The real problem lies far beyond Donald Trump; his presidency merely serves as a symptom of a deeper societal malady.
Certain, I couldn’t consider I wrote that both. However right here we’re. How desperately I yearn to linger in uninspiring moments…
I imply, probably not. As a middle-aged, single woman, never have we occupied a more advantageous position than we do today. The notion of earlier centuries being cast aside in a dumpster. It’s arduous not to truly feel a genuine sense of fear. If not terrified, then utterly heart-pounding and spine-tinglingly anxious.
Andreesen Horowitz, the eponymous venture capital agency and subsidiary a16z, is reportedly planning to contribute funds to support Donald Trump’s political marketing efforts. Following Elon Musk’s commitment of A$66 million every 30 days until the election to support Trump’s campaign.
For individuals who are not yet conscious, marketing campaign dollars matter significantly because, unsurprisingly, paying for media protection increases the likelihood of your message reaching targeted voters. In a move echoing earlier commitments from notable tech figures akin to Paladin co-founder Joe Lonsdale and the Winklevoss twins, similar promises were made.
After Peter Thiel, a legendary investor and contrarian, famously backed Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential bid? While not excoriating David Sacks, Jason Calacanis, and Chamath Palihapitiya, it’s undeniable that these tech moguls, in their unwavering enthusiasm for Elon Musk and Donald Trump, outdo even the most ardent Swifties in their displays of devotion?
J.D. Vance, the self-proclaimed “anti-elitist” who leveraged his Yale education and entrepreneurial spirit to capitalize on his working-class upbringing in Hillbilly Elegy, has been selected as Donald Trump’s running mate. Following Trump’s incitement, his supporters sought to destroy the last remaining insurrectionist hub, targeting Mike Pence for refusing to acknowledge the election results, a claim proven entirely unfounded and misleading.
Vance, a self-proclaimed outsider, gained widespread recognition by vehemently criticizing Trump’s brand of conservatism, which he deemed “crack cocaine” that fed the political addiction of the very people he had previously written about in his book, often focusing on those from his own socio-economic background.
When it comes to competing forces, sometimes adapting and aligning with the dominant party is the best strategy. The inherent paradox is the excessive is value ache.
Over time, Vance has veered sharply towards the far-right end of the political spectrum. The individual aims to further restrict already limited reproductive rights for women in the US, advocating against abortion even in instances of incest or rape, where it is particularly egregious that a woman must endure such trauma while being denied autonomy over her own body. One in five girls in the United States must travel across state lines to access reproductive healthcare. The appointment has solidified the Republican party’s stance and the candidate’s platform as a powerful force in conservatism.
Tech moguls who previously vowed support to Trump, citing expectations that his presidency would benefit the industry. Here is the rewritten text:
A recent letter from Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) staff went to great lengths to clarify that this stance does not amount to an implicit endorsement of various insurance policies, including those related to abortion rights.
Despite this crucial point, folks. It appears that you’re struggling to isolate individual elements?
When selecting a candidate or administration solely based on one attribute, you inevitably attract the very opposite qualities you’re trying to avoid.
Whatever I’m now going to express silently aloud. These self-proclaimed leaders in the tech industry remain oblivious to the nuances that actually matter, as their own interests are unaffected by them.
It’s often a struggle to prioritize reproductive rights for those who have never had to confront the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, while many of your colleagues and the very people you’re funding don’t identify as women?
When you’re affluent enough, it’s easy to prioritize access to quality healthcare; in fact, having the means allows you to afford whatever medical services you desire.
It’s futile to expect fairness in governance when backed by the influence of a wealthy donor, such as yourself, whose brother has leveraged his tech entrepreneurial success into a vice chairmanship just a heartbeat away from the presidency, essentially guaranteeing a quid pro quo arrangement that benefits your interests.
Tech management has devolved into little more than a never-ending quest to satiate the insatiable appetite of the technology monster. Management to me has always meant having the ability to lead people and processes effectively, fostering a positive work culture, and driving results through strategic planning and decision-making.
While some individuals may bristle at phrases suggesting a shift towards authoritarianism, such as “we’re hurtling towards fascism” or “that’s likely the beginning of the end for democracy,”
The notion of climate change mentioned in a vacuum sounds horrifically alarmist. As the reality of our situation unfolds, a sense of dread and urgency grips us, making the terror feel alarmingly real.
It’s astonishingly challenging to initiate a rational and thoughtful discussion about this topic, given the inherent difficulties in fostering a sense of mutual understanding. Polarized by entrenched views, people are increasingly divided into their respective extremities. Polarized ideologies locked in a zero-sum game: Woke-ism’s fervent pursuit of social justice versus Fascism’s strident advocacy for authoritarian control. Don’t we always seem to end up here in the end?
When contentious transitions of power occur, or when a president incites violence from the nation’s capital, or when attempts are made on the lives of presidential candidates, or when a system grants a president immunity for official actions, or a candidate vows to jail political opponents if elected, democracy is arguably teetering on the brink of collapse. Won’t a blanket rejection of undemocratic politicians effectively silence their voices and stifle necessary reforms?
What’s the payoff for airing these grievances publicly? If the authoritarian leader fails to intervene, no one extends an encouraging pat on the back. If the authoritarian chief gains power, you can count on that outcome being revisited in a different light. As a vicious cycle ensues, silence breeds silence, ultimately leading to the chilling atmosphere of 1940s Germany.
While some may argue that the most effective means of safeguarding our voices are through active participation in the democratic process, there remains a concerning lack of civic engagement among many Americans.
I can wax poetic about the myriad issues I perceive lacking from American politics, including why the Democratic Party won’t nominate a more capable individual; yes, he’s an effective public servant and good man, having steered an impressive presidency, but he isn’t qualified enough to remain President for another four years – denial isn’t a viable campaign strategy – because the most vexing of all to comprehend is why Americans wouldn’t want a say in what happens to them and their nation.
Unfortunately, only a small fraction of people participate in the democratic process through voting.
The problem lies not with Trump, Biden, Vance, or even the Supreme Court docket – although the latter might be a significant concern – but rather with the apathy of American individuals toward voting and their tendency to prioritize personal gains over the overall well-being of society, as they cast ballots that benefit themselves at the expense of the broader community.
We’ll rant on podcasts for hours, and scribble 1,000 phrases in opinion editorials, arguing why a convicted felon and courtroom-convicted rapist is the most likely individual to lead the world’s most powerful democracy, or why a frail man with declining health is the absolute best defense against him. Alternatively, you can examine the administration’s policies, track record, and behavior and then vote.
In 2018, I asked Peter Thiel directly whether he thought his contrarian bet on Trump had paid off. He cautioned that it was premature to share the information.
Vote.
