When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Reality: The best thing the clown show above can do at this point is jump on the Trump train and run interference. I know for Christie and Pence and Nikki Haley that their megadonors don't want that, but unless they want another 2020 it should happen. The sooner the better.
They do want another 2020. Uniparty Republicans dont actually want to win and waste their power when they are in control of a house or two.
The New Hampshire Attorney General is ‘carefully reviewing’ the legal theory that Trump can’t run for president.
Earlier this week it was reported New Hampshire’s Republican Secretary of State David Scanlan was seeking legal advice on potentially blocking Trump from the primary ballot.
Scanlan has reportedly received letters begging him to take action based on legal theories fueled by the Democrat-media complex that claims the Constitution gives him the power to block Trump from the ballot.
The legal theories are based on Section 3 of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment which states public officials who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the US may be disqualified from public office.
Trump has not been charged with engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
New Hampshire’s Attorney General John Formella (R) and Secretary of State David Scanlan issued a joint statement courtesy of NBC Boston:
Both the Secretary of State’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office are aware of public discourse regarding the potential applicability of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to the upcoming presidential election cycle, including misinformation asserting or implying that the Secretary of State’s Office has already taken a position on or is seeking to take certain action with respect to Donald Trump’s candidacy for the Republican National Convention’s nomination for president in the 2024 United States Presidential Election.
Neither the Secretary of State’s Office nor the Attorney General’s Office has taken any position regarding the potential applicability of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to the upcoming presidential election cycle.
The Secretary of State’s Office has requested the Attorney General’s Office to advise the Secretary of State regarding the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the provision’s potential applicability to the upcoming presidential election cycle.
The Attorney General’s Office is now carefully reviewing the legal issues involved.
The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office is examining a provocative legal argument that could prevent former President Donald Trump from being on the ballot in the 2024 presidential elections over his part in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Attorney General John Formella and Secretary of State David Scanlan issued a joint statement Tuesday saying that their offices have been tracking a legal discussion over Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and that Formella’s office is “reviewing the legal issues involved” at the request of Scanlan’s office.
Last week I had lunch with my buddy who is fairly caught up with politics and his question was "are we legitimizing what is going on by following it?" He thinks the charges against Trump are a distraction. I wonder if they are actually not a distraction for conservative voters, but the actual party. My logic is that if we are obsessing about what is going on they have to cater to us and reassure us. This requires a tremendous amount resources. Political strategies have gone in a very dark direction. Its a combination of mind ******* manipulation and total disrespect of anything or anyone that gets in the way of their goals.
Last week I had lunch with my buddy who is fairly caught up with politics and his question was "are we legitimizing what is going on by following it?" He thinks the charges against Trump are a distraction. I wonder if they are actually not a distraction for conservative voters, but the actual party. My logic is that if we are obsessing about what is going on they have to cater to us and reassure us. This requires a tremendous amount resources. Political strategies have gone in a very dark direction. Its a combination of mind ******* manipulation and total disrespect of anything or anyone that gets in the way of their goals.
Half of politics is theater.
I don't think there's one grand, organized plan. Politicians are too self-interested to actually cooperate towards a common goal. I think we're seeing several different factions all trying to play their own version of the game based upon the resources available.
Some are attacking at the ballot-access level, and they seem to be gaining a bit of ground. Others are cheering the various criminal indictments, hoping that a conviction will stick if they manage to keep Trump out of a position in which he's able to pardon himself. (Mind you, more than 300 people have thus far been sentenced to incarceration for participating in the Jan 6 event, and and some of those sentences have been rather severe.) And still others continue to just generally fan the "orange man bad" flames which all of the woke people love to hear.
Trump, meanwhile, is loving it. So long as everyone is talking about him, they're not talking about anyone else. The dems are elevating him to the status of martyr, and his polling numbers reflect this.
Democrat voters are increasingly grumbling that they wish there were another option than Biden in the upcoming primary, but the problem is that no other democrat is any more qualified than Biden is with respect to the #1 issue at hand, which is "not Trump." They're all equally not Trump.
Mainstream Republicans can't get a word in edgewise, and are fragmented and disorganized. The MAGA fanbase is so frenzied that facts and policy positions pale in comparison to "Orange Man Good!"
The only thing which I am willing to confidently predict at this point is that things are going to get worse.
And it's because We The People keep worshipping these criminals.
The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as a broad generalization, prohibits entities from enforcing mandatory retirement ages. It does, however, carve out two specific exemptions.
One is for occupations in which age, or more specifically the mental and physical degradation associated with it, is demonstrably a genuine risk to human life or safety. These are the obvious ones which we all know about. Airline pilots, air traffic controllers, police and firefighters, and so on.
The other, which is far less well-known, is for persons "employed in a bona fide executive or higher policymaking position, if such employee is entitled to an immediate nonforfeitable annual retirement benefit from a pension, profit-sharing, savings, or deferred compensation plan, or any combination of such plans, of the employer of such employee which equals, in the aggregate, at least $44,000."
That latter one is sometimes exercised by corporations, but more notably it is used by a number of states to set age limits for judges in courts of various levels.
But, at the very highest level? The people who wield the authority to create laws which directly affect the lives of every single American? No such limits.
And, really, why would there be? The only people with the power to author and then enact legislation which limits the age of those suitable to serve in the Congress or the Executive office are... the Congress and the Executive. And it's not in their personal best interest to do so, regardless of what's best for the nation.
TLDR- Independent research of actual news reporting of incidents involving "active shooters" being stopped by legal concealed carrying citizens is not being reported factually by the FBI's private research partner. The error is by a factor of 10 and if you only include incidents where it is legal to carry then it is more than ten times what the FBI reports.
Yes, guns do save lives, not just take them. But when you are not allowed to have a gun then you are not going to be too successful stopping the criminal who ignored the "gun free zone". But that is a rather inconvenient truth to those that want more gun control.
The time it took those buildings to fall, defies some laws of physics. Conservation of mass, energy and momentum.
How so?
Once the horizontal trusses just above the impact floors yield in tension, the resulting pancake collapse appears to progress exactly as one would expect.
08-30-2023, 11:20 AM
0
