Tinidril

Yes, but what would be the advantage of handling that traffic twice when your already paying someone else to do it?

Ultimately, all science and all knowledge about the universe around us is always going to be relative and incomplete. They are all just models. The only model that's complete is the universe itself, and we can't cram that into our tiny brains.

Just imagine the US goes to war and Elon shuts them off because some foreign leader strokes his (let's say) ego.

This is certainly possible from a technical perspective, but it's unlikely that it would happen in reality. Consumer product companies are invariably going to want to outsource ads to a third party, not host them from their own systems. It's also going to be a pretty small percentage of customers that would bother to do this, and they are probably not the ones that are likely to make purchases based on ads anyways.

I'm sure that a national firewall is next. These right wing freedom humpers are deeply envious of totalitarian regimes.

Multiple times in this conversation you have used the "so what your saying..." construct with nonsense that I definitely did not say or imply. I'm not entertaining that anymore.

Here is an excerpt from the 14th

shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Does Biden's "open border policy" allow terrorists or foreign agents to sneak into the country? Is that not aid and comfort to our enemies?

Sure, you and I think that is a ridiculous interpretation, but will a judge in Mississippi? Do you really believe that the current Republican party wouldn't abuse the fuck out of this? Republicans started using that rhetoric the moment people started talking about applying it to Trump. This needs to be defined at the Federal level.

I am not giving them power. In red states, they are the power.

The constitution doesn't say who decides what qualifies as insurrection, so it is not at all clear that state courts have that authority. The federal government defines federal law, and state governments define state law. Likewise, federal courts adjudicate state law, and state courts adjudicate state law.

The amendment in question is in the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions. Therefore, defining what is or isn't an insurrection is a matter for federal lawmakers, and adjudicating guilt is a matter for federal courts.

Yes, this is pretty straightforward for anyone who understands how our legal system functions.

Of course this is all separate from the practical implications of allowing states to make up their own definitions of "insurrection" and arbitrarily remove Democrats from ballots. Given the Republican party's long history and recent escalation of underhanded tactics, it's a guarantee that this would be abused and, if you had your way, they would have the cover of a Supreme Court ruling to back it up. Just a reminder, there are a lot more red states than blue.

I don't know that they did it to protect Biden, but I know the Republicans have been maneuvering to make that play. That could just as easily be how fascism bypasses roadblocks.

Great. The constitution is clear. Super. Tell me where the constitution tells us who decides if an insurrection has occurred. Round round round we go.

Republicans say Biden must be removed from the ballot because he allows "open borders" allowing the country's enemies past the gate. Is that insurrection? Are they wrong? How do we know? Who decides?

Where did I mention an amendment? The constitution gives Congress the ability to write laws. Those laws are not constitutional amendments or part of the Constitution in any way. They are part of the US criminal code. Well defined laws have been foundational to modern justice systems since at least the time of Hammurabi.

No it just keeps me from having to retype the same thing over and over.

So anyone who wants to know where it comes from has to type it to do a search. Yeah, that's not being an asshole at all. If your that lazy, just paste in a damn hyperlink.