Establish Trump knew and did nothing.

I'm pretty sure Trump knew nothing. It's well known he doesn't pay attention to the briefings.

It's been a long time coming, ever since they quarantined it. The main thing they learned from the /r/fatpeoplehate debacle was not to suddenly ban a popular subreddit. Now they've proven that if they starve it for months first until it become basically inactive, they can avoid the massive user uproar they saw then.

During House floor debate on the bill, Republican Rep. Gregory Murphy of North Carolina argued for Congress to cede the land back to Maryland instead of making DC its own state.

"The move is simply unnecessary when ceding DC back to Maryland is a viable, cost-effective and common sense option," Murphy said.

It's not often I agree with Republicans, but that does sound like a more logical and practical solution.

Anyway, what happens now? Can the Senate choose to completely ignore the bill? Can the Democrats delay it until January, when it might have a better chance to pass in the Senate?

simply using the reserves behind the Aswan Dam would account for any damages from GERD if it was filled over a seven-year (or more) period

It's interesting that such a long and serious article ends with a brief list of seemingly simple solutions, including simply using the water in the Aswan Dam. On the other hand, emptying the Aswan Dam will probably lead to its own share of problems, including reduced electricity production during the years it will take to fill it again.

Also, is this an old article that they've updated? I feel like I've seen it before.

with his putrid name scrawled on the bottom.

So they really did end up with his signature printed on them? I recall there was a lot of writing online about it in the weeks before the checks went out, but then online attention was quickly diverted to the next scandal.

Knowing the US this is probably perfectly legal, protected by the 1st amendment, as decided by a moronic supreme court decision. The best we can do is probably to spread the word. Make sure to inform any friends and family you have who watch Fox News, maybe one of them will come to the realisation that the channel peddling literal fake news might not be worth watching.

Ideally yes, and sometimes they are. But a constitution needs to be hard to change, otherwise they're basically pointless. For example, here in Norway a change to the constitution requires a 2/3 majority in the parliament, twice, with en election between the two votes. And that's easy, compared to what it takes to change the US constitution.

Fun fact: The last amendment to the US constitution was #27, back in 1992, and it took 202 years and 223 days to be ratified by enough states to go into effect. (That was a very special case though. The 26th was ratified in a mere 100 days, back in 1971.)

Another issue is that the loopholes aren't always apparent in advance.

Many constitutions are written in a hurry. A rebellion has started, they need to formalise what they are fighting for, so a bunch of guys (no girls invited) shack up together for a few days to hammer out the details. I imagine this often leaves gaping loopholes.

It's also worth mentioning that some countries don't even have constitutions. The UK is a famous example.