If you’re implying there’s not a fundamental difference between a Republican president and a Democrat president, at this point, that’s absolutely hilarious. Delusional.

As a lifelong Iowan I am ashamed that we continue to employ this woman. Paying her a salary is not sustainable for Iowa, she is holding back this great state from so much potential it’s enraging.

Yeah, point taken there, I was of course being a bit facetious in how I represented it, the $40/month is really a supplemental amount to what the legal guardian can already provide. It’s just such a sad reality that there are kids with few options of their own in this world, and one of those options is being taken away because it’s perceived as imperfect by the people in charge of it, with no regard for those that rely on it for things like staying alive and such.

$40 is a lot of money to stretch across 30 days, but it’s peanuts for the state of Iowa to afford, compared to something like the Governor’s salary, which I’m sure she thinks she deserves more than the poorest children of her state deserve a full tummy.

Okay folks you have $40 to eat on for the next 30 days, and you need as much nutrition as a growing child. What you buying?

Removed by mod

Solely? No. But if the airbag, seatbelt, or self-driving autopilot feature that they created contributed to someone’s death, they are partially responsible and should face consequences or punishments. Especially if they market it as a safe feature.

Monster

So you do care about up votes then, or you wouldn’t be using it to claim you “came out on top”. You called me a coward for downvoting you so I responded and called you out for being thin skinned, and you’ve done nothing but prove me right since. But if that feels like a win to you then that is just super cool man.

It triggered you enough to edit your post to whine about ‘cowards’. You’re the one that asked for an explanation from your downvoters, I was just standing up and explaining myself to be counted by you like you demanded.

Some people down vote because they want comments that actually add to the discussion to be at the top, and comments that ask the same rhetorical questions ad nauseum to be at the bottom, so they don’t have to scroll as far to find meaningful discussion. At least that’s why I downvoted you

May I ask what expertise you have on this that makes you know more than doctors and psychologists who use the term intrusive thoughts, and specifically use that term to diagnose people with mental illness or neuro-divergence? Or are you just pontificating to feel smarter than everyone else? We don’t need a new word for something everyone (except you) clearly already understands and uses properly.

I think a good term for what you defined in your edit might be “intrusive thoughts”

Both can be nuts

Hmmm sorry, best we can do for you is furrowing our brow while we sign the murder checks. Hopefully that signals our virtues well enough to move on so we can focus on more pressing issues like “are drag queens Satan” and “what should senators wear to work”

deleted by creator

Steve Jobs is the exception. I’m just trying to answer the original question about why this happens so often. I’m not trying to argue about the best way to run a company. But if you’re equating every founder with Steve Jobs then we’re having a completely different conversation.

Apple is now the most valuable company on earth, so I think you’re not making the point you think you’re making. Publicly traded companies act only based on what increases the value of their shares the most. If the current CEO isn’t seen as the most profitable CEO for the shareholders, they will eventually be replaced, even if they founded the company. That is a risk you knowingly take when taking your company public. Most founders choose the money that comes with an IPO, knowing they’ll eventually get the boot.

Because it requires a completely different skill set to run a startup with only yourself and 50 employees to worry about vs a multi-billion dollar, publicly traded company. People that are good at one of those often aren’t good at the other, so when their company changes from the former to the latter, they get the boot for someone better at running the new version of the company.

You can vote for anyone you want to. Not voting at all is stupid.

I’m sure you’re going to expend some personal effort to actually get those candidates you like elected? Or no, just complaining and throwing up your hands in ‘protest’?

Oh I get it, you think it’s a game or a theoretical situation without any nuance. Makes a lot more sense now.