I feel like the other answers undercut the message that you were trying to deliver. Users here are quite clear about when they’re describing their own opinions versus when they’re describing how a system theoretically works. Nobody is getting tricked about anything.
The big white collar crimes are far more of a danger to society than many of the so-called blue collar crimes. Massive pollution leading to global warming, which impacts billions of people around the globe, that’s high impact, and that’s 100% white collar.
Or pick something that’s not as dramatic. Pick the bank collapse in the US 15 years ago, where many people lost their homes but we didn’t see finance experts get locked up even though they created a massive catastrophe for the country and had to get bailed out by the government. But of course we would lock up someone for stealing an orange, or breaking a car window, because somehow those are more dangerous.
Or let’s get even smaller scale. Let’s just talk about wage theft. If my boss steals thousands of dollars from my paycheck, as she did many years ago, there’s zero chance she’s going to get locked up. But if I were to steal $20 from the cash register, the police might take me away in handcuffs.
We all agree that the bond system functions. The question is whether it’s discriminatory, and data shows that it is, which is why it’s no longer used in some places. It’s not only the corrupt judges, it’s the judges. It’s not only the judges, it’s the cops who know that the judges will do their thing. You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride, as they say, and this is one piece of it.
And suppose you get arrested. Now you want to post bond, but part of that involves pretrial release conditions, which would ordinarily be a violation of your constitutional rights, but if you agree to them, then they’re acceptable. And what’s your real option here? Get locked up until the trial? Then you can’t work and you lose your house and your car and your family. So you get onerous conditions imposed on you, assumed guilty until proven innocent, and somehow it’s supposed to be consistent with the Bill of Rights. We all know it’s not, but that’s no matter, because the appeals courts are down with it, and nobody can stop them.
You have to make some assumptions for your question to make sense. If all you want is lines on a map, that could in theory happen tomorrow. Various political leaders could agree to it. But lines on maps don’t change what’s happening on the ground.
So I think the short answer to your question is, it might look exactly like today. But if you want to add in some details to your hypothetical, if you want to establish that there are peacekeeping forces or that various factions are disarmed, or some means of reducing violence and increasing human aid, that would continue in the medium and long term, then you might have an interesting question. The problem is that until you specify those details there’s no way to answer the question you’re asking, because everything depends on the structure of the country.
Maybe sell half.
Is it any less reliable than other state-affiliated news agency? Maybe. Depends on your perspective.
Why wear a thong for your workout? … Err, what kind of training are you up to, anyway? :-o
The doctor.
In recent years I’ve found NextCloud to reasonable. A little delicate initially, but once you have it working, the upgrades are very easy.
How much longer will each of us keep using YT? It feels like the end is coming. Of course it all depends on each person’s values and choices. And how fast YT tries to ratchet us down.
If that was is trying to minimize deaths, we’re totally incompetent. But I don’t think we’re that incompetent…
Capitalists hate capitalism. Competition is so irritating, because someone might undercut you. (And other people would cheat to win, just like you would, so you can’t ever relax.)
States have their own murder statutes. Federal law would be irrelevant.
If it’s an official act, yes. It’s not hard to tell a story where it becomes an official act. I I think he could still be impeached FWIW.
Because of Trump’s unhinged tactics, we know that top military leaders and (presumably) TLA bigwigs have discussed what they would do in situations like this. What you’re describing is very close to a coup d’etat, and in a situation where they get ordered to perform such an action, do they do it? What was framed as a question of SCOTUS rulings becomes, in reality, the question, “Am I willing to throw this entire democracy away on this President’s absurd orders?” Every high-up in government knows this… They signed up to serve the people, not a dictator.
Of course we have no idea how each person would act, but my point is that pure legality is only one challenge Biden would have to overcome if he wanted to do such a (horrible) thing.
Your second question has a general answer. Most languages use tones, which means tones change in the course of a sentence. If the tone changes for all sentences, then it also changes for questions. I know that’s not what you were trying to ask, but that’s the answer to the question you did ask.
If you need a way to indicate that something is a question, you could do what English does… You could use question words at the beginning of the sentence. You could change word order. You could add extra words… Which is to say, you’re not dependent on intonation, though you could use it if you want to.
After the pandemic I think a lot of teachers changed our lines. The reality is that people have a lot of reasons to be late or absent. It’s the people who are chronically late who have issues, not because the tardy count is important, but because they didn’t learn the material that was covered when they weren’t in class.
All of which is to say, it doesn’t matter if you have a good excuse or a bad excuse. It matters if you’re learning what you’re supposed to learn.
How much effort does it take to pay your staff more? Almost none. You don’t even actually have to do anything except tell your accountant to raise their pay.
Perhaps you are asking a variation of the “genetics vs. environment” question. If so, there are many answers on the subject. Also, money is somewhat attractive to almost everyone, to some degree, for practical reasons.
Who told you that? Why do you believe it? Where and when are you citing as the best so far?