The difference is Colbert is just lame whereas Maher is only somewhat less punchable than Trump. Alright quite a bit less punchable but he's still way too far down the spectrum.

Could you say more here? That doesn't seem to be logical. I'm taking "equality of outcome" is that you and I end up with the same money, housing, transportation options, and medical care, everything. Is that not how it's being used?

I mean, he's 60 something you're...I don't know but I'll guess 20. You're probably not going to see things the same way.

Ftr I don't think he's particularly good as a commentator either

But he's never once made me laugh

Bill Gates and you aren't competing for the same loan though. He's in a completely different market with different priorities. You don't even share the same water supply. When you get a loan locally, your typically competing against people closer to you socioeconomically, or at least the gap is a lot less than you think.

We wouldn't be functionally competing for the same loan cause obviously we don't have the same opportunities based on our current station in life. So we're more likely to be applying for loans where we are competing with people who have similar circumstances to our own. Because that's the way to system works, Wealth and privilege beget more opportunity and thus no system where wealth and privilege are unequally distributed can have equality of opportunity. At best you can say people have equality under law IE the same basic rights guaranteed to everyone. But rights are not the same thing as opportunity.

That is how i am using it and i would say all of those criteria you just listed impact one's opportunities by definition. see my reply to Ant if you still don't get what I mean.

You could seize every cent he makes and the government isn't going to give me a single dollar out of it. They'll pat themselves on the back and then I'll find out it ended up going to some obscure part of the next stimulus bill that pays for research into the sexual behavior of ferrets or something just as important lol.

I suppose that's valid, but I don't know if I'd say he's a boomer. It's possible to disagree with people and for them not to be a boomer.

I think he's wrong about a lot.

• He spent a long time bashing millennials and I don't think he knew what a millennial was.
  
• His stance on all vaccines is borderline Qanon.
  
• He can be a little too pro-Israel for my liking.
  
• And he can way overdo it on his atheism. You can be anti-religious without sounding like a 14 year old in the YouTube comments

That said, his show is one of the few that does allow every position to both be said, and attacked. I think his political analysis on the horse-race is usually pretty spot-on, and hes' the rare Left-libertarian I've seen out there.

I generally reject the idea that you either have to love him or hate him. I watch the show because 70% of it is something I enjoy and is novel political coverage.

It seems to me that currently no two people have the same outcome. How would you achieve this?

I'd take Bill Maher over John Oliver any day of the week, if for nothing other than John Oliver's very punchable face and his insufferable British accent.