If they even did it. This is over a screenshot of a spreadsheet, not the spreadsheet itself, making it even easier to fake if someone was out to get them in trouble. I could make a pic of a spreadsheet claiming to be by BrikoX and doublejay1999 with maybe a minute of work in MS Paint.

I've never seen "dufus" spelled that way before, it's immediately enticing.- like you hybridized the word with "Rufus".

Sexual aggression is illegal in the UK? That sounds pretty boring, ngl.

I don't think you understand how insurance works.

The article you linked has at least 3 different kinds of socialism that satisfy "democratic" socialism:

Democratic socialists have promoted various different models of socialism and economics, ranging from market socialism, where socially owned enterprises operate in competitive markets and are self-managed by their workforce, to non-market participatory socialism based on decentralised economic planning.[127] Democratic socialism can also be committed to a decentralised form of economic planning where productive units are integrated into a single organisation and organised based on self-management.[22]

What definition do you mean by it?

Capitalism with a strong safety net sounds like you're avoiding the question. The question is how to replace capitalism, not how to improve it.

How are you defining democratic socialism? Usually when I ask people to define socialism they answer with capitalism with extra undefined steps whereby the set of employees of a business is legally forced to be equal to that business's set of owners. I'm not familiar with "democratic" as a modifier to the term, though.

Step 1: Think of a viable alternative.

No-one has yet achieved step 1, which makes subsequent steps harder. It's easy to get your hands on people who will answer with magical thinking, but a system that will actually work and isn't capitalism has yet to be invented.

Cities are trash now, this will only make them worse because corporations are stupid. The new process will look like this:

1. Buy plot of land.
2. Build business without adequate parking.
3. People park on the street, which will remain mysteriously legal but exacerbate the same disasters street parking already causes.
4. Even with that, parking is insufficient. Business goes belly-up, causing urban blight.
5. New investor goes to Step 1.

Chiropracty isn't "scientific".

We could always embrace capitalism by getting rid of corporations, like as a concept. They're a fundamentally anti-capitalist idea.

That's not true. You don't have to ask someone to stop committing defamation before suing them for defamation.

Does it count as a tell when it's irrelevant? Everything Trump says is a lie. You can tell he's lying because his lips are moving. The addition of the word "Sir" doesn't change anything.

It's fine, provided it's not a plot hole - i.e. your fantasy setting needs to not have abolished blindness as a realistic malady, which some settings do. E.g. LOTR 100% has blind people, while the Harry Potter universe only has very poor blind people, since solving blindness is as trivial as a polyjuice potion, even if nothing else works (and something more effective is bound to work).

The government can ban tobacco, but it's undeniably tyrannical to ban a drug because you don't like the consequences people are choosing for themselves.

He couldn't remember if he did or not, is the joke.

The claim that hating the Israeli government is anti-Semitic is deeply anti-Semitic. Trump leveled the same core idea at Col. Alexander Vindman, that as a jew, his true loyalty must be to Israel. It's an all too common anti-Semitic trope.

Speaking as someone who knows the definition (or more accurately, that there isn't one), it is not a first amendment issue.

Gerrymandering is legal, as is mentioned in the article. What's not legal is racial gerrymandering. If all a court does is find a map to be gerrymandered, it won't send it to anyone to be redrawn.

Banning specific guns is pure theater, even if it passes. There's zero real safety in it.

Your question makes very little sense. How do you think prosecutors work, exactly?

The order of operations for going to prison is:

1. Cop wants to arrest you. If the cop has no genuine excuse to do so, this arrest won't go anywhere (they can still lock you up for up to 24 hours at will). If you've just committed a crime in front of the cop, well, that's easy, the cop just puts you away; skip to step 3. If this is an investigation, the cop goes to step 2.

2. Cop gets permission from a judge to arrest you. This is called an arrest warrant.

3. Cop arrests you and puts you in jail. At this point you should lawyer up, but as that is not compulsory, it is not a distinct step in this list.

4. Cop gives evidence to prosecutor. Because there is a time delay between 3 and 4, the cop may do additional investigating before this step.

5. Prosecutor decides to prosecute (they may choose to dismiss instead).

6. You go to court. Judge asks you how you plead. You plead not guilty. The media pretends this is notable, even though no-one pleads guilty ar this step (it is called arraignment).

7. The evidence against you is shown to you. The judge again asks you how you plead. This time you have a genuine choice in your answer.

8. Optional: if you pled not guilty, go to trial. Jury convicts you.

9. Judge sentences you to prison.

That's the basic pipeline.

Note that cops don't have to do their jobs at all, which is most likely why, as the article discusses, they don't. Why get paid to work when you can get paid to not work?