https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
See #2 for why that isn’t a good argument. Dictionaries describe common usage, even when that usage is/was just litterally wrong. If I made a meme with that used the second definition of literally people would be right to point out that it would be much better to use the first. In this meme’s case it also just furthers the misunderstanding of the term gaslighting.

Which might backfire if we are lucky. One of the ways gerrymandering works is by diluting the votes, spreading them into many other areas where they don’t make a large enough fraction to matter. The more gerrymandering happens this way, the slimmer the margins are for holding the seats. If these actions galvanizes the gerrymandered voters to turn out in unexpectedly large numbers, or turns enough fence sitters against them, the gerrymandering will lead to many seats flipping instead of only the few it would have been without the gerrymandering. I don’t find it likely to happen, but I’m not ruling it out either.

The US as a political entity is controlled by the current administration, and that’s really the only thing that matters to the rest of the world in regards to the US as a country. I feel for the people in the US who fought against this happening, but in terms of geopolitics the dissatisfaction of the populace only matters in so far as it changes the actions of your government.

The first one’s probably won’t be. But I don’t think it’s too far off. I expect the first ones to be some random non white people who commited some indefensible crimes, or at least are accused of doing so. I wouldn’t be surprised if they go for people with terrorism charges so the next batch can be accused of terrorism as well to make the leap seem smaller. That they now define vandalism against tesla as terrorism will just help murky the waters to make the life sentence without judge or jury seem more palatable than it is every step of the way.

As far as I remember it was a two part protection. Any official act, no matter the intent, is protected. So as one dissenting justice pointed out, ordering seal team six to assassinate a political rival could be protected as it falls within the powers of the president to direct the military. Besides that, any criminal action outside of that overly broad protection still cannot be prosecuted using any evidence that comes from the actions of the president in their capacity as such. So if the president has a phone call logged in official records in which they outline or perform an illegal act, those logs will be inadmissible in court, only evidence reltaed to the president as a private individual is admissible. The stormy daniels case had to throw out evidence because of this, despite being related to crimes committed before the election even.

Obligatory disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and working off of memory. I might misunderstand or misremember some of this.

I get that non-violent crime has a specific meaning in law, but calling the selling of children, causing massive psychological damage non-violent really rubs me the wrong way. Not a criticism of you but of the system that conciders it non-violent just because it was done with the stroke of a pen instead of the wave of a gun.

They basically did the same thing the Satanic Temple often does. Use the rules republicans make thinking only they will benefit. When they are used by the other side as well it has a funny way of causing a reevaluation of if it should in fact be legal after all. My understanding is that CAH made a sort of parody of Musks trick although doing it in a slightly more careful way to make sure that any legal action against them would apply more broadly. I don’t think it’s good that vote buying is a thing, but equating the satirical protest campaign with the actual thing being pushed against is unfair in my opinion. You can argue if they go about it the right way or not but legitimizing the original offense by pointing out people cheered at the counter campaign opposing musk using the same tool and humor feels disingenuous.

Non native English speaker here with a genuine question; wouldn’t “telling the students whom I married” mean that the teacher married the students instead of telling students about their spouse?