I see it all the time, celebrities starting charitable projects. Nothing I respect more than someone who decides to spend their time in helping those in need. But another thing I see all the time (and I’m not judging them, just pointing that out) is that in most of the cases, they do it after they’ve been through a rough experience. Like the cancer survivor who starts a cancer research charity, or the one who had a poor childhood and now helps the homeless, or the one whose brother has type 1 diabetes so now he starts a charity project to help people with diabetes. Like I said, nothing more respectable than that, but what I’m trying to show is that, even though some people do genuinely care about others, humans are selfish by nature.
By selfish I don’t mean that we only care about ourselves, but that most of us only care about a problem once we suffer it. Which is also a normal thing. If you’ve had to deal with racial discrimination during your youth, there’s a chance you’ll try to help people who are suffering the same during your adulthood if you have the resources to do so.
With this examples I’m trying to illustrate how hypocritical it can be to believe the words of a presidential candidate who says he or she really cares about the 99% when the only thing it takes for a person to become a presidential candidate is money, which all but confirms the candidate belongs to the 1%.
I’m not even American so I don’t have to take sides in the Republican/Democratic debate, but you get a person like Donald Trump running for president. There’s a chance he’ll only solve a problem if he can profit from it. To him and to most politicians, being a president is just a matter of whose dick is bigger. It’s all about the ego. That’s why rallies are the way they are. A candidate goes there, surrounds him or herself with people that they already know they will vote them and spit to their faces all the shit they want to hear. And all the people do is cheer, as if it were a football game. The person walks in and says, “God bless you, Iowa” and oh my god — everyone cheers at the wise words that have just been spoken, so meaningful and profound.
That’s why I prefer debates. Because you can tell a lot more about the candidate by the way people answer things. You got Trump, who will vomit the first stupid thing he comes up with, like “I could shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” Then you have conservatives, who doesn’t give a shit about change or progress, all the change they want is a change of president so they can make sure nothing changes. You got Clinton, who basically is like Michael Fassbender’s character in Inglourious Basterds, she shows a big fake smile, says a couple empty words that maybe will make the audience grin a bit as she tries to deviate the attention to a different issue in order to avoid answering the question she’s been asked. And then you got Sanders who basically is done with everyone and answers what he thinks, which you may or may not like but at least he seems honest to me.
I don’t know in the US but where I live, most politicians come from the world of business, which is kind of absurd since it takes more studies to become a tour guide than a presidential candidate. It really makes you think about the whole system, doesn’t it?
Most of this 1% would only solve problems they could profit from. If this is not the case, then explain to me why you cannot bring clean water to poor countries in Africa but you haven’t a problem bringing clean water, for you, to swim in the middle of the desert in Nevada or Dubai? Because these are the problems they are concerned about. I want to travel to the desert but I want to be able to swim in clean water after I get a nice tan. This is why I feel that to get a politician to fix something, you must make him want to fix something. I believe the quote that sums it up best is:
Put politicians on minimum wage and watch how fast things change
Ask this to yourself, why would a rich politician endorsed by rich corporations, making laws for rich people with rich problems want something to change in order to lose purchasing power? Make no sense to me.
Those who have the resources to change the world for the better don’t want to because they cannot profit from it. They don’t give a shit about your problems. They only invest in things that can produce benefits. When governments are sponsored by rich corporations, there’s a chance nothing will change if those corporations don’t want to. Hypocrisy is believing we can invest in clean energies with money that comes from oil companies. Hypocrisy is believing we can solve the homeless problem by investing money from the banks, who are the ones who, for the most part, left those homeless people without homes.
They show you two shades of red and make you choose one so you have the illusion your vote is actually gonna make a difference, but they don’t tell you about all the shades of the rest of the colors in the spectrum. Most political systems are a joke, not just in the U.S. but all over the world.
It all could be a lot more simple. There’s no need for complicated words. They could tell you, “look your taxes go here and there” and be completely transparent. But that’s not the case. They hide where these taxes go behind complicated words and even more complicated equations because they know you wouldn’t like where they are going. It’s illegal for you to owe money to the bank but it’s just fine for the bank to owe you money. Never seen a homeless banker. Never seen a banker lose public money and be fired. Instead we pay them more to try to get the money back. Why not give that money to the people who had it saved in the bank in the first place and just tell the bankers to FUCK OFF? Banks are probably the only type of company where the worse you are at your job, the more you get paid.
The difference between the 1% and the 99% is that the 99% just want to have enough, and the 1% never have enough. Now, like I said, there’s no need for me to take sides in this US Republican/Democratic debate, but the way I see it, if you want real problems to be solved, I wouldn’t think a candidate that belongs to 1% to be the ideal person to solve them.