Yes, but CO would say they weren't putting him on trial for insurrection, but merely making an administrative determination about whether or not he qualified to be on their ballot. Due process only kicks in if you're facing criminal charges. Since they determined that he "engaged" an insurrection, he's not qualified. No criminal conviction or trial required.
They're playing word games to try and disqualify the Republican front runner from their election because "Orange man bad". And it's playing with fire, because there's nothing stopping the right from playing the same games in states they control.
Anticipated by whom? Certainly not comic fans. This is Madame Webb, a blind and crippled old woman: https://www.marvel.com/articles/comics/5-things-to-know-about-madame-web
The only thing this film has in common with the comic is the name.
None of us will be alive to see it, but I'd be interested to know what history books 100 years from now have to say about how America went from being king of the world after World War II to pissing it away over the following two generations.
I lived in a studio In college. That's normal. I don't know any single person that ever lived in a two bedroom apartment.
Then again, I'm significantly older than the current generation in college and saved up money to buy my own home, so there's that.
Republicans just bypassing the primary in that state might've been too much.
They should. Primaries as a government managed election have no business even existing IMO. That's where the political parties (which are private entities) choose who gets their endorsement for the actual election. Why are the states even involved in the first place?
One, they shouldn't be meddling in the business of political parties, which are, again, private entities. And second, I don't want public dollars spent on assisting the Democrats and Republicans in deciding who they are going to run in an election. If you're a private entity, you are free from government intrusion, but you also don't get any government money to pay for your operations.
Why would they even do this, considering the optics? Guy accuses the Democratic party of rigging the last election, so a state uses an "innovative legal theory" to have him removed from their ballot.
I mean, Jesus, are you trying to swing the undecided middle to his side? It's fucking Colorado; it's not like he was going to win there anyway. Biden won there with a 14% margin last time, and it's not like they got any redder in the last 4 years.
TDS is real. The left's hatred of Trump defies all reason.
Maybe, but it all hinged on the 14th amendment's language saying "engaged in insurrection."
Colorado's decision was based on the concept that he needn't be convicted because the 14th Amendment simply says "engaged" and that they could apply their own judgment as to whether or not his actions met that definition.
Cool, cool. If you want to play that game, federal law also doesn't say that an organization has to be convicted of anything to be declared a terrorist entity, instantly criminalizing providing "material support" to it. It's a bullshit ruling, and it's simply opens Pandora's box for other places to criminalize political conduct that they don't approve of unless the Supreme Court smacks it down super fucking hard.
Unfortunately, you're spot on. The Democrats have been taking advantage of the right trying to appear "reasonable" for years. They're a cancer, and the only way to root them out is to go on the offensive.
Look at how they immediately screamed "reee" and floated the idea of changing the composition of the Supreme Court as soon as rulings started dropping that didn't favor them. To them, the rules are only of value when they advance their agenda. When laws are inconvenient they are simply cast aside. The only way to win a battle like that is to do the same.
It was extremely stupid. You had a state court declare that he broke a a very narrowly defined federal law without any charges filed, let alone a conviction, when the conduct in question was prima facia perfectly legal.
The Dems always think that they're the only one who will use their dirty tricks, and they never learn. Dems removing the filibuster for judicial appointees is how Trump was able to get so many federal judges in office during his presidency.
If they had gotten away with this there's nothing stopping a state like Mississippi from just declaring the Democratic party to be a terrorist organization under the federal definition and criminalizing contributions to them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I give Dune 2 a pass because it was always intended to be made. The first movie stopped half way through the book.
The others? Unecessary and unwanted.
I think at this point it's pretty obvious that women never should have been allowed to vote. Although if you point that out to normies you'll get tarred and feathered.
A near identical proxy that would be more palatable is to prevent people who aren't net taxpayers from voting. It makes complete sense, because they don't have any skin in the game. They're basically debating how to spend other people's money, so of course they'll vote to spend it on themselves.
Gun control has entered the chat.
Decision making and policy development is supposed to be an iterative process were you identify a problem, develop solutions, implement, and monitor results. The monitoring stage identifies new problems and the process starts over again.
What's truly interesting (and frightening) about the left is not how they fail to properly monitor and course correct when they make policies, but how they're able to transform every failure into a justification to go further forward. "You're doing it wrong" is their answer for every real world criticism based on empirical data.
When universal basic income fails, they'll double down use that as an excuse to give people more money or more free shit rather than question the foundational reasoning behind UBI works in real life.
He's right though, black families don't create problems like that. If you can even call them a family, because more likely than not there's no father, they sure as hell wouldn't be in an observatory or anywhere near a telescope.
The problems black families create are gang violence, drug dealing, smash and grab thefts, rioting and burning down cities, etc.
So, his observation was actually spot on.
True, government employees are generally immune to personal liability if they're acting within the scope of their employment and following the policies of their employer.
I guess it's the way that it's always presented that cheeses me off. It's not: "employee X was following our policies, and shouldn't be held personal responsible if those policies resulted in harm or violated the law; this is a dispute between the plaintiffs and us". It's "nothing to see here, policies (that we created ourselves) were followed".
Like committing something to paper and doing it regularly provides a magical shield against scrutiny for that conduct.
Court documents state that the school district said they had been following its policy.
Why is this constantly used as a defense? You're not a robot. If your policy is morally questionable, you are liable for the damage caused by implementing it.
The "I was just following orders" defense hasn't been valid since we hung all those Germans who tried it after WWII.
I see what you did there, Nute Gunray.
I sort of understand the reasoning here. It sounds like these are restaurants leasing space at rest stops and train stations. The state has an interest in making sure that the restaurants they contract with are open 7 days a week.
It's really no different than shopping malls forcing anyone with a store there to match the mall's hours- they have an interest in every store being open the whole workday to attract shoppers.
What I don't understand is why this would need to be a law. Concessionaires sign contracts for their space, and this sort of thing is more appropriate as a contract term. If New York wanted them to be open on Sunday they should have put it in the contract and Chick-fil-A would have just been ineligible to participate if they won't open on Sundays.
I wonder if this is an attempt to break the contract with Chick-fil-A without paying a penalty, as contracts are automatically voided if they violate the law. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this was a case of the NY Thruway Authority colluding with the legislature to get out of paying Chick-fil-A for breaking the contract.
All this says is he is banned from the ballot for the Republican Primary.
Which raises even more questions. Primaries are not official elections, they are the vehicle that the political parties (which are private entities) use to decide who they will put on the ballot during the actual election. Why and how the actual government got involved in primaries would be a great research project- they really have no business being involved.
Anyone can run in an election, but only one person can run as the official Republican candidate. As a private entity, the party can choose who they make their candidate in any way they want; they can eliminate primaries entirely if they choose to.
So now you've got a judge interfering in who a private entity chooses to endorse as their candidate.
Apparently she was the sole writer of a number of her songs, and gets co-writing credit for most (all?) Of the others.
I just got a five minute lesson on songwriting royalties, and apparently they are split according to contribution to the writing process. She apparently usually splits 50/50 on joint pieces, so I'm guessing she had significant creative input into most, if not all, of her songs.
Her music is mostly shit-talking former friends and boyfriends.
Lady, if you've got dozens of close associates that all turned out to be assholes, the problem is you.
True. I guess his only hope would be that the people who actually watched it would see her badgering him and not letting him answer.
These days, that seems like too high of a burden to ask, unfortunately. I've been in a number of conversations about "the news" with people aggressively defending positions that were based on the headline alone because they hadn't read the article and gotten the salient facts.
I would have just told her "if you don't stop asking me the same question over and over again, talking over me so I can't be heard me as I attempt to answer it, I'm leaving."
This behavior isn't just an accidental case of rudeness. Not being heard and understood is one of the most aggravating things you can experience when speaking. This is a deliberate tactic to make sure that he can't actually answer while at the same time pissing him off to either fluster him or make him have an outburst.
It used to be pretty standard in Hollywood for big name stars to play roles of other races. For example, Yul Brenner played the king of Siam in The King and I. John Wayne played Ghengis Khan and looked absolutely ridiculous doing it.
I'd be curious to know if this was agenda driven race swapping or simply a continuation of that practice. Denzel Washington is a pretty popular actor, and they could be shoehorning him into the role for the draw his participation will bring more than anything else.
You would be right to say they wouldn't do it with a white star anymore though, so there's still the race aspect going on in that double standard.
It's creeping socialism. I'm not saying that studies showing that kids with good nutrition learn better are wrong- they're probably 100% correct- but where do we draw the line?
Basically, if you don't come from a wealthy family, doors are closed to you from the moment you are born. The only way to level the playing field is to make everyone the same.
For most of History, we understood that some things are the realm of the state and some things are not. Government in general, and the left in particular, just no longer respect those boundaries.
Bingo. This goes double when it's somebody famous or a public figure.
It doesn't take a genius level intelligence to think an anonymous caller saying senator so-and-so just blew away his whole family merits some investigation before sending in a squad of heavily armed cops who are likely to shoot anyone they see on sight.
"Hey, if this guy is supposedly just shot a bunch of people how come we haven't received any 'shots fired' calls from anyone in his neighborhood?" Is a question they've apparently never asked themselves.