Chiropracty isn't "scientific".

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

They do, in fact, have a legal leg to stand in. As shareholders, they can sue their board of directors for mismanagement.

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.

It's currently the Ameican right, not the American left, defending Israel. And only Americans think "libtard" is a word.

No. The Libertarian party is the least coherent of the four, and you can't count on any consistency in their platform. They seem to do zero policing of their candidates' attitudes.

Do you have experience in Arizona, specifically? These allegations about weaponizing CPS to go after poor people for being poor are state-specific.

I think you mean false premise or argument from false premises. "A, therefore B", even though A is false.

Names are meaningless. The allies were fighting the "National Socialists", who weren't Socialists. Likewise, "Defund the Police" movement members need not actually support defunding the police - supporting lowering their funding without lowering it to zero still qualifies.

Doing that doesn't teach children to share - it teaches them to avoid getting caught because both the abuser and the victim will be punished, so even as the victim it's best to keep your abuse private.

For starters, let's be clear: Jacob Brown committed battery, a violation of Louisiana state law. This case is about an alleged violation of Federal law and simply isn't a battery case. That means it's not as cut and dry as "we have this guy on video committing battery with a flashlight, of course he's guilty".

This is what Jacob Brown was charged with violating: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

So if you want to claim this case is open and shut or cut and dry, you need to point to some element of that law Jacob violated and then explain how it's so obvious he violated that element.

My first guess, and to be clear, I am speculating, is that they tried to prove Jacob battered Aaron because Aaron was black. That means proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Jacob doesn't simply beat everyone up, which is very difficult to prove, especially since so many cops genuinely do simply beat everyone up.