ME5SENGER_24

So long as the increases in salary outweigh the increases in inflation, sure. But that will never happen. The entire system is flawed. Debt will grow and grow and those holding the debt will pull the puppet strings and make those below them dance (and suffer).

Companies need to ditch their boards. They need to delist from the stock market. They need to be 100% employee owned. Profits need to be set at a specific percentage of COGS.

…but greed, greed never changes.

The obsession with companies needing to post increasing profits every single year is frankly baffling. Let’s say a company makes X amount in profits in 2024, and everyone—employees, shareholders, stakeholders—are happy and well-compensated. Why should the expectation be that profits must increase in 2025, even if the company is already performing well? The only explanation that comes to mind is greed. It seems like the focus is less on long-term sustainability or fairness and more about feeding the insatiable hunger of CEOs and executives who just want more—more profits, more bonuses, more power. It’s as if they’re modern-day dragons, hoarding wealth for the sake of hoarding, rather than for the health of the business or the people within it.

Soooo, essentially WiFi enabled smoke detectors on trees? Yeah sounds like a simple, solid idea

There are countless unnecessary restrictions on goods, and I’d argue that about 90% of the laws and regulations surrounding them should be rewritten or scrapped entirely. Take Florida’s alcohol laws, for example: liquor must pass through at least three different hands before it can be sold to a consumer—Manufacturer > Distributor > Retailer > Customer. I once worked for a retailer in Florida, and I couldn’t understand the logic, especially since my company also produced its own products. Even though they were both the Manufacturer and Retailer, they still had to use a distributor just to sell their own goods due to this outdated system.

Sure, they justify it by claiming it’s a leftover from Prohibition, but that’s a weak excuse. Yes, there was a black market for alcohol back then, but Prohibition ended 91 years ago. How have we not figured out a better way to handle alcohol sales in nearly a century? The answer is simple: it’s part of the system by design.

Car dealerships operate in much the same way. There’s no reason cars can’t be sold directly to consumers, as long as manufacturers have the necessary distribution infrastructure. Regulations should be enforced at the point of manufacture or import, and sales tax should be collected by the seller and then remitted to the federal government. For foreign manufacturers, if they want to sell in the U.S., they should be required to register in whatever state they choose, regardless of sales volume.

And here’s the kicker: What’s to stop the company I worked for from setting up a shell distribution company, acting as their own intermediary, and inflating the price to sell it to themselves as the retailer? They could then mark up the price again before selling it to you, essentially bypassing any real value or competition while still skirting around the system.

Steal a peaceful nation and milk its resources 👏

I got the full game for free off a Starbucks giveaway, so much fun and the artwork is awesome!

I believe we should streamline our legal system to prioritize federal laws only. The principle behind E pluribus unum — “out of many, one” — reflects the idea of a unified nation. If something isn’t explicitly regulated by federal law, then it should be automatically legal. This would simplify the legal landscape and eliminate the confusing patchwork of state laws. Each state has its own set of rules, which can vary drastically and create a lot of unnecessary complexity, especially for businesses and individuals who cross state lines. A single, cohesive federal standard would reduce confusion, promote fairness, and strengthen our unity as a country. Let the federal government set the laws, and if they haven’t acted on an issue, then it should be free for all to engage in without restriction. After all, in a nation built on E pluribus unum, we should be able to count on one set of laws for the entire country.

Ranked choice voting would be nice as well. So would having more than two political parties.

They should be jailed. Period. They committed a crime, tampered with evidence, obstructed a police investigation, falsely imprisoned someone and the list can go on and on.

For someone with the means to reach infinite corners of the globe he’s so out of touch with the world

How is it only 62%?! Who actually looks at their medical bill and thinks, “Yep, this is accurate and absolutely worth every penny”? I have health insurance, and I still avoid going to the doctor unless I’m practically dying because I simply can’t afford it.

And yet, I’m stuck paying nearly $10k a year for insurance—just in case something catastrophic happens—only to still face massive copays, out-of-pocket costs, and coverage denials. It’s completely counterintuitive.

The system is broken.

Screw the insurance industry.
Screw the state of medical care in the U.S.

Healthcare shouldn’t be a privilege—it’s a human right. Normalize that.

OF COURSE HE WILL, THERES A FUCKING CITY NAMED AFTER HIM!!

So here’s my take: I never want to play a game with other people unless we’re sitting on the same couch. Because of that, I have no need for any of my systems to be permanently connected to the internet. The requirement for always-online systems is just ridiculous. The full game should be on the disk, and the only time I should need an internet connection is to download DLC or if the dev team releases a patch that addresses major issues or improves the gameplay experience.

Literally whatever he thinks and says, I want the exact opposite. Don’t trust the rich, especially the richest of the rich!!

The world would be so much better off if Trump’s ambitions were confined to Florida

You nailed it on the head—if X owns all X accounts, then X should absolutely be held liable and named as codefendants in all past and future litigation where content posted on X is used in the suit. By asserting ownership over the accounts, X is effectively taking on a level of responsibility for the platform’s use and misuse, akin to how a publisher is held liable for the content it distributes.

This raises serious implications for legal accountability. If X claims ownership, they are asserting control, and with control comes liability. They can’t just cherry-pick the benefits of owning the accounts (like monetization, data, and influence) without accepting the risks, including being dragged into lawsuits where harmful, defamatory, or illegal content originates from their platform.

It would also set a precedent for greater accountability in tech. Platforms often hide behind Section 230 protections to dodge responsibility, but if they step forward and say, ‘We own the content or accounts,’ then they lose the shield of neutrality and should face the consequences accordingly. It’s a slippery slope that X might regret going down if this theory gains traction in courtrooms.

Trump and his cronies want to privatize the world. That’s the end goal. Gut all government agencies and sell them off to Elon or some private equity firm. If you want to live in the future they’re building it’s gonna be pay to play. You want healthcare, pay for it. You want education, pay for it. You want oxygen, pay for it!

….and 76 million people voted for it. 76 million people have fucked over 260 million people all cause they drank the orange kool-aid.

It’d be “zero cool” if this wasn’t released to the public

And nothing will happen. Here are some sanctions and tariffs that will be paid by the citizens of the issuing nation.

Elon being the dude from Grandma’s Boy makes so much sense lol now I’m gonna assume he makes little robot noises as he walks around