"In other news, the wives of every single soldier received a free package on their door in an hour filled with a mysterious white powder."
I keep thinking a "Corporate Death Penalty" would be useful.
For anything from Coca-Cola, through the Sierra Club, Boeing Employees Credit Union to the 'Bill and Melida Gates Foundation' - any "group".
The issue is that fines are (basically by natural law!) passed to the consumer. So you can't 'punish' companies. (Other than Judical rulings that are the long list of market-screwing little things.)
If there's something sufficiently criminal (falsification of vaccine trials, say), then finding precisely who-dun-it and punishing appropriately always bogs down and wanders into the weeds. And some convenient scapegoat is tethered out for us, and the company is slapped with a fine. (Not too large mind! We don't want to hurt their competitive advantage /sarc)
Instead, treat it like a new form of 'bankruptcy' - with bankruptcy rules.
-
Accept as a matter of law that the executive tier "Is working together" for consideration of any RICO investigations.
-
The entire executive tier fired, and contracts (Golden Parachutes) all cut. (Which you can do in bankruptcy.)
-
Slice it into five pieces
-
Five "Bankruptcy Trustees" with their primary pay based on 'Futures' in their slice.
-Now- Decide how to bail the companies out if it is something that's useful. (Like an airline).
- Workers not taking the brunt of it.
- Execs punished.
- Smaller slices mean it isn't -just- the behemoths that can rescue one slice.
They asked for everything imaginable in there. But the bit they're looking to note in particular is "There was unbelievably high internet usage that day ... was this to county computers?!?"
(Answer: No, and it wasn't state computers either. But we don't know for sure).
My guess is that they'll do precisely what you're thinking: Re-flash all the ethernet with new MAC addresses (which can change them) and reconfigure the IP addressing. "We weren't destroying evidence, this is just regular maintenance!" sorts of shenanigans.
To screw with people.
The grassroots of the right, who like 'less government', small business, and 'stay the eff out of my business' ... that's nominally where the philosophy libertarianism basically is.
But the party Libertarian focuses, and picks its candidates as "We're Left of the Democrats, there should be no laws and no cops, and and sucker Republicans we can entice, well, at least they didn't vote for a Republican!"
The core of conservatism is Trust
The core of Leftism is violating trust.
The Epoch times has been pretty solid imo. Anti-China focused, but on point.
I keep thinking a custom camera that looks like "normal professional camera gear" but with the actual recording being designed (via smaller, cheaper webcam-ish camera) to instead do panorama's of the press at any of these evens would be an excellent thing for the free press to do. (In a single party consent state, or a state whose 'free press' rules allow general public recording, naturally.)
The few 'hot mic' comments we already get wildly infuriating already.
"Direct", maybe not, but the explicit program of "influencing entertainment" would seem to imply CIA interest in Amazon's Prime's TV original programming area (in the narrow view) or all those books ...
"Your baillout that we passed? Yeah, all those funds require you to say x, y, and z."
There seems to be pile of people circling around things that are evidence ... but would get thrown out at trials if just thrown out there.
The entire "hopium circus" has said a laundry list of things that are defamatory/libel/slander ... if not true. And there's been very little pushback from the objects of said libel. Dominion is suing (Lin Wood, IRC?), but scarce legal pushback the problem people.
This strongly implies to me that there is something true in the core.
A key legal bit about "Suing for libel", etc, is "Discovery". IANAL, but basically it's a two-edged sword - Lin Wood gets some of Dominion's relevant files if Dominion is suing him . So people really don't like suing for libel/slander if they honestly think the other side has actual proof of the claim.
The trick is (as I understand it, and IANAL!) that there's some sort of things that are valid "for your defense in a libel suit" that are not always valid evidence when used pro-actively to charge a crime directly. "I was on your property filming illegally/without permission/violating confidentiality/something".
And they can have a cascading effect if there's more than one "thing". "Well, now a crime has been alleged and is backed up by these three bits, enter full investigation -> hey look, all this other stuff is now admissible..."
But you can never, ever start the investigation from something inadmissible. Anything discovered 'because of' that is "Fruit of the poison tree" -> inadmissible just because the reason you looked for it was inadmissible.
Yes, long pile of blather. But there's been an unending frenzy for years at this point, and the general failure to sue people into oblivion in all directions is the most baffling part to me. Yes, they're 'public figures' and need to prove 'actual malice' - but there's certainly seems to be plenty of relevant public data for some of them.
That's my number one piece, but there's pieces of this puzzle that need procedural nudges IMO.
There were a lot of places where (1) the procedure's language doesn't sound that bad, (2) but the procedure was twisted into a pretzel in actuality. "Technically, we're following procedure!" Yeah, but the way you're doing it is nuts. Evicting the observers? Taping the windows? 20 foot observation distances?
These aren't battles that are won on election night, and they can't be successfully argued after the fact. Even being a poll watcher isn't enough - it's the full-time elections officials that set up the core mechanics. And you can bet they're vetted to within an inch of their life andor entangled with the city machine inextricably somehow.
"BLM" isn't all that black. Yes, they swallowed the Black Panthers, but they've also basically swallowed ACORN and the other permanent Democratic footsoldiers. You're both basically saying exactly the same thing once you factor that in.
Three deep Red States - GA, TX, UT. 200+ years since last D mayor in their largest cities. And. The largest cities count the votes for ... the largest cities. Precisely as you say. I can handle "oh, it's political differences in the cities", but, the Red States can (and should IMO) fight this from the state level.
Things vaguely on the track of this: "Any city with a minimum wage law higher than the Federal inside our state shall have insert penalty applied."
They're probably thinking libel/slander.
The problem is: they're presuming the guilt. He's said some things that are problematic if they didn't do it.
But. They did most everything I've heard him accuse anyone of, IMO.
This saying is (deliberately) misleading.
They have a standard. One standard. One very firm standard.
Power.
Every time we're critiquing "hypocrisy" the leaders are mostly tittering "They still don't get it". This is how they can perform 180 degree flips every day for a week, with the arguments flopping in all directions.
They operate under "persuasive essay" rules, where they figure out the goal first, and make (or fake) up whatever the arguments are second.
It absolutely isn't that they don't care
It's considered resume enhancing
Until the great unwashed are bleating about it anyway.
An additional true (but barely mentioned) aspect is population density.
It's generally waved away as "Well, the more rural areas must be to ashamed to answer the polls correctly! So we're assuming that the city statistics are the universal statistics"
That, and several species display "unproductive sex" in captivity. Where captivity is basically the definition of "tight quarters".
It isn't far enough along to consider it an "investment" IMO. And if you want to use it, the "best trading/etc" ones aren't the best to use.
The entire point as far as I was concerned was the micro-transactions, and that leads to BitcoinSV/BSV. Sub-penny fees for what VISA takes 3% for (from the merchant) would seem like it would be eminently usable .
So ... I strongly suspect that the ones that are more officially hyped are the ones that are more controlled.
Microtransactions allow a conversion from "free with massive advertising and tracking" to "1/10 of a penny to post" types of funding.
IMO, the core of 'Control' is banking.
Crypto, while silly from many directions, had the core feature of avoiding banks. Except. Most of the actual in-use cryptos ended up controlled by either (A) banks, and (B) slimelords (The total, perfect privacy guys). I think a BSV-style ends up being best - works for micro transactions, and actual chain locked down.
Note that so many of our tech overlords keep ramping up "security". IMO, at least part of that is to weed out people managing to escape the control via VPN or whatever - the pure software makes it very hard to lock down who is making the actual money...
I've lost track of the core details, but, if I recall correctly
-
Joe's (dead) brother owned (a chunk of?) a sister island to Epstein's
-
Joe was the lead on "Ukraine" ... and swaths of the former USSR have a history of "sending extra females off to town" and other sketchy sorts of things right in the open.
-
Money, drugs, sex. I don't know that all the puppets are controlled with the same levers. Joe's moneylaundering connections are much easier to actually connect.
Also:
"Hispanic" isn't an ethnicity, it's "culture". So it can be claimed with a straight face pretty easily as well. Spanish is a particularly easy language. Now add "Taco night". ;D
That's already pretty much the official rules.
It's just that the press is savvy enough not to hype the ones that are "inconvenient".
But. This is precisely how the headline "White Supremacy Hate Crimes on the Rise" comes up. They've changed the official flow charts for defining such things.
Used to be that you could get "Cherokee" officially by learning to count to 10 and some hundred words in the language.
There's a lot of native tribes that have something similar arranged. The only difficulty is any pre-screening they might do to keep non-Democrats out.
The issue is that no one ends up paying any extremely high rate - even when you think you've written the law well.
Steve Jobs, for instance, had "his income" at "$1 per year" for a decade or two. Company provided house, company car, etc ... -> "No expenses even!" sorts of silliness. And very tough to write something enforceable that's concrete enough to stop this sort of thing. Yes, he had stock sales and paid taxes via other routes - but only because he wasn't under '90% taxation' rules.
The one solitary group that ends up paying the chunk of 'high rate' is spouses and children of recently deceased types with poor planning - "Losing the family farm." Anything large enough to have lawyers on staff is large enough to evade.