this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
366 points (98.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2003 readers
1359 users here now

Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Don't mind me, just trying to summarize the timeline of your argument.

1 He is a multi-millionaire (100K being 1% = 10mil)

2 He is part of a millionaire family

3 He is eligible to inherit huge amounts of money in the future; includes a honest side-note on how he may not get some big sum precisely because of what he did. Which i do appreciate but its weird to keep pursuing the argument.

4 We are now at he lives comfortably, much more then most. Which says nothing about the means for legal defense in a case like this where the state is part of the problem and people sometimes directly funded by millionaires to make certain choices.

Prediction for the next argument will be he eats avocado toast every day without even needing to pull on his bootstraps.