I have some great ideas: improve education, reduce inequality, introduce preferential voting.

Seriously though, these problems are occuring the world over. I’m not an anthropologist but IMO the root cause is income inequality. Basically the working class are increasingly dissatisfied and the frustration manifests in very strange ways. There’s no fix for this other than societal collapse as a result of economic, environmental, or societal unrest. This part of the cycle will probably take 300 years or so, depending on the whole climate change thing.

They’d only get thrown in jail if they weren’t willing to bend over for the new regime, and they’ve already shown that they’re very willing to do that.

that point is nearly impossible to define

As with any law, there will undoubtedly be cases in which it is difficult to discern whether or not a law has been broken, but courts decide on innocence or guilt in such cases every day. A jury would be asked to decide whether a a reasonable third party is likely to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the image depicts a person who is under 18.

Whether or not the depicted person is real or imagined is not relevant in many / most jurisdictions.

Since no one else has said it… 80 days podcast:

80 Days is a podcast dedicated to exploring little-known countries, territories settlements and cities around the world. We’re part history podcast, part geography podcast and part ramble. Each episode, we’ll land in a new locale and spend some time discussing the history, geography, culture, sport, religion, industry, pastimes and music of our new location.

I listened to a couple of episodes about 6 years ago. They weren’t that great.

I was wondering about this, like deep down inside does she really believe that this is the path to a better world? Doubtful.

I was gonna say. the phrase “double income no kids” arose in the 90s when “single income + kids” was a possibility.

Well he’s a podcaster… and here we are talking about him. I’m certain that his numbers will enjoy a bump.

Why does he feel that it’s relevant here? I don’t really follow that part.

I have no doubt red states will start banning Democrat candidates

They didn’t ban him because they didn’t like him. There’s a constitutional amendment that precludes him from being on the ballot.

Agreed. I despise Trump but we can hold ourselves to a higher standard than getting whipped into a frenzy when someone with a personal vendetta writes a blog post with no new information.

Polling isn’t as simple as adding up responses and reporting the percentages.

They use complex methodologies to account for inaccuracies exactly like your good self.

That’s not to say that polls are necessarily accurate - clearly they aren’t, but to say “polls won’t capture voters like me” is incorrect.

What play could that make

Oh I don’t know, perhaps contrition?

There was threats against them also right? So maybe relocating, some kind of on-call security or something, IDK.

He acknowledged in his closing argument that “my client has committed wrongful conduct against” the pair and had “harmed” them, but asked the jury to keep in mind the good Giuliani had done in his lifetime.

He told them the message he believed they should send is, “You should have been better, but you’re not as bad as the plaintiffs are making you out to be.”

This has to be the worst closing argument ever. This might work if say, a teacher commits a drink driving offense, or a crosswalk attendant steals some laundry detergent, but “think of all the good” that this sycophant did in his life is just going to inspire heavier penalties.

The only way to answer this question is to investigate the circumstances of specific examples.

Generally, the person just doesn’t have the money. If Giuliani bought his nephew $100m in shares 10 years ago, who’s to say those shares do not in fact belong to the nephew.

That’s not how polling works

Wait, you mean when we genocide people they become radicalised and support whatever organisation with defend them? I’m shocked.

Sure mate. Are you the lazy comment po-po? You must be busy.

The phrase “baseless assumptions” does not mean that no base was provided. It means that the purported base is inadequate to support a causal likelihood that the assumptions are true.

Besides which, your argument is one of semantics, which you’re welcome to.