The answer is subjective, depends on the nations one has for each passport and their diplomatic ties. There are also complications on who takes jurisdiction during crisis (like disaster or war) since one country will argue on who should take control of repatriation. For example, when the Iranian conflict started: evacuation flights issued by let’s say by Germany for German citizens, what happens if an British person also has a German passport (a dual citizen of a EU and a non-EU country), wouldn’t the UK also say they’re also a citizen.

This is what I mean, during certain situations or a crisis: who takes charge if the individual is from 2 nationalities which may cause a dispute between both sides? Like, if Britain said “This guy is British” (refering to being stranded in UAE during a drone attack) but Germany recants “He’s also ours”. Although the repatriation flights are intended to be for German nationals stuck there, despite the individual also having a British passport even though Germany considers this person a German citizen by their second passport.

No need to explain why… (warmongering, abducting a foreign head of state, deporting their own citizens accusing them of being illegals, both a man & woman were shot by ICE agents, tariff rhetoric and enforcement towards other countries, guy was detained for social media post at the airport, etc.). you get the picture.

Do YOU (as a non-American) still consider America a friend or foe? The answer is subjective, whether you live or are an immigrant from a country where they have either invaded or committed atrocities in may affect how you see them. Like a Frenchman’s response differs from an Syrian’s one due to their country’s foreign relations.

For instance: boyfriend invested a lot and managed to secure them (they never devalued as he kept them stable for a while) but one day he passed away, the thing is that he is the main shareholder who owns said corporate entity when he was still alive (so he’s the only signatory noted on paper) so what happens then? Most of the legal framework and bureaucracy are all under his name.

It definitely won’t his girlfriend who’ll taking over as it’s not even under her name nor was she delegated that responsibility prior as the title and experience of shareholding is under her boyfriend’s name. I mean, shareholders are human beings (corporations are formed by people). In this case, he is the founder of the company that managed to take off financially that succeeded.

I’m starting to hear about age verification starting to become standard under the excuse of “protecting kids from harm” which is a load of bullshit since their real agenda is to normalize espionage which is the catalyst for a surveillance state towards citizens and “silencing” people who speak up along with quashing any dissidents.

My possible solutions would be:

• Faking death (as in on record, you’re legally deceased but living as someone else)
• Switcheroo (only applies if you have twins or triplets, taking turns on being outside)
• Gattaca (altering genes and appearance to bypass cameras and biometric scans)
• Disguise (living under an assumed name & identity in another location, a double life)
• Suicide (you’re no longer alive for cameras to track you, now a spirit who can rest)
• Paranormal (after your death, using the spiritual powers to tamper with technology)

Coming from Europe & Asia, the amount of crap fed in America is just crazy: like “is that for ONE person?” (more like an entire table of 4) since what is considered “normal” is just beyond what my stomach can handle, whenever I see their portion sizes: it makes me puke. (No wonder why they have a higher rate of obesity…)

He or she didn’t physically commit murder (due to them being wheelchair bound) as he or she’s paralyzed meaning they’re unable to move but conveys criminal activity to someone who has hands & feet as well as being able bodied, so only the accomplice commits the crime but the real mastermind is a disabled person.

It’s closer to “giving orders to another person committing a crime” or “paying them money on exchange of assassinating someone” since the mastermind plotted the intent to murder for someone to do it for him or her than actually engaging in the crime themselves. However despite that, should they be sentenced even with a disability?

However, will they really receive a longer sentence for just endorsing murder (but he or she didn’t kill someone directly) rather gave the instruction to another person doing it on their behalf? There is evidence one can use against them: phone conversations, chat rooms, voice memos showcasing their plot on murdering someone.

At first it may seem circumstantial unless you either have an official recorded phone call or verified text from the mastermind saying: “I’ll pay you $5,000,000 for killing (victim)” or “Take out (victim)” which confirms their involvement and plot to murder someone regardless if he or she is able bodied or disabled, there is no excuse for it.

If the mastermind bribed the accomplice, you need solid proof: bank withdrawals, deposits or digital statements. The red flags are either frequent bank visits, cash deposits or withdrawals correlating with the murder taking place along with the bank employees being witnesses confirming their frequent visitations for withdrawing huge amounts.

That in itself doesn’t sound like a crime, but may raise some alarm bells if the mastermind visits 5 days a week asking to withdraw $10,000 in cash every time they show up ($50,000 a week until they reach $5,000,000 in total). They may get suspicious if the same person withdraws large sums every day (i.e. money laundering?)

If the mastermind paid the accomplice in “dirty money” (cash): this may be difficult to trace apart from frequent withdrawals of large sums as mentioned from previous paragraph. The only breakthrough if the huge cash pile is found at the accomplice’s address when their property is searched for potential evidence linking their involvement.

If the mastermind sent the payment digitally: the accomplice’s bank account states they received a $5,000,000 e-transfer from the mastermind’s account sent right after the murder took place, meaning the accomplice was paid to commit the crime by the mastermind, further solidifying their involvement, as it’s closer to an assassination.

I know that bullying is universal worldwide, but the subculture around it differs, as in Japan it seems to be more psychological rather than physical, even if you stand out from the norm or customs.

For instance even you’re not Japanese or mixed race (like that of another nationality), is a factor that can trigger bullying, you’ll become bait for the tormentors. Seeking actual support is something they’re afraid of as the bullies threaten the victim.

Also it does not help to how teachers or adults deal with it, they literally say amongst the lines of「無視」(ignore) Well… that will be useless when it’s escalated to the breaking point. Teachers do not use the right approach, even in front of the entire class indirectly teasing or chastising him or her, there are cases that they are the bullies themselves or an accesssory.

Even if the victim reports it to both parents or the school body itself, most of the time it’s brushed off as they don’t give a f*ck about it, even at the most severe cases. A common outcome is that the victim ends up thinking about 自殺 (suicide) rather than actually dealing with it, the whole idea about it has been part of the culture for centuries due to seppuku.

In most cases, media only discusses it if the victim is deceased, when the school is questioned about it, they often say “We’re not aware of it.” When they were but decide to put it under the rug. Also, the mindset most people have is “Well… we’re used to it. There’s no point in reporting it when nothing is going to happen.”

I’ve noticed that in both countries most of the tormentors are teenage girls rather than boys, they surround the victim trying to sway them away from anyone who can intervene. The subject matter of bullying in countries like Japan (or South Korea) is overlooked and brushed aside as they don’t really address it sincerely, the stigma of mental health is dire as emotional weakness is frowned upon.