SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg began 2017 with a bold personal challenge: "to have visited and met people in every state in the US by the end of the year."
So far, his whistlestop tour of the states certainly bears all the hallmarks of early political canvassing.
As part of the challenge, Zuckerberg reportedly wanted to meet longtime Democrats who voted for Trump in the last election and asked his team to reach out and find such people.
[...]
Such a tour becomes even more conspicuous in light of unsealed court filings from a class-action lawsuit in 2016 in which Zuckerberg attempted to dilute shareholder power and afford himself permanent control of the $440 billion company.
Of particular note in the proceedings was a message sent to Zuckerberg by Marc Andreessen, one of Facebook's most prominent investors, in which he raised the issue of "how to define the government service thing without freaking out shareholders that you are losing commitment."
"It's the thing people will point to on announcement and say 'what the f**k are you guys doing agreeing to this', particularly since... government service would require you to give up control of Facebook anyway and it's a moot point," said Andreessen, adding credence to speculation that Zuckerberg will make a run for political office at some point in the future.
One of the richest men in the world will be looking out for the little guy, right?
Source: https://www.rt.com/usa/386718-zuckerberg-political-campaign-rumors/
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @11:00PM (2 children)
Whew, you almost hurt my brain there thinking a progressive might want to stop spending money we can't afford. Glad you clarified.
Really? Most people I know making even $50K/year see 35% of their check just go *poof* every payday. Those making six figures it's more like 40-45%. You really might want to include all of the taxes you pay.
And, yes, I'm certain you would deeply love relegating us to playing military second-fiddle to Russia, China, and possibly even Europe. Even if the money simply went back to the people who it'd been stolen from in the first place. Your type dislike the US even being able to do what's in its best interests, regardless of who likes it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 02 2017, @11:30PM (1 child)
Come on, stay in non-trolling mode ... You perfectly know that cutting even half of the Pentagon would have the US play second fiddle to absolutely nobody, even if they combined... And I said a third.
Novel concept: Maybe be staffed/equipped to fight two simultaneous World Wars ... when they happen, not when having so many nukes means that even a single one isn't about to happen. And I'm saying that as someone with a lot of friends deriving a paycheck from our obsession to remain in overkill mode even as the debt piles up and our infrastructure crumbles.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 03 2017, @01:02AM
As a vet myself, I know it's technically possible to spend a lot less than we are and get a better military than we have. As a realist who's been around a few years, I know it's not practically possible to do so. Somewhere in the middle is what I'd aim for but I can't back any reduction in combat effectiveness.
Or we could, you know, stop handing out money to people just because they think they deserve it for existing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.