So far that hasn’t really been tested in court, and when it has (Trump v. Anderson) it’s not been upheld in that way.

Look I’m not saying I like it. I’m saying it’s not really that straightforward.

Those are not the minimum qualifications. They should be read as “anyone who meets them is eligible” rather than “no one who fails to meet them is eligible.” The Rehnquist court found that states could not add a felony exclusion for Congressional candidates in the 1990s and that is broadly considered to extend to the Presidency as well. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1456

If the constitution doesn’t say it, it’s not typically intended to be assumed true. The constitution doesn’t say that felons can’t be president - so we can’t assume that the states or congress could pass laws forbidding them from being president. It specifically says you can’t be president if you’re 34 or were not born a US citizen. If the writers wanted to exclude felons, they would have said so.

Yes. The constitution is actually shockingly specific about what the qualifications are. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

No other qualifications can be considered, barring a Constitutional Amendment.

The solution to shitty drivers is fewer drivers, not more cameras.

Me too \s

You fucking what

Oh god

Oh fuck I’m so old

Because leaf blowers are fucking annoying and we need hope

Yep it’s a great one. Knowledge Fight talks about JBS all the time as well

Others have weighed in on the academic, but a lot of the American conservative braintrust is (literally) in think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, John Birch Society, etc. These organizations vary from “pretty right wing” Heritage to “nearly literally fascist” John Birch Society, and they put out a LOT of papers and material they use to…I’ll generously say “inform” the public discourse.

I think you mean job creators! \s

Honestly looks fine to me

In 20 years cell phones (as phones not portable computers) went from a tool that united people in new and exciting ways to a way for solicitors to spam us. It’s to the point that I don’t know anyone who answers their phone if they don’t have the caller’s number saved.

This is a choice that we have made. We could legislate this behavior and we as a society choose to act as if it is inevitable.

The problem isn’t that it’s pay to play, it’s that they already paid to play and they don’t want to pay again

This makes me laugh so hard.

EFT fanboys shelled out big bucks ($140) to buy the edge of darkness edition that promised a bunch of stuff - including coveted gamma containers that gave you expanded inventory space. Importantly, it promised free access to ALL future DLC. It was removed from the store in January without any reason.

Today Battlestate Games announced the “Unheard of Edition” for $250 that gives increased rep gain, inventory space, items and loot, and access to offline progression and PvE modes. It gives you special pockets that carry full mags. It gives you unique items and weapons. It is so clearly pay to win and so expensive that even the EFT fanboys are pissed. And people who bought EfD have the pleasure of buying this new version like everyone else because it’s not a DLC - it’s a new game mode, apparently.

BSG responded to the backlash in the healthiest way possible: by doubling down. Today, after a competitor (Arena Unleashed or some shit) mocked them on Twitter, BSG retweeted them - giving them more free advertising than they’ve had in any form. Absolutely incredible to watch this shitty company implode.

The most incredible thing is that all of this is bullshit. BSG has convinced people that playing Tetris with their inventory is actually Gritty Realism to the extent that they think their players will pay $250 to get an 8x8 box and bigger pockets. Next thing you know, you’ll be able to pay a mere $300 to have an in-game map and vendors that consistently sell things.

I mean in the literal sense the president is commander in chief of the armed forces. Disobeying their orders is defying their constitutional authority.

The issue is obviously more complicated than that just-so story. My point is not that if the president says to shoot the speaker of the house, soldiers must do it or they are behaving unconstitutionally. My point is that the president has the authority to direct the military to do things, and when the president uses that authority to undermine democracy in the US that act is a constitutional crisis because it pits two branches of government against each other in an irreconcilable way.

You say that but that isn’t how it would happen.

There would be months or years of prep work, spreading propaganda that Canada was the source of our woes, that they were wronging us. By the time we invaded there’d be just enough “legitimate discourse” about the invasion that the Presidents supporters could claim any effort to stop him was political.

There was a time not long ago where people said you couldn’t do lots of things or you’d get thrown out - then Trump did many of them, even got impeached (twice!) and stayed in office. In practice, these limits are at best inconvenient for a dedicated lunatic.

Technically only Congress can authorize a war. However, the president can and often will undertake “peacekeeping efforts” or “counterinsurgency operations” or “targeted strikes” without congressional approval.

Whether anyone could stop a president issuing an order is another question. The president is the commander in chief - the military reports to the president, not Congress. If the president tried to order the military to do something unconstitutional (like fight a war that was not authorized by Congress or, idk, overturn an election) then we’d be in a constitutional crisis. In such a crisis, either the military disobeys the president (which is unconstitutional) or the president violates separation of powers (which is unconstitutional)

The American system of government relies on three branches all participating in good faith. As soon as that stops, it all falls apart. Though government is just a series of rules and norms. Rules and norms won’t stop soldiers all the time.

I did not expect the article to turn into a sales pitch like that

This is the weirdest version of the 30-50 feral hogs bit I have ever seen

What if you can’t afford a fucking doctor and you need to see a regular one instead