Bill and Melinda Gates are divorcing

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they certainly have a positive influence on the health of the people in those countries. what other influence do they have?

eh, is that not enough?

while well-meaning the influence is very big - e.g. probably deciding when exactly 100's of millions of people in poor countries will end up getting a covid vaccine

ohnonotgmail

glasso wrote: »

eh, is that not enough?

while well-meaning the influence is very big - e.g. probably deciding when exactly 100's of millions of people in poor countries will end up getting a covid vaccine

what is their involvement in the covid vaccine rollout in those countries?

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is their involvement in the covid vaccine rollout in those countries?

as of january 2021 the Gates Foundation had committed $1.75 billion to the global Covid pandemic - a large amount of that going to COVAX

that buys A LOT of Astra Zeneca shots for example.

if they didn't put that serious amount of wedge in a lot of people in poor places would be in an even worse position vis-a-vis their chance of getting a vaccine

COVAX, co-led by the GAVI vaccines alliance, says it aims to deliver 2.3. billion COVID-19 doses by year-end, including 1.8 billion doses to poorer countries at no cost to their governments. It hopes to start some deliveries next month.

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/covax-explained

ohnonotgmail

glasso wrote: »

as of january 2021 the Gates Foundation had committed $1.75 billion to the global Covid pandemic - a large amount of that going to COVAX

that buys A LOT of Astra Zeneca shots for example.

if they didn't put that serious amount of wedge in a lot of people in poor places would be in an even worse position vis-a-vis their chance of getting a vaccine

i don't think we are disagreeing with each other. there seems to be an inference by some that they have a malign influence. I was just curious what that might be. Hence:

they certainly have a positive influence on the health of the people in those countries. what other influence do they have?

I'm not suggesting that

but the ramifications of their influence and serious amount of money can be huge

e.g. if they didn't put that $1.75 billion in, where else was it going to come from....?

you wouldn't have heard that they didn't put in the money, but that would have been a hugely negative thing.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

He had a massive part in creating the tech industry as it is today i.e. fast delivery of half tested shyte products that users then have to help work the bugs out of.

Ah come on, that's not exactly fair. You don't have much energy left for things like creating good, finished products and improving on them after you've spent your entire work week trying (and usually succeeding) to brutally shut down innovative competitors.

William Henry Gates III just a good dude, man. Doing good things. And sure, maybe he's from a long line of bankers, had a sociopathic level of "competition" in his childhood, and only ever amounted to anything because mommy got him a contract with IBM. But come on. He's buying up all the farmland in the world to do good stuff. And just because indigenous farmers are going out of business, corporate farming profits are soaring, and hunger is increasing, doesn't mean he's a bad dude.

He's the vaccine guy. With massive investment in big pharma. THE VACCINE GUY, for heaven's sakes. How could the vaccine guy be a bad guy?

What exactly do you want from your billionaire philosopher kings?! Blood that isn't other people's?

paw patrol

km991148 wrote: »

I don't think so. I think they genuinely try to use their money for good.

Lots of way worse billionaires kicking around.

he has a god complex. he thinks we need to be saved by him
add that to the access his money gives him. he is a very dangerous person.

Stihl waters wrote: »

Zero influence in mine

you may think this but
Follow the donations of his foundation and who it funds. then ask yourself if those recipients influence public policy . that's where you'll be surprised.

And if you believe this man with such massive wealth who can walk on any tv to talk about his plans for the world while constantly speaking at events with political and social leaders has no political influence with parliamentary politics, the UN and WHO and more...then you are naïve.

Even look at his pictures with Epstein , see who else is there.
he moves at the highest levels in terms of money and politics.

jimmycrackcorm

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

It depends on who you ask I wouldn't say their dangerous myself but I do think he has done some harm with some of the policies that they have pursued throughtout the world like in India where he hasn't done much good for Indian farmers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNM833K22LM

What a pile of crap - Hitler created gasses to kill people and billionaires are continuing that work...

paw patrol

paw patrol wrote: »

he has a god complex. he thinks we need to be saved by him
add that to the access his money gives him. he is a very dangerous person.



you may think this but
Follow the donations of his foundation and who it funds. then ask yourself if those recipients influence public policy . that's where you'll be surprised.

And if you believe this man with such massive wealth who can walk on any tv to talk about his plans for the world while constantly speaking at events with political and social leaders has no political influence with parliamentary politics, the UN and WHO and more...then you are naïve.

Even look at his pictures with Epstein , see who else is there.
he moves at the highest levels in terms of money and politics.

this is moving firmly into conspiracy theory territory

trying to associate him with Epstein and by extension child rape

more debunked conspiracy theories about Gates going to Epstein's island where were of course rubbish

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-bill-gates-epstein-island-idUSKBN22R2C4

classic conspiracy theory tactic and complete rubbish

lots of people were at hundreds of events where that scumbag Epstein would have been at before he was outed as a child rapist.

Gates is a very wealthy guy and chosen to do something with his money and also other people's money in the purpose of what he sees as good

certainly has helped in a lot of initiatives in developing countries in the health arena

of course he is meeting with serious politicians and industry leaders - you can't do these things over gmail or probably outlook in his case

(again some absolute rubbish stories from India were pushed around by the conspiracy theorists but were surprise surprise complete bs in reality https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-gates-india-idUSKBN22V27F )

glasso

glasso wrote: »

this is moving firmly into conspiracy theory territory

trying to associate him with Epstein and by extension child rape

more debunked conspiracy theories about Gates going to Epstein's island where were of course rubbish

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-bill-gates-epstein-island-idUSKBN22R2C4

Well, which is it? Because the article you've linked here to debunk the island trips is also confirmation that Gates and Epstein were "associated" with each other, and Gates along with several employees of his foundation met with Epstein on multiple occasions (as reported by the NYT).

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, which is it? Because the article you've linked here to debunk the island trips is also confirmation that Gates and Epstein were "associated" with each other, and Gates along with several employees of his foundation met with Epstein on multiple occasions (as reported by the NYT).

and what conclusions do you draw from that?

costacorta

According to Melinda Gates, Bill just didn't Excel at his marriage. Apparently his tool in bed was Microsoft, he had no Power Points, and he always had to have the last Word.
And they are now throwing their 27 years marriage out the Windows 😂

PintOfView

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, which is it? Because the article you've linked here to debunk the island trips is also confirmation that Gates and Epstein were "associated" with each other, and Gates along with several employees of his foundation met with Epstein on multiple occasions (as reported by the NYT).

Even if Gates did know Epstein, would you expect him to do a background check on everyone he dealt with?

And are you sure that everyone that you yourself do business with, or are 'associated' with, have 100% clean backgrounds?

We can all jump to conclusions on the flimsiest of connections, but it doesn't mean that we're right!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, which is it? Because the article you've linked here to debunk the island trips is also confirmation that Gates and Epstein were "associated" with each other, and Gates along with several employees of his foundation met with Epstein on multiple occasions (as reported by the NYT).

What?

never said that they didn't meet each other

yes they met each other

as said Epstein was at hundreds if not thousands of events over the years where other well-known people were at and they actually talk to other people at these events and end up in photos - shock horror

doesn't mean that bill gates is a child rapist ffs or has any connection to same

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and what conclusions do you draw from that?

I draw the conclusion that it's inaccurate to say that trying to associate Bill Gates with Epstein is "moving firmly into conspiracy theory territory".

It's demonstrably not, since there was an association there.

giles lynchwood

It's as plain as day why they are divorcing anything she get's will go to the kid's after she dies.kid's will be set up and she will have got one up on that miserable git who wanted to give it all away.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I draw the conclusion that it's inaccurate to say that trying to associate Bill Gates with Epstein is "moving firmly into conspiracy theory territory".

It's demonstrably not, since there was an association there.

but why mention the association? why is it relevant? it is clear to me why the association was made. Clear to others as well.

PintOfView

PintOfView wrote: »

Even if Gates did know Epstein, would you expect him to do a background check on everyone he dealt with?

No. Why do you think I would?

PintOfView wrote: »

And are you sure that everyone that you yourself do business with, or are 'associated' with, have 100% clean backgrounds?

No. Nor is anyone.

I mean I would probably have steered clear of someone who told my associates that their conviction for sex with underage girls was no worse than "stealing a bagel", but that's just me.

PintOfView wrote: »

We can all jump to conclusions on the flimsiest of connections, but it doesn't mean that we're right!

I'm not making assumption. I'm stating that Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein were demonstrably associated.

Doesn't mean Gates was banging teenagers on pedo island.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I draw the conclusion that it's inaccurate to say that trying to associate Bill Gates with Epstein is "moving firmly into conspiracy theory territory".

It's demonstrably not, since there was an association there.

no link of any kind that Gates was involved in any bad things

the Gates foundation raises a lot of money from other wealthy people - that's part of Gates' job in it so it's not surprising at all reallly

“I met him,” Gates told the Journal. “I didn’t have any business relationship or friendship with him. I didn’t go to New Mexico or Florida or Palm Beach or any of that. There were people around him who were saying, hey, if you want to raise money for global health and get more philanthropy, he knows a lot of rich people.”

Bill Gates later admitted “I made a mistake”

throwing in Epstein in the post at the end like the other poster did was in an attempt to taint Gates wtih Epstein's nefarious activities, no other purpose

https://moguldom.com/351416/bill-and-melinda-gates-announce-divorce-here-are-the-facts-on-gates-and-jeffrey-epstein/

grogi

Stihl waters wrote: »

But how does it influence me, I dont use boards or any social media because Microsoft has anything to do with it, that's like saying the wright brothers influence me because I flew to ibiza on holidays

But they did exactly for that reason. You fly for holidays.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but why mention the association? why is it relevant? it is clear to me why the association was made. Clear to others as well.

I didn't "mention" the association.

I replied to a post that denied any association, and pointed out that the article they linked to support this claim categorically stated that there was an association.

Your personal fever fantasies about my motivations are not my business.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't "mention" the association.

I replied to a post that denied any association, and pointed out that the article they linked to support this claim categorically stated that there was an association.

Your personal fever fantasies about my motivations are not my business.

I didn't say YOU mentioned the association. I asked why would the association be mentioned if not to try and throw some dirt.

glasso

glasso wrote: »

no link of any kind that Gates was involved in any bad things

Never said there was.

glasso wrote: »

throwing in Epstein in the post at the end like the other poster did was in an attempt to taint Gates wtih Epstein's nefarious activities, no other purpose

Maybe. But I was merely correcting your assertion that there was no association, after reading the article you linked that pointed out the association.

glasso wrote: »

“I met him,” Gates told the Journal. “I didn’t have any business relationship or friendship with him. I didn’t go to New Mexico or Florida or Palm Beach or any of that. There were people around him who were saying, hey, if you want to raise money for global health and get more philanthropy, he knows a lot of rich people.”

Bill Gates later admitted “I made a mistake”

https://moguldom.com/351416/bill-and-melinda-gates-announce-divorce-here-are-the-facts-on-gates-and-jeffrey-epstein/

Aaaaaaaand you've done it again. Apparently completely purposely.

From the article you linked:

“I met him,” Gates told the Journal. “I didn’t have any business relationship or friendship with him. I didn’t go to New Mexico or Florida or Palm Beach or any of that. There were people around him who were saying, hey, if you want to raise money for global health and get more philanthropy, he knows a lot of rich people.”

But The New York Times found that Gates met with Epstein “numerous times,” including at least three times at Epstein’s townhouse.

In 2011, Gates had a team to meet Epstein at his townhouse to discuss philanthropic fundraising, The New York Times reported.

Epstein, who committed suicide while in jail in 2019, reportedly said that his conviction for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl was no worse than “stealing a bagel,” The Verge reported.

In 2013, Gates flew on Epstein’s jet from New Jersey to Palm Beach, Florida, according to a flight manifest. The Gates Foundation remained in contact with Epstein through 2017.

Bill Gates later admitted “I made a mistake” Epstein, CNBC reported.

I mean you literally had to DELETE EVERYTHING SURROUNDING THE QUOTED DENIAL FROM GATES in order to make it fit your narrative.

What the hell are you doing, dude?

I didn't delete anything

I quoted that part and linked the article for all to read

he was looking to raise money - simple as

couldn't be arsed whatever your agenda is

waste of time and space....

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I didn't say YOU mentioned the association. I asked why would the association be mentioned if not to try and throw some dirt.

Well it might be to make some sort of suggestion that Gates went to pedo island. (Which he did not).

Or it might be to point out that Gates was associated with someone widely known to have been convicted of raping a minor, and to perhaps plant the idea that just because Gates wants to do good or feels that he's doing good, he's not infallible, and he obviously can associate with bad people either through ignorance or an ability to disregard things like child rape where there is potential business to be done.

I think that's probably the sort of thing people should know when someone has an incredible amount of wealth, unfathomable to most people, and the corresponding influence that goes along with it. Especially if that person has aspirations on changing the world.

glasso

glasso wrote: »

I didn't delete anything

I quoted that part and linked the article for all to read

he was looking to raise money - simple as

couldn't be arsed whatever your agenda is

waste of time and space....

Yeeeeah the person not deleting half of every article to bend it to their narrative is the one with an "agenda" here.

Whew lad.

aidoh

osarusan wrote: »

Been seeing this across loads of platforms all day, don't know why it's such big news really. Beyond them being famous, there is no wider impact.

Same as Bezos' divorce, not sure why news organisations think people will care.

Seems like they'd agreed on the division of the estate before announcing the divorce anyway.

I think the Twitter announcement was because he is such a hugely wealthy and publicly known person that a 'shock' divorce could cause panic in the global investment market.

I suspect that the news is out there to calm hedge funds, not because you or I could give a fvck.

I also suspect he's in the same club as Epstein and co.

paw patrol

glasso wrote: »

this is moving firmly into conspiracy theory territory

trying to associate him with Epstein and by extension child rape

more debunked conspiracy theories about Gates going to Epstein's island where were of course rubbish

but he associated with Epstein post conviction. that's no conspiracy that's fact.

so yes there is a whiff off him maybe not quite the stench of "Prince Andrew of the Lizard People" but you wouldn't accept this (rightly) off our leaders so why off Gates.

glasso wrote: »

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-bill-gates-epstein-island-idUSKBN22R2C4

forgive me if I don't bet my house on a fact checked article from some media in the US as if flight logs cant be altered or not filled at billionaire status :rolleyes:

New York times had a decent investigation on Epstein and Gates . of course , not at the island but elsewhere. Oddly you chose to zero in on the island visit claim as if Epstein only did wrong there.. an odd assertion.

I'm not saying Gates sexually abused young girls - i'm saying he associated with the men that did and after the world knew about it.

glasso wrote: »

classic conspiracy theory tactic and complete rubbish

nope . read what i actually said.

glasso wrote: »

lots of people were at hundreds of events where that scumbag Epstein would have been at before he was outed as a child rapist.

Yup, but afterwards....

https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-jeffrey-epstein-friendship-swedish-mother-daughter-meeting-2019-10?r=US&IR=T

plenty of post conviction stuff there which was 2008/2009 (if my brain works)

glasso wrote: »

Gates is a very wealthy guy and chosen to do something with his money and also other people's money in the purpose of what he sees as good

certainly has helped in a lot of initiatives in developing countries in the health arena

of course he is meeting with serious politicians and industry leaders - you can't do these things over gmail or probably outlook in his case

yeah , I don't doubt that he thinks he is doing good and some of it probably is. that's the god complex - he assumes we need saving from what he perceives the problems to be.
Didn't he want to spray dust particles to block out the sun? For our own good.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/01/11/bill-gates-backed-climate-solution-gains-traction-but-concerns-linger/

Fcuk off there you absolute lunatic wannabe James Bond villian...

glasso wrote: »

(again some absolute rubbish stories from India were pushed around by the conspiracy theorists but were surprise surprise complete bs in reality https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-gates-india-idUSKBN22V27F )

I didn't make claims about India
Been to India for work. Unlikely I'll go for pleasure.

But it is odd that the vaccine rollouts happen not in the west but with the poor and corrupt nations. thought provoking question, i think.

paw patrol

PintOfView wrote: »

Even if Gates did know Epstein, would you expect him to do a background check on everyone he dealt with?

And are you sure that everyone that you yourself do business with, or are 'associated' with, have 100% clean backgrounds?

We can all jump to conclusions on the flimsiest of connections, but it doesn't mean that we're right!

after his conviction though. It's hard to hide that conviction..
You think they weren't aware of that even if they weren't (which they were) that's what your admin/secretaries and PR are for which

Tell me how

punisher5112 wrote: »

2 very dangerous people, have way too much influence in the world and people's lives.

FFS.

It must be a terrifying existence to be automatically wired to look at people like this and what they have done and to think this.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

FFS.

It must be a terrifying existence to be automatically wired to look at people like this and what they have done and to think this.

the conspiratards depend on this sort of thought process though.

Montage of Feck

I don't get the hate as Bill comes across as the most affable of the big tech founders.

jmayo

Blowfish wrote: »

All that is besides the point though, the original comment was this:
Neither of them have much current influence at all. I mean Bill can give his opinions and views on tech via talks etc and has various shareholder votes (just ~1% of Microsofts), but that's about it.

Yeah the guy that runs a foundation investing billions in third world (don't care if that is not term anymore) doesn't have influence.
The guy that gets to go over to Davos every other year to hobnob with leadrs of biggest economic states, the IMF, UN, etc.

Shure what influence could he have. :rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah come on, that's not exactly fair. You don't have much energy left for things like creating good, finished products and improving on them after you've spent your entire work week trying (and usually succeeding) to brutally shut down innovative competitors.

You forgot buy them up as well.
All thanks to running his massive profits through the likes of the old Dutch Irish sandwich thingy me bobs.

jmayo

costacorta wrote: »

According to Melinda Gates, Bill just didn't Excel at his marriage. Apparently his tool in bed was Microsoft, he had no Power Points, and he always had to have the last Word.
And they are now throwing their 27 years marriage out the Windows ��

I heard he just couldn't patch things up, just couldn't update Wife 1 anymore, couldn't reboot it.
So following usual Microsoft advice he is now going to try out the new product Girlfriend 1.1, which has a lot more features, will look a lot sleeker, it runs faster but he should really beware that it will hog even more resources, will require new cars installed, new house install, new jewelry install and it may not agree with and get on with existing installed items i.e. Kids 1 and Kids2.

Some one should tell him that sometimes hanging on to the old version, stop trying to update it, is the way to go.

Part of me always wonders if he ever screams or shouts when his tablet or laptop freezes when the latest Windows 10 update fooks it up.

Blowfish

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah the guy that runs a foundation investing billions in third world (don't care if that is not term anymore) doesn't have influence.
The guy that gets to go over to Davos every other year to hobnob with leadrs of biggest economic states, the IMF, UN, etc.

Shure what influence could he have. :rolleyes:

So how does that make him dangerous as per the original comment?

Lirange

km991148 wrote: »

I don't think so. I think they genuinely try to use their money for good.

Lots of way worse billionaires kicking around.

Agreed. Big contrast between someone like Gates, a decent skin for an obscenely wealthy man & rapacious billionaires like Bezos & Zuckerberg. I say this as someone that generally dislikes Microsoft products.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah the guy that runs a foundation investing billions in third world (don't care if that is not term anymore) doesn't have influence.
The guy that gets to go over to Davos every other year to hobnob with leadrs of biggest economic states, the IMF, UN, etc.

Shure what influence could he have. :rolleyes:



You forgot buy them up as well.
All thanks to running his massive profits through the likes of the old Dutch Irish sandwich thingy me bobs.

Most of the established tec companies buy other smaller companies to obtain their products to get a foothold in a specific sector, and/or as s way to try and keep themselves afloat.
Some do it well, others cash cow the products and screw them up, something organisations using Red Hat should be wary of given it's acquisition by IBM.
Their head honchos also attend world economic forums.

jmayo

Blowfish wrote: »

So how does that make him dangerous as per the original comment?

I would have said my comment was in response to someone saying he wasn't influential.

Lirange wrote: »

Agreed. Big contrast between someone like Gates, a decent skin for an obscenely wealthy man & rapacious billionaires like Bezos & Zuckerberg. I say this as someone that generally dislikes Microsoft products.

Granted in the grand scheme of things he isn't the worst.
Zuckerberg, Ellison, Jobbs seem to be or have been bigger assholes to work for or do business with.
But Gates is the man responsible for Microsoft and they to a massive extent set the bar for modern tech.

Also I will say none of them appear anywhere as bad as the fooking Koch brothers.
The only good thing to say about them is one of them is dead.

DubInMeath wrote: »

Most of the established tec companies buy other smaller companies to obtain their products to get a foothold in a specific sector, and/or as s way to try and keep themselves afloat.
Some do it well, others cash cow the products and screw them up, something organisations using Red Hat should be wary of given it's acquisition by IBM.
Their head honchos also attend world economic forums.

Microsoft went out of their way to try handicap the possible competitors using their position. Anyone hear remember or ever hear of undocumented DOS?
They were at it from the start.

glasso

glasso wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that

but the ramifications of their influence and serious amount of money can be huge

e.g. if they didn't put that $1.75 billion in, where else was it going to come from....?

you wouldn't have heard that they didn't put in the money, but that would have been a hugely negative thing.

This seems to be an argument against billionaires in general rather than Bill in particular.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This seems to be an argument against billionaires in general rather than Bill in particular.

It's about the gates Foundation and Bill gates.

Can't get any more specific than that.

glasso

glasso wrote: »

It's about the gates Foundation and Bill gates.

Can't get any more specific than that.

Well now you are getting specific.

Why is Bill so bad then? Seems largely philanthropic to me.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

Well now you are getting specific.

Why is Bill so bad then? Seems largely philanthropic to me.

I didn't say that he was bad.

obviously you didn't pay much attention to that post and the discussion with the other poster just before it.

Treppen

The divorce trick is a way of offloading/cashing out from Microsoft. It's no surprise that they used the same lawyers.

Normally someone like Bill or Jeff can't dump a tonne of shares in a company they are heavily invested in.. they can but it sends a signal to shareholders and markets that something is wrong.

The polite way to do it (to keep your corporate buddies happy) is to divorce.
Shares are then transferred to the wife and she can drop feed them all without having to declare it.

This comes from the Enron days where a director was "forced" to sell 300m in shares as part settlement in the divorce. A few months on the company is toast, he's cashed out... He got fined $30m, but hey that's only a small amount compared to 300m.

No surprise Elon Musk is switching his cash into crypto either...

Crash is coming folks, time to cash out now and buy back in again ... after we foot the bill of course.

biko

Treppen wrote: »

The divorce trick is a way of offloading/cashing out from Microsoft. It's no surprise that they used the same lawyers.

Normally someone like Bill or Jeff can't dump a tonne of shares in a company they are heavily invested in.. they can but it sends a signal to shareholders and markets that something is wrong.

That's an interesting take on things although it sound implausible. I suppose we'll see soon.

Pa ElGrande

Treppen wrote: »

The divorce trick is a way of offloading/cashing out from Microsoft. It's no surprise that they used the same lawyers.

. . . .
/QUOTE]

A more likely scenario is the marriage was over for a while and they remained together until their children were mature enough to stand on their own, now the nest is emptying they can both go their separate ways. That is why you see the business like approach to splitting up the assets in the most tax efficient way, Gates hired lawyer firm are tax are more financial specialists than family law.

silverharp

good one

https://twitter.com/NickAdamsinUSA/status/1390411750164549635

paw patrol

fvp4 wrote: »

Well now you are getting specific.

Why is Bill so bad then? Seems largely philanthropic to me.

Bill has very vocal views on climate, population, vaccines and loads more like getting us to eat less meat.
Not for him or his kids the nutritionally substandard alternatives.:rolleyes:

Bill waves wads of cash about including trinity college labs.
Now given Bill's mega cash splurge and his views on big global topics to you really think any of these beneficiaries are going to say he is wrong.
Yet that science/politics/big business will drive public policy - both global and local. the game rigged for Bill and his pet projects not rigged for you or me.


Now he associated with Epstein which he supporters have gone quiet about .
glasso?

FileNotFound

paw patrol wrote: »

Bill has very vocal views on climate, population, vaccines and loads more like getting us to eat less meat.
Not for him or his kids the nutritionally substandard alternatives.:rolleyes:

Bill waves wads of cash about including trinity college labs.
Now given Bill's mega cash splurge and his views on big global topics to you really think any of these beneficiaries are going to say he is wrong.
Yet that science/politics/big business will drive public policy - both global and local. the game rigged for Bill and his pet projects not rigged for you or me.


Now he associated with Epstein which he supporters have gone quiet about .
glasso?

You seem to have strong views on these things - so are you dangerous?

I mean if he is willing to finance public health initiatives that people choose to use by their own choice not sure how bad that is.

Most of the rich in US had some connection to epstein - doesn't mean they were involved in anything untoward, that's a very sad mindset of guilty by association. Like saying if you have a mate who is a criminal you are a criminal.

I wouldn't even judge you on actions of your family members but you judge others on far less???

His Pet projects are not for you, you live in the first world and have the luxury of wasting time here on conspiracies unlike those starving and dying he is trying to help.

Based on what i have read in this thread you are a greater danger to humanity than Bill..

Then again thats just opinion based on assumption.

paw patrol

FileNotFound wrote: »

You seem to have strong views on these things - so are you dangerous?

yes, I suppose I am - but my sphere of influence is limited to my immediate family and those within earshot of my drunken pontification.
Bill through his hard work ,good fortune and investment has a lot more ears than me , a mere IT functionary.
But that was my point.

FileNotFound wrote: »

I mean if he is willing to finance public health initiatives that people choose to use by their own choice not sure how bad that is.

when you say "by their own choice"...then we are in full agreement.
But when it drives public policy and laws...then...then we have issues.

FileNotFound wrote: »

Most of the rich in US had some connection to epstein - doesn't mean they were involved in anything untoward, that's a very sad mindset of guilty by association. Like saying if you have a mate who is a criminal you are a criminal. I wouldn't even judge you on actions of your family members but you judge others on far less???

After his conviction, though.
Pre conviction I fully accept that a "guilty by association" accusation is unfair.
But Gates met him after he was in jail more than once.
Also there is criminal and paedo / sex abuse. I'm no issue with people for criminal convictions tbh for the paedo/sex stuff doesn't sit right

FileNotFound wrote: »

His Pet projects are not for you, you live in the first world and have the luxury of wasting time here on conspiracies unlike those starving and dying he is trying to help.

Based on what i have read in this thread you are a greater danger to humanity than Bill..

Then again thats just opinion based on assumption.

there is merit to what you are saying. however he wants me in the first world to eat synthetic meat - so i beg to differ.

His plans on climate change to affect me. He currently utterings on covid and vaccinations affect me to a degree.

He wanted to block out the sun too to cool the earth. I've seen enough james bond or sci fi to know that isn't a good thing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/01/11/bill-gates-backed-climate-solution-gains-traction-but-concerns-linger/

Silentcorner

Does anyone know if the BMGF support media companies?

This would be an huge issue for me, it's hard to find data or sources that you can trust on this question, I have seen accounts that it does support media outlets including some in this country but I don't know how trustworthy those accounts are!

Clearly the media business model is in real trouble, if there are elements offering financial assistance to these organisation that would be something the general public would need to be aware of...