1011
Clarence Thomas Torn Over Case Where Both Sides Offer Compelling Scuba Trips
(www.theonion.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
1011 points (99.3% liked)
The Onion
4502 readers
1289 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Even if all the peasant in US united and pitched in, out collective buying power would still NOT be enough v top 10% but like even top 1%
Think about that.
Which is sad, but should remind some people it was a similar situation regarding the French Revolution. The less you have, the less you have to lose.
The French lived in dense areas with power centers nearby. We live in endless sprawl with a need to mobilize the guillotine, while our houses are made of artillery target toothpicks for a reason.
There's also the question of disposable income. Top X% have more wealth and income than us, and that excess is basically all disposable. Most of the income and "wealth" of the bottom of the economic ladder is tied up in survival needs, so it's even less of a possibility than at first glance.
astute analysis
Not about the SCOTUS, but there was a report a while back showing that many senators votes were purchased for only a few grand… we could probably swing that.
Nah, those senators were already corporate stooges who would have voted the same way if they didn't get those donations. The donations aren't to change votes, they're to help the stooges keep their seats.
I'm guessing that's because the few grand we know about was the distraction. The real payment happened without us knowing about it.
We dont need our buying power to match the 1%. We need the density of our group to outmatch whoever happens to be in the Supreme Court Building at the time.
But the bribe amounts have very little to do with how unfathomably rich the "donors" are! If you look at all those bribes, the amounts are still within the realm of what the 99% could put together.
But I don't even think it would cost the 99% that much, because it would force the 1% to up their game (in other words, there'd be bribe inflation) until the 99% can't follow suit, which means the 99% wouldn't even need to pay, in the end. But the higher price would make some bribers think twice, which might lead to less bribery happening.