Spearfeather

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/24/texas-border-wire-supreme-court/#:~:text=The Supreme Court's 5-4,defy the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Commanders wordmark is just another in a long line of why the re-brand was so bad. It's hard to read. It's not easily identifiable. You have to actually study it for a second,to read what it says. The lines above and below it, don't make it any easier.

Yeah, even the reporter said that was pretty funny. 😁

Not sure who you mean by they, but I don't think it's just the right wing media asking these questions.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/-nightmare-special-counsels-assessment-bidens-mental-fitness-triggers-rcna137975

Jackson as of now doesn't sound convinced that President is included in the list of those that would be barred.

Colorado lawyers being grilled on different states having different standards.

https://thehill.com/video-clips/4455593-supreme-court-oral-argument-trump-colorado-ballot-listen-live/

I don't think the immunity thing is his strongest argument. Section 5 of the Amendment might come into play: Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Kliff Kingsbury to join Commanders as offensive coordinator in wild turn of events: reports https://www.foxnews.com/sports/kliff-kingsbury-join-commanders-offensive-coordinator-wild-turn-of-events

I predict that for the first time in almost 15 years, we open up vs. the Cowboys.

He's definitely responsible for some of those, not all, but significantly more than five percent.

... which for some can include a lack of curiosity.

I might be misunderstanding you, but if it's months before the election, how could he believe he's won ? Or maybe your saying his delusions were both before and after the election.

He certainly could live for another decade which in no way means he would last as President for another five years.

1. I think he thought that he was being screwed. In other words, I don't think he knew for a fact ( and maybe still doesn't think ) that he lost, even if he eventually used the phrase " I lost ". In his stubborness he became more and more frustrated and desperate and did things that were reprehensible. I also don't think he was an illegitimate President as Biden, Harris, and Cinton labeled him. 2. and 3. I'm glad the Supreme Court is ruling on this, and if states are allowed to decide for themselves what qualifies as " engaged in insurrection " , I think that sets a really bad precedent that sets the wheels in motion for simular actions by states not just now, but in the future, and they assuredly wont all be focused on Republicans. So, I suppose the answer is yes. 4. I'm not 100 % certain. It's a possibility that for the first time in 35 years I wouldn't vote at all, but I really hate the idea of doing that. A vote for Joe is a vote for Joe and whoever would finish out his term and I'm not sure we know yet, for a fact, who that would be. I assume your answers are : Yes No No No 🙂

So, no chance Kegan, Sotomayor, or Brown Jackson side against Colorado ?

I believe you.

That's not what I was saying but ok.

Well, you should. Yes, I understand that. And those people were firing guns and cannons at the US military. So, we have examples of both people who have been charged and convicted of the crimes they are being disqualified from office for, and people who have not been charged and convicted of what they're being disqualified from office for.

So you're acknowledging that guy was charged and convicted for the crime that he was being removed from office for. Unlike what's happening now. So, I'll ask again, Should each state be able to make their own interpretation, or not ? If you think so, just say yes. Personally, I think that's a terrible idea, which is why I've been a proponent of the SC ruling on this. Which, they will. If they decide that Colorado and other states can do that. OK, but I think it's a really bad idea that just leads to more of a mess in the future. And I never actually said this: " he should be convicted of insurrection first "

Really. Where are they now ? That guy was convicted of espionage by the US government. I suppose you're advocating for each state to be able to interpret disqualification when and however they see fit. Sounds like a bad idea, to me.

You're implying the answer is zero ,and maybe it is, and most of those disqualification were removed a few years later via the Amnesty act. So, former soldiers of a standing army that had actually taken up arms against the US military were once again allowed to run for office. The point in my example was that the guy had actually been charged and convicted by the US government of espionage. Not just deemed to be by this state or that state.

...in 1919 and 1920, it blocked Victor L. Berger, a member of the Socialist Party who had won both elections, from taking office as the Representative from Wisconsin because he had been convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 Not insurrection but he was convicted of espionage.

Why weren't they charged with insurrection ?