I can partialy answer my own question in as much as independent presidential candidates typically must petition each state to have their names printed on the general election ballot.
I still don't get the process when a candidate is nominated by a political party.
I'm just wondering how many law suits there will be if the Secretaries of State either accept, or refuse to put Trump on the ballot according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Tell me, if the majority of people are against Trump, then how come he won the 2020 election by a landslide? The more people you heap on the anti-Trump stolen election conspiracy, the more you outweigh the likelihood of that same conspiracy. That's the problem when you can't get any lies, or misinformation to stick.
Here's a story similar, to yours from a reputable site:
As for the 1930's Germany allegation, Biden, however many faults he has, isn't the one with malignant narcissistic personality traits like Hitler. Just sayin'.
I hear what you're saying, but that's a seperate issue, isn't it?
If he is held completely, or partialy culpable for some, or all of the deaths and injuries on that day, then a just sentence should account for that.
Justice should not include deterrence as that is retribution based on what others might do in the future, not what Tarrio did in the past.
The sentence will either deter, or it won't, depending on who is viewing it. Saying it was meant as a deterrent was pointless at best and possibly opens it up for challenge.
You missed some bits - Giuliani failed to preserve and produce evidence as ordered by the judge in the defamation suit such that he bypassed the discovery phase of the trial.
He was found liable by default, but also admitted that he made up his claims of election fraud in this case brought by Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, the African-American Georgia election workers he likened to drug dealers.
It may be that he had no credible evidence opposing the suit, but that would have been established had he produced the material he was asked for. If however, he avoided the discovery phase deliberately, as Judge Beryl Howell referenced in her ruling, it paints a picture of spoilation, or tampering with evidence.
That begs the question of why Giuliani might tamper with evidence at the same time as creating evidence against himself (and potentially his alleged co-conspirators) in the Georgia state RICO and Washington federal election conspiracy cases. His admission of making up and deliberately propagating an election fraud tale go to the very heart of the two criminal cases. He has potentially, perhaps almost certainly, screwed himself and maybe others in those upcoming trials.
The question is, what was so damining in that undisclosed evidence that Giuliani admitted to making up that claim of election fraud that will inevitably be used in the criminal cases? What could be worse than the RICO and federal conspiracy charges?
So, Democrats don't want Trump in office, liberals don't want Trump in office, antifa don't want Trump in office, nasty feminists don't want Trump in office, BLM don't want Trump in office, the popular vote doesn't want Trump in office, Fauci doesn't want Trump in office, prosecutors don't want Trump in office, judges don't want Trump in office, security services don't want Trump in office, election workers don't want Trump in office and even way too many Republicans don't want Trump in office.
That he is a threat is less the salient point than he was a threat given he was found guilty of seditious conspiracy relating to J6 2020. He wasn't tried for seditious conspiracy in the future.
Where the lengthy sentence is questionable in my opinion, is in the judge stating that it must act as a deterrent. That perhaps implies a retributive element that goes beyond justice that is proportional to the crime.
As for justifying imprisoning Trump, I don't think you have to fret about that. Tarrio's conviction is completely insignificant compared to Rudy Giuliani owning that he lied about election fraud and being found liable in the defamation suit against him.
The question is, why did Rudy just hand over the Georgia and Washington cases to the prosecution on a plate? Why did he grease the wheels of Trump's prosecution and disqualification rather than preserve and produce evidence for the discovery phase of that defamation suit?
Back on topic - the Secretary of State has the authority and discretion when it comes to putting names on the presidential ballot, right?
Does each candidate have to apply to be put on the ballot in each state, do they apply in the state where they live, or where they choose to apply? How does this bit of your system work?
I think perhaps that's one of the many inherent faults of the system: anyone who would make a good president/prime minister doesn't want to be one; anyone who wants to be one is unsuitable by default.
Being the most powerful person over milllions and millions of people attracts the odd balls and narcissists who are necessarily and entirely out of touch with the people they seek to govern.
Ummm...I think the Brits have invaded more in their time, but I didn't realise it was a competition.
I'm not sure it's just a numbers game, either. There is devastation, oppression, ethnic cleansing, theft, murder, apartheid, discrimination, tyrants, dictators, despots, cruelty, etc. Urges to dominate are by no means exclusive to the Democrats in the US.
Well, rather than listening to what ther people said, or didn't say about him, maybe you could have listened to him directly. It was patently obvious with everything that fell out of his mouth (or other orifice) that he was a completely inappropriate candidate for the office.
I'd even go as far to say that you could have muted the sound and just watched his body language to know that he should not be in a position of power.
I respect your knowledge and experience in so many areas, I respect your focus on facts, but politics, including the politics of war, is inherently governed by human psychology.
The diminishing quality of disposable paper cups and towels are perhaps a function of environmental issues and quite rightly so.
Perhaps that's also true for other products as businesses aim to meet environmental demands. I wonder how long it will take to go back to the days where items could be repaired, rather than making them flimsier and necessarily disposable if so much as a screw comes loose.
Over here people are encouraged to bring their own cup with a lid when purchasing a beverage from a cafe, or vendor. Customers who don't wash ther cups are often refused service due to cross contamination issues, however.
I carry a lightweight, quick drying towel in my bag for either drying my hands, or swings and slides in the park when the need arises.
Generally speaking, I don't buy a lot of stuff. When I do, I aim for re-used and recycled for most things and I make things last, upcycle and recycle once they're in my possession.
So, no, I haven't noticed the diminishing quality of stuff from before covid, but I have noticed that trend since the middle of the last century.
Personally, I don't see how we can move on without addressing the issue and without there being consequences for those who transgress the legal protections that we didn't have when we were that age.
It was only tongue in cheek with respect to other people's comfort zones. I genuinely squirm if it's anythng over 15C and always have.
The last three days I have reached for a hoody several times and I've even had a delicious shiver, or two. This morning I was out litter picking in the communal garden the moment it was light enough to see. I guess it was around 11C, but haven't smelt the turn of the season yet.
Not that I can consistently smell, or taste much since covid, but it ocassinally comes back overwhelmingly like I've mmentarily morphed into a Labrador. I'll keep sniffing the breeze and I'll let you know when more hope is on the way.
Don't mistake enjoying, or trying to enjoy the highlight of her career, the peak of her success, the fruition of decades of work, for enjoying being publicly violated by her boss.
I think it's pretty clear the misogyny in women's sports, or in women's lives in general is not pleasurable for women.
Saying it's about friendly working relationships puts equal blame on both, when clearly Hermoso was not culpable in her own unpleasant, gender-based negative experience. Rubiales was at fault.
I think he didn't apologise immediately because he thought his behaviour was acceptable. He thought his behaviour was acceptable because he's never been challenged in a way that hurt him. It's so much easier to dismiss women's obvious discomfort and objections (like the young woman at the end of your op video) if there are no consequences like the end of your career.
I do wonder if Rubiales had apologised immediately and/or if the FA hadn't issued the damage control lies and/or if the RFEF hadn't pressured Hermoso (and even her family members) into defending Rubiale's actions and/or there wasn't a historical context of systemic misogyny that they'd all been complaining about for years...*large intake of breath*...whether Hermoso would have accepted the apology and that would have been the end of it.
I think his actions combined with the aftermath were the last straw and seein as it was all recorded and public, there's an opportunity to fight back, at least against him. I do hope that he's not the only ne wh is made an exampe of, though: I think some FA and RFEF heads should roll, too.
We are never going to affect change unless people are held to account.
As for what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, trying to be heard as a woman is not verbal abuse.
Using dog whistle words is a brilliant technique. It means that ill-educated, or less skilled people who understand little will hear words that mean something to them. Alternatively, the speaker can talk utter incoherent twaddle and the listeners will hear words than mean something to them.
I've seen it so many times on here, or in the workplace where people pick out a few significant words and fill in the blanks from their own value framework. The writer, or speaker may have said something completely different, or opposing to the reader, or listener's comprehension. The technique relies on a lack of English comprehension skills.
I suppose I should thank Mrs. Le Grys for the ridiculous amount of English comprehension exercises she tasked me with for two years running, and how strict she was with marking them.
I think perhaps they're not healthy because viewers must become desensitised to continue experiencing them, thus the extremes become normalised, at least to a certain extent.
Having to stop listening to them because they're cooking your swede (as we say in Wales) means you're not becoming desensitised to violence and cruelty. That's pretty healthy in my book, along with the self-awareness of your mood change and the cause.
I'm not that loud, nor that emotional, but she did make many very good points.
The older chap made an interesting point when he suggested that Rubiales' initial defensiveness was understandable, as was his change of heart when he later apologised. I think we can accept that initial reactions can change after a time of reflection for both of them, except as Hermoso's male boss, he should have known better than to put himself in that position in the first place.
That's an interesting question.
s*xual assault can mean a lot of things. In popular understanding it perhaps refers to a range of non-consensual grabbing, touching and penetrating, but more recently it is used to refer to rape, which is now understood to take more forms than penetration of a va*ina with a p*nis.
The action was certainly inappropriate.
It was a violation.
It would qualify as s*xual harassment in the workplace; it was physical; it was a man acting in a manner more consistent with s*xual contact with a woman, than a work based behaviour.
I think it could be argued that the inappropriate behaviour may come under the now broad umbrella of s*xual assault, but I'm not sure that's the best way to describe it. It fails to capture the nuanced social dynamic and context surrounding the event.
As Professor Carol Anderson said, we have to name things to be able to face them, to be able to deal with them. We all know something is wrong here, but we don't know how to name it - that's clearly a part of the problem.
Thank you for that link, but I was hoping for something first hand, or fuller reporting in appropriate context.
As I understand it, her immediate response was that she didn't like what happened, but after that it's not clear whether she was truly defending him, whether she was processing the incident, or whether it was before, or after she was under enormous pressure from the RFEF to justify Rubiales' actions.
Certainly, by the time she issued her own lengthy statement to refute the FA's spin (the cherry-picked photos with the lie that she picked him up therefore the kiss was consensual) she stated that the highly public incident had shocked her, but that she had since had time to reflect.
I don't think you can justifiably claim that she doesn't know her own mind. When events are public we are under a lot of social pressure to smooth over inappropriate behaviour. When events are surprising it can take time to process them. When someone in authority who has power over you does something inappropriate, or the organisation above them puts pressure on you to act like it didn't happen, it can be difficult to confront that, especially in public, especially in the middle of a celebration.
What I found interesting about this video, however, was the way the female guest justified the behaviour as simply continental. She defensively shouted the male guest down when he said he had lived in Spain and nobody ever kissed him and besides, that action is illegal in Spain. It struck me that she, as an attractive young woman had been kissed many a time and had been conditoned to accept that's just the way things are on the continent.
Now who was it that said you can kiss 'em on the lips, or grab 'em by the pu**y and they just let you do it?
It has been reported that when the game ended Rubiales grabbed his crotch in some celebratory manner I assume, despite only being a few metres away from Spain’s Queen Letizia and her teenage daughter.
Rubiales claimed that Hermoso 'lifted him up' and that he had asked for 'a little peck', but despite the FA using a string of still photos to laboriusly explain these claims, video footage clearly demonstrates that he jumped on Hermoso. She has refuted his claims and he clearly lied about at least one of them.
In Hermoso's lengthy written statement she said that this incident and the FA's conduct following it was the last straw in a manipulative, hostile and controlling culture, plus a long list of situations that the players have been denouncing for years.
At the end of the video Itchy posted in her op, Rubiales is seen grabbing a young woman around her shoulders, pulling her towards him and giving her a very firm kiss on the cheek while she looks uncomfortable and pulls away as soon as she can.
Rubiales is a grown man who should be able to control his 'silly ethusiastic impulsive reactions' such that they don't include grabbing, jumping on and kissing young women. If a child, or man had complained about him grabbing and kissing it would be taken more seriously, but for some reason women are expected to accept this endemic, systematic intrusion on their person.
Please don't patronise women by dismissing the situation as a storm in a teacup. The few cntextual items I've exampled above are the drop in the ocean. This particular droplet has been caught on camera whereas most misogyny and abuse goes unseen, unheard, or just plain ignored. Not allowing this evidenced incident to be brushed under the carpet is about a far wider issue.
online today!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,986)
RE: Has Trump made himself ineligible for any elected office?
I can partialy answer my own question in as much as independent presidential candidates typically must petition each state to have their names printed on the general election ballot.I still don't get the process when a candidate is nominated by a political party.
I'm just wondering how many law suits there will be if the Secretaries of State either accept, or refuse to put Trump on the ballot according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.