It is her politics and her strength, and Also her transparency and her target demographic. She represents the people - not the big corporations, even the corporations that favor Democrats. She's here for the 99%, and to help her people, she is willing to take from the top 1% that never should have the money they possess.
KelvarIW
joined 3 weeks ago
I've always had it in my hopes that technology would replace boring, mundane, uninteresting jobs like working a drive through, taking steps toward a future where people can spend time doing activities they love, rather than mundane tasks they find boring. I get irritated when AI is used to replace research (because it's inaccurate) or art (because it's soulless), but this seems like a good thing to me, no? And I kinda like the thought of gaslighting a voice assistant into getting free chicken nuggies :3
It absolutely is. I've sensed it coming for years now. Gen Y and Gen Z have been struggling under student loan debt. Car loans are getting years longer. People were micro-financing weddings and vacations. Now services like "Klarna" and Afterpay are just repackaged credit card debt.
The majority of people in America can not survive. College degrees aren't enough to find a job, and raises/bonuses are non-existent. Most people are working for minimum wage, and that minimum wage is stagnant. If you had real estate or stocks, the boom in the housing and financial sector could offset this pressure, but with the majority of property getting swept up by large hedge funds, there's no room for average Americans to get their foot in the door with a mortgage.
So what do people do? They stop buying. It's the same market-stagnation effect that deflation has, only with all the micro-economic stress that inflation creates. It happened before in 1929. It's happening again. Because America allowed itself to slip back into the capitalist trends that created the previous Gilded Age.
I had never heard about the "Network State" concept before, but now I hate it, because Zuckerberg sure as hell loves it
"if we’re happy together we stay, if we’re not we split." Beautifully put. You and your girlfriend have been together for 5 years, which seems like a commitment in itself.
Personally I seem like marriage is an outdated practice, from a time where women were treated as property. It's a legal contract, like you'd make with a business partner. Marriage isn't even permanent (nor should it be). It just makes separation more expensive. Even if both participants want to split, and they agree on how to do it, now they need to get a judge to dissolve that contract.
And in the modern economy, many couples are choosing to forgo marriage, and put the money they save toward a shared house, which is a commitment in itself. People might argue that it's necessary if you plan to have children, but most couples can't afford that, some others don't want that. And if children are a future goal for you and her, wouldn't you have a commitment to that child? Plus, there are child support systems in place, whether the child was born in wedlock or not.
I could ramble on. The whole system of marriage only ever mattered because society said it should, and now that women aren't forced to be a "side-piece", and people don't gasp at the idea of premarital sex, it's just an expensive celebration. Marriage won't make a relationship more stable. It will just make it harder for both people to leave.