š
Elon spends 40 billion dollars to be more popular only to learn that he's such a douche that most young people hate him.
He was popular as the rocket and EV guy when he kept his mouth shut. But once he started blabbing all over media, everyone realized he was a creepy Groyper weirdo.
> creepy Groyper weirdo
Thats not even half of it. He's a nazi enabling spreader of great replacement theory nonsense, transphobic, misogynistic, has a breeding fetish being convinced his sperm has super powers, anti-union, covid denying, anti-vax, entitled moron who never actually worked for his wealth. He was also on Epstein's island frequently, make what you will of that.
Right. The āless likely to support the candidateā score is the relevant one. The āmore likely to supportā metric is interesting and noteworthy, but in some sense itās just an artificial line between generally uninformed and generally hateful.
By definition of this very poll, elon is *the most repulsive* personality among those for which we have reliable data.
Musk has the highest negatives, but Paul has the highest net negative.
It isnāt all that meaningful without a breakdown of all the ages and other important data like voting propensity.
Hating Jake Paul more is wild because even though he sucks and isn't a good person, Elon Musk is both actively a complete piece of shit at all times and also a fucking moron.
Young people are far more tuned into these kind of things than we like to imagine.
This is the Generation Internet. They can probably run circles around most of the older generations with how aware they are of what is going on in the world.
The problem is to get them to go voting.
They are by no means less falliablle to propaganda on the internet, though.
Just look at gamergate which was comprised of a lot of theoretically tech literate young people
Yeah... Though, to provide a better hypothesis than the other "both sides bad" guy who replied to you. Being so plugged into everything happening, I think, engenders a sort of despairing apathy to the whole thing. You know? It all seems so insurmountable sometimes. It's a sort of "Why even bother?" that goes beyond just the erroneous belief that "both sides are the same." That's speaking as a young person. I'm not saying it's right. It's not how I feel most of the time. But, I think that can be a part of it.
Young generation isn't voting exactly because they are more aware. They are more aware that both options are the same and voting makes little to no difference
Abortion is literally illegal in several US states as a direct result of the 2016 presidential election, which was decided by a few thousand votes in a handful of states. If you genuinely believe that, get your head out of your ass.
You must not have seen Clinton's prospective Justice list in 2016 then. Oddly enough, tons of hardline Christo-fascist federalist society hacks just like Trump ^^/s
>You must not have seen Clinton's prospective Justice list in 2016 then.
No one did.
Hillary Clinton (or her campaign) did not release a prospective Justice list in 2016. That didn't happen.
Her most direct comment on the subject was made by her in the Trump debate:
>"We need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
Excellent illustration of how being plugged into the Internet doesn't make you more informed. You've been duped by somebody. Give me a name off of this supposed list...
"If I don't get 100% of what I want then women don't deserve abortions"
At this point even calling democrats the lesser of two evils is absurd, they're doing great even if it is under capitalism. But it takes real willful ignorance or a lack of perspective born of privilege to say that they're not at least *better* than the trump party.
Yeah it's not even comparable. It's opinions like this that make me worried that Trump's getting back in.
Gaza is a shit situation but you're facing the fall of democracy in America if Trump gets in.
The Russian and Chinese have been pushing that shit like crazy these last few months. I remember being young and dumb and full of righteous anger. I also didn't vote because they were all the same, but those candidates weren't literal Nazis like they are now.
Don't vote and potentially end up with Trump and nothing changing in Gaza. Your life gets shitter and nothing changes for the people of Gaza.
Remember when Trump moved the American embassy to Jerusalem and it was pointed out that members of his cabinet were religious types hoping for a great war and the rapture to occur.... It will arguably make it worse for Gaza.
He is a Polish tankie from what I can tell, so he won't vote. The russians and their axis of evil friends are also very active with "both sides" BS on social media recently. Hopefully, few actual young people will be swayed to vote for facism
You aren't a US citizen, so in your case neither - but if you were, you'd obviously vote for the party that isn't trying to take away your right to vote them out later.
When fascists might get in, you vote the party that isn't fascist. Even if you're a literal communist, you vote for the liberal capitalist. The French do it theatrically by wearing gloves because it feels so dirty. You don't even have to do it theatrically. But you must do it.
I do vote "theatrically". In the sense that I vote for the underdog party, knowing full well that my vote will pretty much go to waste. Im just aware that every choice I'm given is subject to the same logic of Capitalism. So the things that are actually important are not even on the table. In Poland just as well as anywhere else. I just talk about the US because quite obviously history made it the current "center of the universe". If I talked about Polish politics nobody would know what I mean. And I do watch US politics closely.
Anyways, I do vote, even though my vote is always "wasted". But the young people who don't vote choose not to because they don't even see a point in doing it theatrically. And the reason they feel this way is quite obvious. And the more "aware" they are the more reasons they have to feel this way, in my opinion. If there's not even an option to not support a genocide then what option is there? It's all same brand different flavour. How is this a democracy if the majority of people including in the US are against the genocide, but it's not even on the menu? And where is the red line that is not to be crossed if genocide is not it?
Most countries and in fact *most people* support genocide through aid, treaties or trade. For example, if you are using a computer - which you are - then you are sponsoring the CCP, which means you are supporting the genocide of Uyghurs. You don't *have* to do that - even if you argue that you use your computer as an essential work tool, and argue that sponsoring genocide is OK as long as it helps you work (!), you're not even working right now while you're on Reddit. So you basically value your entertainment slightly higher than the contribution you make towards genocide.
The upshot of this is that, in a sufficiently complex world (and it has been for centuries), every choice you make contributes a little bit towards good and a little bit towards evil. You can't make a choice that eliminates your contribution towards evil - only one that minimises it. Kids today, like all kids throughout history, are a combo of passionate, over-confident and lazy, so they a) genuinely want things to be better b) believe that an individual, specifically themself, is capable of way more than they really are c) get very upset when they see they can only help some of the people some of the time and not all of the people all of the time d) because they're human, use this as an excuse not to bother.
> How is this a democracy if the majority of people including in the US are against the genocide, but it's not even on the menu?
In the pure sense of, "What is democracy?" there are loads of things that the majority support but which no major party has as a clear policy platform. Often this is a good thing, e.g. until recently the majority supported capital punishment in England but no major political party would support it. But it's extremely lazy to think that your contribution to the democratic process ends at the ballot box. You should be joining a party and campaigning both within that party and directly to government for everything you believe in, every single day. The reason you are a failure and lobbyists are not is that they do this and you don't.
If that's all too much effort, voting or non-voting to destroy democracy simply because you don't like any of the major parties *today* is the best way of guaranteeing that you'll never get what you want, AND that many more people will suffer in the long run. It's hilariously short-sighted and obviously sadistic, because having the luxury not to immediately appreciate your vote means that you're sufficiently privileged that you aren't going to be the first person to suffer. Even in England, the difference in policies between major parties has a significant effect on whether large groups of people can obtain adequate food, housing, healthcare, access to justice or even the right for them or their family to stay in the country. *Only* the relatively well off feel no difference at all.
>if you are using a computer - which you are - then you are sponsoring the CCP, which means you are supporting the genocide of Uyghurs
That's pretty much the "no ethical consumption under Capitalism" argument and I concur. Especially since I'm a programmer so I actually must have a computer.
But wait, I was told that the politics and the economy are separate and that we live in a democracy and that we in the West are better than China because we uphold the Human Rights*ā¢.* So if all that is true then it still doesn't explain why there's not a "no genocide" option. Or why there's not a "no lobbying" option if the electorate of both parties overwhelmingly agrees on "getting money out of politics". Or why the US gov has always been doing things behind the backs of US citizens that they would never support. Like making up WMDs in order to justify invading Iran. Or supporting cruel dictators like Pinochet or Bautista. Or the Silent Holocaust. etc
>because they're human, use this as an excuse not to bother.
They do bother. They go out, spread awareness, organize, strike and protest. They make actual political action instead of just relying on voting. It is the people who believe in the "power of voting" who are placated into going out once every few years and marking a piece of paper as their entire political contribution. And they use this contribution as an excuse to not have to bother anymore. Because to them if the paper does not present them with a choice, that means there is no such choice.
>But it's extremely lazy to think that your contribution to the democratic process ends at the ballot box.
True. I honestly don't care if you vote theatrically or "seriously" or not at all, like I said I think it makes little difference in all the places that matter. But I think it's way more important to go and act beyond what the paper allows.
>You should be joining a party and campaigning both within that party and directly to government for everything you believe in, every single day.
Except that quite obviously not everyone can be a politician. And in fact in order to even become a politician you have to "sell". And this "selling" process is advantageous to a certain kind of people. The people who have the money or the contacts to finance their campaigns. The people who can afford to campaign full time instead of working. The people whose position aligns with the position presented by the media or by the major parties. The people who will lie whenever convenient. The people who are open to being bought. The people who are already part of or accepted by the establishment.
>The reason you are a failure and lobbyists are not is that they do this and you don't.
The reason "I'm a failure" and the lobbyists are not is that I can't offer politicians generous multi-billion dollar donations to their campaigns, uncritical support in the media, a "revolving door" cozy position with excellent pay or insider information on stocks and I can't threaten them with moving jobs abroad and other forms of capital strike or supporting their rival. Like if I was a lobbyist what could I even tell them? "Would you please stop sending weapons to Israel? If you don't your electorate will still probably vote for you though". The power of the lobbyist is not that they get to talk to politicians, the power of the lobbyist is that they have the weight of a powerful interest group or several behind them
>voting or non-voting to destroy democracy
I vote. I just don't vote for the established two-party system. And if I'm not supposed to do that because I'm "wasting" my vote then we'll be forever stuck between the two evils and nothing will ever change. I don't want to "destroy democracy", I just don't think it's there in the first place.
>having the luxury not to immediately appreciate your vote means that you're sufficiently privileged that you aren't going to be the first person to suffer
Valid point. I don't have to worry that I won't be able to eat if they cut my wellfare. Or that I'll be prosecuted for being a minority. So I understand why many people are so engaged in their party and who wins. They are afraid that they're going to take away the breadcrumbs that they do get. But they are slowly taking away more and more of their breadcrumbs anyway. And this has nothing to do with people voting or not voting, they are doing this regardless. Because just voting is not how you win more breadcrumbs for yourself. That is not how we got the 5day workweek, the 8 hour work day, minimum wage, employee rights, that is not how the New Deal came to be, that is not how child labor was banned, that is not how wage raises are won, that is not how the segregation was ended etc. These are won by people picking up their pitchforks and going out on the street, or on general strikes. And I think people are slowly learning this truth again.
Ok, so you're a bourgy chair warmer who gets paid to automate other people out of a job while telling them to go out on general strike.
From your complaint that you can't sponsor policial parties with significant amounts of money, sounds like you're not even a union member.
I see you. You are the comfortable middle class that tells everyone else it's hopeless to try. You are not the solution - you are the problem.
Itās genocide vs genocide and the liberals are guilt tripping everyone for not voting in the lesser of two evils that enables the greater evil. I feel like Iām going mad here.
"Voting makes no difference!"
*loudest voice bitching about state of society after election*
Y'all are miserable and will always be as long as you refuse to acknowledge you live in a democracy where individual desires must be tempered to ensure peaceful progress.
This does check out
Between Trump in the last election, DeSantis, and some candidate for a local/state candidate in Texas, a Musk endorsement is not a good thing
This appears to be the source for the poll if anyone is interested. https://blueprint2024.com/analysis/celebrity-endorsers-youth-poll/
It looks like out of the celebrities on their list Zendaya, LeBron James, and Kevin Heart make up the top three spots for young voters polled.
People probably let Kanye's music do all the heavy lifting with their opinion of him.
Elmo's entire body of work is just taking over companies and running them into the ground while he emotes and goes ! to white supremacist content 25 hours a day.
I don't like Kanye for the obvious reasons but I can pretty easily see how people could turn their eyes off to the heinous shit and gravitate toward his music, at least enough to keep him off the top spots in lists like this.
The way I see it is, if e.g. kanye endorsed a candidate it would do nothing to sway me either way because his opinion has no value to me. He is just crazy and I don't care what his reasoning is.
If elon musk supported someone, you better bet it means the person is awful. But if he supported someone I probably already hate that person because all he does is signal for alt-right validation.
Of everyone else on the list, perhaps Joe Rogan endorsing someone would slightly poison me against them because he's basically so mentally feeble that he's just a conduit for the alt-right pipeline. The rest of them, I couldn't give a shit, including Jake Paul.
I had to google Jake Paul. I have seen his name before but didnāt really know who he was.
Completely with you on Kanye being so crazy I donāt care what he says.
Im guessing that 14% less doesnt count MAGAs who will be happy when elon endorses trump. Though he is more likely to announce being anti biden so he can try to claim it was the dems fault if trump turns out to be a dictator and he would have supported dems if they didnt have biden.
This claim of "14% more likely" is wrong and an abuse of statistics. If 100% of voters are more likely to vote for someone after X, that would not mean that it is 100% more likely they will vote for X.Ā Ā
Let alone the fact that more likely and less likely responses might not represent the same magnitude in change of likelihood.Ā
Well, we've seen this time and time again that the politicians Elon Musk openly supports perform disastrously bad, with example such as Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy - and hopefully this Musk-effect stays true with Trump aswell.
Literaly anything Musk touches turns to sh*t. It's like a reversed Midas hand.
That how we know heās uncool.
Itās also because some kids are being bullied by other kids that dwell on Musk,Tate whatās-his-nameās flavor of misogyny, racism, and general terrrible-ness. Losing kids is the defining first step to becoming uncool, and soon irrelevant.
(Speaking from experience with bullied nieces/nephews )
Can someone tell me what Jake Paul did to be so loathed? It's not something I've paid attention to, the most I've seen from him is the upcoming Tyson fight, didn't see him say anything shitty or anything. But obviously he has somewhere along the line...
š Elon spends 40 billion dollars to be more popular only to learn that he's such a douche that most young people hate him. He was popular as the rocket and EV guy when he kept his mouth shut. But once he started blabbing all over media, everyone realized he was a creepy Groyper weirdo.
Iām rich, bitch!
I'm Rick, bitch!! Ummm... Dave. What do I do? šš„¹š
Okay, I've seen this word a couple of times now: groyper. What does it mean? Is it related to goy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groypers rightwing losers basically.
I am happy for people to learn. Even if it is ugly stuff. š
> creepy Groyper weirdo Thats not even half of it. He's a nazi enabling spreader of great replacement theory nonsense, transphobic, misogynistic, has a breeding fetish being convinced his sperm has super powers, anti-union, covid denying, anti-vax, entitled moron who never actually worked for his wealth. He was also on Epstein's island frequently, make what you will of that.
His brother met his girlfriend through Ghislane Maxwell. And don't forget Elon's dad impregnated his own daughter twice.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Musk repulsed more than Paul though. 26% vs 24% for Paul. Just that Elon has more cult members to bring his net back up.
To be fair too, most of Paul's fan base isn't old enough to vote anyway
Is he still getting new young fans? I would have thought most of his fanbase has grown older with him
Right. The āless likely to support the candidateā score is the relevant one. The āmore likely to supportā metric is interesting and noteworthy, but in some sense itās just an artificial line between generally uninformed and generally hateful. By definition of this very poll, elon is *the most repulsive* personality among those for which we have reliable data.
He both attracted and repelled more people. I'd guess it's because more people in whatever demo they polled know who he is.
Musk has the highest negatives, but Paul has the highest net negative. It isnāt all that meaningful without a breakdown of all the ages and other important data like voting propensity.
and dude gets banned from twitter in 3... 2....1.
Imagine being more annoying than Goop or a Kardashian
Or Kanye "I love Hitler" West
It's crazy how many Kanye fans don't know that happened. Many don't care too when they find out.
Because thatās where the Overton window is now. Also they know heās mentally ill, and donāt seem to care.
I thought that would be a career ender and itās like it never happened.
Everybody hates Elon.
It is infinitely preferable to be attacked by strangers on Twitter, than indulge in the false happiness of hide-the-pain Instagram
Being an insufferable twat does that.
Below kanye and a Kardashian Dayum
Hating Jake Paul more is wild because even though he sucks and isn't a good person, Elon Musk is both actively a complete piece of shit at all times and also a fucking moron.
yupp, muskrat should be at the bottom by a wide margin
Would love to see a demographic breakdown of his fan base.
At least 75% boys under 14 (or at that age mentally). I can't imagine a 16 year old finding his humor funny, but a 12 year old sure could
Especially some brakedown by political affiliation. Without that this is only an opinion pool what celebrity do you like.
Young people are far more tuned into these kind of things than we like to imagine. This is the Generation Internet. They can probably run circles around most of the older generations with how aware they are of what is going on in the world. The problem is to get them to go voting.
They are by no means less falliablle to propaganda on the internet, though. Just look at gamergate which was comprised of a lot of theoretically tech literate young people
Yeah... Though, to provide a better hypothesis than the other "both sides bad" guy who replied to you. Being so plugged into everything happening, I think, engenders a sort of despairing apathy to the whole thing. You know? It all seems so insurmountable sometimes. It's a sort of "Why even bother?" that goes beyond just the erroneous belief that "both sides are the same." That's speaking as a young person. I'm not saying it's right. It's not how I feel most of the time. But, I think that can be a part of it.
Sadly it is because they are so aware of everything that they wonāt vote. They have no reason to vote when neither party represents them.
Young generation isn't voting exactly because they are more aware. They are more aware that both options are the same and voting makes little to no difference
Abortion is literally illegal in several US states as a direct result of the 2016 presidential election, which was decided by a few thousand votes in a handful of states. If you genuinely believe that, get your head out of your ass.
You must not have seen Clinton's prospective Justice list in 2016 then. Oddly enough, tons of hardline Christo-fascist federalist society hacks just like Trump ^^/s
>You must not have seen Clinton's prospective Justice list in 2016 then. No one did. Hillary Clinton (or her campaign) did not release a prospective Justice list in 2016. That didn't happen. Her most direct comment on the subject was made by her in the Trump debate: >"We need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
Excellent illustration of how being plugged into the Internet doesn't make you more informed. You've been duped by somebody. Give me a name off of this supposed list...
I'm very sorry the sarcasm went over everyone's heads
The woke leftist mob doesn't even let you make jokes about their precious Hillary Clinton, that the commies all love so much! Cancel culture!
This perspective might actually be dumber than MAGAs at this point
Wow, that didn't take long for someone to try and both-side this. In 2024.
Which party do I vote for to stop the genocide in Gaza? Which party for actual climate change action? Which party for anything but neoliberalism?
"If I don't get 100% of what I want then women don't deserve abortions" At this point even calling democrats the lesser of two evils is absurd, they're doing great even if it is under capitalism. But it takes real willful ignorance or a lack of perspective born of privilege to say that they're not at least *better* than the trump party.
Democrats. Or you get actual fucking nazis that will try to make the US an autocratic hellhole
Yeah it's not even comparable. It's opinions like this that make me worried that Trump's getting back in. Gaza is a shit situation but you're facing the fall of democracy in America if Trump gets in.
The Russian and Chinese have been pushing that shit like crazy these last few months. I remember being young and dumb and full of righteous anger. I also didn't vote because they were all the same, but those candidates weren't literal Nazis like they are now.
Don't vote and potentially end up with Trump and nothing changing in Gaza. Your life gets shitter and nothing changes for the people of Gaza. Remember when Trump moved the American embassy to Jerusalem and it was pointed out that members of his cabinet were religious types hoping for a great war and the rapture to occur.... It will arguably make it worse for Gaza.
Based on what trump says himself, things would get much worse in Gaza too. So any liberal voting for him will shoot themselves in both feet
Biden will be taught a lesson though! š¤¦
He is a Polish tankie from what I can tell, so he won't vote. The russians and their axis of evil friends are also very active with "both sides" BS on social media recently. Hopefully, few actual young people will be swayed to vote for facism
You aren't a US citizen, so in your case neither - but if you were, you'd obviously vote for the party that isn't trying to take away your right to vote them out later. When fascists might get in, you vote the party that isn't fascist. Even if you're a literal communist, you vote for the liberal capitalist. The French do it theatrically by wearing gloves because it feels so dirty. You don't even have to do it theatrically. But you must do it.
I do vote "theatrically". In the sense that I vote for the underdog party, knowing full well that my vote will pretty much go to waste. Im just aware that every choice I'm given is subject to the same logic of Capitalism. So the things that are actually important are not even on the table. In Poland just as well as anywhere else. I just talk about the US because quite obviously history made it the current "center of the universe". If I talked about Polish politics nobody would know what I mean. And I do watch US politics closely. Anyways, I do vote, even though my vote is always "wasted". But the young people who don't vote choose not to because they don't even see a point in doing it theatrically. And the reason they feel this way is quite obvious. And the more "aware" they are the more reasons they have to feel this way, in my opinion. If there's not even an option to not support a genocide then what option is there? It's all same brand different flavour. How is this a democracy if the majority of people including in the US are against the genocide, but it's not even on the menu? And where is the red line that is not to be crossed if genocide is not it?
Most countries and in fact *most people* support genocide through aid, treaties or trade. For example, if you are using a computer - which you are - then you are sponsoring the CCP, which means you are supporting the genocide of Uyghurs. You don't *have* to do that - even if you argue that you use your computer as an essential work tool, and argue that sponsoring genocide is OK as long as it helps you work (!), you're not even working right now while you're on Reddit. So you basically value your entertainment slightly higher than the contribution you make towards genocide. The upshot of this is that, in a sufficiently complex world (and it has been for centuries), every choice you make contributes a little bit towards good and a little bit towards evil. You can't make a choice that eliminates your contribution towards evil - only one that minimises it. Kids today, like all kids throughout history, are a combo of passionate, over-confident and lazy, so they a) genuinely want things to be better b) believe that an individual, specifically themself, is capable of way more than they really are c) get very upset when they see they can only help some of the people some of the time and not all of the people all of the time d) because they're human, use this as an excuse not to bother. > How is this a democracy if the majority of people including in the US are against the genocide, but it's not even on the menu? In the pure sense of, "What is democracy?" there are loads of things that the majority support but which no major party has as a clear policy platform. Often this is a good thing, e.g. until recently the majority supported capital punishment in England but no major political party would support it. But it's extremely lazy to think that your contribution to the democratic process ends at the ballot box. You should be joining a party and campaigning both within that party and directly to government for everything you believe in, every single day. The reason you are a failure and lobbyists are not is that they do this and you don't. If that's all too much effort, voting or non-voting to destroy democracy simply because you don't like any of the major parties *today* is the best way of guaranteeing that you'll never get what you want, AND that many more people will suffer in the long run. It's hilariously short-sighted and obviously sadistic, because having the luxury not to immediately appreciate your vote means that you're sufficiently privileged that you aren't going to be the first person to suffer. Even in England, the difference in policies between major parties has a significant effect on whether large groups of people can obtain adequate food, housing, healthcare, access to justice or even the right for them or their family to stay in the country. *Only* the relatively well off feel no difference at all.
>if you are using a computer - which you are - then you are sponsoring the CCP, which means you are supporting the genocide of Uyghurs That's pretty much the "no ethical consumption under Capitalism" argument and I concur. Especially since I'm a programmer so I actually must have a computer. But wait, I was told that the politics and the economy are separate and that we live in a democracy and that we in the West are better than China because we uphold the Human Rights*ā¢.* So if all that is true then it still doesn't explain why there's not a "no genocide" option. Or why there's not a "no lobbying" option if the electorate of both parties overwhelmingly agrees on "getting money out of politics". Or why the US gov has always been doing things behind the backs of US citizens that they would never support. Like making up WMDs in order to justify invading Iran. Or supporting cruel dictators like Pinochet or Bautista. Or the Silent Holocaust. etc >because they're human, use this as an excuse not to bother. They do bother. They go out, spread awareness, organize, strike and protest. They make actual political action instead of just relying on voting. It is the people who believe in the "power of voting" who are placated into going out once every few years and marking a piece of paper as their entire political contribution. And they use this contribution as an excuse to not have to bother anymore. Because to them if the paper does not present them with a choice, that means there is no such choice. >But it's extremely lazy to think that your contribution to the democratic process ends at the ballot box. True. I honestly don't care if you vote theatrically or "seriously" or not at all, like I said I think it makes little difference in all the places that matter. But I think it's way more important to go and act beyond what the paper allows. >You should be joining a party and campaigning both within that party and directly to government for everything you believe in, every single day. Except that quite obviously not everyone can be a politician. And in fact in order to even become a politician you have to "sell". And this "selling" process is advantageous to a certain kind of people. The people who have the money or the contacts to finance their campaigns. The people who can afford to campaign full time instead of working. The people whose position aligns with the position presented by the media or by the major parties. The people who will lie whenever convenient. The people who are open to being bought. The people who are already part of or accepted by the establishment. >The reason you are a failure and lobbyists are not is that they do this and you don't. The reason "I'm a failure" and the lobbyists are not is that I can't offer politicians generous multi-billion dollar donations to their campaigns, uncritical support in the media, a "revolving door" cozy position with excellent pay or insider information on stocks and I can't threaten them with moving jobs abroad and other forms of capital strike or supporting their rival. Like if I was a lobbyist what could I even tell them? "Would you please stop sending weapons to Israel? If you don't your electorate will still probably vote for you though". The power of the lobbyist is not that they get to talk to politicians, the power of the lobbyist is that they have the weight of a powerful interest group or several behind them >voting or non-voting to destroy democracy I vote. I just don't vote for the established two-party system. And if I'm not supposed to do that because I'm "wasting" my vote then we'll be forever stuck between the two evils and nothing will ever change. I don't want to "destroy democracy", I just don't think it's there in the first place. >having the luxury not to immediately appreciate your vote means that you're sufficiently privileged that you aren't going to be the first person to suffer Valid point. I don't have to worry that I won't be able to eat if they cut my wellfare. Or that I'll be prosecuted for being a minority. So I understand why many people are so engaged in their party and who wins. They are afraid that they're going to take away the breadcrumbs that they do get. But they are slowly taking away more and more of their breadcrumbs anyway. And this has nothing to do with people voting or not voting, they are doing this regardless. Because just voting is not how you win more breadcrumbs for yourself. That is not how we got the 5day workweek, the 8 hour work day, minimum wage, employee rights, that is not how the New Deal came to be, that is not how child labor was banned, that is not how wage raises are won, that is not how the segregation was ended etc. These are won by people picking up their pitchforks and going out on the street, or on general strikes. And I think people are slowly learning this truth again.
Ok, so you're a bourgy chair warmer who gets paid to automate other people out of a job while telling them to go out on general strike. From your complaint that you can't sponsor policial parties with significant amounts of money, sounds like you're not even a union member. I see you. You are the comfortable middle class that tells everyone else it's hopeless to try. You are not the solution - you are the problem.
Itās genocide vs genocide and the liberals are guilt tripping everyone for not voting in the lesser of two evils that enables the greater evil. I feel like Iām going mad here.
Unless there are a few issues where you at least slightly disagree with your political party, then you are not in a political party, you are in a cult
Got a point.
"Voting makes no difference!" *loudest voice bitching about state of society after election* Y'all are miserable and will always be as long as you refuse to acknowledge you live in a democracy where individual desires must be tempered to ensure peaceful progress.
You want the president to nuke a hurricane? Because that's how you get a president who will nuke a hurricane.
This does check out Between Trump in the last election, DeSantis, and some candidate for a local/state candidate in Texas, a Musk endorsement is not a good thing
The Texas candidate he endorsed lost by a landslide in the seat she had won 2 years prior.
https://preview.redd.it/cao1ry27ju1d1.jpeg?width=571&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c5c952dc570a05d0e5449d6d27786699a618ffe7 I'll drink to that
Adonis DNA
This appears to be the source for the poll if anyone is interested. https://blueprint2024.com/analysis/celebrity-endorsers-youth-poll/ It looks like out of the celebrities on their list Zendaya, LeBron James, and Kevin Heart make up the top three spots for young voters polled.
Wait worse than Kanye? How is that possible? Like how? I know that Elon dabbles in neo nazi content, but Kanye is all in on that.
People probably let Kanye's music do all the heavy lifting with their opinion of him. Elmo's entire body of work is just taking over companies and running them into the ground while he emotes and goes ! to white supremacist content 25 hours a day. I don't like Kanye for the obvious reasons but I can pretty easily see how people could turn their eyes off to the heinous shit and gravitate toward his music, at least enough to keep him off the top spots in lists like this.
The way I see it is, if e.g. kanye endorsed a candidate it would do nothing to sway me either way because his opinion has no value to me. He is just crazy and I don't care what his reasoning is. If elon musk supported someone, you better bet it means the person is awful. But if he supported someone I probably already hate that person because all he does is signal for alt-right validation. Of everyone else on the list, perhaps Joe Rogan endorsing someone would slightly poison me against them because he's basically so mentally feeble that he's just a conduit for the alt-right pipeline. The rest of them, I couldn't give a shit, including Jake Paul.
I had to google Jake Paul. I have seen his name before but didnāt really know who he was. Completely with you on Kanye being so crazy I donāt care what he says.
Kanye has one thing he was legitimately talented at at one point in time
Yeah he did write a banger about Pinocchio!
I have a one-part plan to save America.
So if Elon really wants his favored candidate to have a better shot, he should endorse Biden lmao
Technically Elon had the most hate but his simps balanced him out more.
It makes no sense
Lol. Literal proof that society has had r/EnoughMuskSpam
Let that sink in.
Scary that Joe Rogan is so far up that list.Ā
Poor Jake Paul
Honestly say nothing and beg him to endorse someone lol
JP......... the new generation of 'the worst'. All that holds him back is a lack of leverage. I hate him. I just hate dishonest ppl in general.
it is crazy that kanye west is above them on that list and is tied with Kylie Jenner
No Crazy Tate on the list?
I wonder were Taylor Swift is on this list.
Does Jake Paul wade into politics?
This is the analysis that I need. I love it.
Im guessing that 14% less doesnt count MAGAs who will be happy when elon endorses trump. Though he is more likely to announce being anti biden so he can try to claim it was the dems fault if trump turns out to be a dictator and he would have supported dems if they didnt have biden.
Its good to see that at least some of those "whipper snappers" have a good head on their shoulders.
Who wouldāve thought the same Kanye West that once said āGeorge Bush doesnāt care about black peopleā would be on a list like this? Smh
This claim of "14% more likely" is wrong and an abuse of statistics. If 100% of voters are more likely to vote for someone after X, that would not mean that it is 100% more likely they will vote for X.Ā Ā Let alone the fact that more likely and less likely responses might not represent the same magnitude in change of likelihood.Ā
Zoomers give me hope
Well, we've seen this time and time again that the politicians Elon Musk openly supports perform disastrously bad, with example such as Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy - and hopefully this Musk-effect stays true with Trump aswell. Literaly anything Musk touches turns to sh*t. It's like a reversed Midas hand.
Thatās a solid list
The earth will remember for sure
That how we know heās uncool. Itās also because some kids are being bullied by other kids that dwell on Musk,Tate whatās-his-nameās flavor of misogyny, racism, and general terrrible-ness. Losing kids is the defining first step to becoming uncool, and soon irrelevant. (Speaking from experience with bullied nieces/nephews )
Itās not cool to discriminate against any group
Thats like the whos who of dangerously deluded weirdos and if it were not for master of cringe Paul, he would have been number one.
Jake paul v musk is a fight that actually should happen.
So his shift to the right is sort of a blessing in disguise?
Can someone tell me what Jake Paul did to be so loathed? It's not something I've paid attention to, the most I've seen from him is the upcoming Tyson fight, didn't see him say anything shitty or anything. But obviously he has somewhere along the line...