RedDenver

The issue is whether there's a platform available for everyone to speak. I understand why a business doesn't want to allow all content, but there should be a way for even the most heinous among us to voice their opinions, so that those opinions can be subjected to scrutiny.

Aluminum cans have had plastic liners for about 50 years. https://www.aluminum.org/bpa-aluminum-cans EDIT TO ADD: Here's an excellent article on the design and engineering of the aluminum can: https://interestingengineering.com/why-humble-aluminum-can-actually-engineering-feat

I mean, if you own a business (or anything for that matter) worth $45 million, then you'd need to keep track of your net worth. There's lots of ways to craft the law to account for things like this. For example, you could be required to register/appraise anything that's not easily valued and might be worth $1+ million (or $2+ million or $500+ thousand or pick a value) and then the wealth tax is much easier to assess by both the owner and the government. People don't just have multiple things around the house that could be worth $1+ million AND total more than $50+ million. Then if you had the thing appraised within the last 3 years (or pick time interval) such that you could have exceeded the $50+ million since then, you wouldn't be punished but just required to pay the appropriate taxes after the fact. But if you haven't had something appraised within the time interval and that caused you to go over the limit, then you'd be subject to fines/punishment in addition to paying the back taxes. That's just one way to do it off the top of my head, but there's probably much better ways to enforce it in a reasonable way.

What I'm trying to say is that Kristol took a few specific examples and then asserted a much broader premise. I disagree with that broader assertion, so I disagree that Kristol is correct. If he made a narrower assertion that there's specific issues that Trump and Bernie agree are issues (which you give examples of), then I'd agree with that. And I also disagree with your last sentence, which again tries to draw a broader similarity than is warranted.

Exactly. You just proved my point.

Unless you're going to argue that DB thinks Kristol is correct but then disagrees even though he's correct, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

So @Danny Bateman agrees with Bill Kristol on presidential candidates.

They'd do it the same way that audits are done today. You wouldn't audit everyone, but instead audit enough that the risk of getting caught combined with the punishment is high enough that the majority of people wouldn't cheat on it. And you don't have to register and value everything - it's proposed for wealth in excess of $50 million dollars - that's not going to be people saving stuff in their shed. Plus not a lot of people are going to be even in the range of $50 million in wealth, so the chances of getting caught are much higher. But wealthy people have shown that they are good at hiring people to hide their wealth, so maybe it's not worth it in the end. You only have to claim any gain in the value of the diamond as income. At least that's how it works for other things like real estate and stocks, but maybe diamonds have some different tax code. But that's not what Warren is proposing, she's proposing taxing the accumulated wealth (not the income or sale which are transactional).

Correct, Krystol doesn't separate issues vs solutions as he broadly just claims they agree: Here's an article that details the similarities and the differences between their proposed solutions: Sanders and Trump agree NAFTA has to change. They split on how to fix it.

Doing the accounting is the strongest argument I've seen against a wealth tax. But consider that the state has a property assessor that determines the value of your property in order to levy taxes. That's also possible for diamonds and art, as it's already done all the time for sales or auctions.

I get what you're saying, but even if they completely agree that those are issues, that's not the same as agreeing on the solution or policy to address the issue. And that's not the same as Bernie and Trump agreeing on "trade and foreign policy" broadly as Bill Kristol is trying to make it seem.

True, but it's not as good as the best show on TV a few years ago.

What don't you agree with? That property is a form of wealth?

Yep, no middle ground or shades of grey whatsoever. The reason I said it's disingenuous is because it's an attempt to equate Bernie and Trump. It'd be like me saying that BRB agrees with Trump on economic policy because you both support lower tax rates and farm subsidies. Or saying Hillary and Trump agree on foreign policy because they both support Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Bernie voted on those things before they were signed. Trump has talked about those things after they were signed. I haven't looked it up, but is Bernie now proposing the same fixes for those issues as Trump - that's a far stronger comparison. Plus I'm sure there's tweets of Trump saying the exact oppose on those issues as well. We could probably tie almost any candidate to Trump on some issues.

They could do a last shot or post-credits scene for the final episode where Bran's and/or Arya's eyes turn blue. That would suck a lot.

Yep, I stopped reading his books because they became too boring with no plot advances, which is why I think the show is actually better. It's just disappointing to see the show fall into the old tropes after being so fresh for so long.

Oh there's more where that came from:

Whether he was or wasn't isn't the issue, it's the change of tone and theme from what made GoT great. If GRRM writes in the same style as the show has the last couple seasons, then the same criticism would extend to his writing.

That's a fairly disingenuous statement by Kristol, which shouldn't be surprising. Opposing a trade agreement before it's signed is WAY different than imposing tariffs afterwards. Plus Bernie is comparing his voting record against Biden's, which isn't the same as the rhetoric.

It's possible that the writers will incorporate some sort of motivation or at least a purpose for the Night King, and that could dramatically change my perspective. But the show writers are more of the traditional fantasy fare and not the subversive fantasy writing by GRRM that made the show so great. The writing quality has been declining the last 2 seasons, basically since they moved beyond the books. Just look at how many times there have been "hero moments" where a character should have died but miraculously escaped over the last 2 seasons - which we saw again where all the main characters survive the army of the dead and only some minor characters die.

WARNING! I'm tired of using the spoiler block and there's a bunch of spoilers in here already, so stop reading this thread if you don't want spoilers. I guess Bran no longer serves a useful purpose now that the Night King is dead. What a waste of a plotline they've been building since the very first scenes of season 1.

Great movie. Fat Thor was my favorite character. In a short time, Thor has failed at saving Asgard, then at saving his people from Thanos, then at killing Thanos before the snap. Thor is having a nervous breakdown when Endgame starts and he continues to be emotionally broken throughout the movie with him finding peace by the end but not everything is back how it was. His character arc is the same as the arc of the movie. I thought it was really well done.