The original purpose of the Davis Act was to maintain the American shipbuilding industry as a whole.

The actual effect has been to slowly reduce the number of American businesses that make large ships to just two.

This duopoly makes very few ships a year 3 to 10, and the ships cost far more than equivalent ships from those made elsewhere.

In between 1939 and 1945 we build 40 million gross tons of merchant shipping.

What can be done to restore our nation's shipbuilding industry to it's glorious past?

Several countries are trying to broaden their economic and strategic relationships without necessarily abandoning their existing alliances.

Canada is seeking to expand trade beyond the United States. Mexico remains deeply integrated with the US economy while attracting manufacturing investment from the US, Europe and Asia. Brazil trades extensively with China while gaining greater access to Europe through the EU-Mercosur agreement. European countries are also pursuing greater autonomy in areas such as defense, energy, technology and critical supply chains.

These strategies do not necessarily indicate the formation of new geopolitical blocs. They may instead reflect an effort to reduce the risks of excessive dependence on any single market, supplier or strategic partner.

How much political leverage can economic diversification actually provide?

Does having credible alternative markets and partners make countries less vulnerable to pressure from larger powers, or does diversification mostly replace one form of dependence with another?

And if more middle powers pursue this strategy simultaneously, could it meaningfully change the balance of power between them and the world's largest economies?

The 2008 financial crisis raised an important question: When an industry is considered essential to the functioning of the country, how far should the federal government go to prevent its collapse?

The federal government ultimately disbursed $443.5 billion through TARP. Treasury says the program was intended to stabilize a collapsing financial system and prevent the economic damage from becoming even worse. After repayments, sales, dividends, interest and other income, the program’s lifetime net cost was approximately $31.1 billion.
U.S. Department of the Treasury

Agriculture also receives substantial federal assistance. GAO found that USDA provided $161 billion in financial assistance to agricultural producers from FY2019–2023, with Texas receiving the most of any state at $18.1 billion. ([GAO](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107174?utm_source=chatgpt.com))

USDA currently forecasts $44.3 billion in direct government farm payments for 2026, including an estimated $23.9 billion in supplemental and ad hoc disaster assistance. ([Economic Research Service](https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances/farm-sector-income-forecast?_hsmi=273107332&utm_source=chatgpt.com))

So I’m not suggesting that farmers or ranchers receive *no* federal assistance. They clearly do.

What I’m wondering is whether we should think about this differently:

**If the financial system was considered too important to fail because its collapse could affect the entire country, should America’s food-production system receive a similar level of extraordinary protection when independent farmers and ranchers are at risk of disappearing?**

Is there a meaningful difference between protecting the financial infrastructure that keeps money and credit moving and protecting the agricultural infrastructure that keeps food being produced?
And if there is a difference, **where should the government draw that line?**

So with all the news about Trump trying to make the $100k H-1B fee permanent (first attempt got thrown out by a judge, now they're pushing it as an official rule at $103,265 per petition), I keep thinking back to this old Michio Kaku clip I've always found interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0Y9j_CGgM&t=5s

He calls the H-1B America's "secret weapon." His whole argument is that US schools are so bad that without foreign talent the entire science establishment would collapse. He says like half of PhD candidates in the US are foreign born, and at his school it was literally all of them. No H-1B, no Silicon Valley. And the people leaving are the reason tech hubs are popping up in India and China.

Watching it now hits different with everything going on. Forbes has a piece on where all this is heading: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2026/01/06/the-outlook-on-h-1b-visas-and-immigration-in-2026/

And honestly I go back and forth on this.

Part of me thinks Kaku is right. You kill the visa, you kill the pipeline, and some other country gets the next Silicon Valley. The real problem is the schools, not immigration.

But the other part is like... most H-1Bs aren't genius physicists lol. A lot of them are regular IT jobs going through outsourcing firms, and meanwhile new grads can't get hired anywhere. Maybe a huge fee is just a way to force companies to prove the person is actually irreplaceable.

Idk. Is this protecting American workers or just shooting ourselves in the foot? Curious what people here think.

Reading the actual text of Initiative 109 (which is available on the Secretary of State's website), there are a few significant implementation problems that I think deserve attention regardless of where you land on the underlying policy question:

1. The enforcement mechanism is undefined.
   The bill delegates enforcement to the Commissioner of Education, who has discretion to determine "appropriate remedial action." There's no specification of what that means, no due process protections, no appeal mechanism. For a measure that affects every K-12 and college sports program in the state, that's a significant design problem.

2. Verification is undefined.
   The bill requires teams to be designated by sex assigned at birth, but the text doesn't specify how sex is to be verified. Genetic testing? Birth certificate inspection? Physical exam? Self-report? This was raised explicitly by One Colorado's executive director — "who decides who gets questioned, who gets inspected, and which kids are going to be singled out?" — and remains unanswered in the text.

3. The bill is unfunded.
   There's no appropriation in the measure for implementation. Schools are being asked to develop and enforce new policies with no budget for compliance staff, training, or any verification apparatus that might be required.

4. The downstream effects on cis girls are unaddressed.
   If verification is based on appearance or stereotype (which is what vague enforcement usually produces in practice), cis girls who don't look stereotypically feminine — tall, broad-shouldered, athletic, short hair — become vulnerable to being questioned or excluded.

The Daily Camera op-ed from One Colorado and Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains lays out several of these concerns. Their main argument is specifically about implementation and unintended consequences, not the underlying policy debate. That's a framing I think most evidence-driven folks can engage with.

Link: [https://www.dailycamera.com/2026/05/21/colorado-election-transgender-rights-measure-109-110-opinion/\](https://www.dailycamera.com/2026/05/21/colorado-election-transgender-rights-measure-109-110-opinion/)

And of course, why?

There are different arguments about how long a constitution should be, to attempt to cover the different scenarios, or else to not say that much and let the people governing at the time and the people voting in elections at a given time decide more of what things will be as the winds shift.

You can pack a lot of detail into a short document, and a long document can ramble, so the amount of words does not always tell you how detailed it is, but it can be a ballpark estimate. Detailed in this case means how much the document wants to prescribe exactly how a thing happens and what criteria are used, how many different scenarios it could imagine potentially occurring and what to do if that happens.

So, I had a thought today perfect for this sub:

If the Dems and GOP each split into two parties where Dems split between Progressives (left) and (we'll call it) Traditional (center-left), and GOP split into "MAGA" (?) and Traditional (center-right), what would the impacts be to US politics?

I'd love to know if anyone has a reliable source for the parties' internal statistics on their factions? I imagine polling might exist, and I will dig into that, but I would want to know how many registered current members of each party have in each of those factions; how many voters would identify with each faction, how many past (for the trend) and currently serving Reps and Sens would join each of the factions? Etc. etc.

E.g., I'm thinking that it could produce a more effective legislative branch by requiring more coalition-building and compromise to get anything done - but would that then would they just end up getting even less done?!

Anyway, looking forward to your thoughts/references, and thank you for your time!

The U.S. inherited its “winner-take-all” voting system from Britain, but the U.K.’s 2024 general election produced an interesting example of what winner-take-all voting can do, as it produced the most disproportionate result in UK history.    https://electoral-reform.org.uk/a-system-out-of-step-the-2024-general-election/ 

Labour received about 34% of the nationwide vote but won 63% of the seats in Parliament.   https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2026/jul/22/how-britain-would-look-proportional-representation-local-mp 

As a result, a post-election survey found that 60% of Briton’s support changing to a proportional voting system.  https://electoral-reform.org.uk/support-for-proportional-representation-hits-record-high-according-to-new-research/ 

So now Britain's new prime minister, Andy Burnham, openly supports proportional representation.   https://electoral-reform.org.uk/in-andy-burnham-we-have-the-first-prime-minister-who-openly-backs-proportional-representation/ 

And Britain's Liberal Democrats are pushing Burnham to change the voting system before the next general election.  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79y9qy9y2go 

If the U.K. thinks its own voting system needs an upgrade, should the U.S. consider the same? 

Me interesa entender qué razones históricas, económicas, sociales o políticas llevan a una persona a identificarse con la izquierda.

No busco simplemente preguntar si la izquierda es “buena” o “mala”, sino conocer qué acontecimientos históricos han influido en su desarrollo y en su atractivo actual.

También me interesa saber hasta qué punto quienes actualmente se identifican con la izquierda conocen y consideran estos antecedentes históricos. ¿Su postura suele basarse principalmente en principios económicos y sociales, en experiencias históricas concretas, o en una combinación de ambas?

​

I want to know this because I heard a lot of people say they will never trust America again, but these people are acting like the European far-right is not on the rise. So, I was wondering: if their right-wing parties won, would we see people saying 'I will never trust Germany, the UK, or France' because of their supporters? Like so what if their pro free healthcare you can have a racist welfare state. ( i am not calling conservative racist)

First post here. Just wondering what you people think about this. I think 2017-2021 was the first real wave of this. I’m only 21 so correct me if I’m wrong. Obviously controversy is timeless but anyway:

When the first Twitter/reports of celebrity or public figures being canceled due to their words, what fueled that agenda? There’s a thing among both parties when after making a statement, the initial response to any counter argument is questioning the morals of the person making the counter argument. For example, if someone disagrees with a pro-life argument, the rebuttal may be: “you don’t care about the life of children.”

Considering this lack of rational/constructive discussion paired with the fear of being “ostracized” via cancellation: is it reasonable to assume there is an agenda to keep “fringe” (however reasonable) ideas from entering discourse or the news for that matter.

Then, if it is fair to assume this, what motive is behind this agenda?

Note: I try to resist the tinfoil hat. I just feel like most people I talk to have this sort of silent majority viewpoint when it comes to the things that the news etc. try to enforce.

DISCLAIMER: I am only talking about making false accusations and throwing hate. I am not talking about hating people who are legitimately affiliated with the accused group.

I notice this a cyclical thing. We had the witch-hunts in salem if you werent religious. Theyd falsely accuse you and kill you. Then there was the Red Scare. Everyone was obsessed with hyperfixating on the most trivial things about the other person to try and prove they were a communist.

To be honest, I feel that way about the current climate. This happens to both the average citizen and then people in the public eye, like celebrities. To a lot of people, if you don't perfectly fit a blueprint (blue pun intended), then youre accused of being a republican. The lack of nuance there really throws me for a loop. People will go lengths to prove someone they know or someone famous is affiliated with a republican movement. It seems like a creepy obsession and waters down any nuanced or normal discussion to "if you arent like me, youre republican"

Why do you think history is repeating itself this way? Is it just the affects of digital media and doomscrolling? Or is it something else?

We spend more on interest than we spend on the military.

In 2016 about 6.3% of federal spending went to interest payments. In 2025, it was 14%. That’s more than a trillion dollars in one year wasted on literally nothing. Well, technically it goes into the pockets of bond holders, but that’s a separate discussion.

It’s a bipartisan problem, so you can’t blame a single president or political party. We haven’t had a surplus since Clinton.

You can’t accurately blame the billionaire class. Even if we confiscated all of their assets it wouldn’t pay down the debt. Their companies also generate a significant portion of our tax revenue. Although I wouldn’t mind making them pay more.

Politicians keep promising to spend money we don’t have, and we fall for it every election cycle. And the interest payments are compounding rapidly.

If we do nothing to stop this we’ll see total economic collapse. Could be sudden, could be gradual. But either way you can expect to get poorer every year until we course correct.

This is our biggest and most urgent problem as a country. Do you agree or disagree?

If you disagree that this our biggest problem, what problem do you think is bigger and why?

Edit: lots of people going after the “it’s a bipartisan problem” argument. It’s fine to disagree with that part, but if you do, you’re not at all addressing the actual question.

Edit 2: lots of people repeating the same talking points. Please read other responses before just reiterating the same stuff over and over.

For those who don't know, the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act was introduced by Sanders in June this year. It would require AI companies with annual financial receipts above $200 million to transfer a 50% equity stake to a sovereign wealth fund controlled by the government. The government would then appoint an Independent Commission for Democratic AI, which would have seven commissioners, all nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They would exercise all voting and governance rights associated with the equity stake. Each company would have to offer dividends equivalent to 5% of the market value of the stake given by them. Those dividends would be used to fund an annual $1,000 dividend to all Americans. That's pretty much the majority of what the legislation would do if enacted.

Now, I know it may seem weird to talk about this bill, considering it was introduced two months ago and it seems to be pretty much dead in Congress. But hear me out. AI firms such as Anthropic and OpenAI have also proposed a public equity fund for AI, which would also distribute cash payments to Americans. Even Elon Musk has proposed that. So I think most people can agree that the public should receive a material benefit from AI. But what Sanders is proposing here has been seen as way too radical by many people. I was really curious to see what all of you think about this policy. Of course, I know the conventional criticisms-it's way too radical, it violates property rights, etc-but I wanted to see if anyone could offer some substantive criticism of the actual structure of the bill, rather than immediately disavowing its basic premise. That's why I made this post. What is your opinion on this bill? Do you think the public should have a stake in, or at least receive benefits from the advent of AI? What are some unintended consequences you thimk could happen because of the bill? Let's discuss!

As a Brazilian, I think Americans use “the left” far too broadly. Do liberals here see the same problem?

I’m Brazilian, and one thing that keeps confusing me about American political discourse is how enormous ideological differences get compressed into “the left” and “the right.”

From my perspective, a mainstream Democrat and someone like Hasan Piker do not occupy remotely the same political space.

As a very rough Brazilian analogy, I would compare much of the traditional Democratic establishment — particularly the Clinton/Obama type of Democrat — more to the space occupied by the PSDB between roughly 1994 and 2018: institutional, broadly market-friendly, supportive of social programs and generally more socially progressive than the conservative right.

It is obviously not a perfect comparison. American Democrats today are more progressive than the old PSDB on several social issues, and the Democratic Party contains a much wider ideological coalition.

But I would put someone like Hasan much closer to the political environment of PSOL or the DSA than to a traditional establishment Democrat.

That is why I find statements such as “the left celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death” strange.

If some anonymous left-wing accounts celebrated his death, then those people deserve criticism.

But how does that become a statement about millions of Democrats, liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, etc.?

If I found some neo-Nazi account identifying with the American right, I would not consider that sufficient evidence that every Republican voter secretly believes the same thing.

I also notice what looks like an asymmetric standard.

A random left-wing account with 20 followers says something horrible and it can become:

“This is what the left believes.”

“Democrats are insane.”

“Look at how hateful liberals are.”

But when a major political figure on the right says something inflammatory, suddenly the conversation becomes much more nuanced:

“He was joking.”

“He was trolling.”

“That’s just how he talks.”

“It was taken out of context.”

“The media distorted it.”

To me, that seems backwards. I would expect the President of the United States, a senator or another major political figure to be held to a higher standard than some anonymous person on Twitter.

Brazil developed something very similar with Bolsonaro. I sometimes jokingly describe Bolsonaroism as a Brazilian “bootleg version of Trumpism” — not because the two countries are identical, but because some of the rhetorical patterns became remarkably similar.

An anonymous leftist says something stupid and it becomes “this is what the left/PT believes.”

But criticism or legal action against Bolsonaro can be reframed by some supporters as “they are persecuting conservatives” or “they are criminalizing the right.”

Again, the individual disappears and becomes an avatar for an entire political identity.

Bolsonaro does not represent every Brazilian conservative any more than a random socialist Twitter account represents every American Democrat.

I also think some American political vocabulary still carries a surprisingly strong Cold War logic. “Liberal,” “progressive,” “socialist,” “Marxist” and “communist” can sometimes be used almost interchangeably, even though they describe very different traditions.

So my questions for American liberals are:

Do you think “the left” has become such a broad label in American discourse that it has lost much of its usefulness?

And do you think there is an asymmetric tendency to treat random left-wing people online as representative of the entire Democratic coalition while giving much more individual nuance to statements made by powerful politicians on the right?

I’m especially interested in how liberals, social democrats and progressives here distinguish themselves from one another, because from outside the US those differences often look much larger than American political language suggests.

Question : Are there any advantages of mixed unicameral legislature as opposed to bicameral and normal unicameral legislature?

the idea is that mixing different accountability structures of legislators (indirect senators or different election forms (RCV)) and controlling for proportions can produce the efficiency of unicameral ism and the federalism and stability of bicameralism.

I’ve seen a lot of discussion around Trump’s decision to rename Lake Ontario to “Lake America,” but I’m curious how people actually view the political significance of it onone hand, it seems largely symbolic and doesn’t directly affect most Americans everyday lives. On the other hand, decisions like this can be part of a broader political strategy to emphasize nationalism and shape the administration’s public image so does the rename actually matter politically, or is it mainly a distraction from bigger issues like the economy, immigration, foreign policy, and the Iran war?
And if you think it is politically meaningful, what do you think the administration is trying to accomplish with it?

I was watching Mike Johnson deliver a speech today in South Texas and my goodness he talks like he’s on speed or something. I say this in a totally objective way (I’m a Democrat for the record). He just spoke soooo fast It was hard to focus. Is that how he really talks? Or was he just really pressed for time? Does anyone think he’s a good speaker (literally) and if so why do you think so? He doesn’t come across as very inspirational. I’m not a fan of Marco Rubio but for contrast I think he’s a pretty good speaker on the stump.

This is something I've noticed in the political Twitter scene that many of the more politically independent-minded posters such as individuals like Matt Yglesias, Noah Smith, Swann Marcus, and others seem to collectively blame the rise and dominance of the political right on Progressives winning in office and exacerbating homelessness, antisocial behavior, CoL increases, and government incompetence squarely on individuals like Chesa Boudin, Michelle Wu, Pamela Price, and Brandon Johnson.

When it comes to the states we see in these cities, part of me wonders how much of the problems that we see in these cities have genuinely been started or exacerbated by "progressive governance", how much of it is driven by the aftermath of COVID, how much of these problems are driven by external factors, and how much of it is magnified by media outlets?

• I keep reading posts about how Mamdani has accomplished so many things as the Mayor of New York City, and I'm curious if these claims are true or if they are mostly overblown and out of proportion. If they are true, what have his most significant achievements been?
• Also, if he has been able to accomplish so much in such a relatively short time, what prevented previous mayors from doing the same thing during their tenures?
  

I originally looked into Andrew Yang’s Forward Party, thinking it might be a home for tech-forward, post-work economic policies. However, the Forward Party has pivoted almost entirely to process and electoral reform (ranked-choice voting, open primaries) rather than taking firm stances on actual economic or technological platforms.

I'm looking for any existing third party, political faction, or organized movement that aligns with the core platform outlined below (drafted as a concept called the Abundance & Liberation Party).

The core thesis is that lifelong wage labor is becoming technologically obsolete, and policy should aggressively accelerate automation while democratizing its surplus so humanity can transition into an active, creative post-work society.

Core Platform Summary

• Accelerated Machine Labor: Mandate federal timetables to sunset human labor in hazardous/repetitive sectors (mining, freight, toxic waste). Codify a "Right to Automate," streamline bureaucratic workflows via autonomous AI, and rapidly expand nuclear/geothermal/fusion compute power.
• Universal Basic Income (The Automation Dividend): Institute an unconditional $1,500/month UBI funded by a capital/automation levy and a Sovereign Wealth Fund holding equity in major AI/automation firms, ending means-tested welfare bureaucracy.
• Universal Basic Compute (UBC): Treat compute as the primary means of production. Provide citizens with monthly token allocations, open-source AI infrastructure (expanding NAIRR), and protect open-weights model development.
• Reclaiming Human Time: Mandate a 32-hour standard workweek with no pay cuts, create AI work-share bridge funds to prevent layoffs during automation, and enact universal rights to disconnect and paid life sabbaticals.
• Materialist Safety Net: Universal healthcare decoupled from employment, zoning overrides to build 3D-printed/modular public housing, and free municipal gigabit internet.
• Open Governance & Flourishing: Enforce strict AI antitrust, ensure data-training micro-royalties, ban black-box proprietary algorithms in public decisions, and reallocate public funds toward community arts, maker guilds, open lifelong learning, and robotic ecological restoration.

Does any real-world party, caucus, or political organization (e.g., specific wings of the Transhumanist Party, Left-Accelerationist/Abundance factions, or pirate parties) actually push a comprehensive agenda like this?

I’ve been following several financial-policy developments that are usually discussed separately, and I’m interested in how people interpret them when they’re considered together.

The Trump administration has actively promoted dollar-backed stablecoins internationally while prohibiting federal agencies from developing or promoting a federal CBDC. At the same time, Trump’s family has a substantial financial interest in World Liberty Financial, which issues the USD1 stablecoin.

A few other developments caught my attention:

USD1 was used in the $2 billion MGX investment in Binance.

World Liberty recently received a federal trust-bank charter.

Treasury has argued that wider stablecoin adoption could create additional demand for U.S. Treasuries.

FinCEN recently eliminated beneficial-ownership reporting requirements for most U.S. companies and U.S. persons and announced that previously reported information for exempt U.S. persons would be removed.

That last point is what made me start looking at the larger structure.

I understand that stablecoins still operate under AML/KYC requirements and that blockchain transactions can often be followed. But being able to see a transaction isn’t necessarily the same as knowing who ultimately owns or controls the companies, wallets, or investment vehicles involved.

So I’m curious how others view the interaction between these policies.

Does weakening beneficial-ownership reporting create additional concerns when private dollar-backed stablecoins are increasingly being used for large international transactions, particularly when the sitting president’s family has a direct financial interest in one of the companies involved?

I’m especially interested in whether these developments are better evaluated independently or whether their interaction creates a larger accountability issue.

Do existing safeguards adequately address potential conflicts of interest or foreign influence in this situation? Why or why not?

Sources I’ve been reviewing include the White House executive order on digital financial technology, Treasury statements regarding the GENIUS Act, FinCEN’s August 2026 beneficial-ownership rule, OCC records concerning World Liberty’s trust-bank charter, and Reuters reporting on the MGX/USD1 transaction.

Something I’ve noticed in California is how common marijuana advertising has become, while traditional tobacco advertising is heavily restricted. I understand that the laws and regulations around the two products are different, but I’m curious about the reasoning behind the distinction.

Tobacco has been legal for adults for a long time, yet advertising is subject to significant restrictions because of the health risks and concerns about youth exposure. Marijuana is also associated with health risks and is addictive like tobacco, so why is advertising for cannabis products permitted in places where tobacco advertising would not be?

Is the difference primarily because California legalized recreational marijuana and created a regulated commercial market, while tobacco laws were developed under a completely different regulatory framework? Or are there specific California laws that explain why cannabis businesses can advertise in certain settings?

I’m not necessarily arguing that either product should or shouldn’t be advertised. I’m genuinely interested in understanding the legal and policy reasoning behind the different treatment. If anyone knows the specific California advertising rules for cannabis and tobacco, I’d be interested in hearing how they compare.

I recently saw this short on youtube, Flock Cameras Short.

This video aggravated me intensely. The author takes great care in explaining the issue he's trying to show. There are a couple of facts I can draw from this video:

1. Flock cameras, a private company, has installed a camera on a public shoulder next to the roadway pictured.
2. A government entity, one that controls that specific roadway, approved the camera's installation on behalf of a private company with knowledge of the company's intent.
3. The camera in the video was installed in a way that creates a serious concern of a public saftey hazard. The public saftey hazard is already well known and regulated.

I have a couple problems with these facts.
- A private citizen, even one seeking to do business with the government would almost certainly never be given permission to install a device on a pole on the side of a public roadway, especially when they have no property interest in the area.
- Flock cameras, a private company, does buisiness almost exclusively with Federal, State, and local governments and authorities. This essentially makes them a government contractor or government entity, operating or attempting to operate as a private entity.
- When a citizen is negligent, there are powerful consequences. When the local government does this, there's only "Oops, my bad" and immunity. Extremely powerful examples of this would be Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005). If you're not familliar with these cases, please read about them.

Now adding another layer, this situation seems consistent with a larger theme in today's government. Plausible deniabillity as rule of law. Or more accurately, as an intentional way around it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think about this for a second. You work hard at a job for more than the 90 day probationary period they told you about in your employee handbook. The same handbook that informs you that the company has a very strict anti-retaliation policy. Whatever demographic you are, you're the minority. One day you have to complain to your management team because the demographic with the majority is picking on you for something you cant control or something that has nothing to do with work. It's gotten so bad that you can't work a shift without feeling like people are out to get you. Your boss thanks you for your complaint and then terminates your employment about a week later for some other obscure reason, unrelated. You were easier to get rid of, rather than the larger employee relation issue at play. You complain to your district manager, who has worked closely with your boss for years. They do nothing. You complain to HR, and you recieve no response.

Our system is supposed to provide rights like equal protection and rule of law. The current path for this individual employee suggests otherwise. Before attempting a lawsuit, a lawyer will ask their client for a right-to-sue determination letter. This letter would typically come from the EEOC, but depending on the exact circumstances, might come from a different administrative agency. In order to actually get this letter, an individual can be forced to wait 180 days or more, while the agency investigates. By the end of the agency's investigation, an individual might have forgotten the whole basis for the case. This hurdle alone accounts for a large number of dropped cases. In theory, the courts would have us believe these agencies are the "police departments" of employment disputes, but in reality, these agencies are roadblocks and burdens on one side of the table. An individual citizen can't be authorized to investigate crimes or to manage traffic. An individual can, however, be authorized to argue and debate on thier own behalf in a civil court or mediation. By taking the opportunity away, a silent rule is established, don't complain. The result we see is borderline plausible deniabillity as equal protection and rule of law and frankly, a complete and utter embarrasment on the American people. And another thought too - the individual has no recourse against the agency that possibly mishandled the investigation. This means that the accuracy and legitimacy of the investigation the agency provides is voluntary. Keeping that in mind, consider cases lost or thrown out becasue of:

Impossible/Unreasonable procedural requirements (Procedure > Policy)

Unreasonable deadlines (Anything creating time constraints where they should not be)

Administrative exhaustion (Case thrown out before agency involved)

Denial of necessary hearings (win court = win administrative agency approval)

Arbitrary agency decisions (quality of investigation)

Inability to obtain necessary records (subpeona)

Government-created delays (scheduling with EEOC unavailable)

Denial of meaningful opportunity to present evidence (Administrative Agency does NOT perform complete investigation)

The agency handling the investigation of workplace retaliation, should not be retaliatory, and yet it can be. None of those automatically equal a constitutional violation. But collectively they raise a much bigger question: Does the legal system provide a genuinely meaningful opportunity to seek a remedy, or merely a theoretical one designed to appeal the legal system?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now adding flock cameras into the mix, I think about the facts I mentioned earlier. A private citizen can't do the same thing - equality. A government entity approved it without thinking about the repercussions - public-duty. There's little to no recourse for the camera's saftey violation and the government's negligence - due process. As far as flock is concerned, everything is completely legal until a court determines that it isn't. As far as the government and authorities are concerned, the data is actionable until flock stops delivering it. As far as the courts are concerned, rule of law is preserved until the law changes. And as far as the legislative department is concerned, well they're the ones that approved the whole thing. The entire company exsists on a loophole based on private and public entities.

As Americans, our legislators and executives failed us by enacting these fraudulent, harmful systems. Our Courts failed us in thier checks and balances. Flock cameras and thier executives failed us by taking special privliges. Right now, Justice is failing with little to no recourse. -- And these are just some of the most recent examples that I've thought about. What examples can you think of and how can you connect them to my theme of plausible deniabillity as rule of law?

- Did you have an expirience with an Administrative agency that cost you a case? Please, tell us about it.

- What are some reasons why flock cameras might operate a business, if not to serve the goverment or american people. In other words, why shouldn't flock cameras be a public entity?

- What plan would you have for repairing rule of law and equal protection in America and how would that plan account for individual freedom, while still holding people accountable?

- Are these really symptoms of a greater threat to American freedom or are these simply legislative and judicial mistakes that connect coincidentally? Why?

Presidential accountability depends on more than formal constitutional powers. Congress, the courts, journalists, government agencies, and ultimately voters all play roles in determining whether a president can be held accountable for decisions and statements.

The current administration provides several examples worth examining. Disputes over the Kennedy Center, the continuing conflict with Iran, claims about the state of the economy, and repeated declarations that particular problems have been resolved all raise a related question: what happens when the president's public account of events differs substantially from what other institutions, available data, or subsequent events appear to show?

There are at least two competing possibilities. One is that the existing system contains sufficient checks, but those checks operate slowly and are difficult for the public to see. The other is that formal checks become much less effective when a president has enough political support to dismiss unfavorable information and congressional opposition has little practical ability to force compliance.

What institutional check is most important when presidential statements repeatedly conflict with outside evidence? And are the existing checks actually strong enough to work under those circumstances?