TTM

1a. The UN did not solve all wars, famine and poverty! We should obviously go back to the good old pre-UN days when these things were much rarer and less severe 1b. So you dont know anything about UN Agenda 21 that you were complaining about 2. Chretien brought the deficit and began to bring the debt under control. In that realm he was competent. Because politicians do some of the things they do poorly or (more likely) do things that you disagree with does not make them universally incompetent 3. The deficit was eliminated and the debt was slowly reduced for more than a decade and the GST was a major factor. The reduction in the GST was a significant factor (of many) in why this stopped. 4. Canada with all its issues is one of the greatest places in the world to live. 5. I understand. Life is hard ... lots of people aren't successful. 6a. All those places where they dont vote are so much better. 6b. Finally, something I can whole heartedly agree with!

Corporate money makes Democrats oblivious, and largely unelectable. Republican voters apparently don't mind as much when their politicians are bought, so it's less of a problem for them.

1. Conspiracy nonsense about a completely voluntary planning organisation providing information on sustainable development that's been around for 20 years. Walkable communities and public transportation: the horror ... the horror! 2. They do. I wish we could go back to the competence of the Chretien Liberals on this file. It's nowhere near the levels where it is a problem to all Canadians though 3. The GST was implemented by the Mulroney PCs to help get the deficits under control. Along with some austerity and some dubious raiding of UI (and probably some other stuff I don't remember) under the Chretien Liberals it largely did. Harper dropped it a couple of points, and this was a major contributor to the deficits racked up over his terms. Trudeau has now jumped the shark on the deficit file, but about the level of competence I expect from Ontario Liberals (as opposed to the old Chretien Liberals) 4. Most programs make some sense. Whether they are worth the cost is often as much a moral disagreement as a political one. 5. LOL! I'm sure it's not your intention, but I read that as "The world owes me something and it's politicians fault I'm not sucessful" While I think you are trying to make some sort of point about politicians getting out of the way of citizens, the exact same wording could be used to complain about politicians taking away / not giving enough in handouts. 6. They have control through their vote. Any more control would only be negative. I expect by "people should have more control" you really mean "people who agree with me should have more control"

LOL! See Altai's last post ... the Rockafellers appear! Plus a Soros focus, so as not to lose the attention of your younger, hipper conspiracy theorist

Not American

Unbiased rulings I'm sure. From your article: Norris-Weeks called the rulings the work of a “politically active judge.” She earlier sought to have Singhal recused from the absentee ballot case because the judge had been a member of the Republican Executive Committee, but that request was denied.

FDR? Not quite as scary as Trump...

It may make theoretical sense to you, but it is an empirical fact not what happens. You can look at before and after government revenues for the federal government, the provinces, or any other country or state that implements, changes, or abolishes sales taxes.

1. Death (and taxes) are absolute 2. I've just shown that the level of redistribution is adequate, and no more, unless you think the poor as a whole have too much money. Fraud/waste/abuse is minimal, and mostly a myth 3. #1 is the exception that proves the rule

1. You are still dead, and in no condition to care one way or the other 2. Essentially. So, why the constant complaining about the redistribution? 3. Everything is relative

1. Sure, you can (try to) avoid confiscation. But you can't take it with you, you're dead. 2. I think you misunderstood. My point was that (on aggregate), while income is being transferred from the wealthy to the poor through these programs, at the end of the year the poor (on aggregate) are not further ahead than they were the year before; their percentage of the nation's wealth has not increased ... there is a transfer of income but not wealth. Were these programs to stop, the poor would get (relatively, much) poorer, and the wealthy (relatively, slightly) wealthier ... there would be a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

1. It doesn't need to go to the gov't but I dont really see a better option, and you cant take it with you. Maybe you should be burned on a pyre of all your earthly belongings. Inheritance is fundimentally anti-capitalist ... it is the ultimate in unearned money 2. Yes and?

1. All money ultimately flows through businesses ... maybe we should eliminate all income taxes in favour of corporate taxes 2. It is difficult because they can afford to buy tax cuts, loopholes, tax holidays, and lax enforcement 3. Yes. 4. Maybe. Simplify and eliminate the caps at least.

1. It is correct but somewhat misleading 2. Yes. It would not make sense if they weren't 3. Inheritance has zero to do with capitalism

This does not change the fact that that graphic is skewed somewhat by not including all tax burdens, rather than just income tax. The poor and middle class do not benefit disproportionately from programs, they benefit proportionally to need. If they benefitted disproportionately, then their share of the distribution of wealth would be increasing. These programs are a transfer of income, but not wealth (at the current state; they would have transferred wealth when initially set up). Ending them would end the income transfer, resulting in a transfer of wealth from the poor (a relatively large decrease) to the rich (a relatively small increase) until a new equilibrium is reached. You would have more poor people, more sick people, more bankruptcies, etc. all of which would be a net drag on your economy. I'm not sure why you would want that, but whatever floats your boat. As an aside, since you mentioned it: if it was up to me, the estate tax would take 100% over a relatively small estate. Inheritance is the definition of unearned weath.

Based on the US distribution of wealth, those tax rates seem mostly fair, although the top 5% could use a slight tax hike, and not the reduction they got this year. Gov't tax revenue should roughly match the distribution of wealth, otherwise the tax structure itself is redistributing wealth. Looking at income tax only though skews the numbers somewhat as the lower incomes pay significant payroll tax. I'm not sure how much that affects your chart though. Corporate tax revenue as a percent of overall tax income has decreased fairly constantly overpost WW2 even though profits have not. Some of that, but not all is offset by the ~50% of payroll taxes paid by businesses. The rest of this tax burden has shifted from corporations to individuals, and disproportionally to the poor and middle classes since the payroll tax is capped at a little over 100k. Corporate tax revenue again dropped significantly with the tax cuts this year. Regarding the results of the tax cut on government revenues: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/08/13/Are-Tax-Revenues-Really-Rising https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/business/trump-tax-cuts-revenue.html

1. assertion, not argument 2. Changing the meaning of my words to fit your narrative. Unsupported assertion. Incorrect accusation. 3. Opinion 3a. That was the definition of moving the goalposts: "Obama wouldn’t speak out against rioting, looting, public rallies expilicity calling for the murders of police officers and then the actual murders themselves" (which he did) becomes "Obama wouldn't speak out against legal protests" 3b. Not an analogy, I was showing how obnoxious and dismissive that comment was 3c. The evidence of what happened was conflicting, and I certainly would not have convicted him based on what is public. But if you can't see why people who as a fairly common experience are followed, pulled over, and generally harrassed for no reason than their race would find the facts of this incident particularly galling, then there is no point discussing this further. 4 Unsupported assertion. People also kill things they hate, so I'm not sure of your point. Sexism is not particularly better than racism, and you still have not refuted the basic facts about blacks and especially unarmed blacks being shot at much higher rates than whites. 5. Juvenile sloganeering 6. Possibly ... It does not appear Trump is capable of metaphor, figure of speech or subtlety in general, so unless he was reading prepared remarks I'd have to assume he meant it literally. Racism is just a nasty offshoot of tribalism 8. The point is that where there are current tensions actually exist, failing to comment is tantamount to taking sides. You cannot ask two sides to come together by denying the truth of one of the sides.

1. Your entire argument hinges on Trump and Republicans should be allowed go after the racist vote unchecked by the media. Whether you can concoct some sort of equivalent Democrat what-if is irrelevant to the ethics of Trump's actions. 2. lol. You can't tell me which definition of pander I was using. I gave you the dictionary definition I was using 2a. Normally because it would turn off the vast majority of your base opposed to ISIS, as well as independents. Trumps base however seems OK with courting racist voters 3. Agree to disagree 3a. Moving the goalposts. The constitution allows them to protest. Where it went beyond protest he condemned it 3b. lol. Only O.J. knows why Jessica Simpson was stabbed 3c. He stalked Martin. He was told by police dispatch not to follow him shortly before the incident. 4. The race war comments come from the BLM opponents on the right 4a. Analogy: "Fetus Lives Matter" supporters and their leaders sometimes protest, vandalize, issue death threats, and occasionally murder. But both these groups are at their heart about moral/political disputes. They are not hate groups. 5. Yes. Killed with bullets, specifically. 5a. No, 2017 was abnormally low, and I didn't want to appear to be cherry picking, so I gave 2016 as a more typical year 5b. Not always. For example: https://globalnews.ca/news/4659397/chicago-security-guard-police-shooting-jemel-roberson/ "happens to have a gun on person, but not wielding"?; "registered gun in glovebox"? (to reference an infamous incident); child with beebee gun (to reference another); opened fire before giving the suspect a chance to put the gun down; etc. 5c. opened fire before when wielder is not actively threatening anyone; opened fire before giving the suspect a chance to put the knife down; suspect happened to have a pocket knife but wasnt actually wielding it; etc. 6. Please attempt to recognize subtlety and figure of speech when you see it. Tribalism is hardwired into our genes. Thus colloquially, "we are all a bit racist". Recognizing this and correcting for it when necessary is the direct opposite of wallowing in these thoughts and acting on them 7. Agree to disagree. 7a. Had my father been one of the murdered police officers, I would not have been offended by that speech. I can understand how some could though. 8. You missed my point completely.

1. I love that you think the ultimate softball question is a "gotcha" and "pathetic". I love that you can claim Republicans and Trump don't pander to racists, but also think it's unfair to ask him to repudiate an endorsement by a famous white supremacist (of whom he is quite familiar with) 2. pander (verb): to act as a pander (noun) pander (noun): someone who caters to or exploits the weaknesses of others He is offering a president who does not dismiss their racist views. He just (wink wink) doesn't know what you're talking about. Pandering. 3. A simple google search returns multiple direct quotes, as does the speech previously posted 4. Because you find their factually correct position politically incorrect does not make them fear mongers. Getting folks worked up about imaginary "race wars" is fear mongering 5. Police killed by citizens: In 2017, 44 cops shot, 1 stabbed, possibly a handful of "other". This was an abnormally low year, 2016 saw 66 cops shot Citizens killed by police: 1129 shoting deaths in 2017 (27%black) 170 armed with knife (??% black) 147 unarmed (37% black) ~4000 deaths per year on average in police custody for all causes (but does not include some deaths during attempted arrests due to differing state reporting methods) The majority of the unarmed shootings would be "suspicious", a number of the "armed with knives", a small fraction of the "armed with guns", and a small fraction of the remaining deaths in custody. Best case there is 3-4x more "suspicious" deaths in custody/during arrests than police killed. Worst case is an order of magnitude more. Note also that there were about the same number unarmed black people shot by police compared to police shot by anyone in 2017 6. So we are 7. Obama said those things. He was also addressing the country regarding all of the events surrounding. As he should. 8. If Trump was the president of Isreal (or Palestine), at a funeral where if was relevant, then no problem. However, while they indirectly support it, the US government or parts of are not involved directly in Zionism or the occupation. In the US, there were no mass protests and riots about Zionism or the Palestinian occupation, and the vast majority of those who get worked up about it are not actually directly affected by it. The Soros conspiracies are made up. There is no reason to bring it up (other than to pander)

So you were agreeing that Trumps comments were pathetic and pandering to White supremisists, my mistake. Your initial post said it was pathetic for the reporter to ask the question, so you can see my confusion You would have to provide a specific example You make the partisan mistake of thinking because I dislike Trump and Republicans I care particularly about Obama and Democrats ... I don't Hyperventilating about BLM indicates you should get your news from more varied sources and perspectives. At its heart it is drawing attention to the factually correct (if not politically correct, amongst some) statement that blacks in general, and unarmed blacks especially, are killed by police at a much higher rate than whites. It is not about hating cops, although I'm sure some members do, just like I'm sure there is the odd cop that actually hates blacks Regarding Obama's speach, the full transcript is here. Respectful of those killed, condemning the killer, acknowledging the racial tensions that led to the killings, and attempting to bring everyone together ... disgraceful! I assume your claim of Obama admitting he is a racist is from these debunked misrepresentations and lies, if not, please enlighten: https://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obamas-dreams-of-my-father/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coil-of-rage/

What I see is someone not able to defend the appeals to racism and antisemitism of Trump and the Republican party, and so is trying to deflect to a different topic

I dont see a denial there; in fact I see quite the opposite.

lol

50+ years ago (60+ in my previous post was bad math), Republicans got the majority of black votes (for obvious reasons) and the Democrats were the party associated with racist groups and black voter suppression. Today Democrats get the majority of minority votes including blacks (for obvious reasons) and the Republicans are the party associated with racist groups and minority voter suppression. A lot can happen in 50 years... I have an encyclopedia article with over 100 sources which documents a party strategy (or minority scolarly view, a grassroots movement) that lasted decades to go after southern white voters by appealing to their racism. See my previous response to Wilber. Also: CNN’s Jake Tapper: “I want to ask you about the Anti-Defamation League, which this week called on you to publicly condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who recently said that voting against you at this point would be ‘treason to your heritage.’ Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don’t want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?” Normal Person: I condemn the KKK's grand wizard, and white supremacists in general. I do not want their votes Trump: Please allow me to dissemble until you stop pressing me to give a straight answer

Trump interview in 2000: NBC’s Matt Lauer: “When you say the [Reform] party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now?” Trump: “Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party.”