Patrick is too polite to mention it, but frauds work much better if the fraudsters are also fully integrated into the political machine of the people nominally investigating the fraud.
I don't think that's in evidence. Institutionalized and ideologically-driven apathy towards the fraud, sure, but that's not uncommon (see: the defense industry; the finance industry).
A distinction without a difference imo. I think most people rightfully surmise the defense and financial industries are rife with, if not outright fraud, at least waste and abuse. We could use better language perhaps.
Yeah but calling someone a racist is a serious accusation, you better bring receipts or be liable for defamation. Calling them a "secret racist" instead isn't the workaround that absolves you from this.
> Yeah but calling someone a racist is a serious accusation, you better bring receipts or be liable for defamation
There are a large number of countries with their own systems of law, and its possible that in one of them calling someone a racist might be subject to defamation law, but in most I am aware of that's going to be a problem because its not even a well-enough-defined fact claim to be legally true or false.
See above, where it is being used as an insult without any evidence to back it up. This is the most common usage, and usage defines the true meaning of the word.
There was few social services at the time. It was a patronage system. Different rewards but buying votes all the same. My point is that patronage is a long storied American tradition so I don’t know why people are al shocked that such schemes are still ongoing. Republican and anti castro cubans is or was a similar patronage system.
Coordinating roadblocks, "dearrests", warning the subjects of law enforcement operations, and intentionally causing the maximum amount of noise in neighborhoods neighborhood are not things you will be able to get a federal judge to characterize as "constitutionally protected speech".
Actually... making noise in a neighborhood is constitutionally protected speech (as I have learned when my neighbors crank the sub-par disco up to 11.)
Also, it turns out the law is interpreted by judges who often (but not always) have careers as attorneys. It is not, thankfully, interpreted by people dropping into the internet comments section.
That the law is written in a way that an individual rate-payer may believe they understand its application is irrelevant to the way it actually is. "The Law" is not necessarily the written corpus of enumerated regulations, but also the judicary's day-to-day interpretation of the written text, tempered by exhortations from (hopefully) decent legal minds arguing before the court. That's the theory, anyway.
That's all well and good, but he is literally at this moment attempting to export industrial capacity to China at a direct tradeoff to it's availability to the US, even when he could sell it at the same price.
The reason you "refloat" ships and continue the exercise is that determining the winner is only one part of the exercise. Training is the other component, and if you have multiple carriers out of commission immediately you lose that opportunity at vast expense.
“A military exercise, training exercise, maneuver (American English), manoeuvre (Commonwealth English), or war game is the employment of military resources in training for military operations.” --wikipedia
If someone is here long enough to obtain a state id, there's no reason to detain them on suspicion of their status having expired, so an unexpired id should be enough to end the encounter.
If they are suspected of some other crime, detain them for that, fine. But no masked goons accosting people because they claim they suspected their immigration status.
The US does not have "legal after being a certain time in the country by any means" laws like some other countries. It's the opposite: the longer you are in the country illegally, the more penalty you accrue. There had been one-off amnesties when people were indeed given legal status for being in the country illegally long enough, but there were only two of those: in 1929 and 1986.
>If someone is here long enough to obtain a state id, there's no reason to detain them on suspicion of their status having expired
It seems like you believe that if somebody had been long enough in a state to obtain a state id then their status in the country is legal forever. In the few states where I've got id it took about a month to get an id - you need to lease some housing and get two bills. But even if it took 50 years to get a state id it would not change anything - a state id is not a proof of legal status in the country. Immigration officers can detain people on reasonable suspicion, which is the same standard that is needed for a traffic stop.
I have not seen this in the article, which is mostly focused on strawmanning the Real ID but even it was there, it's just an opinion. The law does not make any exceptions for having a valid ID as far as I know.
Yes, I'm doing the strange thing of talking about what a just, moral society should do rather than interpreting and analyzing the limits of current law.
A just, moral society, would not let people off with violating its laws for decades so it would not need to hunt them down when its citizens got finally fed up.
As far as I'm aware, that's really only in California, and even then isn't as big of an issue as it's made out to be.
In CA, as an LPR you can get a REAL ID, but its expiry is not the default of the REAL ID (like not "5/10 years from issuance of the underlying document like a driver's license" but is "if your LPR expires 2 years from now, then your REAL ID driver's licence also expires two years from now"). So it's only really an accurate statement if there's subsequent status changes to pre-empt the LPR status.
In WA, as I am, as an LPR I cannot get a REAL ID. WA will only issue to citizens.
This seems to be the key point- I just checked my state issued electronic id and it has no connection with citizenship data so it would be useless in establishing citizenship-you still need a birth certificate or similar.
That's beside the point. This is about citizenship, which, once granted, doesn't become forfeit that easily. A fact that one would presume to be prominently stated on an ID document.
Will be interesting to see what their quota is. Gemini 3.0 Pro only gives you 250 / day until you spam them with enough BS requests to increase your total spend > $250.
Every concern about "teens" is explicitly mirrored by a concern about low-capacity adults, which is why Australia et al are so concerned about "disinformation" and the need to control speech of all kinds. This effort should be seen in that light.
The German government will be the first ones to tell you that the German language and ancestry is totally unrelated to the idea of who gets to be German.
In that specific situation, no they weren't. The only legal action is to leave the country, so it's impossible to claim they're being compelled to do anything else.
The UK is best understood as a "managed democracy" where there are nominally elections, but the government decides who will constitute its voting population, what they are allowed to say, and now whether they will be allowed to acquit people the government decides it would prefer to punish.
Agreed, and I am reminded that Putin once called Russia a "managed democracy." I may not always agree, but I am very glad America has the first, fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments, among others. This tactic by the British government is absurd and offensive to freedom. What I find more baffling, but perhaps I am narrowly thinking about it, is how much the British people are letting it happen. I am not political, but if anyone tried to take our rights under the Bill of Rights, or declared an emergency to cancel elections, I will be in the streets with, I hope, literally every one else.
Some things are just too critical to a free and fair nation, and jury trials are right up there.
In South Africa there are no juries, and the democracy is deemed fairly good, albeit rotten with corruption (but that's another story). The judiciary is fairly independent so far, and criminal cases are solely tried by a professional judge.
A lot of public law jurisdictions don’t have jury trials, just a judge who decides the facts based on the constitution and the case presented by the prosecutor. Finland, for example.
Right. In fact, AFAIK only a handful of countries have a jury, which are mainly ex british colonies. Almost everywhere else there is constitution and so.
>I am not political, but if anyone tried to take our rights under the Bill of Rights, or declared an emergency to cancel elections, I will be in the streets with, I hope, literally every one else.
I'm sorry but the last decade has shown how much the US really likes to mirror the UK. I have been burned so many times thinking the US is some unique snowflake. Its just a Anglo-Saxon colony that moved out on its own but is still part of that same soul and mindset. I know a large chunk of the majority white population is now of German descent, but it still seems like the Anglo-Saxon mindset rules the land. If you want to know what happens to the future of the US just look at the UK as they are always the OG hipsters.
The UK voted for Brexit on the premise of making Britain british again (or some hogwash of that nature). The US would never make a silly mistake of that nature right? Oh wait they did just months later. The UK has this obsession of having cameras everywhere so much so there have been famous books written about that culture. The US is doing the same just that they got away with it by hiding it under other excuses such as anti-terrorism, security, protecting the children, etc.
Now the U.S. is slow walking into erosion of free speech, erosion of rights. And have the population put up a fight? No. They're acting exactly like the U.K. population. Maybe even more cowardly. And would you even blame them? What is their recourse? People here like to cosplay about the second amendment, but you know what when push came to shove, they acted exactly as their British compatriots did.
It was also rejecting being part of the anti-democratic runaway train that is the EU with its unelected president. Britain has enough trouble with its own government - for many it seemed like a reasonable move to remove the government running our government.
- voting population? What are you on about? It's everyone older than 18.
- you are not allowed to say "let's go and kill xxxyyy" or "burn hotel xxxyyy" but more or less you can say anything else. You might get sued if you say "Kier Starmer is an XXXYYY" but possibly not.
- this is using a system such as the one that operates in many countries - like France. But note: Germany ditched jury trials in 1924...
I've seen a couple of stories - like this one - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15302729/Assault-vi... - that make me think there's a very liberal interpenetration of "hate crime", as in there doesn't need to be an underlying crime but speech alone if offensive enough is criminal.
16 year olds have just been given the vote by the Labour government in an attempt to shore up their support because they’re going to lose the next election. Lowering the power of my vote as an adult taxpayer by enfranchising teenagers who get their political nous from TikTok is pretty disgusting.
reply