Ultimate hypocrite? Mark Zuckerberg mocks Trump yet builds huge wall around his house, jogs with security detail

rojo wrote:

Liberal friends, how is what he is trying to do any different than what the US would do with an immigration policy?

For real? He's a private citizen paying his own way to protect property on an infinitely smaller scale. It's a simple and practical solution, unlike any of Trump's hair-brained ideas.

I think he's more conservative leaning despite not affiliating with either party. Makes sense he'd be more similar to Trump.

So do you agree with what they are both doing (nationalist, isolation) or disagree?

Did you not see "Social Network"?

He stole somebody else's idea (again).

reallyrojo? wrote:

So do you agree with what they are both doing (nationalist, isolation) or disagree?

I\'m just creating an interesting discussion for the message board and trying to get people to think.

Why is it \'wrong\' to build a wall around your country but fine to do it around your house?

Well I would contend it is "wrong" (ie not smart) to do both. Community, diversity and human contact are great.

However what Zuckerberg is doing (security system, bodyguards) is totally affordable and a drop in the bucket for him. He has more than enough resources to do it and isn't sacrificing anything to do so.

Whereas Trumps idea is ridiculous because it's useless (as is Zucks personal security). But on top of that it's unaffordable and taking away from badly needed resources (education, healthcare etc)

He should be UofO, hold only 1 man races with himself as the star and make Nike his personal equipment manager.

If you remove one border, smaller, more local borders take it's place. Mark Zuckerberg's got his border around his 95% white neighborhood, the rest of the "Sanctuary City" can enjoy their open border diversitopia.

reallyrojo? wrote:

But on top of that it's unaffordable and taking away from badly needed resources (education, healthcare etc)

Not true. $10-20B is a drop in the Federal bucket.

Rojo wrote:

reallyrojo? wrote:

So do you agree with what they are both doing (nationalist, isolation) or disagree?

I'm just creating an interesting discussion for the message board and trying to get people to think.

Why is it 'wrong' to build a wall around your country but fine to do it around your house?

Its no different whatsoever, he only see's it as being different because he feels he "needs" the protection due to his wealth whereas the south Texas property owners just need to be more enlightened.

Hey rojo, I love your site but you're a fvcking idiot.

Wrong. It is very different. Regardless of whether or not you think a personal wall or country wall provides real protection (I doubt either do if someone or some country is really motivated to attack) there is a major difference. 'The' difference. Zucks wall costs him nothing in terms of opportunity lost. He almost may as well build it. Even if the chances of him being attacked are only .001%. Trumps wall costs major resources that could be WAY better spent elsewhere. So Zuck is just doing what he probably should do and Trump (as usual) is being a huge moron.

The joke is on us wrote:

Its no different whatsoever, he only see's it as being different because he feels he "needs" the protection due to his wealth whereas the south Texas property owners just need to be more enlightened.

He also made a show of writing Black Lives Matter! on the wall while his company hires like 2% black people. But he's still behind Al Gore and his carbon guzzling seaside mansion for title of 'Ultimate Hypocrite.'

Indeed, the loud-mouthed famous talking head prominent wealthy liberals have many hypocrites amongst them.

https://twitter.com/sankrant/status/737384139859447808

https://imgur.com/cgFqg4Y

Additionally,

Take Hillary Clinton, (as an example)

whose old corrupt saggy granny butt the liberal media kisses every day, omitting mention of details that make her hardly relatable to most working Americans,* like her minimum speaker appearance fee, her extremely pampered minimum travel luxuries, the wealth she has amassed through political enjoyments and the hypocrisy of her trying to make democratic and progressive appeals while taking money from the fat cats of the worst, most corrupt corporate entities in all the major categories.

*Many liberal outlets are instead content to footnote the controversies surrounding her as mere accidental cosmetic ethical infractions (like just an email misstep) rather than acknowledge the full extent of classic pathological political and lobbyist corruption.

That's an extreme example, of course, and is bad especially because she pretends like she isn't doing it. Many Republicans do this but at least they don't create and try endlessly to maintain a grand facade otherwise. Whereas many academic and professional ladder climbing types are pretenders who fake the moral high ground, instead, having brown-nosed in a corrupt academic and/or other bureaucratic/nonsense system their whole lives and having been equally ruthless to competing intellectuals.

reallyrojo? wrote:

Wrong.

It is very different. Regardless of whether or not you think a personal wall or country wall provides real protection (I doubt either do if someone or some country is really motivated to attack) there is a major difference. 'The' difference.

Zucks wall costs him nothing in terms of opportunity lost. He almost may as well build it. Even if the chances of him being attacked are only .001%.

Trumps wall costs major resources that could be WAY better spent elsewhere.

So Zuck is just doing what he probably should do and Trump (as usual) is being a huge moron.

The joke is on us wrote:

Its no different whatsoever, he only see's it as being different because he feels he "needs" the protection due to his wealth whereas the south Texas property owners just need to be more enlightened.

Really "really_rojo?" Did you read that article where a$$hat zuckberg snatched up some umpteenth huge property for his own personal enjoyment (thanks to his tremendous wealth and influence) in Hawaii and encroached upon the enjoyments of others? You are terrible at logic. Total logical fallacy. Obviously you are totally biased as your discussion of Zuckerberg is limited to "his own opportunity costs," and yet you want to talk about the public good. Zuckerberg is a very rich and influential man who has and can influence the lives of very many people, for better or worse, on a daily basis and in long-term effects. Never go full ret@rd.

reallyrojo? wrote:

Whereas Trumps idea is ridiculous because it's useless (as is Zucks personal security). But on top of that it's unaffordable and taking away from badly needed resources (education, healthcare etc)

Building the border wall won't take away funding from any of those because Mexico will pay for it.

Yeah, and I hear that he supports public libraries, but he won't let strangers walk off with his own books. Damn hypocrite!

Haha huh? What does that have to do with anything? I am aware that Zuck's done enourmously stupid rich people shenanigans in the past. I was merely pointing out the very obvious difference between his wall and Trumps. If you can't see the logic in that you truly have gone full 'Tard.

Phantom_Trollbooth wrote:

Really "really_rojo?" Did you read that article where a$$hat zuckberg snatched up some umpteenth huge property for his own personal enjoyment (thanks to his tremendous wealth and influence) in Hawaii and encroached upon the enjoyments of others? You are terrible at logic. Total logical fallacy. Obviously you are totally biased as your discussion of Zuckerberg is limited to "his own opportunity costs," and yet you want to talk about the public good. Zuckerberg is a very rich and influential man who has and can influence the lives of very many people, for better or worse, on a daily basis and in long-term effects. Never go full ret@rd.

This!

another thing: wrote:

Yeah, and I hear that he supports public libraries, but he won't let strangers walk off with his own books. Damn hypocrite!