Maybe you could explain what is wrong about "most wealthiest". Doesn't it mean "people with the highest amount of money"?

Well, considering Ranek's native language is German, I see nothing wrong with it. He got his point across, and no one has a right to criticize him unless their German is better than his English.

Now, if you're being technical--the problem with "most wealthiest" is that the "most" is redundant. Wealthiest already means "most wealthy," so saying "most wealthiest" would be like saying "most most wealthy." You would either say "most wealthy," or simply "wealthiest."

Edited 5/31/2017 06:12:21

oh boy =D thanks though. now I got the issue. even though it is no perfect use of the superlative, at least it helps to distinguish the wealthiest part of the society - which is the part with the most wealth among the wealthiest; the most wealthiest part... =D as this is already off-topic I'd like to elaborate this issue. why did this tiny mistake trigger you? and isnt it a proof for your lack of knowledge about this topic or how to have a proper conversation?

From the very start, aren't all men created equal? How could 99% of a population be disadvantaged?

this is not about creation and even if it was, men are obviously not equal. this is about constitutionally disadvantages. However you have to agree, that not everyone can be a billionaire. there must be laborers for every work, whether it is good or bad payed. otherwise the society would collapse. the question is now, should have one part of the society a great advantage over the others. should they 'legally' exploit society?

you think that the Federal Government should mandate that you provide purchase a product from another private party?

what else are taxes good for? they help to stabilize society. if you dont have welfare you will simultaneously evolve vast parts with an uncertain existential basis. and you can easily consider what happens with those people [they wont simply vanish].. however those private parties could easily be non-profit companies.

I would say that I would like him more now because he's not doing that terrible of a job.

not that terrible? is that how a president should do his job?

Just people that can't think very rationally believe all of the hysteria and think he's awful.

first of all what exactly isnt rational about that? this is not about believe, you can easily judge when you listen to trump and see him in action. next to him g.w.bush, berlusconi and erdogan look like proficient and competent statesmen. there is a good reason why he is the global laughing stock since he appeared in the US politics.

Very few people, at least where I live are happy with it.

By the way, how do you feel about Merkel saying Europe needs to find its own path?

how do you feel about Merkel saying Europe needs to find its own path?

It's a logic response to Trump's 'America first'.

I think trump is an pretty cool guy. He builds walls and doesn't afraid of anything.

He's also cutting education

I have no problem with this , American spending per child for education is one of the highest in the world while producing lackluster results comparatively.

what else are taxes good for? they help to stabilize society. if you dont have welfare you will simultaneously evolve vast parts with an uncertain existential basis. and you can easily consider what happens with those people [they wont simply vanish].. however those private parties could easily be non-profit companies.

Gibsmedatipalism, social democracy, Neoconomics, etc is the favored economic mode of the elite because it stifles innovation amongst the lower classes, keeps down entrepreneurial spirit and makes society obedient to and dependent on the state.

right smedley, but society dont need to be a capitalistic.^^ but indeed the extreme evolution of capitalism is tyranny.

Edited 6/3/2017 15:19:58