494
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 45 points 1 week ago

When you have a couple hundred billion this is couch money. Good to hear he lost but that this is even possible is a problem.

[-] MNByChoice@midwest.social 15 points 1 week ago

To help add context.

At the "4% Rule" with $100 Billion, he can spend $4 Billion per year. He is making way more than 4% + inflation, so can spend even more.

[-] LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 week ago

I don't think the 4% rule applies the same way when it gets to that point.

His spending affects the market. A "normal" investment assumes they are irrelevant to the market.

I don't know how this changes things, but having to lean on TSLA stock when he owns so much of it impacts how much TSLA stock is worth.

Again, maybe it really doesn't matter, but you can't apply standard economics when the numbers are this big.

[-] sirico@feddit.uk 42 points 1 week ago

I got to say fair play to anyone who took the money and voted against him + points if you donated it to something he hates

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago

I'm hearing he stiffed a lot of people.

Shocking, I know.

[-] frunch@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

It's always the ones with the most money that are the stingiest fucks. Always using their wealth as a reason why they're entitled to anything, yet not actually paying unless forced to.

[-] kraftpudding@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

You don't get to be the richest man in world by giving people money if you don't absolutely have to..

[-] Lembot_0001@lemm.ee 41 points 1 week ago

Musk: Shit, I knew it should be 21M. Greedy me...

[-] longjohnjohnson@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

I believe it was 25 million in the end

[-] JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 21 points 1 week ago
[-] crumbguzzler5000@feddit.org 17 points 1 week ago

He already bought a presidency, can't have it all I guess.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Womp wompppp

[-] freely1333@reddthat.com 9 points 1 week ago

Legit question: don’t we lose here anyway because judicial seats are supposed to be non partisan?

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago

Judicial seats haven't been non partisan for 30 years, back when the federalist society started pushing lists of approved GOP judges.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 6 days ago

That's at the federal level. Wisconsin supreme court justices are elected for 10 year terms, and are officially non-partisan. In practice, everyone knows that the candidates are supported by one party or the other.

[-] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Sure, but you can lose worse. For example last November

[-] d00phy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Needs a last frame where the money is taken and the vendor says, with a smile, “No.”

this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
494 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

7709 readers
3114 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS