hark

Why is trump afraid of the court if it'd only be used against poor countries?

A decent human being calls out destructive people because tolerating them only leads to destruction of society. Him being dead doesn't matter, the calling out is to let others know that his actions in life were unacceptable and that they shouldn't be normalized.

Democrats thought it was more important to support genocide than to help fix any of those other issues, which really puts into question their sincerity in actually addressing those other issues.

The report won't go viral because it's a 100+ page report. Everyone plays a different role, Gary's role is to raise awareness of the solution of wealth tax and push for an implementation. He's done a great job at that. I have watched the documentary written about in that article and I agree it wasn't good, he didn't push back enough most of the time. His skill was limited in that respect, but his skill at getting clicks is still good to give traction and momentum to the idea of a wealth tax where others can pick up the torch and carry it to the goal.

Farage does not advocate for a wealth tax and Gary has talked about Farage multiple times on his channel, pointing out that he is taking advantage of the situation where institutions and the elites are indeed corrupt, but will not implement a solution to fix it and will actually do the opposite. I don't see how that messaging benefits Farage. If you make a wealth tax a partisan issue, then you're cutting along party lines rather than class lines and that will mean people in poorer classes not supporting a wealth tax simply because of allegiance to their party of choice.

Additionally, Gary has talked about working with economists and politicians. He doesn't claim to be the only one with all the answers.

You claim it's not about stats and yet their issue is that he didn't want to get dragged into a pointless argument over the minutia of some chart. If these hosts agree that wealth inequality is a problem, then it's an established point that doesn't need to be rehashed through arguments over a chart. Gary knows this, his audience knows this, the hosts know this, and we know this, and many are living through this. What purpose does arguing over a chart do other than to try to distract from the message? If you want a strong message that resonates with people, you have to keep it simple and straightforward.

Whether he's a grifter or not is a matter of opinion. Dismissing his message by calling him a grifter is a textbook example of ad hominem. His message is simple:

• There is massive wealth inequality.
• Wealth inequality tends to get worse since the more assets one owns, the more they can use that as leverage to obtain even more assets.
• A wealth tax addresses the heart of the problem by taxing wealth directly.

What is your issue with these key points? That he hasn't spent enough time in the chart mines? That you think he's a grifter? Clearly his method of communication has been effective in drawing attention on the issue while offering a solution and I think that's a great thing.

I can run an open weights amazon from my house?

That's where advertising through AI comes in. People relying on AI suffer from cognitive deterioration which is the perfect opportunity to sneak in advertisements disguised as suggestions through AI responses.

Those two hosts agree there are problems with economic inequality, so then what's the point of the graph? Is the graph showing there isn't an inequality problem? If so, doesn't that mean the hosts themselves are dismissing the graph?

When you want your message to reach the masses, you have to oversimplify, otherwise it gets bogged down in details that ultimately may not even matter. People are having trouble with basic cost of living: shelter, healthcare, education, and even food. Focusing so heavily on numbers and graphs is how you get clowns claiming that it's just a "vibecession" just because some dumb metric like GDP or their arbitrary basket of goods looks fine, meanwhile these people can't afford the basics.

The problem is that the field of economics is biased so heavily towards policies that benefit the rich because that is how you get funding. Economists are largely in servitude to the rich and that is why they consider an effective tax on the rich "bad economics". What these past decades have clearly shown that catering to the rich does not work. Why do you think they're so vehemently against a wealth tax? If it was so ineffective then they wouldn't care about a wealth tax getting established.

How would they do that without facing the wrath of the US?

If israel keeps attacking anyway, then what's the point?

The nuclear deal with Iran that Obama led fell apart when Trump reneged, even though Europe, China, and Russia were all part of the deal and still in. In this case, Israel will keep attacking and has kept attacking even when the US has signed a deal, and since this has been the main issue, there cannot possibly be any deal that works under these conditions. The US is the largest supporter of Israel, so they'd have to pull that support and sanction before Israel maybe stops, but even with dropped support and sanctions, Israel is a death cult and may turn to using nukes to keep going.