RedDenver

The show has very clearly shown multiple times that the prophecies can be wrong.

I would not curb that speech unless it was a direct threat of violence or slander. Let them spew their hate, and we can counter that with our own forms of speech. You continue to not address the slippery slope of censorship, which is IMO much, much more serious than the hate speech itself. Again (and not just to you BRB but other posters as well), I'm not saying that Huskerboard, Twitter, or any other non-government entity cannot or should not exercise censorship. I guess it depends what you mean by societal ownership. The ubiquitousness of the platforms is a factor but certainly not the only one. I'm not giving a solution but rather asking if this is an issue: Do we as a society want to allow public discourse to be censored by private entities? I'm not sure how much of an issue this is and what are the best ways to address it.

True

Here's a problem with your argument: who determines what is "dangerous" or "harmful" speech? You're making an assumption of honest actors controlling those definitions, but history shows us repeatedly that those definitions will certainly be stretched and redefined to suit those in power. Just look at the Supreme Court's decisions around money in politics to see modern examples of stretching "person" to include corporations. You're also assuming that not exposing people to certain speech will result in some not becoming radicalized and there being no other side effects or consequences. There's also the problem that there will be no voices against such speech because there will be no debate, no analysis, and no alternative ideas. My view matches that of a judge in a recent ruling in a federal court against anti-BDS laws:

That Chief of Staff and possibly Casada himself should be charged with evidence tampering and making false statements.

It's weird that the same people would vote for Bernie and Yang since they're pretty far apart on policy and ideology. Bernie's a social democrat (who calls himself a democratic socialist), and Yang is a libertarian (maybe a social libertarian? not sure). But people also voted for Bernie or Hillary in the primary and then Trump in the general, so what do I know.

Good job!

Those are good points. First, you're confusing "right to be heard" with "right to express". The first isn't a right under the 1st Amendment, the second one is. Second, you're talking about businesses, and I'm not disagreeing with you. Private enterprises are not under the same 1st Amendment considerations that the government is. What I'm talking about is the larger context of what forums are available for free speech. The question I'm asking is: should we as a society simply ban the things that we don't like to be said by handing over the public forums of our day to private companies? And I think the answer to that should be: no. We need to be careful not to stifle free speech under the guise of handing over our public discourse to the private sector.

I think it's tied strongly to anti-establishment and populism. @BigRedBuster thinks social media is the cause, but I think social media problems are just a symptom. The cause is government and more broadly society not helping the average person. If the majority of the population return to feeling like their lives and the lives of their children are getting better, then I think we'll see populism fade.

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.