Bytemeister

Not to mention, a hole creates a stress point. Rivets are extremely strong, but they create a perforation in the riveted material, which reduces its overall strength. Properly applied adhesive uniformly distributes forces over a larger surface area. Industrial grade adhesive when properly applied beats out just about every other form of fastening.

A lot? Israel was the middleman for the missile sales, they got a nice paycheck from Ronnie.

Well, let me help out here.

Jeff Bezo's effective tax rate was somewhere between 1.1% and 0.98% based on some quick searching. Amazon's ETR was 6.1% for the same period.

I paid an effective tax of 17.4% last year.

Trump just gave Amazon, and Bezo's, and everyone making 500 Million or more a year a huge tax break. Meanwhile, I will pay about 1200 dollars more. That's on top of the tax break they got last time he was in office.

So, what's a fair amount for the richest, most affluent people to pay in taxes, to contribute to the country they live in, the infrastructure they ride on, the airports they land at and the localities that subsidize their workforce?

What amount of taxes for the wealthiest people makes sense to you? Keep in mind that the top 10% of earners own 50% of everything.

You're right that I was being dramatic about them seeing you as an intendentured servant. They don't fucking care if you exist at all. You're less than a slave to them, and that is the harsh reality. You're the peasant sold with the land, but effectively cheaper than that. You're expected to work and manage their capital, their investments, and if they don't object, then you can eek out part of a meager existence on the scraps they can't be assed to pay someone else to account for.

You think I'm lying, or being overly dramatic about that? Consider this. Last time I checked, which was over 10 years ago, each Walmart employee was on average, a $40k net loss to their Local community. Walmart's heirs will never have to work a day in their life, their great great great great...grandchildren will be born rich enough to plop into this world and never need to put in the effort to wipe their own ass. Meanwhile we subsidize their workforce because those people make so little for their effort that they can't afford the food, transportation, and housing to work their jobs without financial assistance (through taxes) from their neighbors. Amazon is the richest company on the planet, their CEO made so much money, that when he divorced his wife, the settlement was basically the GDP of the UK. His wife became the first Woman multi-Billionaire from that settlement. Meanwhile, the people working at Amazon warehouses can't afford rent without a second job, and have to piss in bottles during their shifts to avoid the loss on in productivity for a 15 minute bathroom break. African slaves in the US got fucking bathroom breaks and a place to live; modern day Amazon workers don't. Oh, and let's not forget that Amazon warehouse workers were forced to work during a fucking tornado, and died because they were not allowed to seek shelter in time.

How's that for "Overly Dramatic?"

You're literally preaching trickle down economics. Which from the state of things today, clearly does not work for the benefit of the lower and middle class. The greatest times for the middle class in US history was when we had a 70% corporate tax rate. Upward mobility though hard and smart work is a myth. The richest people in this country see you as indentured servants, and they would let you get mangled in an industrial accident if they thought it would save them a dollar.

We should. Every year, during tax season, we should take the richest person (or company, fuck it) and redistribute 50% of their assets. Pay for UBI with it, fund social services, etc. Then we build a statue in their honor in the hall of "greatest winners".

I think the pollsters are erring on the side of trump, since he has brought down SLAPP suits on any media outlet that is critical of him or reports negatively on his popularity. Is accurately reporting a single survey worth 8 Billion dollars/a never ending legal battle with the textbook definition of vexatious litigant who has unlimited funds and time?

We'll get there. Do you agree that my understanding of the supplied definition of terrorism is correct?

Edit: Well since you don't seem to have the courage to come back, I'll go ahead and finish up here.

Assuming that you agree to my understanding of the posted definition, otherwise you would have quickly pointed out an obvious flaw in my logic...

On my comment...

*Spraypaint a traffic camera, violence.

So what I’m hearing is, if you burn Tesla because their CEO is a scum-sucking useless billionaire who is dismantling the social services that you and your family rely on (and paid for!), in order to cut taxes for the 1%, you’re a terrorist.

If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.*

You replied...

If that’s what you’re hearing, you should have your ears checked. It doesn’t matter who the offending person is or what they do. It only matters what the perpetrator does..

Indicating that my understanding of the posted definition of terrorism was incorrect, and further adding that an ideological component was not necessary.

I replied.

Yes, I believe that is what I wrote.

I was under the impression that I had the correct understanding of the definition of terrorism.

Then you wrote...

*No, what you wrote is

If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.*

Which is confusing, because that was my example of something which was NOT terrorism.

So I clarified what your demonstrated understanding of terrorism was...

"Ah, so any property destruction is terrorism, got it. Thanks for clarifying."

This is rationally what you said terrorism was, since your previous post indicated that an ideological component was not necessary, which means the test for whether or not a an action was terrorism was based solely on it be violent, and since you defined any property destruction as violence, it is logical to assume based on your demonstrated framework of knowledge that any property destruction is violence, and any violence is terrorism.

You then informed me that I was wrong, and thats not what terrorism is, despite me using the exact definition and amendment to the definition of terrorism that you provided.

So why write all this? Because there are two options going forward here. Either you made a mistake/lost context of the conversation, which is understandable given the depth and breadth of converations you were having at the time. A simple acknowledgement, and maybe an apology would take care of that. Or... Your understanding of your chosen definition of terrorism is incorrect or inconsistent.

Either way, without input from you, it's clear that my logic is consistent here, and the error is on your part. Feel free to chime in and clear that up anytime.

Boom. Something this heinous certainly will cause a drop in egg prices.

Sure, let's break it down.

Here is the definition of terrorism that you posted.

Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature

Would you agree from that definition that the litmus test to determine if an act counts as terrorism has two parts?

Part one being that it must be an act of violence (in this conversation/context 'Violence' includes damage of property)

Part two is that it must have an ideological component. For example, a bar-fight, or mailbox baseball would not qualify as terrorism.

Do you agree that my understanding of the posted definition of terrorism is correct?

I legit wasn't sure. Figured it was worth a shot. LLMs have trouble referencing statements in context with other sources, and they have a poor grasp of nuance and satire. I'd encourage you to go back and read what you wrote, and what I wrote. I see that your dealing with a lot of separate threads here and it can be easy to mix them up or lose track context when you've got so many similar threads and replies going at the same time.