RedDenver

I liked the post, but why wouldn't middle-aged fans (aka millenials) read it?

Why? Why even have transfer restrictions? It's definitely not to help the student-athletes.

CU was 1-11 last year, so they are more likely to be better this year. Just because the floor can't get much lower.

Many A$$h@!es Grifted Again

21-13 Minn

The Dems did it in 2020 after Bernie did surprisingly well against Hillary.

Minn 21 Huskers 13 rush 180 pass 110

The 2 parties want absolute control over their candidates. I think it's fairly recent, like just the last few presidential elections.

The NCAA recently instituted permanent bans, take a look at the last condition: The B1G is knowing providing information solely for the purposes of gambling. That doesn't strike anyone else as hypocritical?

The ACC adding Cal and Stanford is a death knell for that conference.

If this passes, then all the B1G players getting in trouble for gambling should be exonerated. So hypocritical.

It was the Treasury Secretary as Secret Service was formerly in that agency due to their counterfeiting work. From the amendments section at the bottom of my previous link: "2002-Subsecs. (a) to (c)(1), (e)(1). Pub. L. 107–296 substituted "of Homeland Security" for "of the Treasury" wherever appearing." Yep. I suspect we won't get many of these theories answered, but it's interesting none-the-less.

Given that the law says: "Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect the following persons:", I think the Secretary of Homeland Security could remove Trump's protective detail. Again, I doubt that happens over bail but could be applied if Trump eventually gets sentenced (which I doubt he will).

I edited my post as I had linked a subsection and not the full section of all the Secret Service powers and duties.

They don't have authority over local jurisdictions, but they do over protection of the President, Vice-President, or others in order of success. Doesn't actually say anything about former Presidents: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section3056A&num=0&edition=prelim EDIT: Actually, that was only part A, here's the whole section which includes protecting former Presidents: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section3056&num=0&edition=prelim

I doubt very much the Secret Service has ultimate authority. But I also think the jail will accommodate them instead of putting up a fight.

I think theoretically the jail can tell Secret Service to go pound sand, but I suspect they'll make accommodations for Secret Service and do a private cell and such. Or even house arrest.

Nope. As I already explained:

Your inability to backup the claims by zerohedge is noted.

You're mixing facts and social constructs together and acting like they are the same. I could explain to you again, but you're just going to keep trolling.

@Archy1221 still waiting on that link.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. Your continued obsession with trying to make gender the same as sex/race/age is getting sad. Either that or you're trolling, which is against the board rules.

No, they aren't. And no one has to accept or believe what is untrue. You're either trolling or you don't know the difference between a social construct (gender) and a biological fact (sex). For example, anyone can wear a dress regardless of their biological sex. But one gender has predominantly worn dresses and the other has not.

This really sums up people that don't understand the difference between sex and gender. In your example, that person is not saying or asking that the fact they were born as a female is untrue. It's instead about how they want to act in life and be treated. And they aren't asking you to believe anything at all.