Trump Illegally appointed Ken Cuccinelli as head of Immigration - Ken's policy memos are null&void

[Arcangl86]

Another red herring.

All aspects of the law attend to Cuccinelli. The law says the POTS can respond in one of two ways in the Senate's lapse but it does not preclude the POTUS from acting in other ways. It is a hole in the law. One Trump exploited and one the judge in question ignored when he emphasized the two stated options.

So let me ask you a question: Who did Trump send to the Senate for confirmation?

The law is very clear. If a PAS position opens up the principle deputy fills the position on an acting basis. There are two exceptions to that, but those are the only two exceptions. Trump even acknowledged this by trying to say that Cuccinelli was the "principle deputy" and using that as the reason to have him act as acting director of USCIS.

 

[Tom 1]

Is that really necessary in Trump's eyes? After all, consider Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education ---- no qualifications whatsoever.

I'm not sure you're right there, incompetence is one of the top qualifications for a job in Trump's administration.

 

[Josheb]

Ad hom-laden projection.

NOpe. Rational conclusions based on facts in evidence.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

This judicial activism and legislating from the bench being perpetrated by Obama appointed judges with their agendas is all the evidence we need to disband the Judiciary and have God’s chosen and appointed mediator, Donald J. Trump, decide and settle all cases.

 

[Josheb]

The law is very clear.

I disagree.

If a PAS position opens up the principle deputy fills the position on an acting basis. There are two exceptions to that, but those are the only two exceptions. Trump even acknowledged this by trying to say that Cuccinelli was the "principle deputy" and using that as the reason to have him act as acting director of USCIS.

Yep.

You have stated that before. So has the op. Neither of you are addressing what I posted and I have already covered this content. Therefore the evidence shows a breakdown in the conversation so I am going to tell you the same thing I told the op: don't ask me questions I've already answered because I take that as an indication of either inattentiveness or disingenuous intent. No poster should have to repeat content in a text-based medium where the posts don't go away. When I read something new to the discussion I'll consider it. Until then our time is being wasted with unnecessary repetition.

 

[Arcangl86]

I disagree.

Yep.

You have stated that before. So has the op. Neither of you are addressing what I posted and I have already covered this content. Therefore the evidence shows a breakdown in the conversation so I am going to tell you the same thing I told the op: don't ask me questions I've already answered because I take that as an indication of either inattentiveness or disingenuous intent. No poster should have to repeat content in a text-based medium where the posts don't go away. When I read something new to the discussion I'll consider it. Until then our time is being wasted with unnecessary repetition.

Direct me to the post that you supposedly covered this content, because the only one I could find is where you claim there is a loophole but not explain it.

 

[DaisyDay]

I disagree.

Yep.

You have stated that before. So has the op. Neither of you are addressing what I posted and I have already covered this content. Therefore the evidence shows a breakdown in the conversation so I am going to tell you the same thing I told the op: don't ask me questions I've already answered because I take that as an indication of either inattentiveness or disingenuous intent. No poster should have to repeat content in a text-based medium where the posts don't go away. When I read something new to the discussion I'll consider it. Until then our time is being wasted with unnecessary repetition.

If different people keep asking you the same question, it is possible that either you weren't as clear as you think or that you're wrong.

 

[Josheb]

If different people keep asking you the same question, it is possible that either you weren't as clear as you think or that you're wrong.

Either way I've posted and the onus is on the reader to inquire or comment accordingly. I reiterate: I shouldn't have to repeat myself in a text-based medium where the posts don't go anywhere. Absent any inquiry to clarify what was posted I have no way of knowing what is unclear. The fact remains: folks who ask questions already answered either aren't reading the posts or don't have a genuine interest in what was read.

And the fact is my answer is sufficiently clear and does not require additional explanation. Those who want to discuss it will do so. Those who don't will find an excuse for not doing so.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I should not have to repeat myself in a text-based medium with those genuinely interested in understanding.

No poster should have to repeat content in a text-based medium where the posts don't go away.

I reiterate: I shouldn't have to repeat myself in a text-based medium where the posts don't go anywhere.

I heard you the first time. Stop repeating yourself.

 

[Arcangl86]

I heard you the first time. Stop repeating yourself.

Notice how he has no problem repeating that, but can't answer the question posed to him?

 

[Josheb]

Notice how he has no problem repeating that, but can't answer the question posed to him?

I heard you the first time. Stop repeating yourself.

Wasn't posting to either of you. DaisyDay hasn't proven herself disinterested or disingenuous. If either of you wanted to further the discussion then we'd be doing so.

 

[Arcangl86]

Wasn't posting to either of you. DaisyDay hasn't proven herself disinterested or disingenuous. If either of you wanted to further the discussion then we'd be doing so.

How have I done that? By asking you where you supposedly answered the question being asked?

 

[Josheb]

How have I done that? By asking you where you supposedly answered the question being asked?

Yep. Yep. Once again, this was already explained to you.

I understand in the short run it might be easier for me to either point you to the original post containing the answer to the questions asked or repeat myself, but I have no reason and no evidence to believe you wouldn't repeat the problem again and again and again and the evidence already shows you're not actually reading (or possibly comprehending) what was posted so the more judicious response is to point out the problem and leave you to be responsible for yourself believing, trusting, hoping you'll demonstrate something warranting further discourse.


But that's not what you do.

I get it.

Posting about whether or not I should repeat myself is just one more digression evidencing the problem to be solved.

 

[Arcangl86]

Yep. Yep. Once again, this was already explained to you.

I understand in the short run it might be easier for me to either point you to the original post containing the answer to the questions asked or repeat myself, but I have no reason and no evidence to believe you wouldn't repeat the problem again and again and again and the evidence already shows you're not actually reading (or possibly comprehending) what was posted so the more judicious response is to point out the problem and leave you to be responsible for yourself believing, trusting, hoping you'll demonstrate something warranting further discourse.


But that's not what you do.

I get it.

Posting about whether or not I should repeat myself is just one more digression evidencing the problem to be solved.

Or maybe, you just didn't explain it as clearly as you think you did. I read every single post in this thread, and no where did you address the specific question being asked.

 

[SimplyMe]

Yep. Yep. Once again, this was already explained to you.

I understand in the short run it might be easier for me to either point you to the original post containing the answer to the questions asked or repeat myself, but I have no reason and no evidence to believe you wouldn't repeat the problem again and again and again and the evidence already shows you're not actually reading (or possibly comprehending) what was posted so the more judicious response is to point out the problem and leave you to be responsible for yourself believing, trusting, hoping you'll demonstrate something warranting further discourse.


But that's not what you do.

I get it.

Posting about whether or not I should repeat myself is just one more digression evidencing the problem to be solved.

Count me as another, even though I've just been lurking, that doesn't see where you ever actually answered the question.

 

[Josheb]

Or maybe, you just didn't explain it as clearly as you think you did. I read every single post in this thread, and no where did you address the specific question being asked.

Already addressed, that content, too.

 

[Josheb]

Count me as another, even though I've just been lurking, that doesn't see where you ever actually answered the question.

What's the supposedly still-unanswered question I was asked, lurker?

 

[SimplyMe]

What's the supposedly still-unanswered question I was asked, lurker?

Do you think you could be any more condescending?

But, basically, how did the nomination of Ken Cuccinelli not violate the law? Specifically, how was the judge's opinion flawed based on current federal law?

 

[DaisyDay]

Wasn't posting to either of you. DaisyDay hasn't proven herself disinterested or disingenuous.

I think you have proven yourself disingenuous, though.

If either of you wanted to further the discussion then we'd be doing so.

That doesn't seem likely. If you would answer questions straightforwardly, without spite or malice, then perhaps, the discussion would move in some direction. All I've managed to gather from you is that you somehow think that the Senate is to blame for Cucinelli being illegally appointed.

 

[Josheb]

How have I done that? By asking you where you supposedly answered the question being asked?

Wow. You guys really do have difficulty reading and comprehending. I stated, "DaisyDay hasn't proven herself disinterested or disingenuous." Go back and re-read what was actually posted.


And I see this error has prompted siding with the others.