Didn’t he already repeatedly claim that he’s fighting directly with the West?

Even in his own words what would this change?

Having elected officials makes sense for politicians since their job is to represent the interests of the people but it’s terrible for other types of public office.

What do you want from a judge or a sheriff? Someone who’s experienced and competent. Who can best judge that? Would it be the hierarchy of their peers who they work with every day or would it be random members of the public who’ve barely even heard of them?

Edit: and no, I’m not suggesting political appointments. That’s also a recipe for disaster. Do it like Commonwealth countries: make the civil service independent of the political process and make appointments be part of the usual process of promotion.

A lot of larger companies like Compaq etc. were making “respectable” PCs by then and selling them in big quantities in direct competition to IBM.

C++ can do a lot of things but one thing it can’t do is perform as poorly as python.

There’s a reason why no-one bought IBM PS/2s. They were horrible value for money.

The real competition at the time was the thousands of other brands selling PCs. By that time IBM was plummeting in sales and other companies were selling most of the PCs. That’s where 95% of the market was.

They’re not wrong that democracy’s under threat. But maybe the threat’s from the guy who has literally said he’s going to murder political opponents - y’know, the guy they support.

One that results in a crime, apparently.

Ah, so it’s a USA specific joke. Gotcha.

Close… That moon’s called LV426

Did she use an AK to effect her change?

I mean he should know since he was one of the people paying to influence the election.

Some things just sound like a horrible idea - because they are a horrible idea.

But maybe they removed it because they saw it as unnecessary? It’d be restating the obvious since it already says insurrectionists can’t be officials, then goes on to list a few examples which were pertinent when the law was created in response to the aftermath of the civil war. In the end it depends whether they decide to interpret part of the clause literally and as more important than the intent of the clause, which seems pretty clear. How they interpret it seems to be a bit up in the air given their party affiliations.

Legal Eagle does a really good run down of the legal aspects here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krVNdQOWYk4

Still, this doesn’t meet a reasonable bar of plagiarism. I get the hypocrisy but two wrongs don’t make a right and this should never have been taken seriously.

He can still be ineligible to run for office though, even if he wins a primary.

I think people are missing something important here - this ruling is merely that he can appear on a party primary ballot, which is something not explicitly covered by the constitution. Even if he wins a primary the supreme court can then rule that he’s still ineligible to run as president.

“He hasn’t been convicted of insurrection” isn’t a legal gray area, that’s just misdirection by his supporters. Just like most other legal proceedings this one isn’t dependent on the result of other legal proceedings. The supreme court will decide for themselves whether he was “involved in insurrection” - the law here doesn’t depend on him being previously convicted of “insurrection”, a different charge which has a much higher legal bar.

There’s overwhelming evidence that he was “involved” in this insurrection so he’ll almost certainly be held accountable. But whether the supreme court decides to disqualify him depends mostly on their interpretation of the clause naming the offices which he can be banned from. Given that the supreme court are republicans will they rule that “public office” does or doesn’t include the presidency since it isn’t named explicitly in the clause?

Hey Prince Andrew, if the truth hurts then maybe it’s you that’s in the wrong?

you stole our life

Don’t blame your dad - however much you resent him it’s not like he has any influence over the economy. Instead blame the super rich who have real influence and are actively pushing policy to widen this social divide.

We have ranked voting in Australia. It works pretty well.