Don't bother trying to refute the garbage coming from Trump's campaign. That's the mistake we made in 2016 and kept making until very recently.

That just makes it seem like it's worth refutation, plus it gives the original request more oxygen.

The Democrats’ current strategy of just outright mocking Trump and his sycophants is the right one.

Ah, is this the excuse were going to use to dilute the real issue?. That it's Iran. Not a gun-fetishizing mentally-ill right-wing Trump supporter radicalized by his eventual target?

We're really trying to ignore the leopard eating all those faces.

Tribal psychology is a helluva drug.

This isn’t going to stop until the rich are afraid.

In case you're wondering why fascism is on the rise, it's seen by the wealthy as a safe way to manage populist rage; get people angry about out- groups and they'll ignore the rich picking their pockets.

The wealthy don't think they're a line in Niemoller's poem.

In the before times, when corporate and marginal income tax rates were high and stock buybacks were illegal, a business could do two things with its profit:

• Reinvest it into the business, as employee compensation, equipment or facilities, and/or
• Pay taxes.

In the 1980s, we gave them a third option:

• Keep the money

...which for some reason was supposed to not encourage the rich to hoard money and/or engage in non-productive financialization.

The rich, of course, hoarded and engaged in financial engineering pretty much immediately, and everyone else, which meant employees, suffered for it.

Think about how stupid of an idea this is: giving the rich the ability to hoard money and then against all reason, somehow expecting that they won't do the thing you're incentivizing them to do. Even George Bush called it "voodoo economics".

If you look at wages-vs-productivity curves you can see society "break" in the 1980s, with the rich running away with their wealth and everyone else getting stuck in a quagmire of low wages and starved public services.

So that's why high progressive taxation helps employee: it forces the rich to either invest in their businesses or fund the nation.

Nationalism is almost always bad, why should Israeli Nationalism be any different?

Ask yourself: if it was any other country or ethnicity, would it be "good" nationalism? Would an American or Russian Nationalist worry you? How about a Rwandan or Serbian nationalist?

Chances are the answer is "yes" (unless you're a fascist), so why does Israeli nationalism get a free pass?

Unsaid part of headline: "Most Canadians can't afford a new car, and many that can don't own a house and have nowhere to charge".

Electric cars, as they currently are, are a rich person's solution to climate change.

So China gets to make money while Russia does all the dirty work, with both Russia and the West falling into economic peril.

Win-win for the Chinese.

Maybe if we didn't spend the futures of the young on tax cuts for the rich?

Let’s be honest: none of the people complaining about race in an adaptation of a Shakespeare play are going to go and see a Shakespeare play.

Twice nothing is still nothing.

In seriousness, I'm very frustrated with the typical Liberal "we promise to consider to study the possibility of starting a commission to make recommendations" style of governance, all the while continuing don't-rock-the-boat neoliberal policies that just further enrich the rich.

What galls me is that, depending on how my riding is leaning, I'll vote for the LPC candidate because the CPC is just as bad economically, and socially much worse.

The problem is that, should they implement electoral reform, it would mean no more Liberal majorities ever.

They're okay with swapping seats with the Conservatives every few years, but having to cooperate with the NDP every day forever, and dragging Canadian politics leftward to meet the actual needs of the electorate, is a non-starter for the Calgary and Laurentian cheque-writers that underpin both the LPC and CPC.