StructuredPair

It is in the figure as a part of the housing policy proposal of a presidential campaign. The executive of the federal government doesn't control city councils so it must be federal regulations that will be impacted.

That depends heavily on how you are counting regulations in this case. You are increasing the number of enforced federal regulations while the regulations at the local level may be increased, decreased, or unchanged based on how local regulations interact with the federal regulation.

So then the federal government should regulate zoning laws. Which is the opposite of fewer federal regulations.

But those regulations are largely controlled by local governments, not the federal government. Federal regulations can prevent building new housing in certain areas and conditions (like destroying habitat of an endangered species), but that is much rarer than a city council not approving projects or zoning changes because they want to keep property values high.

The conservative court would just rule it wasn't an official act and say he could be prosecuted for it. They have no qualms with contradicting themselves for whatever political goal they are seeking to achieve.

1.) If you spend more time and resources looking for crime in one population than in another, then you are likely to find more crime in the scrutinized population.

2.) If it is about preserving a culture, there is no need to bring up crime rates.

I can't seem to access the first, so I will focus on the second.

1.) It is a study of Norway, not Sweden.

2.) The categories all kinda fluctuate, but the specific rates that are higher appear to be non-violent and the largest increase is traffic violations.

3.) This does not show an increase in crime rates overall as a result of immigration.

4.) Immigrant communities tend to be overpoliced which may explain increases in non-violent crime rates amongst the immigrant population (see this link detailing how Norwegian police purposefully focused on immigrants over the native population as an example of over-policing: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1362480619873347).

I likely missed details in this report as I do not read or speak Norwegian, but if I missed something vital, feel free to highlight it.

I can't find any figures showing an actual crime wave in Sweden (excepting a sharp spike in 2020 followed by a significant decline in 2021, but 2020 had other circumstances that contributes that are distinctly different from immigration). What are you talking about? Right-wing parties always talk about how much worse the crime rates are due to immigrants, but data never seems to appear which supports this.

Given the way conservatives have already used the judiciary to do this to an extent at state levels, yes. They used the Judiciary to strip Democrat governors of power in Wisconsin and North Carolina while using the judiciary to grant Republican governors those removed powers and more. The current federal judiciary would not grant a Democrat president dictatorial powers, but would grant them to a Republican preaident.

This sentiment ignores that there is more to the government than the president and that the president is not (currently) a dictator.

(The conservatives in the judiciary seem primed to make the presidency a dictatorship, but won't do it while a Democrat is on office)

I mean, they supposedly used an algorithm that payed the voice actors for contributions to the training set and gives them royalties when it is used.

I mean, the Casimir effect was initially derived as the result of two infinite values having a finite difference.