If your primary source of income is now being taxed at over 70% (50% “sin tax” + 15% income tax + 8% Medicare/social security tax) then that creates a pretty strong incentive to move, because the cost of not moving is even greater.

There is no “I can’t afford to move” at these numbers. At this rate it would make sense to even borrow money to move.

The last part of a Web address is a “TLD”, or “top-level domain”. There used to be relatively few of them, namely .com, .org, .edu, .net, .gov, and .mil. One of the functions of TLDs is to categorise websites so you know what sort of site you’re visiting. The list of valid TLDs is a Web standard and creating a new TLD is not easy.

As time progressed, more and more TLDs were created. You have familiar ones like country-code TLDs which are for each individual country or region, such as .ca for Canada or .es for Spain.

In the past decade, several weirder and more arbitrary TLDs which are just random words with no categorisation purpose whatsoever have popped up, like .party, .xyz, or whatever.

The fact that Google, a private company, can have its own TLD (.google), is an indicator of how supremely influential the company is over the creation of Web standards. Not only does that TLD mean nothing and has no categorisation potential whatsoever (the company largely does not even use it), but based on the original model of only six TLDs, a private company wanting to have its own TLD would have then been considered the pinnacle of hubris.

American law name: Sunshine, Happiness, and Rainbows Act

American law contents: There will be a $500 tax to look at a rainbow and the President is authorised to sell exclusive rights to sunshine at an auction to tech bros. Happiness is now a controlled substance and illegal possession of it without a prescription is now punishable by 30 years imprisonment. Also, strawberry ice cream is now banned, $50 million for a bridge in Indiana, and the salary of the Deputy Archivist is increased by 6% starting next fiscal year.

I think this gets discussed in the context of the European Union whenever Poland or Hungary uses their veto power to block something important. Basically, the idea is to start “EU 2” and then not invite the offending countries. Then say that EU 2 replaces EU 1 and refuse to let anyone else tell you otherwise.

Well, to put it simply, you say “murder” he says “nuh uh”. Now you have to prove he’s wrong and why or he gets off.

Generally speaking, law enforcement can arrest someone based on arrest warrants nationwide, although typically, what happens is that the governor of the state where the crime was committed will make a written extradition demand to the governor of the state where the accused fled to. The receiving governor is constitutionally bound to turn over the person in question, although in reality, for political cases, this can get bogged down in political arguments, and it can result in the governor or attorney-general of one state suing another to force them to arrest the person in question.

One would describe those as the actions of the prerogative state

It does apply. It’s just that for non-high-profile cases, prosecutors are pretty quick to make a decision to prosecute/not prosecute. Years ago, I was arrested and accused of assault, and I was released mere hours after getting to the police station because the prosecutor’s office thought my self-defence claim was good and decided not to file charges. Generally speaking, this is what happens. You get arrested, taken to the police station or to the local jail, and then the police department refers the case to the prosecutor’s office. Someone at the prosecutor’s office reviews the evidence, and then they decide whether they will file charges. If they file one or more charges, then you’re brought before a judge for a preliminary hearing, usually within 24 hours (depends on state law). At the hearing, you will make a plea of guild or not guilty, then either arrange for a lawyer, or the judge will appoint a public defender to represent you. Then your lawyer can make a demand for a speedy trial and/or make any other submissions to the court in your defence.

If the prosecutor’s office decide not to prosecute, they will instruct the police department to release you. Failing that, someone can make a habeas corpus petition on your behalf and a judge will order your release.

He will still try to argue that, and prosecutors need to come up with real reasons why it doesn’t apply. Defence lawyers are not stupid and they will probably think of a way to argue immunity. Those arguments must be anticipated, researched, and rebutted.

The problem is that he could also probably use a federal immunity defence. The prosecutors need time to plan out a good way to attack this defence. The worst possible outcome would be to file charges now, unprepared, and then the guy gets acquitted at trial which forever bars future state prosecution for that offence, or the case is dismissed because prosecutors failed to present a good argument for why the accused is not immune. Prosecutors have only one chance so they tend to make sure their case is as good as they can get before shooting their shot.

It’s actually very rare for murder trials to be argued over whether the accused killed the person in question. Usually, the argument stems from whether the killing counts as murder or whether the evidence that the accused killed the victim is legally admissible.

This is because defence lawyers often advise their clients to waive their right to a speedy trial, so they can get more time to prepare a defence. If you insist on the right to a speedy trial, then it is usually held in a month.

Legally, the law says “too bad”. American law does not recognise the concept of administrative detention. If someone is a danger to the public, then there must be probable cause to believe they have committed a crime before an arrest warrant can be issued. After they are arrested, they must be charged by prosecutors immediately. Or, at least, this is how the normative state works. There are many exceptions in fields like national security and military law.

The law requires people who are arrested to be charged with a crime or released immediately. So in order to obtain an arrest warrant, prosecutors would need to file a criminal complaint followed by an indictment or an information. The accused could then assert their right to a speedy trial and demand an immediate trial. Depending on local court case loads, this could be scheduled in as little as a week (not typical; usually at least a fortnight up to six weeks).

Edit: A slight correction. An arrest warrant can be applied for without filing a complaint, but judges will require that a complaint or some other charging document be filed expeditiously after the accused is taken into custody. It is not legal to hold someone in jail without charge. Criminal procedure laws are not nationally uniform in the US; it varies by state.

So in a nutshell, once someone is arrested, the prosecutors are required, essentially, to already be ready to press charges and go to court. If they are not, then an early arrest followed by a judge ordering their release for lack of charges would be prejudicial to their case.

The Venezuelan government might. But according to some DW reporting and footage earlier today, the actual reaction of ordinary Venezuelans is mixed, and mostly concern and confusion rather than anger or fear. Maduro is generally not popular in Venezuela but I doubt many people really wanted the US to come and kidnap him. And understandably those who supported him are in the streets calling for his release.

Major news organisations in general are really scared when it comes to pointing out things which are extreme, because they believe describing those things as extreme will lead to accusations of sensationalism. The reason they think that is because sensationalist outlets are indeed more likely to describe everything as extreme and make unjustified comparisons to extremities, so major media outlets often think that to be “unbiased” is to refuse to acknowledge that an action is extreme.

Vox described this as the “this is fine” bias.

Even though England was a republic in name, really it was “more of the same” with the office of Lord Protector as head of state for life with powers similar to the king and the power to appoint his successor.

This reminds me of the Indemnity and Oblivion Act.

After Charles I of England was overthrown and England was declared a republic, the House of Commons seized control of supreme legislative authority and enacted various laws to govern the country without monarchy. The republic collapsed after a decade, and Charles II was crowned king again. Parliament then enacted the Indemnity and Oblivion Act, which nullified all laws passed by the republican parliament, and it even pardoned almost everyone who was convicted of a crime during that time.

Yes, progress is fragile and needs constant defending. This is an important observation you have made.

No, but during the eight years after him, we did get:

• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
• Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act
• Affordable Care Act
• Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy
• Removal of 180-limit for wage discrimination claims
• Withdrawal of US forces from Iraq
• Paris Climate Agreement
• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
• Clean Power Plan
• Shepard & Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act (allows crimes motivated as gender identity to be prosecuted as hate crimes)
• Death of Osama bin Laden

Saying they didn’t get “everything done [that] they wanted” is disingenuous to the achievements accomplished and shows a lack of understanding of how progress is made.

Historically, when a party is defeated electorally over and over again, its members either form a new party or they rebel against leadership and the party lurches left or right in the direction of the voters. This happened to the Republican Party after they lost five presidential elections in a row (four of which were won by Franklin Roosevelt). The next Republican president in office was Dwight Eisenhower, who by today’s standards would be a moderate liberal.

You can also see it happen in other countries. After being stuck on the left side of the room for 14 years the British Labour Party elected a… moderate conservative as leader and then subsequently won the next election.

Generally speaking, when a party keeps losing elections over and over again, picking a more extreme candidate is usually catastrophic to their electoral chances—see what happened in Canada and Australia.

Before anyone comments with objections or observations of this dynamic in modern American politics, do note that no party has lost 3 elections in a row in five decades.