But you forget for outlets like the Post where people are suddenly left wing if they do anything they don’t like.

Don’t be so quick to blame COVID, I mean we also had leaded gasoline for a long time…

Did he know Vigo the Carpathian?

There’s no confusion over the subject, just an expectation that the current SCOTUS could play the “Constitution doesn’t apply if the mother had no legal standing to actually be in the US” argument. That technically that hasn’t been established, and that there’s an implicit expectation that people giving birth in the US are legally recognized to be in the US, and all bets are off if the mother isn’t legally allowed in the US but gives birth in the US anyway. To the extent they seek being explicit about legal standing, they may point to the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” words as stating an illegal presence means that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US or the state.

I would think so.

For one they are likely very well equipped.

For another, it may be less about the troops themselves and more about the implications of what happens if you mess with American troops.

For example, read up on operation Paul Bunyan for an example of what happens when you mess with a seemingly manageable American force.

I did hear NPR at least clarify that it would not be a “department”, but instead just some advisory body.

They also pointed out that the closest analog would be the grace commission, but that was largely ignored in the end.

So they can make recommendations, but no authority to make them happen. Currently every sycophant Republican is talking up just how much they are in support of the vague concept of this body, but it’s quite likely that if they ever make specific recommendations, they are probably going to face much more rigorous objections. Republicans have a tendency to complain loudly about the abstract, but then not want to touch any specifics that might have blow back.

See also how they easily kept passing killing the ACA when they knew it would be vetoed and the second they actually knew it wouldn’t be vetoed they lost their appetite for it (admittedly they came close, but still it took them a long time to even try).

YT can’t really serve more ads

They say to hold their beer and watch this…

Related, I predict Windows on ARM will be a massive failure, again.

Windows is Windows because a critical mass of their market is terrified of being vaguely incompatible with any software they use today. Wine will never give them enough confidence just like ARM emulation of x86 will never give them confidence.

Extra bizarre, from what I’ve seen the Windows devices vendors are treating the ARM variants as a premium model and charging more for them, despite having no real compelling story for the customers. You can either have an x86 offering that’s from all appearances just as overall capable and absolutely able to run your software today, on an ARM offering that is more expensive and maybe a bit less compatible, with maybe better battery life (either sincerely or at least a belief).

Mac is able to force the issue because the hardware and software all wanted to make ARM happen and forced it, but with Windows on ARM, only Qualcomm really cares, Microsoft and all the device vendors would prefer to hedge their bets, which in this case tie goes to the incumbent.