Another brilliant article. The fork of free speech vs. censorship has so many angles.

I think we are still suffering from the Comey report of 30,000 emails in 2016. It's not hard to imagine that 500,000 soft Democrat supporters deciding not to make the trip to the voting booth, giving the victory to Donald Trump. Is it possible that a thorough investigation of the HB laptop could have tilted the 2020 election the other way? And a certain media outlet knew its role could play an important part of who won the election?

While I'm not convinced that there is anything in that laptop that most of the public has already decided on (Hunter's cushy job was well known before 2020), I would not be surprised a higher level of corruption is there. Exposing that corruption would not change overall vote that much, but given USA's penchant for close elections, a small voter change could decide who gets to write history.

Rising in politics does require some sacrifice in principles. Should that sacrifice be exposed just before an election?

How to fix this with current democratic structures? I don't have an answer.

But I think my alternative democracy would reduce the need to "sacrifice principles" to become electable. And if a politician gets on the wrong side of good principles, this new democracy would have mechanisms to ensure this person does not rise higher, if not voted out.