Ser Reptitious

? 100% agreed. This is him still trying to charm you, after all. Imagine what he will be like once things have moved beyond that stage?

In short, if this deal falls apart, you will automatically blame the progressives, regardless of who is really at fault, because they didn't bend over far enough for the moderates.

He would see that if it was Hunter Biden doing it. But since Ted Cruz is a Republican...

I can personally confirm that. Been to Bosnia twice and definitely want to go back for more. Such a beautiful country, with very friendly people. The sad history is heart-breaking!

Covid-19, presumably.

So a certain poster from Minnesota should be just as furious with this group as he was with those leftists, right?

Ah ok, thanks!

Not that I particularly care, but did Yang drop out? Or did something happen that made him drop out of contention? I've noticed his name not really being mentioned anymore in connection with the election, even though he seemed to be the presumed frontrunner.

Jesus Christ! Between these kind of shenanigans and the whole prison labour (including fire fighters) working for virtually nothing (throw in exploited illegal immigrants on top) it sure feels like the U.S. is sure trying its best to bring back slavery! I would never call myself a Marxist, but somehow it sure feels like when he described the excesses of capitalism that would lead to its downfall he had the U.S. of the early 21st century in mind.

You know, when you’re siding with the likes of Rosanne Barr, Tommy Robinson, and Richard Spencer for the sake of defending free speech in the most absolute sense... fine. I strongly disagree, but at least I can see the philosophical point you are making. But then when people are exercising their free speech rights for a far nobler cause (against racism, rather than for it) and you suddenly change your tune and get concerned about the content or format of the message (which didn’t seem to bother you while you were defending racists’ freedom of speech).... well... hmm... it’s not really a good look, is it? Kinda makes it seem like you’re always defending the racists, regardless of which side of the philosophical debate they happen to be on.

You and I clearly have fundamentally different views, but I feel that the bolded is needlessly condescending. I am doing my best to engage with your posts, but if you feel that a particular comment is too far off the mark or does not relate to what so said, then please point that out, rather than making such blanket statements. You make it sound like the tax system as it currently exists is completely neutral (as in, not favouring any particular economic group at all) and the sole benefit the very wealthy get is by hiring very expensive tax lawyers to navigate this completely fair and neutral system. Genuine question (seriously not being flippant here, because I don’t know the answer and you are the expert): does that include capital gains? Yup, and that would be extremely hard (if not downright impossible) to do, which is why I took issue with your “if you don’t like our current laws, change them” attitude in the first place. Agreed! Bingo! My point is precisely that they generally don’t have to bother doing anything illegal, because they have already rigged the legal system in their favour. They may not be a monolithic bloc, but they can undoubtedly agree on certain common interests. And regardless, the only discussions taking place among the influential law-making circles will be about how to best accommodate those interests, not the ones of the middle and lower classes, who lack the means to get a meaningful voice at the table. As to the part in the brackets, no, I’m definitely not! Again, my entire point is that changing the law (i.e. the system) is extremely hard to do, whereas the glibness of your initial rant seemed to make it sound like all you’d need to do was go around and gather a majority of voters to do that. Sure, in theory that’s how it works, but we both know that in reality entrenched (and well-financed) interests will make this virtually impossible. Glad that we agree on this as well.

So doesn't this benefit the rich, who can afford to pay said fees? Who is more likely to run up credit card interest? The rich or the living paycheque-to-paycheque crowd? Who is more likely to have investment activities? Who was president in that era and which economic class benefitted the most from this? So? Speaking for myself here, I am not interested in raising the taxes of the mega rich with the intent of negatively impacting their lifestyles. I just want them to contribute their fair share. In fact, it is precisely the fact that raising taxes on them will not substantively impact their lifestyles that makes their complete obstinance so baffling and frustrating. Again, who was elected to accomplish this and which economic class supported him in this endeavor? Look, if you want to get into the weeds of specific U.S. tax laws and regulations you will undoubtedly run circles around me, since I'm neither a tax lawyer nor from the U.S. But my issue is with your assertion that things were done "according to the laws" and "if you don't like them change them". My counterpoint is that the rich and powerful in any society tend to have their way, so the assertion that it's okay because it's legal (and could technically be changed) is weak sauce in my opinion. I'm currently reading a book on the Roman Republic in the 2nd and 1st century BC, and the parallels in how the rich rigged the system in their favor while paying lipservice to equality are quite obvious.

I think this is too simplistic. We all know who has the power to shape laws (via sizeable donations and lobbying) and who doesn't. The system reflects that.

Whatever happened to the American-as-apple-pie "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps"? Seriously, though, Singapore also started out dirt poor and did not see itself in any way sustainable as an independent entity. It took some decades until it became a success story. IF (and I am very aware that this is a very big "if") a peace agreement can be reached which actually holds up, I don't see why Gaza can't succeed, not at a Singapore level, perhaps, but good enough to provide its citizens a decent standard of living. I mean, Gaza is already self-governing at the moment. If there was no economic blockade and it had a functioning seaport and fishing industry, why could it not succeed? It would certainly need some assistance to get going, but that is/was true for many far larger poor countries in the world. I fail to see why its size alone should doom such a prospect to failure.

It would undoubtedly take years and be very complicated. The Good Friday Agreement would probably be a good comparable. It would be far from an ideal solution, but this isn't a problem on a scale that would justify the whole-sale relocation of two million people on its own. And how exactly do you envision accomplishing relocating (supposedly voluntarily) Gaza's entire 2 million population without the Hamas issue having first been dealt with?