If you look at this graph and your prescient thought is "haha take that MAGA" then you are a brainwashed ideologue. This graph gives a window into the layers of rot in our political system. The complexity is perfectly represented by its form but it seems like your graph is just a big arrow that says "orange man bad".
He is, and so are a very large number of people associated with him.
That is not an exhaustive list. But people who want things to improve should also shut down their ability to confect scandals or distractions, like the "Obama tan suit" controversy. Once Americans have a reasonable selection of non-insane non-compromised candidates, things may get better. The election of Mamdani is a good start in that direction, because all the other (D) candidates were horribly compromised.
No. Science is inherently human-centric. If a line of academic research has no conceivable way of benefitting humans, at least indirectly, it is eventually halted.
For conviction I agree, for suspicion not so much. Suspicion isn't guilt. The authorities should suspect people based on probable cause, courts should presume innocence and require the state builds a flawless argument beyond reasonable doubt.
> For conviction I agree, for suspicion not so much. Suspicion isn't guilt. The authorities should suspect people based on probable cause, courts should presume innocence and require the state builds a flawless argument beyond reasonable doubt.
Except it doesn't work like that in practice. It would be nice if it did. Often a person can be found guilty simply by jury in a trial based on what they think a person might have done. That's reality, and it is the case in western would countries not some obscure dictatorship.
By your logic, we shouldn't arrest murderers? Even if they're caught on video, it could be a deepfake. It all comes down to people testifying something is real. it always comes down to convincing a jury or a judge that the defendant is guilty.
This is a common pattern I'm seeing in recent discussions. There is a practical problem, so instead of fixing the problem, let's not use the system entirely. Perhaps for victimless crimes I would agree with you, but it is not for you or I but for the victims or whoever is survived by them to relinquish their demand for justice.
For serious crimes, suspicion must be corroborated by evidence. hear-say, accusations or eye-witness testimony alone can't be used to even begin a trial.
Do you ever wonder if parroting the thing they tell you to say without adding any context or justification might have negative consequences for you in the future or just make you look dumb in public? Even good faith people agreeing with the premise here aren't going to value a mindless dismissal.
Do you have any thoughts on why that might be or any times you haven't seen that to be true?
The federal government has been trying this approach for a number of years, and it doesn't seem to make it more efficient or mobile. Justl ook at the state of it's digital services, they are stuck in 2005, at best.
Thats before you talk about the IRS. Virtually everywhere else most tax on wage is automatic, where filings are the exception.
That's the current status quo. The UK can't sue you, extradite you, or really do anything. Assuming that your service providers are US based and you follow US law, they can pound sand. In practice, the US is the only country powerful enough to enforce its laws extraterritoriality. The UK trying to enforce its internet laws on me? An American citizen? Funny joke
As long as you don't set foot on British soil you'll be fine. But that's less simple than it sounds. Don't book a flight that connects in the UK, sure. But what if your NYC-to-Munich flight has engine trouble and needs to make an emergency landing in London? You are screwed: You'll be pulled off the plane and taken to jail.
Will the US embassy get involved? Of course. Will they get you released? Maybe, but it's not guaranteed. And you are in for a bad time regardless.
The UK knows their place. They could do that but they won't. Also, they'll have trouble even finding who the business operator is. The US allows pseudonymous business structures and their subpoena request will be thrown out on a 1st amendment defense.
I can only imagine the storm that would emerge if the morning the UK ever attempted to arrest an American for self-expression inside or outside the USA. That is how you get some Democracy delivered.
