CDC data are disappearing

More like asking whether road signs are effective for Americans who are passengers in cars. No, it doesn't directly do her any good that they're technically accessible since she can't act on it, but it sure as hell affects her life that other people have access to the information provided by road signs.

Well in an attempt to at least show where the bias, if that's what it is, comes from:

- Affordable Care Act - the entire Covid response - GDPR - the "TikTok Ban" act

To name a few, those are all examples of us having granted larger powers to the government in hopes that they will fix problems for us that we won't fix ourselves.

"Some things are more important than GDP".

And he can pardon them, without even specifying what he pardons them for. Indeed, this seems to be becoming the the norm.

The US really needs to reign in the pardoning power. There are 3 areas in particular that need coverage (I'll cover pardons by the President, but the same might apply to Governors):

1) Most pardons come with a political cost, either for the president himself or his party. The main exception is just after an election, especially during the President's last term. This could be solved by outlawing pardons during the last 6 months of a term. At minimum, morally questionable pardons should come with such a cost.

2) All pardons should specificy specifically what actions and potential crimes they apply to. They do not specifically need to be admission of guilt (as they may be for gray zone behavior that could need protection against political prosecution by the next administration), but they do need to specify what actions or allegations they apply to.

3) Congress' ability to specifically contest pardons should be clarified. Specifically, congress should have the ability to contest a pardon, if the pardon is made from personal interest, seriously undermines the rule of law or national security.

Also, since the sitting president's party may controll the Speaker seat at the time, even the NEXT congress should have a chance to start proceedings. This requires that congress retains the right to do this even if the sitting president resigns before the term ends. (Since the new congress starts before the president's normal term ends).

Taken together, the above 3 points would ensure that IF a president is seen by the general public to abuse the pardon power, voters would get one chance at voting for representatives (and senators) that promise to "restore justice".

The time to introduce such a system would be now, while there's still outrage over Biden's pardons among Republicans. Democrats would also want to go along with this to prevent Trump from abusing the power in similar (or worse) ways near the end of his term. In fact, if they're sufficiently scared of this, they may even allow an opening to impeach Biden for potentially corrupt pardon's that were granted during the last weeks of his term.

This would allow Republicans to go after Fauci, Hunter, etc, in congress by impeaching Biden over those pardons, even now, even if they wouldn't actually be able to reach a guilty verdict in the Senate without significant Democrat support.

Still, being able to run this show may be so tempting to Trump and Republicans that they may be willing to make the new law effective immediately, while Democrats

Hmm, I'm not sure the "do we want more or fewer muslims in this country?" question is as rethorical as you say.

Also, I don't think the main real reasons for such a question are the economical ones, even if that DOES matter to some.

It appears that the main concern for the populist right is that the people (ethnicity + culture) they identify with will become a minority or even disappear at some point.

One can always discuss if this is a realistic threat or if it is, if it's really such a bad thing.

But I think it's pretty obvious that for as long as Northern Europe has the kind of generous welfare states they currently have, there will be a LOT of people in the "Global South" that really would like to come, easily enough to overwhelm some of these countries, if there are no restrictions on immigration.

Which is what makes "do we want more or fewer muslims in this country?" a valid question to ask, as far as I can tell. Either that, or "What is the maximum number of we want to have in our country?"

If even asking this question is a taboo, well then that's almost like deleting datasets that your political group doesn't like.