMe]

False. Majority didn't back either.

[Opinion Owner]

Forbes said otherwise. Look at the war chest kamala raised to buy the election

[OddBeMe]

It’s false. There are 831 billionaires in the US. 70 supported Kamala, 57 supported trump. No a majority. Not even close.

[Opinion Owner]

majority
noun
the greater number.
"in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"

[AManOnTheWeb]

No. There's a "meritocracy" myth that's pervasive in US culture and is heavily promoted in the media. The idea that the best succeed and the those who fail are either lazy or don't try hard enough.

The reality is that luck plays a major role in making it into that top 500 tier of wealth as well as generational/dynastic wealth. There are also some indications that dishonesty can be a factor in being highly successful.

[RavVid]

If a rich man is so rich he may not feel a need to be richer. It could be a desire to accomplish that drives him. And if that could be his accomplishment all his compatriots could benefit.

In the inverse public servants sort of specialize in finding reasons things cannot be achieved. It is much easier for them to find reasons why something cannot be done than how it could be done.

[OddBeMe]

Bahaha... not feel the need to be richer. Wtf?

[RavVid]

It happens in the US. Some of your richest turn to spending the money on what they consider to be beneficial philanthropy. It is difficult for you to deny this as there are quite a number cases of it. Bill Gates for example plus others.

Musk might just think space ships are cool though.

[OddBeMe]

So musk needn't accept anymore profits then. Has that happened?

[RavVid]

No idea - he hasn't called me to bounce ideas for a while now.

[OddBeMe]

Well he's the richest on earth. The minimum evidence for your dumbass claim would be for him to quit making money.

[RavVid]

Actually he never has called me so I don't know what is in his mind. There might be several more X's on the way. X Rare Earth, X Fusion, X etc etc. Dunno.

Musk seems to like achieving visions and he has gone from one vision to another and money is needed for that. The corollary of you wanting him to stop making money is for him to stop achieving technical visions and that is asking him to stop being who he is.

Incorporating industrialist into gov't was done in WW2 cause it was kinda important to get things done. I think the US got 300 working for govt with knudsen being the primary. The UK quite a lot too but I don't have a number. Certainly not unknown.

[OddBeMe]

Hint: he still makes money. So you claiming rich people don't care about money is bullshit

[RavVid]

Yet some extremely rich people don't seem to have an issue giving money away.

[dustybiker2]

Those with the pulse of the people are always best.

[OddBeMe]

Are they? People are idiots

[dustybiker2]

Amend
Those that understand the basic requirements to survive without ending up in a tent on a sidewalk.

[OddBeMe]

But then they wouldn't care about homeless people!

[dustybiker2]

Someone here said that was what flame throwers were for...

[dustybiker2]

We are trying to separate politicians though. They are all selfish beasts. You would need to elect someone who wasn't political to reach close to best.

[OddBeMe]

True there's a level of sociopaths and narcissism needed to go through all the efforts of election. Not sure what to do about that. Term limits perhaps.

[dustybiker2]

I personally think too much damage can be done in four years. It should be two. But keep the election junk to two weeks.

[OddBeMe]

Europe does have a media blackout around their elections. And doesn't a president do everything in the first 100 days?

[dustybiker2]

Both true

[Anonymous]

In general the richer a person is the better they are at managing money provided they earned rather than inherited their wealth.

[OddBeMe]

But wouldn't your interests diverge from theirs?

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme
If you ask the goverment to do things it shouldn't be doing your interest would diverge from everyone's.

[OddBeMe]

Apparently not. Cuz you fcks still like trump

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme Almost nobody likes any president that much they are always the lesser of the available evils.
The only reason I like trump more than most other presidents including Obama, Biden, Bush, or Kamala is on net he asks the goverment to do less. Primary because of his deregulation agenda.

[OddBeMe]

Right like not produce the covid vax or manage the inflation.

[call_me_scar]

No being born with a lucky spawn doesn't mean shit when it comes to running a country correctly

[Juxtapose]

It's like you pretend George Soros doesn't exist.

[Juxtapose]

Also having wealthy people in your cabinet as president is not illegal. You sound like a fucking Marxist.

[Juxtapose]

You're not even one of the common people either. You don't even get your own groceries and you are pretty ignorant of food prices.

[msc545]

No - they are sociopaths.

[NicholasRedone]

Don't they? 😄😆

[OddBeMe]

How much were bidens cabinet worth?

[Agape93]

Nope