I am impressed it’s that high. ~60$ per donor. Will be funny when none of it gets to trump and whoever set this up spends it all.

. “‘Oh, what’s foreseeable is that things can change, and therefore, if there’s a change, it’s 'foreseeable.’ I mean, that argument is truly remarkable.”

Judge is having none of it haha.

Yea fair enough. Just a different set of eyes is all. Thanks for the response!

The lack of conviction is prolly the biggest hurdle here which makes me wonder who would, or even could, bring those charges (even if the lower court explicitly stated he did). Jack smith has his hands full and while interesting to follow it’s not a direct case of questioning insurrection. Curious as to where it all leads.

End of the day, it starts to ask the question, which prolly ends at the Supreme Court no matter what.

It’s all up to interpretation though, you might not see it, or you might have heard it in a way, but it can be argued. Similar to the lower court judge saying so.

Similarly one of the judge points out in the dissenting opinion there is no conviction of insurrection.

So I still think C will win, but A or B is a possibility too.

"In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code. Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at issue here”

Source

Going with C. Without explicit language to the president, they will need to interpret this to mean the president included, which may be up to anyone’s interpretation.

I feel it should, however it could be argued it doesn’t.

who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof

You can turn off iMessage in settings and disable the phone number from messages. Then use whatever messaging service you want with the phone number.

Still not sure how it’s anti competitive to not allow others to use your own proprietary software when there are alternatives available, and they are not being restricted.

How is creating a proprietary service anti competitive? There are many other methods of messaging and Apple is not stoping anyone from using them.

Kids being bullied in school has nothing to do with being anti competitive.

Haha the extra sound board slots are a nice perk too. Nothing as satisfying as the John Cena intro when something goes your way in a game.

I like nitro for the audio and stream quality benefits. It’s not much money and makes the experience with friends better.

Doesn’t seem much different than streaming services asking for more for 4k streaming.

‘The result generated by the test would almost never happen in the real world, Musk’s complaint alleged’

Think this kills the case quick. So he is saying it does happen, and doesn’t seem like the media matters report mentions frequency.

The discovery in this case will be interesting, if they even get there. Media matters could end up with even more dirt on twitter.

Right? The media matters article screenshots clearly prove it’s allegations. Unless he tries the angle that they were photoshopped (and obviously he needs proof for it) this gets dismissed immediately.

Hoping it doesn’t cost media matters anything or that they can recoup any fees they may incur from this. Nice to have real reporting with proof to back it up like they showed.

Get 800kwh to 1mwh a month depending on sun coverage. Cost me 23k paid in full.

That jeep is awesome.

Didn’t know! Interesting many “were understood to be” disqualified. Most without trial, but they also didn’t attempt to run under that understanding.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

It doesn’t explicitly require one, but that’s what the Supreme Court could argue to strike it down. While you and I can say it’s obvious based on what happened, I’d rather have a conviction to take someone off the ballot, otherwise it would be exploitable.

Could still say he was not convicted of giving aid or comfort. Seems obvious he did, but without a trial not sure it would count. Although that would be an interesting trial as they track down the funding of these groups and how they are interconnected. Probably reveal some interesting players behind the scenes.

Take 100mil off his comp for employees, divide by their 57,000 UAWs listed above, divide by 52 (weeks), then 40 (hrs). Gets you an 0.84$ per hour per employee.

In reality, based on latest filing, CEO’s comp for 2022 was 21 mil so 0.16$ raise per employee if you didn’t pay the ceo.

Ford did 484mil $ in buy backs in 2022. Would give each 4$/hr raise

Seen this a few times. Rarely does the ceo taking less really make much of a dent for people living paycheck to paycheck. Yea 16 cents is better than nothing but also not what these people need.

Yup. Every company will follow the same model. Why wouldn’t they when it was clearly successful. Not everyone accepted it, I canceled Netflix, more because of a lack of content that didn’t justify the price if I couldn’t share it.

Slowly more and more will be raising the black flag and soon some new service will come out, and the cycle will repeat itself.

Nepotism, as I think the secretary of education was his step brother? So still a little corrupt.

Good thing for the article to note…