I don't understand how decisions like these align with the supposed "America First" rhetoric coming from the same side. Specifically - this deal is being led by the son of the president of the USA who was elected on promises of "bringing jobs back to America" and prioritizing domestic investments.
Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all.
As a former staunch Republican, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that both parties have sold us out. I disagree with a lot of the Left's policies and many on the Right as well, but both parties advocate, in theory, for several things that would benefit all Americans -- yet it never happens. Republicans advocate for fiscal responsibility -- never happens. Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens. The Democrats held the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2021 for two years. The Republicans currently hold the House, Senate, and Presidency right now.
They're in power for themselves and their disregard for us is by design.
What did Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have to say about student loan forgiveness?
Who not only fights tooth and nail against healthcare improvements but actively took money from existing programs to fund a national police and detainment apparatus?
Which party produced the most meaningful (albeit not far enough) healthcare reform of the 21st century in the US?
Those examples in particular are quite rough to try and both sides.
Where I live (California) there are basically no republicans in power. For a long time now. And we have more money and a better economic base than just about anywhere on the planet Earth.
So to all the partisans out there who are sure things would be better if "their side" had total control, I ask: what the hell is going on with California then?? We should be modeling the best governance in the country and even the world, but yet, our government is basically dysfunctional and our state is great despite it.
California has structural obstacles that don’t fit into partisan politics. Proposition 13 limits property tax collection, which warps housing development and many other factors. Also, California has high incomes, which means Californians pay more federal income tax, and the state receives less back in federal benefits, to the tune of almost $100 billion a year. Those are significant headwinds that the state would still have to deal with even if it was governed well.
That's easily answered. They think California is a hellhole that everyone with means is fleeing. "Vote for Democrats to turn your state into California" is a great way to get people on both sides to vote for their own preferred side.
If republicans took control of a household, they would just not buy groceries, cleaning supplies, ignore the utility bill, and not put gas in the car. They'd say "look how much we saved! We don't need any of that!" Then when the next person comes along and pays the bills they'd cry "tax and spend! Wasteful!" Pretending they've ever given a damn about fiscal responsibility is absurd. Fiscal responsibility is providing healthcare, education, and social safety nets because it's far far more expensive not to. But sure, buying more police and not addressing the root cause of crime is totally a net savings. They are like this with every single issue that matters.
I'm not a big fan of Democrats, but at least they're somewhat trying. Obamacare should have at least had a public option, but they got a big thing done there. Student loan cancellation was done poorly but it was attempted. And each of the last three (at least) Democratic administrations have reduced the deficit, so they've got the fiscal responsibility thing going as well.
Keep in mind that the Senate de facto requires 60 votes to pass almost anything these days. In this millennium, Democrats held enough seats to overcome that for about two months, and there was no margin at all. Hence the lack of a public option: Joe Lieberman didn't want it, and without him the whole thing didn't pass.
> Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens
Obama got Obamacare done in the single 6-month window in this century when Democrats could pass legislation without Republicans blocking them. Biden tried to cancel student loans and was blocked in court because surprise, surprise, Republicans wouldn't allow it to go through Congress.
> The Democrats held the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2021 for two years
Read up on the Senate filibuster to understand why Republicans could block student loan cancellation (and anything else Democrats wanted) despite this.
In theory both parties are part of the same system and complicit and corrupt. In actual practice one party is much worse than the other. By a lot.
Republicans win elections by blocking anything that's good for ordinary Americans, and blaming Democrats for their lives getting worse as a result. Voters are too dumb and distracted to see the con.
> Republicans win elections by blocking anything that's good for ordinary Americans
This. Mitch McConnell literally was on camera, and said, quote, that Republicans would block any bill Obama or the Democrats tried to pass, even if it was good for America and Americans, because the Republican's priority was to make Obama's term ineffectual.
Not to govern the country. But to actively prevent governance of the country. Even at a cost to its people. They didn't care. And they were open enough about it to say it on the record.
> Republicans advocate for fiscal responsibility -- never happens. Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens.
From what I've seen, Republicans don't bother trying. Democrats try and get blocked by the GOP; not sure if they can 'try harder' or find ways around the blocking. Biden certainly tried on student loans and got shot down:
Biden got a bunch of big legislation passed during his presidency. Including but not limited to: Infrastructure and Jobs Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS Act.
This "both sides are bad" trope is such an obvious sign that you're either 1) a Republican but embarrassed to say so, or 2) a bad faith actor making a false equivalency.
That's because the people who sincerely voted for "America First" were sold a bill of goods. They wanted a nationalist dictatorship but instead they got a bunch of pillagers who are going to take everything of value and leave a steaming heap.
> I don't understand how decisions like these align with the supposed "America First" rhetoric coming from the same side.
Because that rhetoric has ended, replaced with H1B-love, Israel-first, "immigration needs to rise actually, because a lot of toilets need to be cleaned" and "we don't have enough money to worry about the population, we need to make war" and the administration spends a large amount of time attacking the people who still use it?
Annoying that people don't keep up with this. "Same side" is some really simple thinking for a complex political environment.
Trump is just another neocon accumulating cash. In the 90s-00s, he worshiped Hillary Clinton; now he governs almost indistinguishably from a Clinton, a Blair or a Bush. With the only difference being that there's been a complete end to any restraints on Executive power through a bipartisan effort that still continues (see FISA renewal.) He can sell everything. Democrats were used to selling everything the old way, and pretending to be powerless. Turns out there's no reason to pretend to be powerless anymore.
The ideological MAGA types haven't changed at all. The only part of the electorate still on the Trump train are the same people who would have been Trump University students. With the addition of a bunch of newly silent lib Iran/Israel-first hawks. They also don't care about the foreign ownership of the media, or the media concentration that made it dangerous. The sex pest who is still ideological father of the Democratic Party was literally the one who repealed the laws that made it possible.
Yeah, election promises and post-election behavior aren't really correlated in general. I think this administration is worse than the average, but still.
Past talking points are not indicative of future behavior.
At least in part, they legitimately see Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, and now Syria, as part of the American empire. I would argue this is a bipartisan elite belief as well, you see Dem current and former elected's lobbying and giving talks where policy is dictated in those countries all the time, investing and being invested in by those countries all the time.
It's funny to me that the average American is Islamophobic, but the US government sharply divides middle eastern countries based on alliances (and how rich they are). Qatari Emir? You're a friend of the US government. Poor Pakistani? Enemy. Lebanese farmer? We'll think about it.
It makes sense given a few things, although it's not as bad as you're saying:
1. The median American lives in a city and has exposure to Muslims and is most likely not Islamophobic.
2. Due to the voting structure of the U.S., people who don't live in cities and don't get exposure to Muslims get outsized voting rights.
3. Most American electeds are much more well travelled than Americans who don't live in cities.
So basically, elites have to necessarily balance (and exploit) the biases of over-represented minorities with their own largely metropolitan beliefs.
All of this is made more ironic in that the moral structures of the Abrahamic religions, including Islam, are all influences on and in line with, traditional American values, which American elites don't follow (see Epstein) but Americans who don't live in cities largely do.
I worked for a company that got bought by a foreign company. It got approval the day Trump gave a maga like speech after meeting the new owner. That day the pink slips went out across the American offices.
It's all talk, it's almost guaranteed to be the opposite of what he says. It seems to be more about deflection than anything else.
UAE sends dollars back to Paramount shareholders in the US to "own" a piece Paramount.
Is it "foreign owned"? Do they really own anything? What are they really going to do with it? I don't know. I inhabit a world of nuance, I don't take rhetoric at face value, that's a waste of time.
You're right to be confused when you assume good faith on their part, it's utterly predictable when you take every public statement to be the exact opposite of what will happen: "small government", "fiscal responsibility", "tough on crime", "no new wars", "America will be respected again", etc. etc.
I'm very familiar with political slogans always being largely bullshit, but the degree to which 'America First' or 'Make America Great Again' seem to be diametrically opposed to the real intentions is breathtaking.
They align with the actual motives of the people involved, which is lining their pockets. "America first" is for the rubes.
The same is true of "fiscal responsibility." The GOP runs on this, but when they get into power they spend like drunks and run the deficit up. This has been true since Reagan, though Trump represents a huge escalation.
The same has been true with the whole "we're going to get rid of these DEI hires and be purely meritocratic." Okay, then why does the head of the FBI need to blow in a tube to start his car and why are a bunch of unqualified former pundits and podcasters in positions of high authority? Why is the head of the CDC a crackpot who can barely talk?
"A thing is what it does." Ignore rhetoric, look at results. BTW the same rule applies to rhetoric from the other side.
I mean, Trump was telling people to take Hydroxocloroquine for Covid 19. The list goes on-and-on. You’re actually surprised? He’s literally the definition of a narcissist.
People voted for him anyway because the manosphere told them too.
> Saudi Arabia’s Private Investment Fund will have the largest share of the three Middle Eastern funds, a greater equity piece than Qatar or Abu Dhabi. Together, the three Persian Gulf states are putting $24 billion into the new company.
They likely will but even for them it will be a long fight. State AGs are suing to stop this acquisition in droves. Even if States lose, which I expect they will, I don't anticipate they will get CNN before midterms like they want.
I don't think most people understand how the times have changed here. CNN's prime time shows get fewer views than a mid-tier YouTuber, literally. They hit < 1mil at prime time. And their demographic is, again literally, dying off as they have a median viewer age of 67 [1], which is steadily increasing presumably due to a lack of new viewers. On the bright side for them that puts them on the 'younger' side of most cable news networks.
Cable news is basically dead, but I think most of us missed the funeral. It used to be a relatively big deal decades ago, but those times are long since passed.
Don't forget Ellison/Skydance also control TikTok, where according to Pew 38% of adult Americans get their news.
The internet has killed institutions of journalism that have a reputation to protect. Billionaires did the rest of the job (RIP Washington Post). Pretty bad outcome. We are left random YouTubers, people with a Substack or podcast, etc. No fact-checking standards / departments. Will Propublica and PBS Newshour/Frontline be around in 10 years. Federal funding cuts already killed Weekend Newshour.
>The stat came to light in a request Monday by Paramount for approval of the foreign ownership stake by the FCC. The company said the arrangement, including a 38.5% holding shared by three Middle East investment funds, will give the combined company “greater access to capital.” The infusion of financial resources will enable Paramount to “compete more effectively in the provision of television broadcast services and in the broader video programming marketplace,” the filing said. Saudi Arabia’s Private Investment Fund will have the largest share of the three Middle Eastern funds, a greater equity piece than Qatar or Abu Dhabi. Together, the three Persian Gulf states are putting $24 billion into the new company.
So, let me get this straight.
Here's a guy worth hundreds of billions through his founding of a company that supports surveilence capitalism, and is considered to be a leech on the government. Doesn't pay his taxes. He fires people by the thousands.
This guy has donated over $30 million dollars to a nuclear-armed foreign nation's military....One that has currently got our military engaged in a quagmire in Iran....and has attacked our ships in the past (USS Liberty).
He wants to buy one of the largest news organizations in the country, one that happens to be diametrically opposed to his political beliefs and donations.
Instead of financing it all himself, he's turning to Saudi Arabia, a nation that has sponsored terrorist attacks against us within the last 30 years, and has used its money and resources to spread a violent sect of Islam all around the world (Wahhabi).
This entity will control one of this country's most storied film studios (WB), and one of this country's major news networks...the only one on its "side" of the political spectrum.
I'm sorry...but what the fuck?
EDIT: this appeared to touch a nerve with some. Great! Ellison is an asshole and Oracle sucks. Ellison should pay his taxes. Israel has nukes and some of their interests aren't parallel to ours, and we shouldn't give them money to further their genocidal interests. The Saudis' money and actions don't support the US at times which has cost us money and lives - they should not own our media. Ellison should use his own money to buy shit if he wants it so badly.
I don't understand how decisions like these align with the supposed "America First" rhetoric coming from the same side. Specifically - this deal is being led by the son of the president of the USA who was elected on promises of "bringing jobs back to America" and prioritizing domestic investments.
Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all.
> Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all.
Yup.
It's the same lie that the GOP cares about deficits and debt… except when they're in power and want to do tax cuts for the rich.
As a former staunch Republican, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that both parties have sold us out. I disagree with a lot of the Left's policies and many on the Right as well, but both parties advocate, in theory, for several things that would benefit all Americans -- yet it never happens. Republicans advocate for fiscal responsibility -- never happens. Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens. The Democrats held the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2021 for two years. The Republicans currently hold the House, Senate, and Presidency right now.
They're in power for themselves and their disregard for us is by design.
What did Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have to say about student loan forgiveness?
Who not only fights tooth and nail against healthcare improvements but actively took money from existing programs to fund a national police and detainment apparatus?
Which party produced the most meaningful (albeit not far enough) healthcare reform of the 21st century in the US?
Those examples in particular are quite rough to try and both sides.
Where I live (California) there are basically no republicans in power. For a long time now. And we have more money and a better economic base than just about anywhere on the planet Earth.
So to all the partisans out there who are sure things would be better if "their side" had total control, I ask: what the hell is going on with California then?? We should be modeling the best governance in the country and even the world, but yet, our government is basically dysfunctional and our state is great despite it.
California has structural obstacles that don’t fit into partisan politics. Proposition 13 limits property tax collection, which warps housing development and many other factors. Also, California has high incomes, which means Californians pay more federal income tax, and the state receives less back in federal benefits, to the tune of almost $100 billion a year. Those are significant headwinds that the state would still have to deal with even if it was governed well.
That's easily answered. They think California is a hellhole that everyone with means is fleeing. "Vote for Democrats to turn your state into California" is a great way to get people on both sides to vote for their own preferred side.
That was executive orders that got shutdown and its because congress controls the purse and they did not pass a law.
If republicans took control of a household, they would just not buy groceries, cleaning supplies, ignore the utility bill, and not put gas in the car. They'd say "look how much we saved! We don't need any of that!" Then when the next person comes along and pays the bills they'd cry "tax and spend! Wasteful!" Pretending they've ever given a damn about fiscal responsibility is absurd. Fiscal responsibility is providing healthcare, education, and social safety nets because it's far far more expensive not to. But sure, buying more police and not addressing the root cause of crime is totally a net savings. They are like this with every single issue that matters.
They’d put gas in the car. It would just be siphoned from the neighbor’s tank in the dead of night.
These days, they probably wouldn't even bother with "in the dead of night".
I'm not a big fan of Democrats, but at least they're somewhat trying. Obamacare should have at least had a public option, but they got a big thing done there. Student loan cancellation was done poorly but it was attempted. And each of the last three (at least) Democratic administrations have reduced the deficit, so they've got the fiscal responsibility thing going as well.
Keep in mind that the Senate de facto requires 60 votes to pass almost anything these days. In this millennium, Democrats held enough seats to overcome that for about two months, and there was no margin at all. Hence the lack of a public option: Joe Lieberman didn't want it, and without him the whole thing didn't pass.
"Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens."
You're blaming Democrats for things they try to do and are blocked by Republicans...
> Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens
Obama got Obamacare done in the single 6-month window in this century when Democrats could pass legislation without Republicans blocking them. Biden tried to cancel student loans and was blocked in court because surprise, surprise, Republicans wouldn't allow it to go through Congress.
> The Democrats held the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2021 for two years
Read up on the Senate filibuster to understand why Republicans could block student loan cancellation (and anything else Democrats wanted) despite this.
In theory both parties are part of the same system and complicit and corrupt. In actual practice one party is much worse than the other. By a lot.
Republicans win elections by blocking anything that's good for ordinary Americans, and blaming Democrats for their lives getting worse as a result. Voters are too dumb and distracted to see the con.
> Republicans win elections by blocking anything that's good for ordinary Americans
This. Mitch McConnell literally was on camera, and said, quote, that Republicans would block any bill Obama or the Democrats tried to pass, even if it was good for America and Americans, because the Republican's priority was to make Obama's term ineffectual.
Not to govern the country. But to actively prevent governance of the country. Even at a cost to its people. They didn't care. And they were open enough about it to say it on the record.
> Republicans advocate for fiscal responsibility -- never happens. Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens.
From what I've seen, Republicans don't bother trying. Democrats try and get blocked by the GOP; not sure if they can 'try harder' or find ways around the blocking. Biden certainly tried on student loans and got shot down:
* https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/white-house-press-...
After trying to be bi-partisan with the ACA/Obamacare the Democrats just went forward with it
It's almost like we're treated as a resource to be exploited instead of the foundation of a democratic republic.
Two Santas
https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/featured/two-santas-str...
Biden got a bunch of big legislation passed during his presidency. Including but not limited to: Infrastructure and Jobs Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS Act.
This "both sides are bad" trope is such an obvious sign that you're either 1) a Republican but embarrassed to say so, or 2) a bad faith actor making a false equivalency.
May be good for you to know that the American left policy is the rest of the worlds' right policy.
For the overton window to produce actual left wing policy that you may agree with, fundamental long-term change is needed.
That's because the people who sincerely voted for "America First" were sold a bill of goods. They wanted a nationalist dictatorship but instead they got a bunch of pillagers who are going to take everything of value and leave a steaming heap.
> I don't understand how decisions like these align with the supposed "America First" rhetoric coming from the same side.
Because that rhetoric has ended, replaced with H1B-love, Israel-first, "immigration needs to rise actually, because a lot of toilets need to be cleaned" and "we don't have enough money to worry about the population, we need to make war" and the administration spends a large amount of time attacking the people who still use it?
Annoying that people don't keep up with this. "Same side" is some really simple thinking for a complex political environment.
Trump is just another neocon accumulating cash. In the 90s-00s, he worshiped Hillary Clinton; now he governs almost indistinguishably from a Clinton, a Blair or a Bush. With the only difference being that there's been a complete end to any restraints on Executive power through a bipartisan effort that still continues (see FISA renewal.) He can sell everything. Democrats were used to selling everything the old way, and pretending to be powerless. Turns out there's no reason to pretend to be powerless anymore.
The ideological MAGA types haven't changed at all. The only part of the electorate still on the Trump train are the same people who would have been Trump University students. With the addition of a bunch of newly silent lib Iran/Israel-first hawks. They also don't care about the foreign ownership of the media, or the media concentration that made it dangerous. The sex pest who is still ideological father of the Democratic Party was literally the one who repealed the laws that made it possible.
Yeah, election promises and post-election behavior aren't really correlated in general. I think this administration is worse than the average, but still.
Past talking points are not indicative of future behavior.
Lots of politicians fail to deliver. This administration just flat out lied about their priorities.
They're generally fairly correlated?
At least in part, they legitimately see Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, and now Syria, as part of the American empire. I would argue this is a bipartisan elite belief as well, you see Dem current and former elected's lobbying and giving talks where policy is dictated in those countries all the time, investing and being invested in by those countries all the time.
It's funny to me that the average American is Islamophobic, but the US government sharply divides middle eastern countries based on alliances (and how rich they are). Qatari Emir? You're a friend of the US government. Poor Pakistani? Enemy. Lebanese farmer? We'll think about it.
It makes sense given a few things, although it's not as bad as you're saying: 1. The median American lives in a city and has exposure to Muslims and is most likely not Islamophobic. 2. Due to the voting structure of the U.S., people who don't live in cities and don't get exposure to Muslims get outsized voting rights. 3. Most American electeds are much more well travelled than Americans who don't live in cities.
So basically, elites have to necessarily balance (and exploit) the biases of over-represented minorities with their own largely metropolitan beliefs.
All of this is made more ironic in that the moral structures of the Abrahamic religions, including Islam, are all influences on and in line with, traditional American values, which American elites don't follow (see Epstein) but Americans who don't live in cities largely do.
Only as long as they are outside the US. As soon as they are in the US a Qatari is just a muslim and considered dangerous.
I worked for a company that got bought by a foreign company. It got approval the day Trump gave a maga like speech after meeting the new owner. That day the pink slips went out across the American offices.
It's all talk, it's almost guaranteed to be the opposite of what he says. It seems to be more about deflection than anything else.
What does majority US control of a US company have to do with US government "America First" policy?
And I don't think de-prioritizing foreign investments is part of that policy.
Foreign direct investment is generally considered a good thing for the American economy.
>Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all.
Do you think he means anything he says? Or that anything is about anything more than self-indulgence?
How is this complicated?
US uses dollars to buy oil from UAE.
UAE sends dollars back to Paramount shareholders in the US to "own" a piece Paramount.
Is it "foreign owned"? Do they really own anything? What are they really going to do with it? I don't know. I inhabit a world of nuance, I don't take rhetoric at face value, that's a waste of time.
The same way the peace president can start a war.
They simply lie.
You're right to be confused when you assume good faith on their part, it's utterly predictable when you take every public statement to be the exact opposite of what will happen: "small government", "fiscal responsibility", "tough on crime", "no new wars", "America will be respected again", etc. etc.
I'm very familiar with political slogans always being largely bullshit, but the degree to which 'America First' or 'Make America Great Again' seem to be diametrically opposed to the real intentions is breathtaking.
Simply because the Trump administration is "America First" in name only, and Trump first in actual behavior.
They align with the actual motives of the people involved, which is lining their pockets. "America first" is for the rubes.
The same is true of "fiscal responsibility." The GOP runs on this, but when they get into power they spend like drunks and run the deficit up. This has been true since Reagan, though Trump represents a huge escalation.
The same has been true with the whole "we're going to get rid of these DEI hires and be purely meritocratic." Okay, then why does the head of the FBI need to blow in a tube to start his car and why are a bunch of unqualified former pundits and podcasters in positions of high authority? Why is the head of the CDC a crackpot who can barely talk?
"A thing is what it does." Ignore rhetoric, look at results. BTW the same rule applies to rhetoric from the other side.
> Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all.
On the other hand they kept their promises of deporting and killing immigrants, and of getting rid of woke ideas like science and education.
They don't align with it. They've never aligned with it. It was always a lie.
I mean, Trump was telling people to take Hydroxocloroquine for Covid 19. The list goes on-and-on. You’re actually surprised? He’s literally the definition of a narcissist.
People voted for him anyway because the manosphere told them too.
> Saudi Arabia’s Private Investment Fund will have the largest share of the three Middle Eastern funds, a greater equity piece than Qatar or Abu Dhabi. Together, the three Persian Gulf states are putting $24 billion into the new company.
This is a plotline in the black comedy series Succession. What a time to be alive.
They will also own CNN.
They likely will but even for them it will be a long fight. State AGs are suing to stop this acquisition in droves. Even if States lose, which I expect they will, I don't anticipate they will get CNN before midterms like they want.
This is the scariest part.
I don't think most people understand how the times have changed here. CNN's prime time shows get fewer views than a mid-tier YouTuber, literally. They hit < 1mil at prime time. And their demographic is, again literally, dying off as they have a median viewer age of 67 [1], which is steadily increasing presumably due to a lack of new viewers. On the bright side for them that puts them on the 'younger' side of most cable news networks.
Cable news is basically dead, but I think most of us missed the funeral. It used to be a relatively big deal decades ago, but those times are long since passed.
[1] - https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20...
Don't forget Ellison/Skydance also control TikTok, where according to Pew 38% of adult Americans get their news.
The internet has killed institutions of journalism that have a reputation to protect. Billionaires did the rest of the job (RIP Washington Post). Pretty bad outcome. We are left random YouTubers, people with a Substack or podcast, etc. No fact-checking standards / departments. Will Propublica and PBS Newshour/Frontline be around in 10 years. Federal funding cuts already killed Weekend Newshour.
FTA:
>The stat came to light in a request Monday by Paramount for approval of the foreign ownership stake by the FCC. The company said the arrangement, including a 38.5% holding shared by three Middle East investment funds, will give the combined company “greater access to capital.” The infusion of financial resources will enable Paramount to “compete more effectively in the provision of television broadcast services and in the broader video programming marketplace,” the filing said. Saudi Arabia’s Private Investment Fund will have the largest share of the three Middle Eastern funds, a greater equity piece than Qatar or Abu Dhabi. Together, the three Persian Gulf states are putting $24 billion into the new company.
So, let me get this straight.
Here's a guy worth hundreds of billions through his founding of a company that supports surveilence capitalism, and is considered to be a leech on the government. Doesn't pay his taxes. He fires people by the thousands.
This guy has donated over $30 million dollars to a nuclear-armed foreign nation's military....One that has currently got our military engaged in a quagmire in Iran....and has attacked our ships in the past (USS Liberty).
He wants to buy one of the largest news organizations in the country, one that happens to be diametrically opposed to his political beliefs and donations.
Instead of financing it all himself, he's turning to Saudi Arabia, a nation that has sponsored terrorist attacks against us within the last 30 years, and has used its money and resources to spread a violent sect of Islam all around the world (Wahhabi).
This entity will control one of this country's most storied film studios (WB), and one of this country's major news networks...the only one on its "side" of the political spectrum.
I'm sorry...but what the fuck?
EDIT: this appeared to touch a nerve with some. Great! Ellison is an asshole and Oracle sucks. Ellison should pay his taxes. Israel has nukes and some of their interests aren't parallel to ours, and we shouldn't give them money to further their genocidal interests. The Saudis' money and actions don't support the US at times which has cost us money and lives - they should not own our media. Ellison should use his own money to buy shit if he wants it so badly.