Clickbait headline. Trump’s rant demanded that those reporters be tried for treason, is that not bad enough a thing to do, to make a compelling, and truthful, headline?
But no, because one of the possible outcomes of being convicted of treason is the death penalty, the headline says “demands death penalty”. Gee, I wonder why the headline doesn’t say “demands 5 years in prison”, another possible outcome of a treason conviction. Anyone want to take a guess?
Sensationalism is so pathetic.
If you want to stay a console gamer you’re going to have to switch teams …
I thought that said switch TO Teams, for a moment, lol
What’s the tax that prevents people from valuing your stuff highly? Because that’s what net worth ultimately is: other people’s valuation of what you own.
Don’t hold your breath for any sort of ‘maximum wealth’ legislation to ever be a thing. It’s an absurd idea on its face, and even if you could accomplish something like that, it wouldn’t solve any of the problems you think it’d solve.
you get everyone a baseline income of $75k is by taking it from the billionaires
Actually, no. That’s a hypothetical for a reason; the entire net worth of all billionaires combined (assuming a magic wand could convert the net worth figure into an equivalent amount of cash, literally impossible in reality) wouldn’t get everyone to $75k for even a single year.
Over the long term, there really isn’t. Outside of a government imposing tyranny-tier control over everyone’s wealth, wealth inequality happens naturally, and inevitably, and the gap widens similarly.
What’s more important is making sure that even the poorest among us can have a decent standard of living. After all, if you waved a magic wand and now everyone in the US, for example, was earning $75,000 a year minimum, no one would be in poverty, right? And yet the size of the ‘wealth gap’ between the wealthiest and the $75k ‘minimum earners’ would effectively be identical; the gap between $0 and billions is basically the same as the gap between $75k and billions.
Toppling the wealthiest just because they’re the wealthiest isn’t going to solve any of the actual problems (especially when politicians get bribed for relatively-measly five figure sums, etc.).
Is it really goalpost moving for ‘she never won’ to be elaborated on, into ‘she gave up before the voting even began because she was that unpopular’?
Does that really change the comparison between her and someone who came third and second in primaries? The essence of your retort was ‘neither did Reagan but look at him’, but the fact is that ‘they both failed to win primaries’, while technically correct, is definitely not equivalent to saying they were on equal standing. This is basically the exchange that just happened: