Stovetop

Can't run for president, but can become VP as someone else's running mate before they conveniently resign on day 1 and enable 4 more years of Trump.

I credit the poem. It was a good trailer.

I had no idea this happened, and now all I can think is that the writers of the HBO series Succession were coming from a very real place. I know the family in that series was inspired by the Murdochs but I didn't think it was that faithful to reality.

UK military, to clarify, in case the compensation valued in pounds was not obvious enough.

I mean he's not president yet, but I doubt that would stop him anyways. Hell, he'll give himself retroactive presidential immunity for the last four years by continuing to insist he rightfully won the 2020 election, too. And then have anyone citing the 22nd amendment sent to the gulags as an unimpeachable "official act".

Some actors star as themselves, too, I suppose.

But on what basis would the states be able to invalidate those electoral votes? From the federal perspective, Trump is eligible to serve another term as POTUS, even with the felonies and treason. A state does not have the authority to invalidate those electoral votes based on state policy, as outlined in the Supreme Court case from March, so the situation would apply here as well.

What it then boils down to at that point is whether or not a state in question permits faithless electors, which some do but the majority do not.

I will laugh so hard if someone manages to steal Texas's wallet key and empty the reserve.

Sadly this is already settled law as of March of this year.

The Supreme Court case Trump v. Anderson ruled that states do not have the right to determine eligibility for federal office.

A state could bar Trump from being elected in a local election or being appointed for a state office, but do not have the right to declare him disqualified for a federal office based on state laws, or even a state's interpretation of federal law.

Lucky for him that his first term allowed him to stack the supreme court and make this ruling possible. Imagine what his next term will bring.

I don't think that's the point in dispute, but that's not what the quoted post is saying.

"Women weren't allowed to open a bank account in the USA until 1974" implies that, until the year 1974, there were no women in the US who had opened bank accounts.

The more accurate statement would be "The right for women in the US to open bank accounts wasn't nationally established until 1974," which aligns with the reality wherein many American women were still able to open bank accounts before then.

It won by being a well-made, fun game. That's really all there is. Exclusivity limits audience but it doesn't affect quality.

Smoother legs in the icon versus ones with...fullers (is that the word?) in the game art, plus the game art has some raised fins around the central base that the icon art does not have.