silence7

It matters for those of us who want decent government aga6

Even the "disarmed" Democratic populations have more guns per capita than is typical in most war zones

Tell that to Bezos, whose employees wrote the headline for him and buried the mention that this is illegal way down in the article

The US once had an answer

The Washington Post is saying September:

The planning, which has not been previously disclosed, involves several options, including mobilizing at least a few thousand members of the National Guard as soon as September to what is the third most populous city in the United States.

The mission, if approved, would have parallels to the polarizing and legally contested operation that Trump ordered in Los Angeles in June, when he deployed 4,000 members of the California National Guard and 700 active-duty Marines despite the protests of state and local leaders. The use of thousands of active-duty troops in Chicago also has been discussed but is considered less likely at this time, said two officials who, like others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The ones in Congress can't do anything but yell; they're a minority in both House and Senate.

Local officials can be in a position to maximize obstruction. Explicit calls for shooting the invaders are a crime, so I don't expect to see that

On people having darker skin than Trump's, or voting to not have a crackdown.

Really unpopular presidents lose elections. Really unpopular kings lose their heads. It matters, even if he's messing with the election.

With the UK, they can block content that's known to be NSFW. With Mississippi, they get fined if kids access the site at all if somebody else on there sees something NSFW.

Trump took a billion dollar bribe to do this

In theory, have the coast guard shoot.

My understanding is that it applies to every site which hosts any NSFW content, whether or not minors can access it