Brilliant solution; give more arbitrary power to the state because *this* time they won't use it to push wokeness. "You see, we give more power to DoJ to threaten Apple, then Apple will be less woke because DoJ will punish them for it"
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @g0n3fishing
That take is absurd. You talk like someone who's never met anyone who works for USG or Wall Street.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @g0n3fishing
Great, you've gotten to exactly my point. As the economy zombifies more and more and finance depends more and more on keeping its status with the authorities who control the federal money printer there will be more and more wokeness because that's what the money printers want.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @g0n3fishing
No, she's paid gobs of money because she has a position of government power and is collecting bribes The Fed isn't actually privately owned - it's a government creation. There are no shareholder votes on board members, the board doesn't appoint a CEO, the shares aren't tradeable
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @g0n3fishing
When party A pays money to party B so party B will maybe remember the payment then party A is the supplicant. This is obvious to anyone with a working brain that hasn't been rotted by Marxism.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
When you pay someone not directly for an action (working, a product) but to stay in that person's good graces that is a supplicant relationship. People don't go to their local mafia boss to collect - they pay because when they need a favor they need be an established client.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.