I don't understand why people are jumping in front of buses for him.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Bill Gates: Undecided about a hypothetical Warren v. Trump matchup
- Thread starter Jeremy
- Start date
- Status
Gates top priority is the foundation he and his wife are running. Getting political disrupts funding and volunteers. He was trying to deflect. If you have watched gates or read his blog it is abundantly clear he is a Democrat or at least leans left.
It's absolutely astonishing that so many gloss over the proper context and go right at each others throat's over something so obviously misrepresented.
I would not jump in the buses for anyone I don't know well(even if probably my guess he is more deserving to be saved by most people)
I can use a bit of my time to call on bullshit.
Then he shouldn't have said anything if it disrupts his activities.
The reason these people create foundations rather than just giving it away is because that actually allows them to only be legally required to use a small portion of those funds for actual philanthropy. So no, 100% of that money doesn't go to people in need. Also, why should billionaires get to hoard money if they promise to donate a small portion to whatever their pet cause is when it can actually be put to greater use? People need to do some actual research on how this shit works. Billionaire philanthropy is a fucking con.
I am sorry that I won't accept the premise that it is ok to lie and manipulate as long as the person you are talking about is a "bad guy".
There is NOTHING Gates could have said in this interview that would have resulted in a positive response. People take what he says, find a way to twist it in a way that paints him as poorly as possible while leaving out important details, then run with it.
I have no real opinion on Gates one way or the other, but this thread is gross.
It completely changes the statement "he spent half his wealth" though. He hasn't. He has spent 50 billion on his philanthropy...but in ways that were intentionally designed to make him more money. That's no accident.
The foundation IS Gates, he controls the mission and goals of the foundation. The distinction is meaningless in this case when he dictates what the foundation does and the foundation ultimately answers only to him.
Probably because the article and the OP frame an incorrect picture by leaving out very important parts of his quote.
I mean, sure: we could all follow this false narrative and join the hate train, but that would be boring.
All of it? You're saying gates lives in poverty ? Lol no the dude is just better than some other greedy billionaires he's no saint. He got his and does charity. That's it.
A free pass on what?
But sure governments social services are a fraud, billionaire philanthropy is the real solution.
Maybe because people are throwing him under that bus based on lies and omissions?
There are plenty of LEGIT reasons to criticize pretty much any billionaire. What is presented in the OP is a cheap lie.
Damn...like do you hear yourself. You're saying he should just give up a majority of his money?
So from 109 billion to 800 million and he should be ok with that? Get real
We are all trying to get paid he just did it better, they can have the power because they worked their way up to that power. It's not like he was just handed all this money for nothing.
Also, all the people praising this as "smart" for his foundation's donations:
He's not using weasel words because he wants to present a front of civility for the sake of his foundation. It's a veiled threat against progressive candidates. "If you do something me or my wealthy friends dislike, maybe we'll just take our ball and go over to another yard."
Look at this thread. Deceptive quotations created a fictitious narrative that triggered confirmation bias and a lot of people are trying to outdo each other in boasting about how shit Gates is and to fuck all the rich, ROFL
Jeremy I don't think what he said matches your interpretation. Saying you're not going to make any political declarations in the interview isn't the same as being undecided. He then says what he'll consider is who is more "professional," which seems like a clear indication of not voting for Trump (the least professional person in almost any room).
The man gets political all the time. He has massive amounts of control over policy in numerous African nations. He funds a significant portion of a bunch of different mainstream media outlets. He funds ideological projects like anti-union campaigns and privatization of education. Just because he doesn't set up a super PAC for this or that candidate doesn't mean his expenditures are unpolitical.
Oh did you find the quote where he actually said if it's Trump v Warren he'll vote Warren?
It's not Gates fault he was basically misquoted for clickbait purposes.
Re: the bolded part
That's because actions speak louder than words, and his actions largely suck. His philanthropy is a smoke screen that obfuscates how much his actions suck.
But also his words sucked, too.
Speaking of Bill Gates though, if you get a chance, check out this Netflix Doc.
Goes into depth on his work trying to eradicate Polio in Africa and his philanthropic efforts to improve/develop new sanitation systems and a lot more.
Goes into depth on his work trying to eradicate Polio in Africa and his philanthropic efforts to improve/develop new sanitation systems and a lot more.
the misleading quotes and tone of the article still exists, posting a link to the entire interview at the end of long post, with no commentary or context, come on man.
Thank you for proving my point.
Not saying directly that he would vote Warren =/= him saying that he is undecided.
The thread is full of legitimate criticisms of Gates though.
How long after creating an inflammatory thread and writing paragraphs about a skewed version of the interview, forming your opinion based on a Twitter thread?
Nope, but he sure does address some larger systemic concerns in the video you're just now bothering to watch.
Not trying to drag you, but take this as a learning moment about forming conclusions based on incomplete information please.
Who's praising him for that comment? At best, folks like me are saying he was clearly throwing shade at Trump. Like, it's OBVIOUS. My kid has issues with social cues like this, and I'm NOT calling you a kid... but I've seen interviews with Bill and read the occasional AMA he's done. He's no hero, don't get me wrong. But dude IS FULL of dry humor. Always has been. That's not an endorsement of him or billionaires or anything of the sort. It's an observation about his personality (or persona, if you want to think he's putting on a show and is secretly some kind of eugenicist, as some seriously believe). That's it.
Someone of his stature shouldn't be ambiguous about it. He's a big boy, he can say he won't vote for Trump if he wants to. He danced around the question in the most painfully obvious way regardless of how the article is trying to contextualize his words.
Gates is doing far more good with his foundation than what the US government would do with that money, a lot of it would be wasted on corruption and bombing foreign countries. The problem is most billionaires aren't like Gates, so Warren's plan would overall do more good.
And I am not saying anything about that.
I am criticizing the blatant and intentional misrepresentation of what he said in one specific interview.
Sure, let me just give the benefit of the doubt to the billionaire who amassed his fortune by exploiting people and who can't take a firm public stance of saying he'll vote against a fascist running concentration camps.
It is. Take your cape off, for a second. Unless he's paying you, which I doubt, have some self-respect and stop going to bat for billionaires who don't even know you exist.
How that make so? he is worth 100, he donated 50. Even without considering compound interest on the money he donated at most you can say that he actually donated 33% 100+ /(50 + 100)
It's not his money anymore. He can decide how to steer it and where to put the money. But do not make it less a charity.
A donation to a plant a tree foundation and a donation some other people that will decide how to use the money(for specific purpose) are both donations.
So in this world view, the only test of if someone should have power is solely dependent on their ability to make money. That simply by having wealth, that justifies his necessity to own said wealth. Is this the argument you are making, or are there other criteria I'm not seeing?
This blowing up everywhere tonight has been disappointing, driven by people with an agenda or who jumped to conclusions without fully understanding the situation. Bill Gates has philanthropic duties to his foundation and to its patrons and so he tried to stay on message regarding his mission and avoid overt declarations of political support, but it was fairly clear what he was implying. None of which was controversial.
"I"ll vote for the more professional candidate" - I'll almost certainly be voting Democrat.
"And I hope that candidate is electable" - I have doubts Warren or Bernie can win the election.
"I"ll vote for the more professional candidate" - I'll almost certainly be voting Democrat.
"And I hope that candidate is electable" - I have doubts Warren or Bernie can win the election.
No, someone of his stature should be rather guarded and judicious in what they say in interviews.
No it isn't. Like, it objectively isn't. You can believe what ever you want, and I'm sure being wrong may not be that important to you when choosing what to think, but that's not correct.
- Status