ghostoutlaw

You talk about your positions of gun safety being based on evidence, so a few questions.

Can you provide a citation to your "boyfriend loophole"?

How do you feel about the lack of due process for people on the "terror watchlist" or the "No fly list" and how it relates to the 5th amendment?

Can you be more specific on your red flags in your statement: "Empower families and law enforcement to step in when someone raises "red flags.""?

Can you provide a citation for your stance on high capacity magazines increasing casualties of mass shootings?

Do you have any evidence of silencers increasing crime or how deregulation would have a negative impact?

Thanks!

Will there be a function to go back and edit the value of reviews historically?

Example: Headline - "President caught embezzling money to Cayman Island bank accounts"

The reviews all indicate this is incredible journalism, 100% factual and the president is guilty of this crime.

2 Years later, article comes out indicating there was 0 evidence and a total fabrication.

This needs to be evaluated on it's merits. Was the original article a brilliant fabrication and forgery that even the most skilled reviewer would never catch? Or was there a giant circle jerk going on that gave this initial article credibility that it shouldn't have been merited.

It's okay to be wrong, but fabrications and praise need be adjusted accordingly after the fact. It's a huge problem with judicial precedence (different issue) that's really hard to address and your system would be abusable by those who give credit to highly praised articles and use their high scores to discredit news that just differs with their viewpoints.

I'd be curious if/how you plan on addressing this?

Sackett v EPA. 9-0

Our system has not been depdendent on democratically elected officials, almost ever in fact.

The president has always been elected by electors who are appointed.

Senators were appointed until recently.

Agency heads have never been elected.

And a ton of the more recent precedents from SCOTUS have included coded language directed at congress like “not my fucking job congress, write your laws better do we don’t have to do this shit.”

I have a feeling the Brennan center might have a very, very strong lean to it.

You mention how this act censors free speech online, but isn’t it the privately owned websites who are the ones censoring free speech online? Does free speech even exist online?

9-0 is definitely a super majority. Is this also a decision that was wrongly decided? Do you think the courts are the only branch overreaching? Especially when many of the Supreme Court decisions in the last decade have been reigning in the power of other branches and agencies. Are you in favor of a government run exclusively by congress?