spamfajitas

I mean, yeah, kinda. They wrote it in an attempt at having language that doesn't influence the respondent, but you've got the idea. It's more about the respondent's opinion, not necessarily the reality of a president bound by laws.

It's a topic that has been discussed in the news elsewhere, usually with the quote from Andrew Jackson, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

The people who said no would probably love for Trump to have a similar quote.

Except that isn't how the question was worded...

As you may know, a number of Trump administration actions have been challenged in the United States federal court. If a federal court rules that a Trump administration action is illegal, do you think the administration:

Has to follow the court's ruling and stop its action. (81)

Doesn't have to follow the court's ruling and can continue its action. (19)

I bolded some words for emphasis here, the question is not whether he should but whether they think he has to. Important difference.

The person doing the spraying knows it's just a water pistol. The person being sprayed has just been exposed to an unknown liquid by an unknown person. Considering this is also how acid attacks work, it's not really that cool of a thing to do to people.

It took me a while to find, but stuff like this research from Yale, reviving organs and brain function long after the point of death, makes it apparent that what it means to die is just as complex a question as what makes us us.

Tbh I'm a little surprised he didn't say it was 88%

It's by Craig J Spearing on Bloomburrow Commander's Octopus token: https://scryfall.com/card/tblc/14/octopus

IIRC a portion of the registration profit goes to LGBT advocacy organizations.

The domain names also tend to be surprisingly cheap, from what I've seen.

They just need to contact Mark Rober and his glitter bomb team: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgeXOVaJo_gnexNopBzUKdl3QKoADJlS8

Sounds kinda similar to how Wikipedia was approached by instructors. I remember an English teacher proudly proclaiming she had participated in a "Kill Wikipedia" seminar at a convention. Just a few years later, they're instructing students on how to properly use Wikipedia as a starting point and not a primary source.

It depends heavily on the State you live in and what your employer is willing to pay the insurance company. At my current job in my State, that $3000 per year would get me a $0 deductible. When I was below the poverty line, healthcare including dental through the state exchange was free (heavily subsidized to the point of being free, technically).

If you live in a predominantly red state that rejected federal funding or any kind of expansion under the ACA except what was required, it's definitely going to be shit.

It's a deeper belief than just EVs. At the beginning of the Obama administration, when there was the "cash for clunkers" program to buy back inefficient old vehicles, these people made a show of going out and buying massive Hummers and other horribly inefficient cars they'd drive around town in. When new efficiency rules went into place for halogen lightbulbs, they flocked to the stores to stock up on as many inefficient bulbs as possible.

They can be pushed to be good little consumers when needed, but it's almost always to promote inefficiency and oppose environmentalism.

Not sure about other agencies but CDC and specifically NCHS typically had to anonymize their health data before public release. If you could use other data points from within the government to connect the dots, that might be valuable to someone.