Posted on 09/29/2020 12:13:22 PM PDT by Kaslin
Sorry that’s privileged information.....
Tax cuts is what got me.
I died once.
Nurse OD’d me with morphine.
So does that I’m immortal now?
Have you been playing Oregon Trail again?
I don’t see the problem.
If the dead can vote they can respond to surveys.
They should have framed it this way:
Conclusion. Conclusion. Conclusion, conclusion. Conclusion. Conclusion?
We have the card game.
ROFLLLLLL It goes to show that people lie in polls.
Off topic, kind of, but speaking of dying, I was watching Channel 6 this morning, and they said people who had COVID, and had a higher zinc level (63), did far better than COVID patients who had a low zinc level (43). I’ve been taking zinc supplements myself, and you can also get it in certain foods like shell fish, beef, many nuts, and more (if you want to look up more foods). Most of the patients with the higher level of zinc lived, according to this report.
Of course, like anything, too much zinc can cause side effects.
Now this is where Trump unfairly gets attacked by being accused for not understanding nuance....Trump doesn’t want to see young folks who grew up in this nation but who are considered illegal aliens to be sent back. He wanted a legislative fix from first the Republicans and then the Dems. He was stuck with this memoranda which isn’t even a full EO and he was goin to end it but the courts said he had to treat it like it was a full law that could be stopped if he ran thru a number of hoops like all federal rules have to be before they can be ended.(it wasn’t a true EO so the courts decided to treat it like it was a “rule” under immigration policy that needed a full vetting or ‘unvetting” in this case before it could be ended. I think they were wrong but congress was also no help by not setting up a law to guide the president.) It’s a catch 22.
No, November 3!
No, November 3!
So, did you get the apartment, since you couldn’t guarantee that you would let them know if you died?
Thankfully, it was a renewal and when I showed it to the manager, she shrugged and said she wouldn’t hold me to this and we lined it out of the contract. The next time, the clause wasn’t there anymore. You figure some lawyer got it added to try to protect their client but it was just so absurd as to cause ridicule.
There's no Catch-22. Trump can at any time restart the process of rescinding DACA while complying with the Administrative Procedures Act. Congress is not needed. In fact he could have done so pre-emptively once the first lawsuit was filed and evaded the entire issue. For some reason he doesn't. I don't know why.
He doesn’t because he doesn’t want to send a bunch of Mexican young adults who grew up in the US and while illegal, never had ties to Mexico. He can’t give them citizenship so they are stuck in limbo until a law can be passed. The optics are horrible if he does send them back and Trump is really not that mean of a guy. It needs a legislative fix and Trump has many battles on his plate!
But he already attempted to rescind DACA. Are you suggesting he did so in bad faith, knowing it would fail in court?
No. The DACA had expired and it was just a memoranda of rules not a true EO. It really has no force of law. Trump was trying to adhere to the expiration date and trying to get congress to make it into law. Ryan’s congress and Pelosi’s congress would not do it.
it’s a mess!
Trump issued an order to rescind DACA. He apparently really meant to end it. Yet when he was sued over the procedure, and even after fighting that case all the way to the Supreme Court and losing, he never bothered to correct the procedural question and move forward with rescinding DACA.
No court has said he can't, they simply said he has to follow procedure. Saying he didn't want to rescind DACA makes no sense, since he issued an order to do just that.
He has said he wanted a legislative solution for the Dreamers...and hasn’t been able to get it.
Yes, I know. But that is a separate issue. He tried to rescind DACA once, but once the procedural issue arose he never tried to correct that, even after fighting for it all the way to the Supreme Court. It's something he can do any time. It's also the only leverage he has to get a legislative deal. So why doesn't he try to do it again in the way the court said he should? Doesn't that seem like a strange oversight?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.