Bonam

I think the idea that he's going to prison is absurd. No US president or former president has ever gone to prison, I'm pretty sure. Whatever any investigation finds, the Republican-controlled congress will shield him from any consequences.

I think Trump will clearly be the Republican candidate in 2020. The question is who will the Democrats run against him. My thought is that the Democrats will either pick a boring establishment candidate that will fail to excite anyone, or a far left social justice ideologue who will excite a portion of the Democrat base but put off many others. Despite all of Trump's many problems, I think the Democrats will probably not fail to shoot themselves in the foot. What the Democrats need to run is an exciting younger person that will unapologetically defend the virtues of classical liberalism, free trade, free speech, and American leadership in the world instead of isolationism. Someone along the lines of France's Macron. I have no idea who that person might be among the Democrats, but I'm pretty sure that even if that person exists, the Democrats will certainly not choose him/her as their presidential candidate.

More power to them. I'd be annoyed at the Canadian government for letting it happen, though.

Pretty sure the only way you could insulate yourself from the messaging referred to in the OP would be to live in the deep south of the US and watch nothing but fox news.

Yes, for software engineers salaries are pretty close to a free market.

Why would someone work for $38.46 CAD per hour in Vancouver when they can drive 2.5 hours south and get paid $60 USD ($77.70 CAD) per hour in Seattle? Double the salary, lower taxes on that higher salary, AND lower housing prices (though probably not for much longer). Canadian software engineers can easily get a TN visa to work in the US.

It's still there, just a thousand feet shorter than it used to be. The dome is rebuilding itself nicely in the crater.

Lots of US jurisdictions are busy raising taxes and deficits as quickly as possible, too. Here in Seattle, not a week passes by that the city council doesn't invent some outrageous new tax scheme. That said, some of the highest tax jurisdictions (like California and New York) are the top locations for people to head to for finding high paying jobs.

Thanks for linking an actual study.

It's not clear that they can safely exist in the US, Canada, or Australia either. All of these countries have their share of antisemitism, both of the homegrown right wing variety, the lately fashionable left wing variety, and of the Islamic immigrant variety. Nor is it clear that they can safely exist in Israel, which is surrounded by enemies with increasingly sophisticated weaponry. The existence of the Jewish people has been a struggle for survival for all of recorded history and will no doubt continue to be so. The post WWII period may be seen as a brief interlude, but it is not likely to last much longer than the lifetimes of people that remember WWII and the Holocaust.

No, generally not. That's the whole point of the way that media constantly bombards people with bs... it's simply not possible to fact check it all. Honestly, my working assumption at this point is that everything I read or hear in the "news" is "fake news". If some particular topic interests me deeply, I'll go and actually spend the time to find out the truth of the matter, but on most topics I can just stick with the assumption that nothing I casually see or hear in the news can be relied upon to be true and it doesn't really affect daily life.

I think the sad reality is that there is no source or organization that you can trust implicitly. Personally, I take all "news" from all sources with a big grain of salt. If I'm interested in whether a particular piece of news or information is true enough to do some research, I'll usually check multiple kinds of sources. Certainly check sources that are considered "reliable" by the mainstream like AP, Reuters, BBC, etc. Also check ideologically biased left-leaning and right-leaning sources. Also check out sources from different countries like the US, Canada, Europe, Russia, China, etc. Now make a list of all the things they agree on and all the things they disagree on. Chances are that if a particular fact or piece of information is consistently reported in sources that cover a wide range of ideological and national viewpoints, it's probably true. And pieces of information that are disputed depending on the bias of the source are better to not assume to be true. Be particularly wary of any information that is making waves. If people are protesting about something or if something is going viral on social media, there is almost always more to the story than the headlines or social media posts or protest signs claim. The more of a spotlight there is on a certain news story, the more it gets ideologically distorted. The "popularity" of a story serves as a great polarizer, where as something becomes more and more important to more and more people, sources that normally try to stick to the facts for smaller stories will inevitably be pulled to one ideological extreme or another when reporting on a major story. Hence you can find lots of unbiased reporting on, for example, the latest progress in Alzheimer's research, but essentially no unbiased stories on, for example, Trump's presidency. These kinds of popular stories will inevitably require someone who cares about finding out what is "true" to dig far deeper and spend more time sorting the bs from real facts, to the point that the vast majority of people, even those that are engaged and genuinely interested in truth simply get fatigued and stop bothering, and join the rest of the population in just listening to whatever their "side" says.

Trump and his ilk? I mean, maybe by accident he might say something true now and then. Politicians don't care about truth... truth isn't a thing. Statements are made with regard to expediency, not truth. A "good fact" is one that helps the political situation of the day, without regard for how it relates to reality. A tiny minority of people might care about whether a statement that was made was "true" or not, but most only care about whether it scores political points for their team, sounds good, or "feels" true.

I'd rather take a late train than a train to the gas chamber, I guess.

So we're in for more Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? Great...

Shrug. I was commenting on the reality of the situation, not what we might wish it to be. Democracies everywhere are faltering and abandoning both principles and prosperity in the name of security and/or "social justice". Meanwhile, dictatorships march confidently onward.

While I was refreshed to see the OP criticize something other than Israel, I was quickly disappointed to see him once again bring up "zionists", a favorite bogeyman of the far left and the far right alike. If you want to discuss the Yemen situation, might want to try again From what I've heard about "MBS", he's about as progressive a leader as it might be possible to expect in Saudi Arabia. He's lifted the ban against women driving (a big step for Saudi Arabia, as absurd as such a ban was in the first place) and initiated financial reforms that should allow SA to become not completely dependent on oil revenues over the next decade or two. Crackdown on human rights and freedoms combined with economic reform leading to improved economic outcomes is now a tried and true combination following the Chinese model. Dictators and absolute monarchs around the world now understand that they can keep power with relatively little unrest so long as they allow their nation's economy to function well enough that people see material improvements in their lives from year to year. And economics is now well understood enough that this is not very hard to do. All you have to do is have your markets open to the world economy and avoid extremes of socialism, and your economy will work. MBS understands this, as seen with, for example, his plans to launch an IPO of Saudi Aramco.

Most of the "social justice" people are affluent upper middle class liberals in rich urban areas.

And, like their French revolutionary predecessors, many of the modern people who harp on about "social justice" would be only too happy to fire up the guillotines again.

I can't find stats right now that I previously remember seeing that went all the way up to 2017. But looking at the graph of Gini coefficient over the last few decades shown in your link, it clearly shows that inequality growth didn't just slow in the 2000s, but peaked in 2004 and has actually declined since. I don't disagree that there was rising inequality from the 70s-90s, but the narrative commonly presented is that this is an issue that is happening rapidly today, rather than something that happened a few decades ago and the results of which are being felt today. Hard to argue with the stats that show that inequality has been flat or dropping for the last decade and a half.

There is no "widening income and wealth inequality" in Canada. Go check the stats. The widening inequality is a US narrative, which many Canadians latch on to without actually checking if it even applies in Canada or not.

Everyone complains loudly about pricing affordability, and complains even more loudly if housing prices ever go down. People don't want a functioning market in housing, they want the government to hold their hand and make them feel better about their situation of housing being unaffordable. They'd much rather sit on a wait list to snag an overpriced unit in a rent controlled city than have the possibility of their dirty greedy landlord raising rent by 10% in a year. They'd much rather the government subsidize housing for low income with taxpayer money than have dirty greedy developers build more units. They'd rather live in falling apart old apartments and complain about the lack of maintenance than see areas be "gentrified". They want property taxes raised to develop new city services, but complain about when that means their rents go up. People are idiots and get the politicians they deserve.

I think democracy is a fundamentally unsuitable form of government in the era of social media psy ops. But as for your concerns regarding people not contributing taxes and still voting, I already mentioned my proposed solution.

I agree. One person, one vote. That's why I prefer to attack the issue Argus raises from the other end... it's not about disenfrachising "poor" people, but rather about making sure everyone feels like they are making a contribution to the system and has some stake in how government money is spent.

I think the solution isn't to spit insults at each other but to re-organize the tax code so that everyone has a bit of "skin in the game". Anyone that makes a wage should be paying at least like 2% income tax (after any refunds/adjustments). That eliminates the idea that some people "don't pay in" to government services without really having a huge material impact on people. The tax code should be simplified all around, get rid of all the credits and deductions and just make a simple progressive tax structure. Something like: $0-15k: 2% $15k-$50k: 15% on the amount above $15k $50k-$100k: 20% on the amount above $50k $100k-$200k: 25% on the amount above $100k $200k-$500k: 30% on the amount above $200k $500k+: 35% on the amount above $500k Done. No adjustments or exemptions, just that table. Dividends and capital gains (the way the very rich actually make their money) should be taxed at the same rates depending on your income, while the corporate tax should be eliminated (this eliminates issue of double taxation since eventually all money has to end up in the hands of individuals either as a dividend or capital gain).