Uncensored Free Speech Platform




  • What Do You Think Of The Idea Of: "Government By Formula"?
    How is this acceptable?

    EG where you specify that some aspect of public policy or government is determined by a particular formula or equation within the given parameters. If A, then B. Does it seem potentially useful?
    For instance, you can take the median income of the country, possibly adjusted by a factor punishing a high Gini coefficient and rewardng a lower coefficient, and use some multiple of that as the pay that politicians will get (which could be a multiplier of 1, but you can use something else).
    Another might be fixing the size of the legislature to the cube root of the population, rounded up to the next odd number to prevent ties. You could perhaps make it a constitutional rule that the amount of money that a person is required to spend on healthcare in order to meet their basic medical needs cannot exceed some percentage of their household income per month, and if this does not occur, then the central budget picks up the tab above this threshold. This is probably not a good way of getting reelected if the tab if too high that it cuts into your ability to do other things you want with power, so you better truly believe your plan will work.
    Fines for offenses could be determined like this too, such as how they could be a percentage of your income and not a specific fixed amount of money. This is often called a day fine if you are curious about it. You could perhaps also make repeat offenses, especially for any offense that is often seen as a mere cost of doing business, have the penalties raised to a certain exponent. If, based on what we can expect a well run and ethical company to do in a year let's say is 10 total violations of some thing per year, some typical minor infraction that are not too serious and are promptly dealt with and not systematic, then you can set the exponent such that the fine is not too burdensome, but if they rack up more than this, the exponent's power rises fast enough that it is going to sting you much harder. As an example, a fine of $10,000 with an exponent that begins with 1 and increases by 0.02 for each offense will give their second offense a fine of $10,965, their 6th offense is $25,119, and their 26th offense carries a fine of $1,000,000.
    What Do You Think Of The Idea Of: "Government By Formula"? How is this acceptable? EG where you specify that some aspect of public policy or government is determined by a particular formula or equation within the given parameters. If A, then B. Does it seem potentially useful? For instance, you can take the median income of the country, possibly adjusted by a factor punishing a high Gini coefficient and rewardng a lower coefficient, and use some multiple of that as the pay that politicians will get (which could be a multiplier of 1, but you can use something else). Another might be fixing the size of the legislature to the cube root of the population, rounded up to the next odd number to prevent ties. You could perhaps make it a constitutional rule that the amount of money that a person is required to spend on healthcare in order to meet their basic medical needs cannot exceed some percentage of their household income per month, and if this does not occur, then the central budget picks up the tab above this threshold. This is probably not a good way of getting reelected if the tab if too high that it cuts into your ability to do other things you want with power, so you better truly believe your plan will work. Fines for offenses could be determined like this too, such as how they could be a percentage of your income and not a specific fixed amount of money. This is often called a day fine if you are curious about it. You could perhaps also make repeat offenses, especially for any offense that is often seen as a mere cost of doing business, have the penalties raised to a certain exponent. If, based on what we can expect a well run and ethical company to do in a year let's say is 10 total violations of some thing per year, some typical minor infraction that are not too serious and are promptly dealt with and not systematic, then you can set the exponent such that the fine is not too burdensome, but if they rack up more than this, the exponent's power rises fast enough that it is going to sting you much harder. As an example, a fine of $10,000 with an exponent that begins with 1 and increases by 0.02 for each offense will give their second offense a fine of $10,965, their 6th offense is $25,119, and their 26th offense carries a fine of $1,000,000.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 164 Views 0 Reviews
  • US v. Chatrie: the court's chance to reshape rules around digital privacy
    Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.

    tl;dr: SCOTUS will have the chance to review the validity of "geofence" warrants, potentially going as far as fundamentally rethinking the "third party doctrine" overall.
    Carpenter v. US: the facts of the case
    Before we get into the case that SCOTUS just agreed to hear, it's good to start with some background about US v. Carpenter (2018), the last big 4th amendment case related to this topic. While the facts are less critical to the legal issue, they present a neat tour of various issues in criminal law (largely drawn from the 6th circuit opinion and district court docket):
    Starting in December 2010, 25 year old Timothy Ivory Carpenter spent two months acting as a lookout in a series of robberies of Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Michigan and Ohio.
    Local police arrested four men in April 2011. One of the men confessed, implicating a shifting ensemble of 15 men as lookouts and getaway drivers in a series of 9 robberies.
    At trial, seven accomplices testified that Carpenter organized most of the robberies and often supplied the guns. Carpenter typically waited in a stolen car, and at his signal the robbers entered the store, brandished their guns, herded customers and employees to the back, and ordered the employees to fill the robbers’ bags with new smartphones.
    Beyond the testimony of accomplices, the government also relied on cell site data acquired with a 2703(d) order. This law exists in a middle ground between a subpoena and a warrant, allowing a judge to issue an order requiring a carrier to disclose metadata about who a customer contacted, where they did it from, how long calls were, etc.
    The FBI used this data at trial, showing (for example) that he placed calls before and after the robbery from within 0.5-2 miles of a Radio Shack store.
    Unfortunately for Carpenter, at the time of his conviction, §924(c) at the time allowed for "stacking" of multiple offenses, and so his four robberies turned into four convictions with 25 year minimum sentences, which, along with his other convictions resulted in a 116 year prison sentence
    Carpenter has continued to argue for relief from prison, including an unsuccessful cert petition in 2023 about some of the nuances of resentencing under the First Step Act.
    To this day, Carpenter is still fighting to alter his sentencing, following the decision in Hewitt v. US. He's scheduled for release in 2112, when he would be 127 years old.
    Carpenter v. US: the legal challenge
    Carpenter challenged the constitutionality of the search under the "reasonable grounds" standard of a 2703(d) order and the disclosure of his phone records. In his view, this was a search without a warrant and should have been suppressed at trial.
    The sixth circuit disagreed. Writing for the majority, Judge Kethledge held that under Supreme Court precedent in Smith v. Maryland and the "third party doctrine", this was not a search of Carpenter's data. Under this doctrine, Carpenter had voluntarily given this information to his cell phone provider by virtue of using their service.
    Judge Stranch concurred in judgment only, taking issue with the "sheer quantity of sensitive information procured without a warrant". She pointed to cases like …
    US v. Chatrie: the court's chance to reshape rules around digital privacy Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore. tl;dr: SCOTUS will have the chance to review the validity of "geofence" warrants, potentially going as far as fundamentally rethinking the "third party doctrine" overall. Carpenter v. US: the facts of the case Before we get into the case that SCOTUS just agreed to hear, it's good to start with some background about US v. Carpenter (2018), the last big 4th amendment case related to this topic. While the facts are less critical to the legal issue, they present a neat tour of various issues in criminal law (largely drawn from the 6th circuit opinion and district court docket): Starting in December 2010, 25 year old Timothy Ivory Carpenter spent two months acting as a lookout in a series of robberies of Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Michigan and Ohio. Local police arrested four men in April 2011. One of the men confessed, implicating a shifting ensemble of 15 men as lookouts and getaway drivers in a series of 9 robberies. At trial, seven accomplices testified that Carpenter organized most of the robberies and often supplied the guns. Carpenter typically waited in a stolen car, and at his signal the robbers entered the store, brandished their guns, herded customers and employees to the back, and ordered the employees to fill the robbers’ bags with new smartphones. Beyond the testimony of accomplices, the government also relied on cell site data acquired with a 2703(d) order. This law exists in a middle ground between a subpoena and a warrant, allowing a judge to issue an order requiring a carrier to disclose metadata about who a customer contacted, where they did it from, how long calls were, etc. The FBI used this data at trial, showing (for example) that he placed calls before and after the robbery from within 0.5-2 miles of a Radio Shack store. Unfortunately for Carpenter, at the time of his conviction, §924(c) at the time allowed for "stacking" of multiple offenses, and so his four robberies turned into four convictions with 25 year minimum sentences, which, along with his other convictions resulted in a 116 year prison sentence Carpenter has continued to argue for relief from prison, including an unsuccessful cert petition in 2023 about some of the nuances of resentencing under the First Step Act. To this day, Carpenter is still fighting to alter his sentencing, following the decision in Hewitt v. US. He's scheduled for release in 2112, when he would be 127 years old. Carpenter v. US: the legal challenge Carpenter challenged the constitutionality of the search under the "reasonable grounds" standard of a 2703(d) order and the disclosure of his phone records. In his view, this was a search without a warrant and should have been suppressed at trial. The sixth circuit disagreed. Writing for the majority, Judge Kethledge held that under Supreme Court precedent in Smith v. Maryland and the "third party doctrine", this was not a search of Carpenter's data. Under this doctrine, Carpenter had voluntarily given this information to his cell phone provider by virtue of using their service. Judge Stranch concurred in judgment only, taking issue with the "sheer quantity of sensitive information procured without a warrant". She pointed to cases like …
    8 Comments 0 Shares 179 Views 0 Reviews
  • Once Trump is gone front office, how do Democrats move forward without having to constantly look back to the way things were?
    Every delay has consequences.

    Trump won't be in office forever, but his effects on US politics and foreign affairs will be long lasting. As the question asks, how do you move on from that? Can you repair the damage while ar the same time charting a new course without retreating to what you did in the past?
    Once Trump is gone front office, how do Democrats move forward without having to constantly look back to the way things were? Every delay has consequences. Trump won't be in office forever, but his effects on US politics and foreign affairs will be long lasting. As the question asks, how do you move on from that? Can you repair the damage while ar the same time charting a new course without retreating to what you did in the past?
    0 Comments 0 Shares 199 Views 0 Reviews
  • ‘The invisible man’: Joe Biden has disappeared in almost every way – except in Trump’s daily commentary
    Who's accountable for the results?

    The article portrays Joe Biden's legacy as largely erased and overshadowed in Donald Trump's second term. Biden assumed the presidency unable to keep up with the demands of the office, but supporters and media spent years ignoring his physical and mental decline anyway, which led to his "ill-starred 11th-hour abdication" after a disastrous debate performance against Trump. His withdrawal from re-election was followed quickly by Kamala Harris's defeat.
    Now largely "the invisible man," Biden has faded from public view with few appearances. Theoretically, he's focusing on a memoir and library plans amid complete disinterest from donors and the reading public. Trump relentlessly blames him as a foil for national woes, mocking him daily as "Crooked Joe" or "Sleepy Joe," while dismantling Biden-era policies on climate, immigration, DEI, and more.
    Despite early legislative successes, like the largest climate spending bill in history and building eight EV chargers with $7.5 billion, his tenure is remembered more for its chaotic end. Democrats blame him for clinging to power too long, staining what could have been a consequential record and ignoring their own role in propping him up.
    What would our nation look like now if Joe Biden had simply avoided that June 27, 2024 debate? Was President Trump 47 inevitable regardless? Should Joe Biden be stepping out more to remind the country of his presidency?
    ‘The invisible man’: Joe Biden has disappeared in almost every way – except in Trump’s daily commentary Who's accountable for the results? The article portrays Joe Biden's legacy as largely erased and overshadowed in Donald Trump's second term. Biden assumed the presidency unable to keep up with the demands of the office, but supporters and media spent years ignoring his physical and mental decline anyway, which led to his "ill-starred 11th-hour abdication" after a disastrous debate performance against Trump. His withdrawal from re-election was followed quickly by Kamala Harris's defeat. Now largely "the invisible man," Biden has faded from public view with few appearances. Theoretically, he's focusing on a memoir and library plans amid complete disinterest from donors and the reading public. Trump relentlessly blames him as a foil for national woes, mocking him daily as "Crooked Joe" or "Sleepy Joe," while dismantling Biden-era policies on climate, immigration, DEI, and more. Despite early legislative successes, like the largest climate spending bill in history and building eight EV chargers with $7.5 billion, his tenure is remembered more for its chaotic end. Democrats blame him for clinging to power too long, staining what could have been a consequential record and ignoring their own role in propping him up. What would our nation look like now if Joe Biden had simply avoided that June 27, 2024 debate? Was President Trump 47 inevitable regardless? Should Joe Biden be stepping out more to remind the country of his presidency?
    0 Comments 0 Shares 149 Views 0 Reviews
  • Republicans tried to snag Jack Smith on technicalities. But they didn’t engage with the facts.
    Are they actually going to vote on something real?

    Republicans finally had their moment to take on the man who tried to put President Donald Trump in jail. But they didn’t land any significant blows.
    During Thursday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing with Jack Smith, GOP members spent almost no time challenging the facts of the criminal case that the former special counsel brought against Trump: that he conspired to corrupt the results of the 2020 election and seize a second term he didn’t win.
    The posture of committee Republicans Thursday also gave Democrats ammunition to claim that Republicans had no legitimate argument with the substance of Smith’s findings — both in the election interference case and in the case alleging mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
    Raskin and other Democrats feel so emboldened by Smith’s testimony Thursday that they are now asking Jordan to hold a continuation of the hearing as soon as a report is unsealed that would allow Smith to go into more detail about the classified documents charges he sought to bring up against Trump.
    Trump's Take
    “Jack Smith is a deranged animal, who shouldn’t be allowed to practice Law,” Trump said on Truth Social. “Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he’s done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me.”
    Smith, who later said he expected the Trump administration would pursue federal criminal charges against him “because they have been ordered to by the president,” forcefully defended his office’s work throughout the hearing Thursday. He denied that politics played any role in his team’s findings and calmly parried the attacks Republicans lobbed at him over his investigative tactics and decision to bring charges at all.
    Democracy
    And he repeatedly suggested the failure to hold Trump accountable for his 2020 election maneuvering could invite future attacks.
    “I have seen how the rule of law can erode. My feeling is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” Smith said. “The rule of law is not self-executing.”
    Drama in the Audience
    Also in attendance at the hearing was Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role in the Jan. 6 riot and sentenced to 18 years in prison before Trump commuted his sentence last year.
    “I want to see true transparency in our government,” Rhodes said in an interview, adding that it was “really kind of surreal” to be back in the Capitol complex after being banned prior to his commutation.
    At some points emotions ran high, such as when former Metropolitan Police Force officer Michael Fanone coughed “Fuck yourself” when Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) opined that police bore responsibility for the Jan 6. security breach at the Capitol. There was also a tense confrontation between Fanone and Ivan Raiklin, an activist and advocate for Jan. 6 defendants, that almost culminated in a physical altercation.
    While Democrats are frustrated that the electorate does not care about Jan. 6 as much as they do, why are Republicans trying to keep the events in the spotlight? Even though it's a low-weight issue, it …
    Republicans tried to snag Jack Smith on technicalities. But they didn’t engage with the facts. Are they actually going to vote on something real? Republicans finally had their moment to take on the man who tried to put President Donald Trump in jail. But they didn’t land any significant blows. During Thursday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing with Jack Smith, GOP members spent almost no time challenging the facts of the criminal case that the former special counsel brought against Trump: that he conspired to corrupt the results of the 2020 election and seize a second term he didn’t win. The posture of committee Republicans Thursday also gave Democrats ammunition to claim that Republicans had no legitimate argument with the substance of Smith’s findings — both in the election interference case and in the case alleging mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Raskin and other Democrats feel so emboldened by Smith’s testimony Thursday that they are now asking Jordan to hold a continuation of the hearing as soon as a report is unsealed that would allow Smith to go into more detail about the classified documents charges he sought to bring up against Trump. Trump's Take “Jack Smith is a deranged animal, who shouldn’t be allowed to practice Law,” Trump said on Truth Social. “Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he’s done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me.” Smith, who later said he expected the Trump administration would pursue federal criminal charges against him “because they have been ordered to by the president,” forcefully defended his office’s work throughout the hearing Thursday. He denied that politics played any role in his team’s findings and calmly parried the attacks Republicans lobbed at him over his investigative tactics and decision to bring charges at all. Democracy And he repeatedly suggested the failure to hold Trump accountable for his 2020 election maneuvering could invite future attacks. “I have seen how the rule of law can erode. My feeling is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” Smith said. “The rule of law is not self-executing.” Drama in the Audience Also in attendance at the hearing was Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role in the Jan. 6 riot and sentenced to 18 years in prison before Trump commuted his sentence last year. “I want to see true transparency in our government,” Rhodes said in an interview, adding that it was “really kind of surreal” to be back in the Capitol complex after being banned prior to his commutation. At some points emotions ran high, such as when former Metropolitan Police Force officer Michael Fanone coughed “Fuck yourself” when Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) opined that police bore responsibility for the Jan 6. security breach at the Capitol. There was also a tense confrontation between Fanone and Ivan Raiklin, an activist and advocate for Jan. 6 defendants, that almost culminated in a physical altercation. While Democrats are frustrated that the electorate does not care about Jan. 6 as much as they do, why are Republicans trying to keep the events in the spotlight? Even though it's a low-weight issue, it …
    0 Comments 0 Shares 142 Views 0 Reviews
  • Justice for Keith Porter
    Who's accountable for the results?

    Petition to demand justice for Keith Porter, murdered by ICE on New Years Eve
    I just signed this petition on OrganizeFor with @ColorOfChange. Will you join me? #O4
    Justice for Keith Porter Who's accountable for the results? Petition to demand justice for Keith Porter, murdered by ICE on New Years Eve I just signed this petition on OrganizeFor with @ColorOfChange. Will you join me? #O4
    0 Comments 0 Shares 156 Views 0 Reviews
  • Who do you think was/is the best President of the United States? Why?
    How is this acceptable?

    Who do you think was the best president and why? Feel free to explain why you think they are the best in as much detail as you want.
    I’m not usually super political but I’m trying to learn more and read more on history and politics so I think it would also be interesting to hear what other people think about this.
    Who do you think was/is the best President of the United States? Why? How is this acceptable? Who do you think was the best president and why? Feel free to explain why you think they are the best in as much detail as you want. I’m not usually super political but I’m trying to learn more and read more on history and politics so I think it would also be interesting to hear what other people think about this.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 146 Views 0 Reviews
  • USA TODAY opinion: A conservative columnist argues that Trump has weakened core constitutional principles and that Republicans should consider a different type of nominee for 2028. Do you agree or should Republicans stay with MAGA?
    Transparency shouldn't be controversial.

    It can feel like it's too soon to look ahead to 2028, but it's worth asking. Once Trump is out of office, Republicans decide the path forward. Where should the party go next? Like it or not, Republicans have won two of the last three presidential elections and have taken control of Congress, going MAGA. But what now?
    I'm a conservative who didn't vote for Trump. I was right. | Opinion
    USA TODAY opinion: A conservative columnist argues that Trump has weakened core constitutional principles and that Republicans should consider a different type of nominee for 2028. Do you agree or should Republicans stay with MAGA? Transparency shouldn't be controversial. It can feel like it's too soon to look ahead to 2028, but it's worth asking. Once Trump is out of office, Republicans decide the path forward. Where should the party go next? Like it or not, Republicans have won two of the last three presidential elections and have taken control of Congress, going MAGA. But what now? I'm a conservative who didn't vote for Trump. I was right. | Opinion
    0 Comments 0 Shares 157 Views 0 Reviews
  • Is there any ethical way to discourage human settlement of places especially prone to natural disasters?
    Be honest—this is ridiculous.

    People keep rebuilding places destroyed by wildfire, destroyed by hurricanes, destroyed by tsunamis, etc... only to in effect put what they rebuild in the path of future natural disasters. I get that every place has its hazards, but not every place is equally prone. In theory it's their own money to waste rebuilding these homes but in practice others on the same insurance policy have to pay higher premiums because of it.
    How can we discourage this?
    One way would be to loosen regulations on the insurance industry and make customers even more risk-averse around disaster prone places, but they have already been trying to cheat their own customers out of paying for the exact same disasters they promised to pay for as it is. And somehow, even that has not deterred people from rebuilding.
    Another way could be to tax properties proportional to their estimated future risk, but that leaves the question of whether lawmakers will be tailoring it less to the facts, and more to the biases of the public. (A number of people, for instance, fear blizzards more than hurricanes, even though a blizzard is survivable indoors with nonperishable food items and adequately warm clothing, while hurricanes can flood your home, with you in it if you fail to evacuate in time... which many towns' roadways and airports don't enable.)
    Is there any way to take what physics and chemistry and geology know about what's driving these risks, get it on the record in a way future generations can't deny, and account for the tradeoff between risks and opportunities (ie. warm climates with the worse hurricanes being better for farming) in a way that keeps to a minimum both public-sector biases and the private sector's opportunities to get away with breach of contract by blaming the customer?
    Is there any ethical way to discourage human settlement of places especially prone to natural disasters? Be honest—this is ridiculous. People keep rebuilding places destroyed by wildfire, destroyed by hurricanes, destroyed by tsunamis, etc... only to in effect put what they rebuild in the path of future natural disasters. I get that every place has its hazards, but not every place is equally prone. In theory it's their own money to waste rebuilding these homes but in practice others on the same insurance policy have to pay higher premiums because of it. How can we discourage this? One way would be to loosen regulations on the insurance industry and make customers even more risk-averse around disaster prone places, but they have already been trying to cheat their own customers out of paying for the exact same disasters they promised to pay for as it is. And somehow, even that has not deterred people from rebuilding. Another way could be to tax properties proportional to their estimated future risk, but that leaves the question of whether lawmakers will be tailoring it less to the facts, and more to the biases of the public. (A number of people, for instance, fear blizzards more than hurricanes, even though a blizzard is survivable indoors with nonperishable food items and adequately warm clothing, while hurricanes can flood your home, with you in it if you fail to evacuate in time... which many towns' roadways and airports don't enable.) Is there any way to take what physics and chemistry and geology know about what's driving these risks, get it on the record in a way future generations can't deny, and account for the tradeoff between risks and opportunities (ie. warm climates with the worse hurricanes being better for farming) in a way that keeps to a minimum both public-sector biases and the private sector's opportunities to get away with breach of contract by blaming the customer?
    0 Comments 0 Shares 139 Views 0 Reviews
  • How would this past year be any different or the same if Ron DeSantis were president instead of Trump?
    Am I the only one tired of this?

    Even as Trump has become less popular among the public during the first year of his second term, it is difficult to untangle if the disapproval is about Trump's decisions personally or about Republican governance broadly. If Ron DeSantis had been elected president instead of Trump, defeating Harris in 2024, and he had largely pursued a conservative governing agenda, but not with Trump's quirks and style such as posting on Truth Social or putting in place punitive tariffs or demanding Greenland. Rather DeSantis would have governed as a Republican, cutting taxes, enforcing immigration laws, etc., how would the public view his administration a year into his term with the midterms looming in 2026? Would his approval be higher than Trump's? Would the left be as opposed to DeSantis? Would the GOP have a much better chance of holding onto to Congressional power in 2026?
    What are your thoughts on how a year of DeSantis would compare with what we have had with Trump?
    How would this past year be any different or the same if Ron DeSantis were president instead of Trump? Am I the only one tired of this? Even as Trump has become less popular among the public during the first year of his second term, it is difficult to untangle if the disapproval is about Trump's decisions personally or about Republican governance broadly. If Ron DeSantis had been elected president instead of Trump, defeating Harris in 2024, and he had largely pursued a conservative governing agenda, but not with Trump's quirks and style such as posting on Truth Social or putting in place punitive tariffs or demanding Greenland. Rather DeSantis would have governed as a Republican, cutting taxes, enforcing immigration laws, etc., how would the public view his administration a year into his term with the midterms looming in 2026? Would his approval be higher than Trump's? Would the left be as opposed to DeSantis? Would the GOP have a much better chance of holding onto to Congressional power in 2026? What are your thoughts on how a year of DeSantis would compare with what we have had with Trump?
    8 Comments 0 Shares 114 Views 0 Reviews
Demur US https://www.demur.us