People had their chance to stop him last November. A third of those eligible didn’t even vote.

Now it’s up to the courts. The other branches of government are controlled by a deranged Authoritarian and his sycophants.

Personally I use RAID5, with regular backups for documents and projects. Not too worried if my movies and tv library get lost…that takes up most of the space though.

The internet has become the dominant media. And it didn’t create a free and open information landscape where the best ideas rise to the surface. Instead it started an information war, and the right wing is winning. Mostly because they can blatantly flood it with bullshit.

Trump’s political game works by creating enemies. A virus is too abstract of an enemy, so instead he creates enemies of those adjacent. Fauci, China, WHO, governors of Democratic Party states etc.

Like so many things with Trump, this is a test of loyalty. He makes outlandish requests that rile up his base, and sees who’ll fold. Sean Spicer with crowd sizes, RFK with McDonalds on the plane Photoshoot. And now this with House republicans.

The problem is these dumbfucks haven’t yet figured out that they don’t gain anything by being loyal to Trump. He’ll toss them out sooner or later anyway.

Stupid question from a non-American: Is the intent behind the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wording not documented? It’s not like these are words conjured from the ether. People wrote them. Presumably after some discussion and debate.

I’m guessing the amendment as a whole was related to anti-slavery stuff following the civil war. But was there not some understanding at the time as the wider implications of the specific words?

Sure, I guess they can be interpreted however a modern conservative court wants, but why is discussion around the clause so ambiguous as to its origins?