Then she says for 4 years theres been almost none.
She's wrong. There were plenty of mass shootings under Trump. 6 in 2019, 9 in 2018, 6 in 2017... There were very few during 2020, probably as a result of most businesses being closed for most of the year.
she asked if theres all these shootings,why havent we seen any in our area where drugs and bad guys with guns run rampant
Does she understand the size of the US and that there are 350 million people in the country? For you to expect to a mass shooting to happen in your area, they would have to be a a lot more frequent than they are currently.
Catholics and Christians have had their rights and freedoms, specifically the Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus, the free exercise of RELIGION, and the unalienable rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and pursuit of HAPPINESS, taken by the MASONIC conspirators through the mismanagement of the Covid emergency, as predicted by the JESUIT affiliated CARLO MARIA VlGANO, Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana, when he alleged that such mismanagement has furthered the dissolution of the social order so as to build a world without freedom: Solve et Coagula, as the MASONIC adage teaches.
Yeah, I wouldn't get your hopes up that the court hears this case...
Is it a HIPAA violation to "ask" for medical information?
Its not. As is par for the course around here, most people on here don't know what the fuck they are talking about. HIPAA applies to entities that provide medical care, and entities that are contracted by them to provide services. It doesn't apply to anyone else, and does not make it illegal to ask you for a medical history.
Its not a HIPAA violation. HIPAA only applies to entities that provided you with medical treatment. Anyone else can ask for them, condition their help on your disclosing them, or publishing them if they found them on the street, and HIPAA wouldn't apply.
This is not against HIPAA.
HIPAA only applies to medical providers and insurance companies. It does not apply to anyone else.
Too, HIPAA does not provide for a private right of action. That is, if a medical provider violated HIPAA in their handling of your medical information, you do not have a right to sue. The Department of Health and Human Services does.
Allowing for the fuel burnt in flight out of that 10,000 gallons, take it that half the fuel was consumed in the initial fireball we all saw with our own eyes, then roughly 3000 gallons was left to do what you say happened? 3000 gallons perhaps 3500 gallons? Spread throughout a building that size by the time any reached the bottom floors would be zero?
Yes, because the buildings were literally completely empty and there was absolutely nothing else present to catch on fire other than the jet fuel.
Its also entirely possible Trump isn't a strategic genius and surrounded himself with sycophants and yes men.
If we are going to be open minded, we have to consider all the possibilities, and not just the ones that fit narratives we like.
Tell me, how many times have you seen a plane hit a building in real life? How many times have you seen giant explosions in real life? How many large fires have you seen in real life?
I ask because you say it looks fake as hell, but if you've never seen it with your own eyes then you, by definition, don't know what a "real" one would look like.
Trump isn’t God but God has definetely been using him and I believe he has put his trust in the Lord and God is keeping his hand in him.
As a non-Christian, I'm curious why so many Christians believe God chose Trump. Can you elaborate on why you believe this?
Afraid not.
The constitution says the president's term starts at noon on the 20th and his predecessors ends at the same time. Separately it says prior to assumption of the powers of the office, they have to take the oath. There's nothing about when the oath has to be taken. It is specifically worded this way to ensure that there is no "gap" between the out going and incoming president. If starting their term depended on taking the oath, then its possible for there to be a period of time where there is no president, which, from a continuity of operations stand point, is not acceptable.
The president elect becomes president at noon, but cannot legally exercise the power of the presidency until the oath has been sworn.
See also David Rice Athison.
Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one.
If you look at the constitution regarding jury trials, it has this to say.
Article 3, Section 2:
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
And the 6th Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Notice that the first one specifically excludes impeachment, and the second one specifies criminal prosecutions.
People have brought up due process concerns, but this doesn't work. The 5h amendment guarantees due process. It says:
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
An impeachment trial cannot result in a loss of life, liberty or property. Therefore, a person subject to an impeachment trial has no due process rights
At the end of the day, a impeachment trial is not a criminal or judicial activity, its a political one, and in response to political issues. Notions of rights of the accused, due process, etc. just do not apply because it's not a criminal prosecution.
They may sell your stock for you because they know what's best:
Thats... not what that means. Its specifically talking about options. Not stocks. I you have an option, you do not actually own any stock.
An option for a stock gives the buyer the right, but not the obligation, to buy a stock at a pre-agreed price by a certain date.
So I can buy an option to buy 10 Google shares for $100 each by Feb 10. If the price of Google stock went up to, say, $120 before Feb 10, I can buy 10 shares for $1000 total and immediately sell them for $1,200 and pocket the extra $200, minus whatever it cost to buy the option. If the price goes, and stays, below $100 until Feb 10, I do nothing and I'm out the money I used to buy the option.
Obviously, there's a person on the other side of this transaction, who has is obligated to provide the stock should I choose to buy it. They are hoping the value of the stock goes down so they don't have to fulfill it.
Anyway, what the bolded part of this message means is that anyone with an option to buy GME which expires on the 29th cannot do anything before then but sell the option. They cannot buy more options, and they cannot extend the option. If they don't sell or act on the option by the end of the day on the 29th, the option will expire.
The remainder of the message is nothing special.
When you "short" a stock, you are basically doing the other side of the transaction listed above. You "borrow" a stock and sell it to someone now for the current price, hoping that, before you have to "return" the stock to its actual owner, the price will be lower, so you can buy it cheaper than you sold it to fulfill the obligation.
So the last part of this message is saying that, because the stock is experiencing wide value swings, if the difference in the current value of the stock goes too far above what it was when you borrowed shares to sell, they may force you to buy stock to settle the obligation. This is entierly normal. Otherwise, the brokerage (the platform you used to do the transaction) could be left holding the bag if you aren't able to afford to buy the stock to settle the obligation. It's called a margin call.