WWTBAM Bored

After an incredible 2023, she is still reaching incredible New Heights with everything.

In December, she was slotted at #5 on the world’s most powerful list behind two EU leaders, Kamala Harris, and the new PM of Italy. I would argue that she likely should have been higher than one based on current power being wielded.

Last Wednesday, Billboard named her #1 on its list of the 100 most powerful people in music, with no other artists in at least the top 40. (I stopped looking)

Last night, she became the first artist to win the Grammy for Best Album for a 4th time, breaking a tie with Sinatra, Wonder, and Simon. She’s only 34 and has 4 wins out of 10 albums. (Poor Jay-Z had just reminded everyone that his wife has failed to win AOTY even once.)

Plus, she made the Super Bowl in her first year in the NFL.

(She turns 35 years old prior to actual inauguration, so has anyone checked if she’s eligible to run for President ? Maybe a ticket with Jason Kelce, post-retirement.)

Appa23 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:17 am

(She turns 35 years old prior to actual inauguration, so has anyone checked if she’s eligible to run for President ? Maybe a ticket with Jason Kelce, post-retirement.)

She was born in West Reading, PA, I'm pretty sure she's lived in the United States for at least 14 years, and she's not an oath-breaking insurrectionist, so she's good. --Bob

Also, Taylor was the Time Person of the Year, the first entertainer to get that honour (maybe not as prestigious as it once was, but still worth mentioning).

She is eligible to run for president, as confirmed by her opponents Biden (who constantly recounts that he was elected to the Senate at 29) and Trump (whose lawyers argue that even if he’s an insurrectionist, he can still run for president because Congress can remove the disqualification after the election).

jarnon wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:33 am

Also, Taylor was the Time Person of the Year, the first entertainer to get that honour (maybe not as prestigious as it once was, but still worth mentioning).

She is eligible to run for president, as confirmed by her opponents Biden (who constantly recounts that he was elected to the Senate at 29) and Trump (whose lawyers argue that even if he’s an insurrectionist, he can still run for president because Congress can remove the disqualification after the election).

It's easier than that for Ms. Swift, who's never held public office and therefore has never taken an oath that would potentially subject her to the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:23 am

Appa23 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:17 am

(She turns 35 years old prior to actual inauguration, so has anyone checked if she’s eligible to run for President ? Maybe a ticket with Jason Kelce, post-retirement.)

She was born in West Reading, PA, I'm pretty sure she's lived in the United States for at least 14 years, and she's not an oath-breaking insurrectionist, so she's good. --Bob

Been quite a few decades since we’ve had an actual insurrection, so that was clear.

BTW, thanks for making a political comment on a non-political post.

Appa23 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:37 am

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:23 am

Appa23 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:17 am

(She turns 35 years old prior to actual inauguration, so has anyone checked if she’s eligible to run for President ? Maybe a ticket with Jason Kelce, post-retirement.)

She was born in West Reading, PA, I'm pretty sure she's lived in the United States for at least 14 years, and she's not an oath-breaking insurrectionist, so she's good. --Bob

Been quite a few decades since we’ve had an actual insurrection, so that was clear.

BTW, thanks for making a political comment on a non-political post.

Yeah, the two Bobs just can't help themselves. TDS is real.

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:37 am

jarnon wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:33 am

Also, Taylor was the Time Person of the Year, the first entertainer to get that honour (maybe not as prestigious as it once was, but still worth mentioning).

She is eligible to run for president, as confirmed by her opponents Biden (who constantly recounts that he was elected to the Senate at 29) and Trump (whose lawyers argue that even if he’s an insurrectionist, he can still run for president because Congress can remove the disqualification after the election).

It's easier than that for Ms. Swift, who's never held public office and therefore has never taken an oath that would potentially subject her to the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. --Bob

I’m making the general point that you don’t have to be eligible to hold an office at the time that you run for it.

Appa23 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:37 am

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:23 am

Appa23 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:17 am

(She turns 35 years old prior to actual inauguration, so has anyone checked if she’s eligible to run for President ? Maybe a ticket with Jason Kelce, post-retirement.)

She was born in West Reading, PA, I'm pretty sure she's lived in the United States for at least 14 years, and she's not an oath-breaking insurrectionist, so she's good. --Bob

Been quite a few decades since we’ve had an actual insurrection, so that was clear.

BTW, thanks for making a political comment on a non-political post.

Feeling defensive? Unlike you, I didn't say a damn thing about any current event. I'll refrain from commenting on your rewriting of history. --Bob

She is seven years away from being eligible for the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. If Travis Kelce plays 2 more years, he’ll be eligible for the Pro Football Hall of Fame the same year.

The universe can only hope.

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 12:23 pm

[ Unlike you, I didn't say a damn thing about any current event.

Sure you did, Bob. Anyone with a brain and intellectually honesty knows you did. So which one are you lacking? Both is a valid answer, btw.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:09 pm

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 12:23 pm

[ Unlike you, I didn't say a damn thing about any current event.

Sure you did, Bob. Anyone with a brain and is intellectually honesty knows you did. So which one are you lacking? Both is a valid answer, btw.

Nope. All I did was canvass the complete list of Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency (except for age, which the original post covered) and apply them to Ms. Swift. That was a subject that Appa explicitly raised in his post.

Nothing in my post said or even suggested that any current candidate fails to meet any of those qualifications. I did not suggest that any current candidate wasn't born in the United States and I didn't suggest that any current candidate hasn't lived in the country for 14 years. My post also didn't suggest that any current candidate has run afoul of the Disqualification Clause.

My post very carefully said absolutely nothing about any current candidate. Reading that into my post is on you. What's next? Will you complain that I'm hurting your fist by repeatedly striking it with my face? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:15 pm

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:09 pm

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 12:23 pm

[ Unlike you, I didn't say a damn thing about any current event.

Sure you did, Bob. Anyone with a brain and is intellectually honesty knows you did. So which one are you lacking? Both is a valid answer, btw.

Nope. All I did was canvass the complete list of Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency (except for age, which the original post covered) and apply them to Ms. Swift. That was a subject that Appa explicitly raised in his post.

Nothing in my post said or even suggested that any current candidate fails to meet any of those qualifications. I did not suggest that any current candidate wasn't born in the United States and I didn't suggest that any current candidate hasn't lived in the country for 14 years. My post also didn't suggest that any current candidate has run afoul of the Disqualification Clause.

My post very carefully said absolutely nothing about any current candidate. Reading that into my post is on you. What's next? Will you complain that I'm hurting your fist by repeatedly striking it with my face? --Bob

O.K. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with option 2.

You knew (and intended) that others (i.e. everone) would read into it what you indeed wanted them to and what you were referring to. But that's O.K. We know. We all know.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:32 pm

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:15 pm

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:09 pm

Sure you did, Bob. Anyone with a brain and is intellectually honesty knows you did. So which one are you lacking? Both is a valid answer, btw.

Nope. All I did was canvass the complete list of Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency (except for age, which the original post covered) and apply them to Ms. Swift. That was a subject that Appa explicitly raised in his post.

Nothing in my post said or even suggested that any current candidate fails to meet any of those qualifications. I did not suggest that any current candidate wasn't born in the United States and I didn't suggest that any current candidate hasn't lived in the country for 14 years. My post also didn't suggest that any current candidate has run afoul of the Disqualification Clause.

My post very carefully said absolutely nothing about any current candidate. Reading that into my post is on you. What's next? Will you complain that I'm hurting your fist by repeatedly striking it with my face? --Bob

O.K. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with option 2.

You knew (and intended) that others (i.e. everone) would read into it what you indeed wanted them to and what you were referring to. But that's O.K. We know. We all know.

So was my reference to Ms. Swift being born in America some kind of disguised reference to the claim that President Obama was born in Kenya?

I answered Appa's original question directly and thoroughly and carefully limited what I said to Ms. Swift herself. Anything else is on you.

I will add that your claimed ability to read my mind and to read into what I carefully wrote something that I demonstrably did not say is somewhat startling in light of some other things I've seen you post. --Bob

jarnon wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:33 am

Also, Taylor was the Time Person of the Year, the first entertainer to get that honour (maybe not as prestigious as it once was, but still worth mentioning).

No, that was Judy Garland.

Bob Juch wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 5:26 pm

jarnon wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:33 am

Also, Taylor was the Time Person of the Year, the first entertainer to get that honour (maybe not as prestigious as it once was, but still worth mentioning).

No, that was Judy Garland.

I checked the list again and don’t see Miss Garland or any other entertainer, but I could be mistaken.

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 12:23 pm

Appa23 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:37 am

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:23 am

She was born in West Reading, PA, I'm pretty sure she's lived in the United States for at least 14 years, and she's not an oath-breaking insurrectionist, so she's good. --Bob

Been quite a few decades since we’ve had an actual insurrection, so that was clear.

BTW, thanks for making a political comment on a non-political post.

Feeling defensive? Unlike you, I didn't say a damn thing about any current event. I'll refrain from commenting on your rewriting of history. --Bob

Lol!
Y'all really don't "get" irony, do you?

Bob Juch wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 5:26 pm

jarnon wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:33 am

Also, Taylor was the Time Person of the Year, the first entertainer to get that honour (maybe not as prestigious as it once was, but still worth mentioning).

No, that was Judy Garland.

Judy Garland was never Time Person of the Year

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year

jarnon wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 5:43 pm

Bob Juch wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 5:26 pm

jarnon wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:33 am

Also, Taylor was the Time Person of the Year, the first entertainer to get that honour (maybe not as prestigious as it once was, but still worth mentioning).

No, that was Judy Garland.

I checked the list again and don’t see Miss Garland or any other entertainer, but I could be mistaken.

You're right; I should have checked Google.