Which of the following would be circumstantial evidence that the defendant was at the scene of the crime?
Group of answer choices
A witness who will testify that she saw the defendant at the scene
None of the above
A video recording of the defendant at the scene
A glove, similar to one owned by the defendant, found at the scene
Answer:
a glove, similar to the one owned by the defendant, found at the scene
You are a TV journalist who has been asked to design a debate between two presidential candidates. One is in favor of federalism and the other is against federalism. Your candidates may choose to speak about one of the following: 1) the failures of federalism during Hurricane Katrina; 2) the failures of federalism to pass a balanced budget in 2013; 3) terrorism and how it is fought. Research information about both sides of one of these issues.
Answer:
We find that some policy failures are related to policy design ... As the most expensive natural disaster in American history and one of the deadliest ... response to Katrina has been cast as a failure of federal initiative and organization ... But coercive federalism is potentially misleading for at least two reasons ...
Explanation:
Individual Debate
Topic:
It has been been suggested that most of our criminal problems are rooted in systemic issues like
poverty which lead to substance addiction and abuse as well as prostitution, theft, robbery and
other criminal offences. It has further been suggested that the implementation of a guaranteed
minimum livable income for all would help to mitigate this problem.
Argue that a guaranteed minimum livable income is not a good idea?
Actually I believe that a guaranteed minimum livable income is not a bad idea at all. In the last democratic debate (USA) between the candidates that were debating to become who was to be in the place of current winner Joe Biden, Candidate Andrew Yang made a proposal of a Universal Basic Income plan that consisted of small increments of taxes on every sale big corporate businesses like amazon make, and this is a tax under a dollar. If we tax all of these corporations on their sales, we can make trillions of dollars to give at least 1,000 dollars to EVERYONE every month. And he meant everyone, ranging from the homeless, poor, to rich, to even corporations themselves. Andrew Yang also wanted to tax companies that took advantage of robots to manufacture products, as people are losing jobs because of the automation surge that no one is paying any attention to.
People will end up spending that money at stores which anyway, and the money will circulate and create a trickle up economy that makes so much sense and it's such a simple idea.
So the money is basically given to everyone, and a portion will be given back to corporations. Everyone is a winner without anyone sucking in too much from corporations, as that is what their (the corporations and people in favor for them )argument in defense is.
So that would be the base argument by people who believe minimum livable income is not a good idea. It would be that "taking money from the rich isn't fair because the rich has earned that themselves, and the people that it is being given to don't deserve it."
It's not a very great argument to really be honest though as that is only a believe that is formed by an ideology. That specific "They've earned it themselves, so they do not need to share at all" is a dangerous belief even in a liberalistic capitalist society. Although, Capitalism is a pretty successful ideology but it has its flaws just like Socialism/Communism has.