RedDenver

If simply relaying the President's words is "going through the media", then Twitter is now also "media" in the same sense. What I know or what I've been told about what happened in Washington is not the same as the reality of what actually happened in Washington. The media could report my name incorrectly, but that doesn't actually mean my name has changed.

I totally disagree that media creates our reality. I'm not saying that media isn't necessary, but rather that the President being able to communicate directly with the citizens is ok and we don't need a media filter. For example, FDR's fireside chats would have been a lot less meaningful and useful if they all had to go through the media first.

I don't have nearly the faith in the media that you do, and actually prefer that Trump can communicate more directly with the citizens. But having a signal that only he can push his message out is not a good idea.

I mostly agree with this, but I'm strongly opposed to setting a limit that can never be changed. Different times and different circumstances can make any limit a bad one. But something like a direct vote by the people is something I'd favor so that the power isn't entirely resting with our representatives.

I'm not sure if that's what makes the story good, but it's important to the plot as the men have specific reasons why they cannot use magic. And the more interesting thing to me is that it portrays that just putting women in charge isn't necessarily any better than the men being in charge, so the people complaining about it actually have the reasons backwards.

So am I!! Are we best buddies now? The bold is sort of a circular argument. What's legal and illegal is set by the government. The "legal limit" is by definition whatever the tax rate is. Colorado for example has a law (part of the state constitution?) that requires a vote of the people to set taxes, so maybe that's what you mean?

The quote from Amazon that has these people upset is exactly what happens in the actual books. The Aes Sedai were all-female for reasons that are part of the history of that world.

Ok, I didn't take it that way from what you wrote, but I certainly agree that you shouldn't join a group or claim to be a member of a group that you mostly don't agree with. But can we find a compromise for the issues around inheritance taxes even if we don't join the same group(s)?

I don't understand why we have this for the President. Shouldn't it just be a new feature of the existing emergency broadcast system?

I didn't think we were talking about joining a party but rather compromising with those who are NOT in your party/ideology. I was responding more to the context of what you wrote: "I'm sure you and I could negotiate something that each of us could stomach. But, there are too many on the left on this issue that I could never agree with." Which seems to say that you don't want to spend the time/energy finding a compromise, which is why I used "cop-out". Maybe that wasn't what you meant. Yes, I'm making more of a comparison/analogy to "royalty" than a strict definition. "Aristocracy" or "gentry" might be a better word choice.

I mean this with all due respect, but saying "there's too many <insert group of differing opinion> that I could never agree with" seems like a copout. If you and I can find some compromise, then it seems possible to compromise with a much larger group as well. You don't have to agree on a whole bunch of wide-ranging issues, just on one or a few. It's "royalty" under the current system where the wealthy can simply buy politicians. If money was removed from politics, then it's be more like the old class system of aristocracy, which was a major reason we split from the British Empire, and I would think/hope we wouldn't want any more today than back then. American ideas of capitalism (especially conservative/libertarian ideologies) are built on the notion that income and wealth should be merit-based, but inheritance is the exact opposite of that, so I'm mildly surprised that so many conservatives/libertarians oppose inheritance taxes.

Taxing the net worth of someone who can no longer have a net worth because they're deceased doesn't seem all that invasive - there's no way for dead people to represent themselves anymore. As far as inheritors who did earn some of that inheritance - I'm ok with having some method or process that takes that into account. As far as disrupting businesses, I think that's a valid concern and the government could do something like spread the inheritance tax over the lifetime of the inheritor or wait for the company to be sold (or the inheritor otherwise extracting the value they inherited) to claim the taxes (sort of like a lien on a property). I'd be fine with getting rid of the inheritance tax if there was another mechanism to prevent/minimize the equivalent of American royalty and still fund the things that make our society worth living in. But allowing giant sums to be transferred from the earner to a non-earner seems like a terrible idea all around, especially when he inheritors typically grew up wealthy and have had every opportunity to succeed without the inheritance.

Good points, but I've edited my post with a link to the old inheritance thread discussion so as not to derail this thread:

From the Trump Money thread: At the risk of derailing this thread into the heated inheritance tax discussion, why should people who did nothing to earn that money get it all of it as opposed to the society that could use it to improve the infrastructure that made earning that wealth possible getting some of it?

At the risk of derailing this thread into the heated inheritance tax discussion, why should people who did nothing to earn that money get it all of it as opposed to the society that could use it to improve the infrastructure that made earning that wealth possible getting some of it? (EDIT: This is almost certain to derail the discussion, so I've copied the post to the old thread where we debated inheritance tax, so we can continue the discussion there if people want: )

Hey, remember when Lindsey Graham didn't seat Merrick Garland for political reasons even though he thought Garland was a good judge? Here's a video if you need help remembering:

Maybe the players actually like the coaches and this team and school even though they may not be starting.

Trump isn't self-made but rather born with a silver spoon in his mouth? Who knew?!?!?

Maybe just make the reactions no longer anonymous - then you'll know who reacted how and it keeps the simplicity of me just giving a quick reaction instead of a one or two word post in response.

So the anti-Kavanaugh approach - admit your mistakes.

I'm too lazy to find it right now, but there was an article before the 2016 election campaigns showing that the leader in Iowa (or New Hampshire or one of those early primaries) rarely won the nomination.

It's based on the original game of a plumber trying to rescue a princess from an evil human-turtle hybrid by jumping on the heads of enemies, navigating a sophisticated sewer transportation system, and consuming mushrooms to grow into a giant... what exactly did you expect?

I wouldn't celebrate, but I'd hope that at least the next nominee is apolitical and not committing perjury in his own nomination hearing. Kavanaugh is terrible regardless of his past judicial decisions.