Mohamed

I think this misrepresents the conversation that actually happened. Paraphrasing, it was something like this:

R: The constitution says you cannot deport people without due process. Do you agree? Trump: No, I'm not sure... R: It says so in the Fifth. Trump: I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. R: Do you agree that you have to follow the constitution? Trump: I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Due process for millions of people does not sound possible.

While it could be taken from that convo that Trump did say he doesn't know if he should follow the constitution, I think that it is clear that he was probably saying something like "I don't know where the Constitution stands on due process."

I'll say though, it is crazy for him to say he doesn't know what the Constitution says. I know he probably does that for legal reasons. Anyway, for a president who swore to follow the constitution seemingly not knowing anything about the constitution is preposterous, to say the least.

I think it's more that placebo studies of vaccines could be unethical. Vaccines are preventative treatment. A placebo study would mean that, say, we give the vaccine to 50, and a placebo to 50, and then wait some time (or, for much more unethical, deliberately inject people with the virus), and compare the results.

For something like the common flu, this might be fine, but for something as dangerous as measles, this can be deadly.

I am interested to hear from someone knowlesgeable how vaccines are supposed to be tested.

Or what "most popular" means

The extremism is from one side, but there is a risk that, to protect against that extremism, a polar opposite comes (Liberals most probably). Also, maybe im misunserstanding the word "polarisation", but i understand it to mean "two polar opposites", neither of which is necessarily extremist. For instance, I would argue that the US is polarised, but only the Republicans are the extremists, while Democrats are a defensive response to the Republicans.

Omg thats hilarious.

"“We should have expected something like this,” said one Trump ally who would only speak off the record as she’s currently the premier of a western Canadian province."

Hahaha

Yep, it was really perfect for the liberals. I wonder if choosing Carney was a calculated choice to benefit from the turmoil in the US, or if it is just ridiculously good luck.

Yep!

Yes, they are. There is also an instinct giant awawa.

Except that he has no executive power over those people.

It is most likely a false-flag, because the criticisms in the document all are clearly insane, and each question makes the actual Conservative policies appear saner in comparison.

Whether they are appealing or not, this sounds like the administration is breaking the law. The ruling to allow AP doesn't stop taking effect if an appeal is in process.

The Trump Administration keeps abusing that. They appeal something, and just do whatever they want until the appeal is processed.

Yes, it is legal. There are many christians in Saudi Arabia, for example. What is usually illegal is public religious practices of religions other than Islam.