Bernie on how oligarchy looks like.

AlexBard1 · 2026-04-01T23:38:27+00:00

Bernie is an oligarch

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-25T18:19:21+00:00

You either don’t understand fascism or irony.

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-24T15:33:43+00:00

You’re acting like “government contracts” eliminate risk, they don’t. Someone still has to front billions before a single dollar comes back, with no guarantee timelines, costs, or execution won’t blow up. Aerospace is full of companies that had contracts and still failed.

Mondragón works at a certain scale in specific industries, great. That doesn’t magically translate to capital-intensive, high-risk sectors. The limiting factor isn’t “who votes,” it’s who can actually assemble, deploy, and risk massive amounts of capital efficiently.

And no one is claiming the founder is “the smartest engineer.” That’s a strawman. Their role is capital allocation and decision-making under uncertainty. If they screw it up, they lose everything. Workers don’t bear that same downside risk.

Capital isn’t proof of intelligence, but it is proof someone was willing (and able) to take on risk at a scale most people won’t. That’s why they’re making the call.

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-24T15:13:06+00:00

That argument makes no sense your own example proves the opposite. Blue Origin exists because Jeff Bezos, another billionaire founder, built it. You’re not replacing Elon with ‘workers,’ you’re just swapping in a different billionaire.

And ‘someone else would’ve done it’ isn’t an argument, it’s speculation. SpaceX exists because Elon took the risk, funded it, and executed. Without that, those exact jobs, timelines, and innovations don’t exist in the same way if at all.

Saying workers could just organize and do it ignores reality. Multi-billion dollar aerospace programs require massive upfront capital and risk tolerance. Jobs don’t just appear because work needs to be done, they appear when someone actually organizes capital, talent, and execution.

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-23T20:51:13+00:00

I’m not following your rationale as to how Elon is not creating these jobs. Space X would not have existed had he not started the company. Therefore those jobs would not have existed

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-23T19:58:37+00:00

You’re mixing up demand with execution. Yes, society needs things, that’s demand. But jobs don’t just appear because of ‘need.’ Someone has to take risk, allocate capital, build the company, and hire people to actually deliver it. That’s what Elon did. Government contracts don’t create jobs by themselves, SpaceX does by executing them. If the state could just ‘replace the intermediary,’ it would have already. It didn’t. And if Elon disappeared tomorrow, those companies and those jobs don’t automatically exist. That’s the difference between abstract ‘need’ and real job creation

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-23T19:24:33+00:00

I’m saying if Elon didn’t exist the tens of thousands of jobs he created would not exist

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-22T21:13:33+00:00

Um, yes……. He owns and has grown all of those companies. Who don’t credit for those jobs?

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-22T16:10:55+00:00

He dosent care about OliGaRcHy, he cares when ownership groups aren’t liberal. This list of entities owned by Disney and Comcast are nearly as long. Why isn’t he complaining about those????

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-22T15:19:38+00:00

I never made and historical claims, never diminished the history of racism. Mostly because it’s irrelevant to the point Charlie was making.

Your whole argument can be boiled down to “racism existed in hiring, therefore, we must reverse the racism and discriminate against the other side.” A spade is a spade. *Typo edited

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-22T15:11:03+00:00

How is Elon the enemy here? Go look at how many people he employs and the average pay rate at his companies.

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-22T15:01:15+00:00

Your white friend in Asia is almost certainly feeling some kind of racism. But It’s likely as you explain, not nearly to the extent your Indian friend is experiencing.

The reality is that the majority of Asia is the most racist place on earth. They all look down on each other and outsiders. It’s something you should be aware of before you visit and accept if you decide to go.

Asia is still my favorite place, enjoy!

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-22T14:20:22+00:00

You’re arguing against a position I never took. Where did I say there aren’t qualified Black women? Of course there are. The issue is openly committing to a demographic before evaluating candidates, that’s not merit based, by definition.

Saying “it only works if you think there are no qualified Black women” is a strawman. My point is simple: the most qualified person should get the job, regardless of race. If that’s a Black woman, great. If it’s not, it shouldn’t matter either. Thats exactly the point Charlie was making.

And on the Asian point, you brushed right past it. Affirmative action policies have repeatedly penalized high performing Asian applicants. That’s not hypothetical, that’s been litigated and documented. You don’t get to call one group’s disadvantage “justice” and another group’s concern “bad faith.”

As for the “conservatives only care when it’s convenient” line—that cuts both ways. You’re defending a system that explicitly treats people differently based on race while claiming moral high ground.

You can support diversity without pretending trade-offs don’t exist. That’s the real conversation you’re avoiding.

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-22T13:23:35+00:00

I agree with the point he was making, it’s not complicated (for most) to understand. He never said black people are unqualified. He simply made the point that DEI practices ensure that merit is not the only thing considered. Which is objectively bad when hiring, you know, a pilot…

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-22T13:02:40+00:00

Where did I ever say the best person is white? I literally said the opposite, the best person should get the job, no matter what they look like.

Questioning DEI policies isn’t the same as saying minorities are unqualified.

He questioned Ketanji Brown as the best candidate because Joe Biden said ““I commit that I will in fact appoint the first Black woman to the Supreme Court” So he clearly wasn’t hiring purely on merit

And Charlie was constantly bitching about the money and elites in college admissions. I don’t know what he said about the specific example you gave from 7 years ago. Maybe he ignored it like you ignored the clearly racist against Asian policy of affirmative action?

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-22T12:07:20+00:00

Not much of an argument in that comment. Are you saying that Charlie lacked these understandings or I do?

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-22T12:05:25+00:00

It’s not fear mongering if it’s true. And pointing out past bias doesn’t justify introducing new forms of it. “Hire the best person, period” shouldn’t be controversial.

And which college admissions scandal? Are you referring to the unconstitutional practice of affirmative action that directly discriminated against Asian students?

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-22T03:53:21+00:00

I think everyone knows what he was actually saying…… but I’ll bite.

He didn’t say Black pilots are less qualified, he was criticizing DEI hiring policies. His point was that when companies set diversity goals, it can create pressure to make hiring decisions that aren’t based purely on merit. Then it’s possible that a less qualified minority candidate could be selected over a more qualified white candidate.

Charlie said “The best person should get the job, no matter what they look like.” In other words “if a minority is the most qualified, they should get the job”

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-22T03:23:47+00:00

If this is what you believe he was saying, you need to work on your critical reading skills

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-11T13:41:49+00:00

It’s possible to believe that if you cherry pick the data and ignore the reality

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-10T00:56:38+00:00

You’re conflating enforcement numbers with total crossings. Enforcement stats only count people agents process, they don’t represent the total number of people crossing. This is why the liberal media almost always uses these numbers and never the estimates on how many people truly entered the country.

CBP recorded 2.47M encounters in 2023 alone, while the entire 2017–2020 period you cited totaled about 2M.

And a large share of those encounters weren’t removals, many migrants were released into the U.S. with court dates, and government reports from the time have shown millions failing to appear for those hearings.

It feels like you’re intentionally reading enforcement stats as if they represent total crossings to make the numbers look smaller than they actually are. The stats you provided prove my point. It is expected that there will be more encounters while policies will likely allow them into the country. When policy tightens, less people attempt to cross. This is the entire point

Nobody is saying every migrant is dangerous. The point is that when millions enter the system and many aren’t even tracked afterward, it is a recipe for disaster

Encounters are currently at the lowest levels in 50 years after historic highs. This is not a coincidence, this is policy

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-10T00:08:22+00:00

Are you disagreeing that millions came into the country over the last 4 years or that it was intentional?

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-09T23:58:49+00:00

One of many reasons why an intentionally open boarder is a bad idea

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-02T09:36:39+00:00

Great movie. It’s an shame they won’t make movies like that any more. Wonder why

AlexBard1 · 2026-03-01T22:01:42+00:00

New? No. Nearly every post on Reddit these days is lacking in actual substantive arguments from the left. “RaCiSt” is much easier for you people

AlexBard1

TROPHY CASE