Mary Trump: How's This Headline?

[smirkymonkey]

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Bo Zarts]

1. 'Bout right Mary.

Plus they could buy a lot of COVID vaccine for the rest of the planet that they are so eager to leave.

[madaboutharry]

2. If they also give a lot of money to those things too,

then it doesn’t bother me. But really really rich people often are very cheap.

It is a little weird buying yourself the right to be called an astronaut.

[brush]

6. Gates and Buffett don't come off as cheapskates (charities). Bloomberg either.

Don't know about Musk, but Bezos, anyone who treats his workers like that...not good.

I don't know about Branson, seems like a nice guy, friends with Obama and Michelle.

[madaboutharry]

9. There are many generous wealthy people.

Bloomberg, Gates, Buffet are all philanthropists. But a lot are not generous. Look at the Walmart clan and Bezos treats his employees like shit.

[brush]

14. Yep, forget the Waltons, and it's well known about Bezos poor treatment of workers.

I could be wrong but the self-made ones seem to be generous and charitable. Maybe it's because they weren't trust fund babies who inherited money like the Walton siblings.

I don't begrudge them, long as they keep up the charitable giving.

[Snoopy 7]

51. great thinking

So the Walton's are "trust fund babie" and the "self-made" (which is a total fabrication) can be 'more generous'. Is that because they have a few dollars more from paying thousands of their employees like crap? Or, because they have a few dollars more from NOT PAYING TAXES? Or is it simply because they have been given million on sweet deals to install a company in a certain city, while playing city against city? I'm sorry but I don't get your argument and I hate what the Walton's have done to their company I haven't shopped their for almost 15-20 years.

[brush]

66. If someone is smart enough to make themselves a lot of money and treats his/her...

Last edited Mon Jul 12, 2021, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)

employess well and give to charity generously, they can do whatever the hell they want with their money.

They decide, you don't.

[samnsara]

64. i agree. Im not one to tell private people how they need to spend their money..

..they earned it. let them spend it the way they want. Most the time we all benefit. Paul Allen bought the Trailblazers, Seahawks and built the Music Experience. Gates is helping get clean water and toilets to 3rd world countries, Bezos..who on earth DOESNT use Amazon...or had a last minute gift delivered on Xmas Eve? Branson..even NASA is happy for the help in Space exploration. They sure keep me entertained.

Yesterdays space flight was great! Just think what Bransons launch site will bring to that small New Mexico town.

[brush]

67. Yes, it's as he said yesterday. A hundred years ago the word "airport" was new...

and the beginning of a new industry. That "spaceport" in that town is, in Branson's vision, the beginning of a new business of space tourism and transport and who knows what else.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

70. Only if Virgin Galactic can enter orbit and release satellites will it be a real spaceship.

Up until then it's a joyride for millionaires.

They could get the experience of weightlessness* -- longer than three minutes -- with Zero G, a modified Boeing 727 "vomit comet" which books flights at locations across the U.S. A Zero G mission includes 15 parabolas, each allowing for 30 seconds of weightlessness. The price is $7500.

A similar experience is available in Europe with AirZeroG, except they use the much larger Airbus A310. While they have shorter parabolas than Zero G (22 seconds), there are 30 parabolas for a cumulative total of 11 minutes of weightlessness. The price is $6700.

Of course, neither of these experiences would be of interest to a billionaire who could have a personal spaceship designed and built just for him. Oh well, such are the perks of being very, very, very rich.

YouTuber Physics Girl (Dianna Cowern) reported about her experience with being weightless:

*I know, it's technically called "microgravity," but "Almost Weightless" doesn't have the same marketability.

[brush]

71. It's the begining of a new era. Branson's flight was just the beginning of space tourism.

Space transport has already been ferrying supplies to the international space station. It's a new industry that the government actually encourages privatization in as it saves taxpayer money.

It's much bigger than whether Branson's craft reached only 50 miles high.

[brush]

72. I lived in Tucson back in the day and had a friend who had a hook-up at...

Davis-Monthan AF Base. Foreign pilots were taking training flights up to the Grand Canyon and back in empty cargo planes. He set it up for me and him to ride along on the padded floor in the back and...

"...Two passengers set sail that day,

For a three hour tour,

A three hour tour...."

Does that little ditty sound familiar? Well, our little adventure actually happened and the flight lasted about three hours. There were brief periods of weightlessness for us in the back when the plane dived. The fact that we were a bit high enhanced it a bit.

It happened matter of factley, unexpectedly so there was no weeks or months-long build-up of anticipation so it was just a fun day in the life of two stoners at the time. I never thought much of it after that until seeing this video.

[FoxNewsSucks]

10. There were a few threads a while back about how much Bezos has made since last March

He could give every single Amazon & subsidiary employee a $100k bonus and STILL would have more money left than he had before the pandemic.

According to some posts today, Branson is very charitable. So is Gates, but still I don't see why we need to rely on the whims of a billionaire for things society should have by taxing them instead.

[Autumn]

21. I bet they get a nice deduction from those "charitable deductions" too.

Fuck em. Tax them then tax them more.

[brush]

24. Of course we should tax them. No one wants to depend on how generous the rich are...

for the welfare of the rest of us.

Their charitable givings are up to them, but again, tax them appropriately.

[KPN]

61. No one who claims to be a Democrat at least.

Hopefully anyway.

[llmart]

19. I remember when Bill Gates was roundly criticized for not being very charitable.

If my memory serves me right, it wasn't until after he met and married Melinda that he had a change of heart and became more philanthropic.

[Cha]

3. Wow.. Rt TY!

[alfredo]

18. Branson has pledged $3 billion to fight global warming

He seems to be a generous person, and that is consistent with his past..

[orleans]

45. (devil's advocate here) pledged? when is he actually gonna help to do something about it?

he's already contributing to polluting our atmosphere by building his space plane and flying it around (or is it all electric and doesn't burn jet fuel?) (and doesn't he have his own boat? how much does that pollute the water? perhaps that 3 billion is to make up for an enormous carbon footprint he's been dumping for years)

--can you tell i'm not a fan of his?
...i'm not a fan of any of them

[alfredo]

76. He has a history of giving starting at age 17. He's not Donald Trump.

I can't blame a person having fun with their money, but they need to return some of that wealth back to those who made their wealth possible. All want to be remembered fondly, and to leave that good name to their children.

[brush]

27. That's sounds kind of farfetched. There's no baby Superman escape from earth.

What are they planning, an orbital existence around the moon, or Earth or Mars? No, it sounds like what Branson said this morning after touching back down at his spaceport. Years ago when airplanes were in their infancy few had uttered the word airport, just as today we have to get used to the term spaceport and what it entails...a portal into a new business, one that will employ people. It's not all about billionaire ego.

He's planning of space tourism and transport. Already they're moving supplies to the international space station and such.

[Deuxcents]

5. That's right

While watching this event today..I was thinking along those same lines. As was stated..they could do so much for the betterment of humanity and still be wealthy. Wish they’d try being “rich”.

[smirkymonkey]

13. Or like, at least pay their taxes.

If they all just did that (not just these 3, but all billionaires/multi-millionaires) we could have things like universal healthcare and daycare and make sure that everyone was taken care of if they lost their job or became disabled, etc.

We could have a first-class educational system and low-cost college for whoever wanted to attend. We could be secure and happy, not living in constant fear that the rug is going to be pulled out from under us at any moment through no fault of our own.

[Orrex]

7. 100%

[FoxNewsSucks]

8. That's pretty accurate.

[alfredo]

11. Thata do it

[dchill]

12. So it's not just me?

[MerryBlooms]

15. I was thinking billionaire money spent on wildfire fighting about now would be good...

We have the monster Bootleg fire here in southern Oregon... It's doubling in size every 24hrs. Plus the other fires all over the west... How about a billion or two on increasing air support, more equipment, pay for firefighters risking their lives. Shit's real out here, folks. Again. Instead, these guys are strapping rockets to
their egos and looking down onto our burning earth... Yeah, sip a little more champagne and keep laughing while we're burning. I'm sure they could see the Bootleg fire smoke plume from their $250,000 window seats.

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. Nope. Exploration and the advancement of science/technology is also a worthy cause.

I refuse to become part of the liberal circular firing squad trying to outwoke one another.

Yes, hungry people need food.

But also yes, humanity needs to continue to develop technology and scientific understanding.

This bullshit idea that Branson and Bezos are somehow stealing from the poor by spending their money on ways to ex-lore space pisses me off no end. It's not an either/or situation.

[USALiberal]

20. lol, ok! Nt

[smirkymonkey]

23. Umm, we have been in space for over 50 years.

This is not groundbreaking technology. This is nothing more than an ego-tripping dick-measuring contest between a couple of billionaires. They are doing nothing for humanity by this.

[MerryBlooms]

28. The way it's been reported, they're basically selling edge of space carnival rides.

I don't see how that is ground breaking science, nor do I see it as a benefit to our gasping environment.

[Disaffected]

35. Bezos probably and Branson maybe but,

Musk's organizations are certainly contributing a great deal to tech advancement eg. electric cars, world-wide internet service, greatly reduced cost of orbital launches.

[Rabrrrrrr]

54. Yes, we have, but not this cheaply or this easily.

Is it "groundbreaking" in the sense of doing something we've never before? No. You're right, we've been going to space for more than 50 years. Is it groundbreaking in the method of getting there? Yes.

We've also been smelting iron ore for thousands of years. And advancements are still being made.

Itzhak Perlman learned to play the violin at a young age - and yet, in old age and long after becoming professional, he was still practicing every day. He could have said, "Gee, I already how to play this thing, I can't do anything any more groundbreaking than that", but he decided to keep improving, anyway. Or he could have just said, "Gosh, others have already mastered this instrument, it would be stupid for me to try to learn".

Not to say that Branson and Bezos aren't ego-tripping as well, but they're also providing new technology and new ways to think about going into space, and also inspiring a hell of a lot of people to start thinking about space and the earth again.

[paulkienitz]

68. Musk at least made some of his money from doing something useful in space

whereas Bezos's main achievement has been to sucker the United Launch Alliance, the government's favorite rocket builder for national security launches, into banking its future on a new Blue Origin engine which Bezos is now failing to deliver.

And as for Branson... he may be the least prone of the three to openly mistreating workers and bullshitting the public, but he's also the only one of the three whose rocket indulgences have gotten employees killed in testing accidents. Four dead so far plus four major injuries.

[oldsoftie]

25. Correct. We got SO much from the early space program.

And it still goes on today with the current space programs.
Not to mention the THOUSANDS of high paying jobs

[Jon King]

31. You are completely correct Rabrrrrrr

Too much zero sum game thinking in this thread....and way too much not seeing the bigger picture.

[Kali]

33. I tend to agree with you on this

I do think there is a lot of ego and stupidity involved in some of this but it doesn't piss me off or anything and they are still contributing to the efforts in space, technology, and science so that part is good.

[JI7]

46. This is how I kind of see it . It is probably mostly ego when it comes to the billionaires.

But there are others involved in doing this and they are people who love science and hopefully will go on to do great things with their knowledge. And hopefully it will inspire a lot of young people to study in these areas instead of going to some useless business school .

[Sympthsical]

36. Hey man, we're pro-science! (terms and conditions may apply)

If it's scientific advancement we don't personally approve of, then ideology and Twitter statements will do.

Jesus. People today. I have never seen so much bitching and moaning in my life. Space exploration and scientific advancement are good things. And the fact today's story came from a guy who pledged $3 billion to combat global warming just doesn't seem to matter at all.

I really am starting to think there's something to Succession Ideology messing up the Left. It's a new term to describe how woke, illiberal ideology is now kind of destroying why liberalism is so great. Been thumbing through some interesting reads of late.

Examples just keep cropping up. Today is a good one.

[mdbl]

52. There are two sides to this

When NASA was the sole agency dealing with space flight, we were all involved and the benefits were shared with the country as a whole. When you start dealing with private companies, things become monopolistic and proprietary, leaving the rest of the country out of it. For this reason, I don't agree with abdicating our space program to private citizens. I realize some of the past advances in technology was given to corporations who profit by it, but it wasn't theirs to control. When billionaires start influence the guidance of something as important as space flight, it muddles up the equation. On the other side of the coin, some of the advancements brought about by Musk were breathtaking. I just wonder where it leaves the rest of us.

[Sympthsical]

60. This is actually a pretty fair criticism/concern

It's my understanding that NASA is made aware of what each of these companies are doing, and that there are agreements in place between these companies and the agency. I don't think space exploration should ever be fully privatized. The fact is, NASA has been woefully underfunded for a very long time. If this eases some of the burden from a technological standpoint and allows NASA to focus more on pure research missions in other areas, I'm all for it.

Capitalism can be useful when it comes to innovation and pushing technology forward. At the moment, we have competing companies, so I don't have the same monopoly worries you do. There's too much prestige involved, I think, for anyone to sit by and let one person take all the glory.

Right now, private, commercialized space flight is the province of the ultra-wealthy. However, as the technology improves and the prospects cheaper, I think we'll see other players enter the game.

I'm hopeful, if only because it feels like America's space program has been stagnating since the retirement of the shuttle program. I know we have plans, but they don't seem to be going anywhere. I'd rather NASA focus on ISS cooperation for experiments, probe missions, and things like the James Webb telescope. JMO.

[Stuart G]

37. What about..."Advancement of Science/technology?"

.....Think about this one.................Just think about it....

Walking on the moon was a great advancement...........but...........................................Here it is....

....IN ORDER TO GET TO THE MOON, THE SCIENTIST HAD TO .....DOWNSIZE COMPUTERS AND COMPUTER
CONTENTS TO FLY TO THE MOON.....(you do understand that one, don't you?) Computers on space ships, and their
contents had to be small enough to be put on the space capsules & get to and from the moon...Here it is:::::

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The downsizing of computers & their contents started with the space race and continued into the 70s, and 80s...and later...

...........THE RESULT OF DOWNSIZING ......IS ............................THE COMPUTER AND THE INTERNET THAT
.
..................................YOU ARE USING RIGHT NOW, AT THIS VERY MOMENT TO READ THESE WORDS AND
...................................I AM USING TO TYPE THESE WORDS SO THAT YOU CAN READ THEM ON THE INTERNET,
...................................AND WHERE EVER YOU MAYBE IN THE U.S.A. OR SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD

[smirkymonkey]

47. Hey dude, guess what?

We've already gone to the moon. Like 50 years ago. All of these advancements have occurred without billionaires taking joyrides into space.

We've been doing things in space for decades. Just because a few billionaires decide to do it on their own doesn't make it particularly fascinating or advanced. Big Whoop.

[Riverman100]

56. Right!

I agree 100%

[Silent3]

59. +1 n/t

[Autumn]

17. That's the whole truth.

[CTyankee]

22. I'm very bad. I thought her phrase "shoot their money into space" was a bit of a sexual

innuendo.

I may be right...

[Danmel]

26. They could also vaccinate the entire world

But nope

[Evolve Dammit]

29. Shows you where their priorities lie, doesn't it? Just like Orange boy; self gratification. nt

[Jon King]

30. Rabrrrrrr is correct, Mary Trump is wrong....

The post above by Rabrrrrr is 100% correct. Stop making this a zero sum game, its simply not.

Science and technology and brains are vital to the future. 1000000 kids around the world see this space stuff and get intrigued. Thousands of them start to like science and tech more, lean towards that in school. 10 years from now they are involved in medicine, technology, working as doctors, lab scientists, tech venture firms, etc.

The motivation of the rich guys behind it is irrelevant. Branson has done a ton for others, Bezons not so much. Oh well.

Its not whether or not the 100 billion could have directly gone into feeding people....its that the 100 billion can lead to a huge splash that is tonight being the subject of Twitter feeds and numerous Tic Toc videos. How many thousands of kids will be inspired?

5 years-10 years-15 years from now how much benefit will this splashy 'dick measuring contest' have done for the world with all the thousands of kids inspired by it who dedicate themselves to science and technology?

[Rabrrrrrr]

55. And how many well-paying jobs were created through these endeavors?

And how many jobs created in the future to continue supporting this new project? They're creating a whole new industry: non-professional space travel.

It's like people don't stop to think.

"Oh my God, someone spent $$$$ on something that I don't think is a good use of money - he could have given all that money away!!! - what a shitstain!!"

As though all that money being spent isn't going into other peoples' pockets.

I swear, I think there are people on the left who think that everytime someone spends money, that money just goes to the center of the universe and is burned up, never to be seen again. Would they rather that these rich bastards just keep their money in their bank account? That doesn't help the world, either.

Makes me want to pound my head on the desk sometimes.

Thanks for the shout out!!

Shitloads of money was spent creating the jets - which wasn't "groundbreaking" because we'd already invented the airplane, I guess - and who were the folks who flew first? The rich bastards. Until enough flying started to happen that eventually any stupid jackass with a couple hundred bucks, a pair of sweatpants, and a mouth that's incapable of eating while closed, can fly anywhere in the country or the world now. That bit of technology opened up a shitload of travel potential for the common person, and kickstarted a massive increase in the travel industry.

SMH.

[FreeState]

75. Blue Origin has doubled its workforce in the last 5 years

Lost of new well paying jobs (I have a family member who is talented enough to get a job with them).

[Silent3]

58. +1 n/t

[Joinfortmill]

32. Love Mary Trump

[MLAA]

34. Omg, Mary nailed it!

[demigoddess]

38. I worry about the carbon put into the air from these flights, making global warming

just a bit worse.

[Ferrets are Cool]

39. The ONLY benefit I see is from the jobs that have been created by the creation of this

program.

[smirkymonkey]

44. A lot more jobs could be created if they started developing industry in clean energy and other green

technologies. This is a very specialized field and they are going up how many times? And for what? What good is going to come out of this? What is practical about it ? We have been to space. This isn't groundbreaking technology.

My biggest problem with these people is that they don't pay taxes and they don't contribute, they just take. I really don't think that what they are doing here is making a big difference in bettering the lives of most people on this planet.

"To Whom Much is Given, Much Will Be Required" (Luke 12:48)

[Ferrets are Cool]

57. See this post. He is one of the few exceptions.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15614506

[JI7]

40. Not sure I agree this. I'm sure they themselves could do more

but they wouldn't be able to solve the problem.

[OxQQme]

41. MANY thousands of people benefit

from Musk's altruistic endeavors around the world.
Planners, designers, architects, building contractors, material supply,
all the way down to the shovel person building his dreams of a green future.
Might want to ask them their feelings about where he's 'shooting' his money.

I've posted vids of just one of the Tesla giga factories in Austin. -->

Looks to me like a huge injection of his money into the worlds economy rather than 'into space'.

Branson and Bezos, yeh, maybe narcissistic a bit.

To lump them together doesn't sit right with me.

[groundloop]

42. I have to disagree with this when it comes to Richard Branson.... he's big into philanthropy

https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/richard-branson

Branson has pledged to commit $3 billion, all profits from his travel firms over the next ten years, to the reduction of global warming.

He has previously donated to educational charities in Africa.

Branson started his first charity, “Student Valley Centre”, when he was only 17.

Richard is Patron of the International Rescue Corps.

In 2007, Branson formed The Elders – a small, dedicated group of leaders, working objectively and without any vested personal interest to solve difficult global conflicts – with Peter Gabriel, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Kofi Annan, and Jimmy Carter.

In March 2008, he hosted an environmental gathering with Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales, and Larry Page of Google at his private island in the Caribbean to discuss global warming-related problems facing the world.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Richard Branson organized to fly 40,000 blankets to refugees fleeing into Jordan. He single-handedly had to fight with Government ministers to make sure the supplies got to those who needed them.

In 2004 he set up Virgin Unite to encourage all of his staff around the world to tackle tough social problems.

He persuaded Elton John to sing Candle In The Wind at the funeral of Princess Diana – which eventually raised $40 million for charity.

Sir Richard Branson is Founder and Chairman of the Virgin Group. Virgin is one of the world’s most recognized and respected brands and has expanded into many diverse sectors from air and ground travel to telecommunications, health, space travel and renewable energy through more than 200 companies worldwide, employing approximately 50,000 people in 30 countries.

In 2004, Branson established Virgin Unite, his nonprofit foundation. It mobilizes the talent and resources from across the Virgin Group and beyond, to tackle tough social and environmental problems in an entrepreneurial way. It is built on the belief that the only way we can address the scale of the challenges facing the world today is by revolutionizing the way businesses, government and the social sector work together—driving business as a force for good.

Branson has been working closely with Virgin Unite to bring together the right partners to help create new global leadership models to address conflict, climate change and disease. These include the Carbon War Room and The Elders, as well as a number of others.

Branson and Virgin Unite also support a number of initiatives that lead to economic empowerment and healthy communities. These initiatives range from creating sustainable healthcare models in Africa, like the Bhubezi Community Health Center and the Rural Transport Network, to supporting young entrepreneurs through the Branson School of Entrepreneurship in South Africa and Jamaica, to creating opportunities for disadvantaged young people in the US and the UK.

[marble falls]

50. I guess he's earned the right to look an asshole. "and he's buying a stairway to heaven"?

[3auld6phart]

43. Yes

My thoughts exactly.. Self centred,egotistical bastards.. There are a
couple,maybe a few that give back.

[Bucky]

48. Okay, but a couple of commas could've given this tweet a bit of clarity

"and still be richer than 99.9999% of us choose to be narcissistic assholes" is a dooze

[marble falls]

49. My thought from the first time I heard about the launch billionaires into space program.

[lonely bird]

53. It ain't about charity

It is about a political economic system. The rich boys listed in the tweet simply come off looking nice for their charity. That is PR, period. They are far too heavily invested in the system itself to actually push for change. This goes back to the bullshit idea of “doing good while doing well”.

“Winners Take It All” is suggested reading.

[BobTheSubgenius]

62. My take on it was that I remember when megayachts and

megamansions used to be status symbols. Now, you have to have your own space program.

[SKKY]

63. I'll refrain from joining the "Bash Branson" bandwagon...

...and will only add that, if I were ever in a position to have the kind of impact on the world he could, I hope I would feel compelled spend that money more wisely. But that's me. I'm a different breed of cat. The only stupid thing I would be inclined to do would be to buy the Boston Redsox.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

65. She's wrong. NT

[wendyb-NC]

69. That's for sure.

So much money, they have to find epic, out of this world diversions.

[Glaisne]

73. Billionaires accomplishing the same thing

the government did 60 years ago.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/7/12/2039304/-Yeah-A-billionaire-makes-it-to-SPACE-NOT-We-are-so-gullible-as-we-funded-their-billions

[station agent]

74. This is wrong

Money can not be shot into space. When they spend it in this way, it still goes to people. Very rich people for the most part, who will do very little to distribute it. So the headline is:

"Three assholes use ego projects to shower money on other rich assholes and they all use the system built by politicians they own to avoid taxes so our money can be hoarded away from us in offshore bank accounts."