Rivalarrival

It was too late in the year. He's got a good chance at 2025, though.

The injustice I described was the conviction of the accused. None of the agencies described have any constitutional powers relevant to such an injustice. There was no "moving of the goal posts": The agencies described are not relevant to the original scope.

You could make a good argument that the presiding judge and appellate courts also have some constitutional powers, however, the "separation of powers" drastically limits their ability to review legislated law. They can overturn legislated law on the basis of constitutionality, but they do not have the constitutional power to overturn a legislated law merely on the basis of irrationality or absurdity, as that is a legislative function and not a judicial one.

The juror is not restricted in this manner. The juror is free to determine that the legislators did not consider the specific circumstances of the accused when they prohibited the act for which the accused is charged. The juror is free to overrule the legislature on a case-by-case basis.

I love these old, mostly-harmless traditions.

I wish I could find more products in retort packaging, but they aren't very popular. Probably because they aren't microwaveable.

It's nice being able to throw the entree packet over the windshield defroster vents, and having a cheap, hot meal on the go.

Tell me again: What black guy did Rittenhouse kill?

I know about Joseph Rosenbaum, a white guy who attacked him and grabbed his gun when Rittenhouse didn't run away fast enough. That attack was on camera.

I know about Anthony Huber, a white guy who was killed with a single shot to the chest while trying to hit him in the head with the trucks of a skateboard. That attack was also on camera.

I know about Gaige Grosskreutz, a white guy who tried to shoot at Rittenhouse, then feigned surrender, then suddenly pointed his gun again and tried to kill him, before being struck in the arm by rifle fire. That attack was also on camera.

And I know about the unidentified black man who tried to stomp on Rittenhouse's head while he was on the ground, who Rittenhouse fired on once, but missed, and did not fire again as the man decided to flee rather than continue the attack.

But I don't seem to recall the name of the black man that you're referring to: The black man that Rittenhouse supposedly killed. I know he was the third dead guy on the night that Rittenhouse killed two people, but I can't seem to recall his name.

and how that it's your constitutional right

Just one clarification: It is a "power" and not a "right". Jury service is a duty; an obligation to the accused that cannot be met by the government.

Not all wealth is a problem. His yachts and their maintenance isn't actually the problem here: that money was spent. That money put shipbuilders and maintainers to work. The assets he gets from spending isn't the problem.

The problem is his registered securities: his stocks, bonds, and other financial assets. These assets aren't just wealth. They generate wealth by taking it from the working class.

What we need is a tax on all registered securities. We will exempt the first $10 million held by a natural person. This tax is payable in shares of the security. IRS liquidators will offer these shares in small lots, comprising no more than 1% of total traded volume. This minimizes the effect of the sale of these shares on their value.

The only way to keep those shares untaxed is for a natural person to hold them. They will have greater value in the hands of the working class than the ultra-rich. This tax structure will shift ownership of companies toward the working class.

Every McDonald's employee should be compensated, in part, with shares in the company.

Nobody is gonna touch this guy, except to high-five him.

It's been a pleasure. My hope is that in future arguments, you will remember your own agency and empowerment.

Philanthropist? More like Philanthrapist, amiright?

I utilized conjugations of your own words:

You are seriously arguing that the corruption in our police system means there is no protection? This is objectively false.I would trust an officer over Ultragagginggunnut any day of the week.

(Emphasis mine)

You identified two possible "protectors". Your argument failed to consider yourself as a third option. That oversight is a fundamental flaw in your initial argument.

You are not a "prisoner". You are the person in the best position to protect you. That fact is not represented in your initial argument.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but none of what you're saying in any way addresses my point: your argument is fundamentally based on the aforementioned false dichotomy. You are the most reliable protector of you. Nobody has a greater motivation to protect you than you. Regulation should recognize that fact.

I understand it may seem like I am "hyper focused" on this rebuttal to your argument, but that is only because you have asked for further response, without actually addressing my initial argument. You've presented no new arguments for me to consider.