Rules:
Other communities of interest:
World watches as majority of all humans on the planet slowly loose their wealth and ability to sustain themselves: .... meh, can't do much about it
Someone suggests we should take wealth of wealthiest people even though it wouldn't really hurt them anyway: .... WWIII it is!
The people think about it and feel bad for those billionaires because the people think they are just temporarily inconvenienced billionaires themselves, and when their billions come in they don’t want anyone taking their billions away.
When I was young people were temporary inconvenienced millionaires, where are we heading?!
:-)
What I truly don't understand is, let's say that the billionaires completely "win" and we're all of their servants in some way. Who is going to actually protect them or serve them? Do they think they'll be sitting in that bunker and everyone around them will cook for them and protect them from the people wanting to steal what they have? The extremely more likely scenario is that people just go in and take they what they want, servant, neighbor, whatever. They won't be safe, lol. Desperate people will take you down to save their own family.
I now know why there are always these loyal servants in movies that fight with the master to the end. It's the wealthy paying for scripts to plant the seed, lol.
This is frustratingly naive. Do you think there's no one who will offer protection in exchange for an extra scoop of porridge? Throughout history, most soldiers didn't fight for acause...they did it for the paycheck. Billionaires already have an entourage, there will always be people under their umbrellas.
Hell, forget about the money...you don't think there's anyone who would gladly take a bullet for Elon Musk in exchange for nothing?
That's because we're not desperate. If zuck is living in a bunker, it would not be normal times.
"I'm looking for 50 guys to defend my compound. You can live there and eat for free"
Nobody's taking that offer when they're desperate?
Lol, they would absolutely take that offer. Have you ever lived in the South? They would then go there and do whatever, and I mean whatever, they want.
ETA: Do you think people wouldn't do it because they have morals or ethics about it or something? Even if you're a fan of Musk, it wouldn't be for long and he would be gone.
WWIII it is!
Plebs get to uppity, you mow that lawn!
Eliting 101
Unfortunately they also want to stop helping Ukraine defend against russia. So they're a no-go.
Unfortunally they also want to replace NATO with an alliance with Russia ... so they are unelectable.
This is rather an unfavorable reading of their position. And to nail down them being unelectable to this position, is very reductive in an environment where we have: fascists at 20%, rather turned rightward conservatives at 30%, geriatric and corrupt "socdems" at like 15, and libbed up greens also at roughly 15%. All of these are for various reasons also unelectable largely more unelectable. Weighing a further destruction of the economy, and a further rightward shift, up against an idealistic maybe naive position on foreign politics I mean come on.
The actual read of their NATO position btw. Is closer to the the EU is already a military alliance with strength, and the US (+five eyes) is an unreliable/ imperialistic partner against which the EU should also strengthen itself. Largely they see Russia as worse(or at least equally bad) for the moment, but maybe not forever. Which is what the comment above is likely alluding to.
Pretty standard socialist FP positions for Europe I'd say. If you don't get why NATO might be bad maybe brush up on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Also their FP is not going to matter this election apart from being a check to the governments position, even if they were to somehow end up in one.
There are one too many words there.
Halve billionaires. At the waist, or from groin to nose, I'm not fussy.
Gerrymandered. We can get some modern art out of it.
They also barely scrape together 5% in the polls, which means their seats in parliament are on shaky ground right now.
They will most likely get three direct elected, so their seats are pretty sturdy.
I don't support it because I intend to become a billionaire one day (shut up, I'm not fixing that ice cream machine)
Title is biased. The left party wants to share the stolen wealth of billionaires among the people.
I'd rather they make the world a better place and just halve the billionaires.
Are we talking total number of billionaires, or just bisection?
For legal reasons, I'll leave that up to your interpretation.
Good luck to them
Its obvious, but for some reason also rage inducing, that for every billionaire with at least 2 billion in wealth, taking half their wealth has them remain a billionaire. If you take half the wealth of some average individual they're probably going from "sort of getting by" to "heavily at risk"
Can they come here and do it here too?