Fredthefishlord

The solution I personally want is a randomly selected "jury" of reps to be on to approve any pardons the president wants. Or some sort of approval board similarly made of elected officials. That way it adds an extra barrier to the corruption.

For responsibility, well, corruption charges should be what come about.

President'a own money? What, so they can just pay for their freedom? No, bail is an outdated concept.

I'm not asking you to support usa. I'm saying Don't glaze the hell out of china. Just because you don't support one country doesn't mean you should prop up their rival as somehow being good.

You have to understand that nations can do good and bad, even when they're evil

He could go buy a small country or something

Whoop tankie alert

Tf else would you you even use

Alternatively, we can make it a great anniversary. A reenactment even

I love all the stores being closed when I get off work ):

Being the bottom rung is nice because nothing is my responsibility at work., except my own job.

Add these factors together and you can see why people are forced to move to where the rich are, because that's where the business is, because they're the only people with enough money to constitute a customer,

This part specifically is the what I was referring to. Basically, I feel as though you're overemphasizing the "rich" aspect of why people live in cities. Tons of people just like being around other people.

The faster money flows, the more expensive jobs can be provided, and in the country side money moves slower. Wages being higher in cities isn't because that's where the rich are; it's because there's more places to spend money, so everything changes hands quicker and "creates" more money.(While I do think that plenty of modern econ is bunk bullshit, that's one concept that rings true).

While I do agree that the rich kills small towns, I think it's primarily a different reason---big box stores like walmart and medium boxes like dollar general using abusive price practices like undercutting using their wealth to push out the smaller competition, and make it nigh impossible for new places to get going.

Wealth inequality is quite meaningful, but I think it's far from everything. There's a lot of smaller reasons why cities tend to be better places to live, that don't have to do with the rich.

One good example is that higher density means more gov $ per sqrmile, even if the people are poorer, and more infrastructure can be shared, making it cheaper to build. That results in cities inevitably having better infrastructure than the countryside

When there's a legal method to do it, like this situation, following the high road does not create issues. Take the low road when needed, but don't do it unnecessarily. Best not to set any unsavory precedents imo

The rights need to be defined by the legislature. And the court needs to impartially rule as per law. There is of course, always room for interpretation.