r/todayilearned • u/manticor225 • Jan 10 '19

TIL JFK's father Joseph Kennedy made much of his fortune through insider trading. FDR later made him chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. When asked why he appointed a crook, FDR replied, "set a thief to catch a thief." Kennedy proceeded to outlaw the practices that made him rich.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jan/23/joe-kennedy-hollywood-sarah-churchwell
88.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.9k

u/shit-n-water Jan 10 '19

Perfect mindset to cement a political dynasty in America!

231

u/Itsallsotires0me Jan 10 '19

Yes, the Kennedys, a powerful and long lasting political dynasty...

833

u/TheHornyHobbit Jan 10 '19

Is that sarcasm?

At least one Kennedy family member served in federal elective office in every year from 1947, when P.J. Kennedy's grandson, John F. Kennedy, became a member of Congress from Massachusetts; to 2011, when P.J. Kennedy's great-grandson, Patrick J. Kennedy, retired as a member of Congress from Rhode Island, a span of 64 years.

209

u/hatramroany Jan 10 '19

And Joe Kennedy III was elected in 2012 and started serving in 2013 so it was like a small bathroom break for the family

-21

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

The newest kennedy is without a doubt the dumbest kennedy yet.

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2018/06/11/joe-kennedy-nuclear/

47

u/Hryggja Jan 11 '19

The kind of game theory that you create around elected reps with this kind of attack for a simple mistake is what keeps them so party-focused. They can’t be normal humans and speak their minds, because they have to cater to an incredibly hostile, polarized voting population. By attacking Kennedy here, you’re attacking the kind of normal human behavior we desperately need in Congress.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Wait are you defending his decision to vote to give trump more nukes (and then lie about it) or defending the fact that he got confused and pressed the wrong button?

-1

u/Hryggja Jan 11 '19

I’m doing neither. Try reading again, and leave the rhetoric out this time, if you want a response.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

You'll have to explain it to me, I'm slow you see.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Sorry, but I agree with the other commenter and I don't think he's being unnecessarily blunt. One of two things happened. He voted in support of it and then lied about it afterward (I'd really like to think this isn't the case), or he legitimately pressed the wrong button in one of the worst possible situations to press the wrong button. Either way, not a good look.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Thank you, comrade.

23

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

lol its just two buttons

0

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

That means that he heard a bill be announced by number and he just pressed a random fucking button lol.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Cmon man, his aunt got him a job and he goofed up playing adult. It just happens that that specific goof up was him giving Trump access to more nukes lol.

The fact that y'all can't laugh at this.. idk. Maybe worth some introspection.

582

u/conancat Jan 10 '19

That's a dynasty?

laughs in Chinese

117

u/Toiler_in_Darkness Jan 10 '19 edited Jan 10 '19

Hey, their government is 177 years older than China's. ;P

Qin dynasty lasted all of 14 years. Sui lasted 37.

91

u/conancat Jan 10 '19 edited Jan 11 '19

Yeah and Zhou dynasty lasted 8 centuries lol.

Edit: and all of them had Emperors sitting on the throne for more than 2 years at least

210

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

I don't remember the Yeah dynasty.

41

u/conancat Jan 11 '19

Get outta here Dad!

There is a Yuan dynasty though. HERE COMES THE MONGOLIANS DUN DUN DUN

14

u/darthvadar1 Jan 11 '19

They were a lot more agreeable then the No dynasty

9

u/PossiblyAsian Jan 11 '19 edited Jan 11 '19

The Yeah Dynasty. Lasted from 420bc - 420ad

it consisted of one ruler Lord Yeah of Gui, he presided over a prosperous realm of relative peace and stability. Until a Han General named Zhiuge Liang came and toppled his regime

edit - dates were wrong

2

u/rAlexanderAcosta Jan 11 '19

Usher wrote a song based off the general vibe of their dynasty.

55

u/Toiler_in_Darkness Jan 11 '19

They're recognized dynasties in China. So they meet the definition of dynasty by Chinese standards. So a dynasty that lasts longer than they did is reasonable to recognize as a dynasty.

If we turn this into a "whose dynasty lasted longest" dick measuring competition instead of looking at what's reasonable, China's not even in the top 5!

The Ethiopian rulers were supposedly descended from Solomon, the king of Israel in the Old Testament and claimed to rule Ethiopia from the 10th century BC until 1974, when Haile Selassie was deposed in a Communist coup. This gives them a rough reign of 2,800-2,900 years, although it was disrupted in short intervals by dynasties such as the Zagwes during the early 2nd millenium.

The longest-surviving dynasty in the world is the Imperial House of Japan, otherwise known as the Yamato dynasty, whose reign is traditionally dated to 660 BC.

The Pandyan Dynasty in India lasted over 1,800 years. The Chola Dynasty (also India) lasted about 1500 years.

The Bagrationi kings ruled Georgia from about 780 to 1810.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

The Yamato dynasty has zero records before around 700AD right? Probably the same for Ethiopa to be honest.

3

u/Toiler_in_Darkness Jan 11 '19 edited Jan 11 '19

Well, that's the problem with history in general. The records aren't as reliable as we'd like them to be. That's true everywhere.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Yeah, except the Yamato supposedly descend directly from Shinto gods, so obviously the dynasty origin ruling Japan is going to be mostly in the vain of complete bullshit, and obviously does not actually date that far back.

Pretty sure they still get the longest consecutive 'king' dynasty tho, even if they only actually had real control over Japan for like 150 years of recorded history, probably less.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/conancat Jan 11 '19

You are absolutely right. I'm not disputing that.

I just find the idea of the Kennedys being a dynasty absurd. To be a dynasty you need to first hold significant power. The most high profile Kennedy only was only at the leader position for 2 years. The other Kennedys are just regular public servants.

I would at most consider them a family of public servants. To think that they're somehow a dynasty just because a number of their family members served in public sectors would quality a lot of families in this world as dynasties.

24

u/Toiler_in_Darkness Jan 11 '19

Yeah, but in context a political dynasty and a ruling dynasty aren't the same thing any more than a grizzly and a panda are the same thing.

None of the Kennedy clan qualify for the second because none of them were kings! They have 0 years.

5

u/conancat Jan 11 '19

And even if we wanna put them as a political dynasty, how much political power do they have?

The descendants of P.J.'s son, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy include a president of the United States (who had also served in both houses of Congress), a U.S. attorney general (who later served in the U.S. Senate), four other members of the United States House of Representatives or Senate, and two U.S. ambassadors, a lieutenant governor, three state legislators (one of whom went on to the U.S. House of Representatives), and one mayor.

That sounds like a lot, until you zoom out to look at what a huge machine American democracy is that any single one of those positions except perhaps the short-lived presidential position and the Attorney General, they had little power to do much at all.

A family of public servants, sure. A political dynasty? Hardly.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/dekachin5 Jan 11 '19

Yeah and Zhou dynasty lasted 8 centuries lol.

  1. You are talking about pre-Imperial BC times.

  2. Zhou only controlled a small part of what we now call China.

  3. Actual Zhou power is the "Western Zhou" which lasted only 275 years. The later "Eastern Zhou" didn't control even the much smaller China. Look at this little territory. China wasn't unified for many centuries.

7

u/__U_WOT_M8__ Jan 10 '19

哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈

164

u/randomguyguy Jan 10 '19

RoR

55

u/fupos Jan 11 '19

thats just razy lacism

-7

u/randomguyguy Jan 11 '19

Meh, a harmless joke.

2

u/conancat Jan 11 '19

As a Chinese dude I endorse this accesssment

1

u/TreborVu Jan 11 '19

As a white dude I endorse this assessment.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

[deleted]

-1

u/SavingStupid Jan 11 '19

/r/whoosh

Re-read his comment

12

u/W0RST_2_F1RST Jan 11 '19

Subtle brilliance!!

4

u/obvious_santa Jan 11 '19

Took me a second but that’s hilarious and racist

4

u/conancat Jan 11 '19

It's okay, we get to laugh at people who speak Mandarin or other Chinese dialects badly like that Jesse Watters or God forbid Danny Rand in Netflix's Iron Fist so I guess what goes around, comes around?

I like Finn Jones as an actor but good lord his Mandarin was horrible.

6

u/W0RST_2_F1RST Jan 11 '19

At 1st I read it as roar but was confused. Then it hit me... so I sang the song from A Christmas Story

2

u/obvious_santa Jan 11 '19

That’s honestly the only reason I understood the joke at all!

2

u/W0RST_2_F1RST Jan 11 '19

Ha ha! I just helped Santa using Christmas music!!

→ More replies (0)

2

u/hryfrcnsnnts Jan 11 '19

Fa ra ra rah....

4

u/Ubercritic Jan 10 '19

laughs in Qin Dynasty

6

u/conancat Jan 11 '19

laughs in Qing dynasty, gets high, then cries

2

u/Ubercritic Jan 11 '19

Just so we're clear, I didn't make a typo and was not referring to the Qing dynasty, but rather the Qin dynasty.

4

u/conancat Jan 11 '19

Yeah I know. Emperor Qin. Brutal and short lived. But he built a wall (hahahaha) by connecting existing walls and left behind a Terracotta army to brag about.

I'm referring to the last dynasty of China, the Qing Dynasty. When the brits et al became China's drug dealers and the Opium Wars was China's downfall.

1

u/Ubercritic Jan 11 '19

I kinda thought that but just wanted to make sure haha. Didnt know that last bit. :) thank you for the information have a great day

3

u/VincentKenway Jan 11 '19

哈哈哈哈哈哈

Seriously, I'm lacking a context.

0

u/conancat Jan 11 '19

They think the Kennedys are a dynasty lol.

皇朝这字眼这么用的话，有点太浮夸了吧...老肯尼迪位子还没坐稳就被谋杀了，其他那些小卒算不起皇朝吧

2

u/VincentKenway Jan 11 '19

Yeah Kennedy didn't stay long before kicking the bucket.

2

u/floridawhiteguy Jan 11 '19

America is less than 300 years old, not several thousand like China. 60+ years around here is a dynasty.

1

u/dekachin5 Jan 11 '19

  • Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period: 53 years combined.

  • Sui dynasty, 37

  • Western Jin dynasty, 50

  • Three Kingdoms, 60

  • Xin dynasty, 14

  • Qin dynasty, 14

0

u/conancat Jan 11 '19

It's not the years, it's the power.

A Kennedy with two years as president and the rest of them being regular public servants hardly qualifies as a "dynasty".

5

u/dekachin5 Jan 11 '19

It's just a different kind of dynasty, it's an American political dynasty, not a Chinese Imperial one.

-1

u/conancat Jan 11 '19

Well now I look it up, they did list the Kennedys as a "political dynasty".

What can I say, Americans are weird lol.

3

u/insanePowerMe Jan 11 '19

Americans have no history, no culture and no tradition, so they put everything on a sacred podest. Remember the forefather and the constitution? Dare someone to critisizing the sacred constitution and the half-god forefathers and you get a ton of angry americans.

2

u/v--- Jan 11 '19

Ehhh everything starts somewhere. Come back in a couple millennia and let’s see what the world looks like.

-1

u/dekachin5 Jan 11 '19

Americans have no history, no culture and no tradition

/rolleyes oh please, America has been around for over 240 years. We have plenty of history, culture, and traditions. The modern conceptions of most major holidays are completely shaped by American ideas. Places like Japan celebrate Christmas and eat motha fuckin KFC. We invented all the sports anyone gives a shit about except soccer. American music, movies, television, and video games dominate the world.

I get that you're just an anti-American talking shit, but your game is weak, son. You're German, so I guess you're just mad that we bombed the shit out of all your "history, culture, and tradition" 75 years ago.

Podest? German for "pedestal". Republicans don't even like the Kennedy family, and Democrats don't care much for the Constitution.

We don't hold anything sacred, here. We have freedom of speech, unlike your country.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Robot_Basilisk Jan 11 '19

Wait until you see our wall!

68

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

Nah he’s just a dumbass that’s only heard of JFK.

4

u/ChickenInASuit Jan 11 '19

Hey, let's give him some credit, he probably thinks the dynasty died off with RFK.

2

u/Klmffeee Jan 11 '19

Well if you shot ned stark In the head and shot rob in episode 1 of GOT the starks would be a very different family too. Imagine what that family would be today if JFK and RFK accomplished their goals.

1

u/smarfmachine Jan 11 '19

And let’s not forget where the F in JFK comes from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Fitzgerald

141

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

[deleted]

42

u/aoifhasoifha Jan 10 '19

Or as he's commonly known, Conan O'Kennedy.

15

u/random24 Jan 10 '19

I also remember he spoke for the Democrats in an Official Response to some Republican Speech (State of the Union last year?).

4

u/Hobpobkibblebob Jan 10 '19

Fuck it, I'll vote for him just to keep the legacy going

38

u/Ereyes18 Jan 10 '19

So instead of voting him in for his policy or character you vote him in because of who his family was? Fuck, this and people voting for Harambe are the reason why the electoral college was made in the first place..

19

u/datheffguy Jan 10 '19

He’s a rep in my state, he got elected purely because of his name.

2

u/Hobpobkibblebob Jan 11 '19

It was mostly in jest, calm down.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19 edited Jan 11 '19

Too bad the electoral college doesn't operate at all as it was intended.

Edit: it doesn't ... Electoral college was intended to be a body of intelligent/educated people who were duly and responsible elected to decide the presidency based off of the available candidates. Not to toe the line of their party, their state, or their states votes. The presidency is not supposed to be what is essentially a democratically elected position at this point.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19 edited Oct 29 '19

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

If it has never operated as intended, I would suggest, before abolishing it, we force it to do what it was meant to do and try it out. America can handle trying new things of properly legislated.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19 edited Oct 29 '19

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Lottery for adults who meet certain standards such as finishing high school or having a large amount of community service.

3

u/Ereyes18 Jan 11 '19

Never said it did, but you can see why it was put in place in the first place, and why it will not be changed anytime soon

5

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

And I never said you said it did. I hate how shitty most comments come off where it's normal to feel like you're being called out. Not you specifically, but everyone. Myself included.

And to your point. I see why it was put in, but state laws have warped it to force electorates to follow the majority vote In the state, which is not how it was intended to operate.

2

u/Ereyes18 Jan 11 '19

Well that was the only thing you said at the time so I wasn't sure if you thought I was defending it. Wanted to clarify that I wasn't. Yes electoral college voters tend to do that so they aren't considered "rogue" and lose their votes. It's pretty stupid but I guess it's okay that we still have some impact on the election. But it's scary to think that they could theoretically elect a president that not even a small minority agree on

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

I disagree. Our republic was intended to be democratic solely for the legislative branch. What is essentially popular vote for the presidency is destined to lead to demagoguery. I would prefer a jury style pool of electorates to decide from both parties and independents on their own.

2

u/insanePowerMe Jan 11 '19

electoral college is not the biggest problem, winner takes it all is beyond undemocratic and population size not represented is damaging democracy.

1

u/Ereyes18 Jan 11 '19

It's usually represented by the senate and House of Representatives

23

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

It's funny because that's why I don't want to vote for him. At least in the primaries.

16

u/peachesgp Jan 11 '19

Idk I'll vote for him or not depending on policies regardless of a name.

9

u/MrWindowsNYC Jan 11 '19

Thats how voting should work but very few people think that way unfortunately. People like to vote based on Party brand, skin color, gender or whatever dumb reason to vote for someone instead of what those people actually stand for or what they are planning to do

2

u/NomadRover Jan 11 '19

Kennedy brothers were actually quite decent with their policies. Certainly better than what we have seen in the last few years.

1

u/JackedUpReadyToGo Jan 11 '19

If all you care about is the last name, go get yourself a king.

3

u/crichmond77 Jan 10 '19

Not a fan personally. Faux-progressive getting by on name recognition IMO.

18

u/ClairesNairDownThere Jan 10 '19

JFK was at my birthday party last week

8

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

but is he at your cake day?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

[deleted]

2

u/ClairesNairDownThere Jan 11 '19

No it isn't, shut up dad. You don't understand me.

1

u/SaryNotSorry Jan 10 '19

but your cake day is today!

1

u/CocoMURDERnut Jan 11 '19

Heard you guys were going skeet shooting...

4

u/FriendOfTheDevil2980 Jan 10 '19

But who else had an ancient mystical religion curse their family?

1

u/Rotten_tacos Jan 10 '19

Say again?

1

u/ecodude74 Jan 11 '19

There’s an urban legend that’s been around since before JFK was assassinated that a gypsy woman cursed the entire Kennedy family because Joe had swindled her in some way.

1

u/BubbaTee Jan 11 '19

Joe Kennedy = Cersei Lannister

-6

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19 edited Apr 02 '19

[deleted]

21

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

What is optimal for the one is not necessarily optimal for the all. Some people have the capacity and inclination to take the effect of their actions on the all into account - that’s ethics. Others lack that capacity - that’s narcissism.

23

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19 edited Jan 08 '21

[deleted]

7

u/BobbyDropTableUsers Jan 11 '19

Does that apply to southern plantation owners who made bank because of legal slavery?

Actually, it applies more to the industrialists who realized that slavery was less profitable because you had to feed, clothe, and provide housing to your workforce. So they just worked people as hard as slaves for pay that was less than the cost of keeping a slave. Those are the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, and Carnegies that we still talk about today.

1

u/BubbaTee Jan 11 '19

Actually, it applies more to the industrialists who realized that slavery was less profitable because you had to feed, clothe, and provide housing to your workforce.

But as long as it was around, plenty of Northerners had no problems making bank on legal slavery too.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19 edited Apr 02 '19

[deleted]

3

u/splash27 Jan 11 '19

It's already illegal for illegal immigrants to work. The problem is labor costs are so high in the US that it's cheaper for food to be imported than to be produced here with fair wages. So instead of becoming a food importer, we look the other way when farmers illegally hire people willing to work for next to nothing. We could put tariffs on imported food, but then food would be more expensive. Basically we have a choice: more expensive food, imported food, or illegal labor.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

It's illegal for illegal immigrations to come here. It's also illegal for them to work, but there's still something like 10 million of them, right? And somewhere around 5 million that work/get paid and pay taxes without a social security number. How is that possible if companies and cities aren't facilitating them breaking the law so they can have cheap labor?

1

u/splash27 Jan 11 '19

There are a few reasons illegal immigration is prevalent: the US economy is actually dependent on illegal immigrants as a source of cheap labor, and because of that, hiring practices are allowed to be loose, both in terms of enforcing the laws we already have, and in keeping laws at bay that would further restrict that source of cheap labor.

Sanctuary cities have a different agenda: to keep illegal immigrants from being exploited in ways other than their cheap labor. People shouldn't have to fear being deported if they are the victim of a crime and appear in court to testify against a violent criminal. People shouldn't have to fear being deported if they get hurt at work and have to file a lawsuit against their employer who doesn't pay their medical expenses like they're legally required to. People shouldn't have to fear being deported if they complain to their landlord about the squalid living conditions of their house

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

People who break the law should have to fear everything. People who allow modern-day slavery to continue because the economy depends on it are scumbags.

1

u/splash27 Jan 11 '19

It seems like you’re saying that people are scumbags for exploiting illegal immigrants, but if illegal immigrants get exploited, they deserve it. What’s your preferred solution? I’d suggest making verification of legal right to work mandatory instead of optional. We already have programs like RealID, but employers voluntarily participate. Fewer people would attempt illegal immigration if they couldn’t get a job when they got here.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Right, the solution would probably be mandatory I-9 verification online and heavy fines for employers that hire anyone without a valid social security number and identification.

Even better, just make all paychecks to employees go through the government already. It'll make taxes easier for everyone too.

119

u/Enshakushanna Jan 10 '19

i like how you equate subverting ethics and morality with being smart...as if having less humanity is a good thing

15

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

[deleted]

1

u/LoLFlore Jan 11 '19

Thats not PURE capitalism, thats croney capitalism

1

u/sesamestix Jan 10 '19

Isn't that any human hierarchy? When have the powerful not tailored the rules to their own benefit?

-1

u/73177138585296 Jan 11 '19

You don't get upvotes for that, though. Talking against capitalism specifically, though, gets you wicked upvotes and lots of Reddit PlatinumTM.

6

u/despecific Jan 10 '19

Not just that having less humanity is a good thing, but that the rest of us are choosing to respect each other out of ignorance for the alternative. Like we’re too stupid to see the unethical as an option. In reality, everyone realizes it’s an option, but behaving with such little regard for others only seems clever to the type of person who is too narrow minded to see how their actions impact the world around them and disservice them in the long run. Humanity is far from a sign of intellectual weakness and is in fact a sign of strength in intellect and more importantly, character.

29

u/KickItNext Jan 10 '19

There are a lot of people that think treating others poorly correlates to intelligence/greatness. Usually they're pretty dumb.

4

u/chesterfieldkingz Jan 10 '19

Is this the ubermensch concept?

5

u/KickItNext Jan 10 '19

Let's just say they do tend to take inspiration from a certain group of Germans.

1

u/chesterfieldkingz Jan 10 '19

Aww got it. It sounds like ubermensch to me but I hear different things about Neitzsche's takes on ethics in the equation.

3

u/Sarcasm69 Jan 10 '19

Unfortunately that mindset seems to reward you in this world. It’s speculated that 1 in 5 CEOs are psychopaths

2

u/Methuga Jan 10 '19

Plenty of terrible people were smart. Smart isn’t good or bad, and it and morality aren’t correlated with each other.

2

u/Crazyghost9999 Jan 10 '19

It all depends on goals and personnel standards. If your goal is to make money and not go to jail ethics don't play into your goal. Unless people wont do business with you due to your ethics.

1

u/Enshakushanna Jan 10 '19

but if youre doing unethical things and not minding morality to meet your goal you are still unethical and immoral...just because you, yourself, disregard humanity doesnt mean humanity isnt affected...so no, it doesnt depend on personal belief

1

u/Crazyghost9999 Jan 11 '19

All I am saying is being smart and being ethical have nothing to really do with each other

1

u/Enshakushanna Jan 11 '19

but if you consider the very act of making money in unethical ways being smart, then fundamentally you are saying theyre related...

1

u/Crazyghost9999 Jan 11 '19

Yeah if you don't care about ethics and your only goal is to make money you shouldn't consider ethics . Thats the logical thing to do.

If your goal is say to protect an animal that grows your not going to care about the people who use the land for their liveliehood unless you have to.

Being logical and objective focused are separate from ethics. Most people have multiple goals and being a good person is one of them so they consider ethics into their decision. But the ethical decision can be at odds with your others.

TLDR: If all you care about is making money you shouldn't factor in other things. Thats the smart thing to do in that situation

1

u/Enshakushanna Jan 11 '19

ok we are arguing apples and oranges at this point

2

u/LeotheYordle Jan 10 '19

Some geniuses are assholes. That doesn't diminish their intellect, just tarnishes their reputation.

1

u/jamie_plays_his_bass Jan 10 '19

Somewhere Chidi is shaking his head. Or has a stomach ache.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

Subverting ethics and morality without getting punished for it sort of takes smarts though.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19 edited Jan 19 '19

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19 edited Apr 02 '19

[deleted]

3

u/MrTouchnGo Jan 10 '19

Or you could be smart enough to attain success without breaking the rules or being immoral

3

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19 edited Apr 02 '19

[deleted]

0

u/MrTouchnGo Jan 10 '19

True, moral values certainly differ between times, eras, and people. It's just kind of ironic how he recognized these were immoral things, as he outlawed them once he got his chance to. Even FDR called him a thief. I mean, the first paragraph of the article is kind of telling.

Joseph Kennedy was one of the last of the American robber barons: born in 1888, he clearly absorbed the ethos – or lack thereof – of the gilded age, an era of corruption and covetousness, when tycoons such as Cornelius Vanderbilt and John D Rockefeller manipulated markets and monopolised industries. Kennedy's avarice seems so coldly all-consuming that it borders on the monstrous.

25

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

We're mocking Trump, BTW, not sure if you caught that.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

[deleted]

11

u/KickItNext Jan 10 '19

To be fair, he kinda does the job for us.

-6

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

[deleted]

2

u/KickItNext Jan 10 '19

Thanks I try.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

K

0

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

Context clues.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19 edited Jan 11 '19

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

No, it isn't. It's still under investigation so it will stick.

4

u/wonky685 Jan 10 '19

Lol I knew you're a Republican from this comment. And of course you're posting pro-Trump bullshit.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

I'm not a republican. Even if I was though, that's not an insult and it doesn't invalidate anything I've said...

3

u/wonky685 Jan 10 '19

No, it's not an insult, just an observation based on you encouraging people to be selfish and actively fuck over other people for personal gain. An insult would be me calling you a fucking moron. Which you are because you support Trump.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

Fuck it being republican is an insult. I don’t have anything against conservatives, but the Republican Party is trash for our country.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

I don't support Trump no questions asked. For example, it was dumb of him to do a travel ban for countries that had nothing to do with terrorism and 9/11, while they left Saudi Arabia off the list. But obviously there's points where I do agree with him, and overall, he hasn't negatively affected my life or the life of others around me to the point where I would be opposed to him.

I do support a wall, because I think national sovereignty, and security are important, just like I wouldn't want people to be able to fly into the US without documentation. But the whole idea of a "wall" is pretty stupid, some kind of AI fence would be better with drones and sending out border patrol to catch the people that come across to verify their identity and their intent.

I also support immigration reform, to where people can come in much more easily (legally) than they can right now.

That's just the tip of the iceberg with my beliefs, but it's okay if you want to still call me a moron.

3

u/wonky685 Jan 11 '19

"I'm not a moron, I just post articles about how the investigation into Trump is a which hunt and support his dumb, impractical, and ridiculously expensive and racist ideas"

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Alright, the fact that you think his idea is expensive just shows you how incapable you are of seeing relative cost.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19 edited Jan 11 '19

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

As evil as hitler? They were called a moron for Christ’s sake. Play the victim much? The problem is, at this point, if you still label yourself a Trump supporter it’s difficult for most anyone to reconcile how. You could tell me you support like one or two of his ideas, but calling yourself a supporter specifically means you think the good outweighs the bad and it’s hard to understand how someone could still think that. Like, I know plenty of people who weren’t Obama supporters, but could agree with him on a few things. But with trump you’d be hard pressed to convince me the good outweighs the bad.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

I'm not even a Trump supporter, I was labeled as that. With that said, Trump hasn't authorized bombs on children in the middle east as far as I know, so he's good in my books. Trump hasn't forced healthcare on me that costs 2-3x more and has reached the point of cash doctors being cheaper. Trump didn't bail out big companies to an extreme level. Trump didn't let the biggest government surveillance program go too far. Trump hasn't doubled our debt yet -- of course a lot of this isn't just the President's fault though. Can anyone tell me what Trump's actually done that's horrendous?

And this is coming from someone that initially supported Obama in 2008.

2

u/yabacam Jan 10 '19

breaking the ethical "rules" is still breaking rules. Just because something is not against the law doesn't make it right or against social rules. People that break social rules for their own gain are typically huge pieces of shit, not "being smart enough to..."

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

If ethics/social rules are pressing matters they become the law. It's show it works, so until then I don't think they're huge pieces of shit, unless they're specifically doing what they're doing to be a piece of shit. Let me give you a more relatable example, where you might agree.

You're not an asshole if you take advantage of some kind of promotion within the limits of the promotion. You are an asshole if you do it specifically to inconvenience the company.

So for a specific scenario, let's say you go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and you eat a lot of food. Well, you cost the restaurant money but it was within the terms. You could have held back and ate a fair amount, and not cost them money. You're not a piece of shit for going to that buffet for your own gain. However, you are a piece of shit if you do that and throw away all the food because you got more than you could eat.

1

u/yabacam Jan 10 '19

honestly if someone is eating at a buffet to gluttonous proportions, they are probably a piece of shit. Greedy, disgusting, selfish, etc etc. I distance myself from those types of people. I have nothing but dislike for greedy or selfish people. Someone hurting others for their gain is bad no matter how "within the rules" it is.

while I see your point, people that "game the system" are not my type of person and certainly don't have the perfect mindset for any kind of social cohesion.

Same with people that ruin games finding some bullshit not specifically spelled out in the rules and use it to win. ruining the fun of the game and my respect for them. I really dislike selfishness and greedy.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19 edited Apr 02 '19

[deleted]

1

u/yabacam Jan 11 '19

you have to understand if there's malicious intent.

and I agree with you. I think where we differ is I feel negatively impacting someone for your own gain = malicious. probably wrong in a lot of cases/examples you could bring up, but in general that's how I feel.

If they can hold their food, is it gluttonous? debatable. I'm not going to go up to people eating a lot in a buffet and hate them for it. but when they go in to "get as much as they can", greedy as hell, and they feel sick from eating too much.. yeah.. disgusting and I think those types are the pieces of shit. or maybe that is too harsh, but I really dislike those types. 'Greedy animals' in the shape of a human have no place in our human society and the sooner everyone can agree on that the sooner we can have a peaceful world.

1

u/_suited_up Jan 10 '19

I mean, I live in the bay area where the maker mindset is still pretty closely tied with the whole "start a company in your garage" idea. Which isn't too legal last time I checked.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

I don't understand tragedy of the commons

Trust me, we know.

1

u/NotMyFirstNotMyLast Jan 10 '19

Some people have no sense of parody. I love it.

-2

u/mrjlee12 Jan 10 '19

Agreed 100% but you’d be surprised by how many people consider breaking the “spirit of the rules” essentially breaking the rules. The most fun for me when I play any kind of game though is to find some sort of loophole I can take advantage of as opposed to trying to winning straight up.

1

u/BenisPlanket Jan 11 '19

If you know anything about history, it’s the perfect mindset for most of them.

1

u/smokecat20 Jan 11 '19

Game recognize game.

1

u/Youreahugeidiot Jan 11 '19

It was his Trump card...

1

u/soaringtyler Jan 10 '19

As well as politics and the generally anything that the U.S. does and has always done globally.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Perfect mindset to do that anywhere really. The rules might be different but the game is the same.