I am occasionally amused when some wannabe wag posits that Billionaire X cannot be on the make because he/she/they already have so much money, when the fact of how much money they have is precisely the evidence of how on the make they are.
Boulos might/might not be a functioning human being, but the arithmetic function MORE$$=MORESMART has been, shall we say, disproved.
At this point, I'm hoping that everything that can go wrong, short of nuclear war, will go wrong so that maybe, just maybe, the electorate will learn something about assessing candidates beyond assuming that if you don't like something, voting for someone, anyone, besides the incumbent party will change things for the better.
Well, I mean, if everything goes wrong you're going to want people to vote against the incumbent party just because they don't like something. or anything.
Here's a thing I just read that you might like, in a similar accelerationist vein:
I am occasionally amused when some wannabe wag posits that Billionaire X cannot be on the make because he/she/they already have so much money, when the fact of how much money they have is precisely the evidence of how on the make they are.
Boulos might/might not be a functioning human being, but the arithmetic function MORE$$=MORESMART has been, shall we say, disproved.
At this point, I'm hoping that everything that can go wrong, short of nuclear war, will go wrong so that maybe, just maybe, the electorate will learn something about assessing candidates beyond assuming that if you don't like something, voting for someone, anyone, besides the incumbent party will change things for the better.
Well, I mean, if everything goes wrong you're going to want people to vote against the incumbent party just because they don't like something. or anything.
Here's a thing I just read that you might like, in a similar accelerationist vein:
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-should-abandon-institution-based-resistance/