Yup, I took a large venti in your bathroom

Its estimated that this will stop underage people accessing porn for at least 30 seconds while they download tor browser

If you consider the price of equipment, food, training, transport etc. it sounds like a bargain to me.

I mean, the price of an American soldier.

“Wait a minute, are you trying to tell me that the person who’s been going robbin people while wearing a hood is also called Robin Hood and that a real name of a real person and not just British people taking piss?”

*Click clack

You’ve been very naughty this year haven’t you, Brian?

Never before, in human history, has such ruthlessness been so wholesome.

deleted by creator

I’m not surprised. A barrister is, traditionally, who you would hire to represent you, specifically within a higher court, when it sounds like all you needed to do was chat to the duty solicitor for free.

What a mix up. It sounds like your dad really screwed you over there. You must’ve been very cross when you found out

Sorry, I mean, instead of a solicitor?

Wow that really does make the UK sound like a police state. If you don’t mind me asking, why did you have to hire a barrister?

Thats fair enough but, for me, the problem is that one of the many things that are highly valuable is a CEO thats very good at paying everyone below them as little as possible, to maximise wealth extraction by shareholders. Valuable to who?

Of course, youd be right to say that how business works but I think its unfair to use the paygap they’re incentivised to make as justification of the paygap its self. By far and away, most of the people in the world work for their money.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about this. I don’t really care if someone who works harder than me and or was more successful having a bigger house and a faster car etc. I don’t think those things matter as much to me and the incentive can, potentially, be put to really wholesome uses. To me, the only question is “how much more?”

The problem is the people who don’t work for their money and just own for it instead. Not that you’ve said either way but they dont necessarily and very often don’t work harder, have more experience or more responsibilities. Once you’re wealthy enough, you can have nearly all of that taken care or for you.

Personally, I agree with it in the sense of at least the CEOs are working and there are bigger problems.

100% and you probably know this, so I’m just addin: think of infinity as a sequence of infinite numbers. The number of all the even numbers, that stretch off into infinity, are also infinite. However, that infinite number isn’t as big as regular infinity.

You can have different sizes of infinity because when things get that big, the rules change. Its almost like infinity / 2 = smaller infinity.

Tbf, those same billionaires are pretty powerful but yeah, you’re right and it’s tragic.

“VPNs are haram but tor browser truly is the work of Allah himself”

Some guy, maybe.

I wish you the very best of luck. The main issues you’ll have will be, in order: funding, funding and funding.

Anyone being serious about this will have to spend most of their time thinking about that. Its why they always, eventually, end up being g captured by the powers that be. But they can do a lot of good before then, in the right circumstances.

One solution is through part of the party being a sort of union of trade unions. Unions have money, similar values and members who would potentially join. Membership subs would be another. They can do an awful lot of good but unions can also come with their own long list of problems you’ll have to keep your eye on.

Whatever name you choose, check out the formation of political labour movements, as a kind of road map to building what you want. An example would be the labour party in the UK or NZ. It’ll have to be done your way and for an American electorate of course but im sure you won’t need any inspiration from me or any other country for that part.

Then this would be the first time in modern American history that this has happened. If so, then thats a huge thing and most likely, it’ll be the social media owners now being more disproportionally ppowerful. That would be more in line with everything that’s happened before.

Youre also relying on accurate self reporting from musk, the republicans and trump there.

I’m basing what I’ve said on whats happened before. Election spending won’t be reliably verifiable this quickly.

On the contrary, they’re more important now than they’ve ever been. There also hasn’t been an election where the highest spender didn’t win. Its THE determining factor.

The same people who fund presidential campaigns for Republicans also spend lots of money on influencing democratic nominee choices. The whole things been captured.

Its like you all can’t see the woods for the trees, in the politest way possible. You see the state of trump and all the things that make him an aweful candidate and you say “how could the dems not beat that” instead of “what on earth could exert so much influence that even being that terrible couldn’t stop him?”

There’s no amount of “the dems not having a strong enough message” that overcomes the divide in the candidates, without huge influence. Their campaign wasn’t great but no where close enough to lose to someone like trump, in a fair fight. It would’ve had to have been utterly shocking from start to finish and, as bad as it was, it wasn’t that bad.

Imo, you’ve got all the prices. However, I would put them in a different order.

Short answer: Republican or Democrat, the candidate that spends the most wins. Therefore, fund raising is winning.

There’s a small group of king-makers in the US and the candidate who offers them the most becomes president. Recently, the people who decide who gets to be president has started to include social media companies and amazon, who hosts half the Internet. Trump also cozied up to the American owner of the company the owns tiktok. Thats how he won. Trumps also great for social media engagement and news channel views.

Even candidates who happen to be better than the republican candidate, no democratic hopeful worth being of “the left” will ever be given enough money to become the president of America. Even if they started from a position that would appeal to them, they would have to compromise on everything that made them that in order to be allowed anywhere near the Whitehouse by the American ultra wealthy.

What you’re seeing isn’t the failure of the Democrats to correctly triangulate but the strength of the American ultra wealthy consent manufacturing machine.

Next they’ll be wanting jobs, to own property and to wear trousers too!

In the history of politics

They do realise that there were political ads during the suffragette movement, right?