Someone should automagically create wanted posters, with the net worth as reward.
Just wondering about this article and why it chose the top 66 people. If you look at the Forbes list, it’s not like there’s some steep drop off after 66. #67 is nearly as wealthy as #66, and the new few are all very close.
I would posit that if you’re voting for Clinton, you’re not any kind of idealist but some form of pragmatist.
Presumably from working backwards from the wealth of the lowest 50%?
I can’t see Donald Trump on that list anywhere!
Not sure why this came up as a reply to Shaddack the first time…
Not understanding the distinction between numbers 21, 41, and 237? (I was curious about outliers like Germany.) Makes me wonder about the methodology.
Everyone except for Bill Gates.
I also see that they failed to list Profiteers with very low profile
Right and the whole Mars family is on there but then separately listed several other Mars people?
If I can’t use my powers for good, I can at least use them to vote against awful (Trump, Cruz, etc.), right?
But yeah, Sanders is the only likely candidate that I’d want to be hanging with my kids.
One of my kids would actually enjoy messing with Trump for at least 15 minutes or so, as long as an easy exit option existed. And she’s pretty enough that he’d engage with her…oh, it would be fun to watch!
My aunt is one of the only people to have ever been given access to the Nielsen library. One of her books:
Sooo - watcha y’all gonna do?
Does it involve guillotines?
Either way you’re voting for drone strikes, assassination of American citizens without trial, NSA wiretapping of Americans, and overseas wars (all supported by Clinton).
Voting for a third-party candidate is still, contrary to popular (but wrong) opinion, voting against Trump/Cruz/etc.
Actually, I can see the benefit of this. . . . I mean, if you’re one of the one percent, that is.
Wealth is its own reward.
Does it statistically reduce the chance of the worst and most dangerous person ending up in office? Does it protect those in need?
So instead I should not vote and send a half-vote towards MORE drone strikes, assassination of HUMANS without trial, NSA wiretapping, and damage to safety nets that causes tremendous amounts of death and suffering to poor, elderly, and disabled people that aren’t lucky enough to make the 24 hour news cycle?
I’d rather acknowledge that this particular voting system is completely broken and do what I can to limit the damage it causes while working on other options, and thereby be consistently in favor of less world suck, thanks.
I REALLY wish we had a weighted voting scheme like in Australia.
well you eat the rich to acquire their power of course.
The power of cognitive dissonance is a glorious thing!
That’s why the rich are trying to eat us now - being grounded in the real world, we are more powerful than they are.