What the hell, man? This is completely not what he is saying - he literally says that he has studied/worked in this this domain all his life, and that is why he should be listened to. Not because he is old, but because of what he did his entire very long life.

And he never, at any point, mentioned old white conservatives. You did.

Gas taxes are supposed to pay for road use/degradation, policing, firefighters and emergency services in case of accidents, etc. The more you drive, the more likely you are to actually cause those expenses, so a gas tax makes sense.
Replacing this tax for EVs is another thing that makes sense, since EVs still use roads and everything else.
Now, the fact that those taxes might not, in reality, go entirely to expenses directly linked to driving can be argued, but that is just bad administration which needs to be tackled separately from the tax issues. Gas taxation make sense, and replacing it for EVs makes sense as well. It is not about lost revenue, but external costs that are not being covered by those that drive EVs.

Improperly regulated capitalism would be more apt, I think. Not like communist countries are a model for quality products after all. But humans being humans, if they can think they can get away with shitty behavior, some will try to do so.

In this case, and i do not say this lightly, I agree.

What a terrible waste of what could have been a human being.

Close. <i>More</i> bad weather is influenced (not caused, there is a difference) by climate change. But weather is still just weather.

Think of it like a colleague being an asshole - the way he acts today is weather, the way he is is climate.

The way someone acts in just one day does not tell you what kind of person he is. Anyone can have a bad day. Or a good day.

The way that someone acts over time tells you the way he is.

Someone can be at a given moment and still be an asshole, but someone being an asshole definitely has <i>more</i> days with crappy behavior over time.

Weather is not climate, like a randomly picked single action does not indicate who you are. But weather is influenced by climate change, like someone becoming meaner will act mean in more instances.

I know this is not a perfect simile, since personality changes influence punctual behavior in a much more direct manner than climate change influences the rate of incidence of extreme weather instances, but this is the best I can come up with at this moment.

Weather is not climate - the fact that at the moment is cold or hot outside does not mean that the climate has gotten colder or hotter.

Climate, on the other hand, influences weather. In this case, an increase in the average temperature of the Earth leads to more instances of "extreme weather" - storms, floods, heat waves and cold spells.

Climate influences weather, but weather is not climate.Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

I get your point, but the example you used might not be optimal. Where I am now (Belgium) when there is one line the system is as follows - people waiting in line get a prompt to which register they should go once they reach the top of the line. But that register is one that is already serving one customer, so that you have the time to arrived put your stuff from the cart on the belt before the clerk finishes with the previous customer. So, at any one point at every register there is one customer served and another one preparing to be served, and there is no loss of productivity because of that, while the waiting time still remains equal for everyone.

Great, you just accused him of being a communist and, ergo, an evil person. I think you might have skipped a step where you explain how his idea equals communism, which, as far as I know, has something to do with who owns the means of production.

You ask why J.K. Rowling should pay more than others for the books she sold. Well, she benefited more than others from the fact that there are such things as people who can read, for one, which is something that is supported by the state. The more you have, the more you take advantage of the things that society has to offer, such as infrastructure for transporting books, for example, and law enforcement for contracts and copyrights, and so on.

J.K. Rowling will not starve, ever, even if taxes for amounts over 1 million go to 80%. She would not have less money than the less successful authors, just her tax bill would be bigger, total percentage wise, than theirs.

Progressive taxation is not anti-capitalistic in any way. We can argue how steep the curve should be, but no tax loopholes at least should be something we all agree on.

But you do not directly elect them in the Cabinet. In my (EU member) country the process is pretty much the same, except there is no obligation that the Prime Minister or anyone from the Cabinet is an MP. The President nominates the PM at the suggestion of the party or coalition that has the majority, said PM then nominates all ministers from wherever he wants. Usually MPs or former MPs, but very often not. The Parliament approves the Government via a vote, and can revoke it the same way.

The Commision is assumed by the European Parliament via vote (they actually vote for each Commissioner separately), and can be revoked the same way. So, for me, there is no significant difference from the national norm.

As regards TTIP, it is stuck mostly because the EP is threatening to block it when it comes to the vote. Pressure from NGOs such as yours (I assume that what it is) is helping a lot. EU MPs listen to them also, not only to industry lobbyists. If you watch the hearings organised by the Parliament you will see that the invited speakers are from both sides on any issues - otherwise the hearings actually would not have a purpose.

So keep up what you are doing, it is working. Just know that if your organisation decided so, it could have done it at the EU level. There is actually a significant anti-TTIP lobby in Brussels, and it has been working for years on this.

But you do not vote for the UK government either. And I doubt that they do not have meetings with lobbyists.

Oh, wait, they do:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/12/lobbying-10-ways-corprations-influence-government

It is obvious that you can. Especially since there is no EU president. The EU does not have a head of state.

The Commissioners are nominated by the Member States, and subject to the vote of the Parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission#Elections

As you can see, the role of the Council in this is at this point a formality. The political parties designate each a leading candidate before the elections, and the party that wins the elections, in the case the European People's Party, gets to nominate its lead candidate for the post of President of the Commission. The Parliament then has to elect this candidate.

You can even find a picture of Junker's campaign bus from 2014 if you bother to look at the page.

Here is the direct link:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Laophorium_Ioannis_Claudii_Juncker_anno_2014.jpg

As to the second part, I was simply referring to your definitions:

"Voting regularly for the representatives who chose, write, amend and rescind laws and regulations is borderline democratic.
Anything less is not democratic."

Well, the UK does not vote regularly for all its representatives in the Parliament, who are the ones who chose, write, amend and rescind laws and regulations. Therefore, per the second part, the UK is not democratic.

Whoa, the goalposts have taken a huge jump backwards.

I am sorry. I thought this was about comparing the EU legislative process, of which you seemed highly uninformed, with the national processes. The Commission is elected in much the same way as national governments are. I do not know of any EU country where people elect their Prime Minister or ministers. And, make no mistake, the Commission is more or less the EU Government.

Your issue is with democracy itself. Most EU countries are borderline democratic, according to your definition. And the UK is not, since one of its Parliament's chambers is unelected, and so is its head of state.

Well, guess what, the EU is democratic, even if only borderline according to you. It is even more democratic than some of its member states. Definitely more democratic than the UK.

The EU Parliament is elected by the EU citizens. You identify the core problem as being who the people vote. What are we supposed to do about that?

Except that a more accurate analogy in this case is a 1000 membership fee, and you get 350 right back (don't ask why, it's accounting) and then you get the services. Now, if those services are worth 650 to you or not, it is your decision to make.