Habahnow

I don't think Bill Clinton has that much pull honestly. But important Democrats or important donors maybe.

Sadly, that won't happen if both D's and R's have people or large financial supporters on the list. Best case I can imagine is that those top people end up in jail which shakes up both parties. The 2 party system is a result of our voting system (winner takes all for most positions), so it's bad to have a 3rd party similar to your own (which gets your own voters potentially siphoned off), or have be a 3rd party similar to another party (which means you're weakening the party closest to your own, and helping the party most different from yours). regardless of whether it affects the 2 party system, getting that list published is important for justice.

I don't get how you can think Taxes aren't the answer but removing stocks are. Billionaires exist because they have a lot of money in some form and are able to reinvest that money to get more money. If you remove stocks, they will find another way to have a lot of money, whether that's owning a lot of business, buying up properties etc. Start applying a sort of wealth tax, disallow financial influence in election (putting actual limits on spending), fix the loophole for passing on wealth to children with little to no tax, etc. There really isn't a simple solution, but a wide range of changes that need to be done in my opinion.

I'm glad you mentioned that, I want aware

It's so bad for me sometimes. Somebody actually commented to a other poster saying I'm probably drunk commenting and thats why I make no sense. Nope just sober and not as responsible as I should be in reviewing my comments lol.

Fixed, thank you. Typing on my phone degrades the quality of my writing significantly.

I will say, that would be a good sign for the movie.

I will await for your review lol.

I'll wait for reviews to come out before deciding if I want to watch this. So long after the first was released, feels like a cash grab.

Is It just me, or is this a very badly written article? I read it twice and it makes no sense to me. I understand the article is trying to ~~day fix~~ say fox news it's trying to be manipulative, but it's not clear in what way based on what is written. No context is provided. They mention the time the call takes, in Newsom's and Trump's local times like that helps when we don't know when the fox segment airs, nor when Trump's claim of calling newsom.

Feel like they're ignoring the fact that these massive protests are a sign of contention and the point is to not devolve into complete violence. We do need to make it harder for him to convince others that we are not unruly people, but people protesting actual grievances.

if you don't use your phone very much, why even spend 500 USD on it? you can probably get a 200 usd phone to serve the same function. Honest question.