There are already fences on most crossing areas (it’s essentially middle of the desert locations that aren’t) with active patrolling. IF you’re not for “walls” and whatever you mean by “controlling the border”(presumably you mean something different that what we have now) that does not mean you are for open boarders.

O not cars would be of course, because regular cars are built for individual consumers, who all have different wants and needs - i.e. some want a small roadster, some trucks, some suvs, some minivans etc.

Lol, yes I know - optimistic in the sense that it’ll be a major concern from a civic duty point of view.

I’m assuming with their own self-driving vehicles designed from the ground up, they’d probably design them to have a lot more flexibility etc. and to be able to accomodate wheelchairs.

I really hope they don’t do the multiple time lines thing. I don’t think it’d go well for the movies at all.

Essentially, lotteries just fund lower taxes spread over everyone who does not play (and where those lower taxes come from depend on the political bias of your state).

Intuit offers their services for free as a “bribe” to Congress to stop the IRS from competing with them (Since the IRS has everyone’s tax documents, run the tax return calculations anyway to make sure noone is underpaying and the returns are accurate, and it would add negligible incremental cost to just have the IRS…

Wow with the ad hominem.

That’s not what I meant.

Oh looks like you missed the part where the prosecutor agreed then.

Did you see the part where the prosecutor told the Judge that ICE had the wrong person, and that he was not an illegal immigrant at all? 

Well, yes - criminal trial level evidence rules are designed to ensure fairness and reliability.

It’s not a case or criminal trial.

Right now, the accused isn’t even allowed to cross-examine witnesses (not just the accuser).

Yea, I think they probably think - good riddance, just losing free customers anyway.

Well in the past yes, which is why that has been cracked down on in current evidentiary rules.

Sexist I know, but It’s actually not uncommon for defendants to have female attorneys in sexual harassment/misconduct cases, an part of that is because they can ask those questions but come off better. So, it’s actually more likely to be a woman asking these kind of questions nowadays than a man.

Yep, normal evidence rules in court prevent bringing up sexual history in most circumstances.

In principle, I don’t see anything wrong with allowing cross-examination - just make it subject to the same rules for all sexual assault cases (in which past sexual history is generally NOT allowed).

You can do both. Or offer suggestions for policies to address the root of the problem, if you think it’s something else.