To add to this, during their various debates and declarations, state legislatures of Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia all explicitly gave slavery as the primary reason for their attempt to destroy the United States government. So literally more than half.

Youd be surprised by the number of people i have talked to that dont pick up on that.

The Graduate.

He’s playing Cwazy Cupcakes with God now.

Still easier to understand than the Silmarillion.

Well China i guess you better not shoot at or get close to them then 🤷‍♂️

Ill add Pachelbel’s Cannon in D as well.

Lacrimosa “by Mozart” as well.

Skynet?

Very uncommon in the US at least.

“Ah, yes, “Reapers” we have dismissed this claim.”

My understanding is that that applies to other state courts making rulings, but i cant see how that apples to apples to Secretaries of State deciding that he is an invalid candidate. Which is why it would possibly force the Trump campaign to sue and push to force the SC to rule on the issue one way or the other. Because if they dont then Trump could remain off the ballot in that state.

You know it’s bad when Belgium says you have a bad human rights record.

Well. Do you want more?

Devastated it isnt called Toe-tal.

If you ever wanted any tattoos now is your chance to test em out!

If somebody wanted to press the issue a SoS in a state would just flat out say he isnt and force the Trump campaign to sue. Force the SC to take it up due to multiple, conflicting rulings/interpretations of the law. That might be the only way to ensure they do it in a timely manner.

That said, i dont have much faith that the SC in its current composition wouldnt just side with Trump immediately.

Correct. Setting aside other comments made which lead myself and others to argue that this is a bad faith/cowardly ruling, they posit it only covers military officers and legislative representatives to prevent them from being able to serve. Not the executive branch.

They then go on to specify that the Commander in Chief capacity in which Trump served is in he is in charge of the military, but is a representative of the public with the military subordinated to civilian authority. Not as a military officer within the structure of the armed forces.

Therefore, per this very, very pedantic (though arguably technically correct) reading of the law, they are arguing it should not be used to bar him from being on the ballot.

It’s like saying “i dont want any berries in my food” and being served strawberries. Scientifically/technically speaking they do not meet the definition. But in common parlance, understanding, and intention they are understood to be and lumped in with them.

In other news: water is wet, and this floor appears to be made of floor.

Cries in KOTOR