Donald Trump

[Red Phoenix]

I guess there's a fair bit of difference in consensual sex between two teenagers and a 50 year old bloke paying a 17 year old rent boy for the same. Which is why the law struggles in those types of areas.

 

Yeah had thought something similar earlier too.

[Anubis]

The age of consent isn't what bothers me so much, it's more the classing of prostitution as "child" prostitution in that case. I thought that it'd make more sense to just class it as prostitution once the person involved is at or over the age of consent, and only make it child prostitution if the person is younger than whatever age it is.

 

People in Oklahoma are ok to have sex with people aged 16 or over and they're not paedos, but that guy will be now be known as a paedo because of the child prostitution charge, even though the person was 16 or 17? Just think it's messed up really.

 

tl:dr : if someone is at or over the age of consent, I don't think they should be classed as a child.

I wasn't arguing with you. I agree the age of consent should always have been across the board. I was just pointing out that if you look at out recent history this type of weird logic isn't peculiar to the US.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It looks like Sean Spicer is cutting out the middle man and quoting Fox News directly with this "GCHQ tapped Trump Tower" bullshit.

[Chairman Meow]

If Citizenfour was correct GCHQ are pretty much tapping everyone. 

 

The whole snoopers charter lark struck me as the Government working retrospectively to make all of the illegal stuff they had been doing legal. 

[Red Phoenix]

I wasn't arguing with you. I agree the age of consent should always have been across the board. I was just pointing out that if you look at out recent history this type of weird logic isn't peculiar to the US.

 

Agreed, noticed that when looking a little further into it too.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

If Citizenfour was correct GCHQ are pretty much tapping everyone.

 

The whole snoopers charter lark struck me as the Government working retrospectively to make all of the illegal stuff they had been doing legal.

I thought it was just UK citizens they were tapping indiscriminately.

[Chairman Meow]

I may be remembering it wrong but I think it was along the lines of the fact we're collecting everything and that the NSA used GCHQ for stuff they wouldn't be allowed and I read something about them collecting everything that goes through the main pipeline across the Atlantic. 

 

On a quick google search all I can find is this from The Telegraph which has this paragraph.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, Snowden describes GCHQ’s fibre-optic tapping operation, Tempora, with perverse awe as “probably the most invasive intercept system in the world”. The NSA loves it.

 

Doesn't really expand on anything beyond that so maybe I'm remembering it incorrectly?

 

Let's not forget that they forced the Guardian to destroy the information he had given them on GCHQ so we never really got that information released.

[Anubis]

I have a feeling that Trump's budget will serve as a blueprint for a post-Brexit Britain.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-budget_us_58cb0384e4b0ec9d29da5634?section=us_politics

 

 

 

A presidential budget isn’t so much a policy proposal as a statement of an administration’s moral vision for the country. The budget presented by President Donald Trump on Thursday is a document fundamentally unconcerned with the government’s role in improving the plight of its most vulnerable citizens.  

 

 

 

That message is clear in the budget’s topline proposals and its deeper details. Trump calls for a $54 billion boost in defense spending and immigration enforcement. More border patrol agents, more Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, more fighter jets that don’t work, and a border wall with Mexico. To offset those fresh expenses, he wants to take an ax to a host of anti-poverty programs ― everything from public housing to food programs helping elderly people with disabilities.

 

This was an ideological choice. When explaining why it would eliminate a $35 million affordable housing program, the administration declared the endeavor simply wasn’t the government’s business: “This program is duplicative of efforts funded by philanthropy and other more flexible private sector investments.”

 

Republicans have long believed that communities, religious groups and volunteer organizations are often best equipped to help those in need. But many of them still acknowledge government has some role to play in these endeavors. Over the years, for example, they have supported AmeriCorps ― a national service program that Trump’s budget would eliminate.

 

That Trump’s budget is devoid of even modest nods to social welfare is not something that the administration is trying to hide. Instead, they’ve turned the argument on its head. At a press briefing Thursday afternoon, Budget Director Mick Mulvaney was asked how he could justify cutting programs for the elderly and the poor while ramping up spending in other areas. In response, he insisted that, on the contrary, taking food from the mouths of hungry children should be seen as an act of “compassion.”

 

“I think it’s one of the most compassionate things we can do,” Mulvaney said, referring to reducing anti-poverty spending. The government, he declared, has an urgent moral priority to ensure that “the single mom of two in Detroit” doesn’t pay for programs that don’t serve “a proper function.”

 

As an example of such failures, Mulvaney invoked after-school programs that provide meals to low-income kids. “They’re supposed to help kids who don’t get fed at home get fed so they get better in school,” he said. “Guess what? There’s no demonstrable evidence they’re actually doing that.”

 

In fact, there is substantial evidence that school meal programs improve academic performance. More to the point, Mulvaney’s argument simply ignored the notion that feeding hungry kids might be something society would deem important ― test score improvements be damned.

 

He had a similar take on the popular Meals on Wheels program, which delivers food to elderly people and others with disabilities who have trouble leaving their home. Trump’s budget calls for the program’s funding to be slashed as, Mulvaney insisted, the program doesn’t work.

 

“We look at this as $140 billion spent over 40 years without the appreciable benefit to show for that type of expenditure,” he said.

 

Mulvaney is just wrong ― unless you believe that feeding the indigent is of no value. Several studies suggest that home meal delivery programs don’t just give senior citizens food ― the meals improve their overall health and keep them out of nursing homes. (It also received only a fraction of the $140 billion Mulvaney mentioned.)

 

“Home-delivered meal programs improve diet quality and increase nutrient intakes among participants,” according to a 2014 review of eight studies that looked at the programs. “These programs are also aligned with the federal cost-containment policy to rebalance long-term care away from nursing homes to home- and community-based services by helping older adults maintain independence and remain in their homes and communities as their health and functioning decline.”

 

Of course, Mulvaney’s deep compassion for the burdens imposed on taxpayers evaporates with other Trump administration priorities. He doesn’t bemoan the plight of the poor when discussing how their taxes will be spent on a border wall or a fighter jet. Nor does he grapple with the fact that the single mom of two in Detroit may be among the roughly 45 percent of households who don’t pay federal income taxes precisely because they are poor.

 

Trump’s budget will almost assuredly never make it into law. Members of Congress are tasked with appropriating money and setting funding level. And even Republicans on Thursday could only offer up the most perfunctory of supportive statements for the blueprint the president has outlined.

 

But the concept of governance that Mulvaney articulated and that Trump put his name to, has been echoed repeatedly throughout the Republican Party. And it’s apparent in other legislative pursuits they’re undertaking.

 

Just last week, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) described the GOP health care replacement bill as an “act of mercy” ― even though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 24 million people will lose their coverage in the next decade if it becomes law. The freedom not to buy insurance, in this case, takes preeminence over the very real likelihood that individuals will suffer (and, yes, die) in the absence of health care coverage they currently have.

 

Trump, of course, pitched himself as a man with a different set of values than those enshrined in his budget. He offered a new social welfare version of Republicanism in which everyone (excluding immigrants and Muslims) received health insurance, the poor were not shunned and the government cleaned up America’s cities, air and water. His embrace of the health care bill written by Ryan belies that. And his budget makes it even more apparent that the rhetoric was nothing more than an empty sales pitch to struggling households.

 

 

 

[Anubis]

The Telegraph are reporting that the US has made a formal apology to the UK over the allegation GCHQ was tapping Trump for Obama.

[Section_31]

To be fair I could well believe the GCHQ thing, they're probably in everyone's shit. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

To be fair I could well believe the GCHQ thing, they're probably in everyone's shit.

It's the fact that it's the President's spokesman - not just some bloke down the pub - regurgitating unsubstantiated allegations from Fox News that gets me.

 

These are very serious allegations against a former President and an important ally of the USA; you'd like to think that they'd check the veracity of them before the press conference, rather than just being satisfied with "it was on the telly, so it's probably true".

[Kidder Bukowski]

Now why would we want to block Murdoch's complete take over of Sky? We've laughed at Fox News for years because it's so out there it's ridiculous but the Trumpcunts now base their entire policies on its pronouncements!

[Section_31]

The guy is a bona fide moon though, it's sort of pointless trying to make sense of what he says, it's like people who go on about UFOs and shit, you're just wasting your breath.

 

Does it sound feasible thought that gchq and other foreign intelligence agencies were keeping tabs on him? Deffo, the guy is the biggest threat to the established status quo since earl 80s Labour.

[Anubis]

The Taoiseach laying it down in front of Trump. I'll bet he was seething.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I'm not sure he's such a big threat.

 

Racist eejits thought they'd voted for a tells-it-as-it-is, independent thinker who would use common sense and deal-making acumen to turf the corrupt vested interests out of Washington. What they really voted for was an idiot bullshit child who would hold the door for the same vested interests to run amok at the expense of the American people like never before.

[Trumo]

It will pass over all his dickhead supporters over there (and around the world it seems) but he's spent ages slagging off the likes of NYT for their 'fake news' and yet he still makes unsubstantiated claims based on incorrect understanding of their articles. If you thought they were a crock of shit, why would you bother using them to back up your claims?

 

The likes of Spicer and Conway are clearly happy to be paid whatever despite being seen as total fuckwits by everyone else with even half a brain.

[magicrat]

Came across this article from someone in the US healthcare system.

Bad consequences for everyone if Trump gets his way

 

So, What Happens if Millions of Americans Lose Healthcare Coverage?

• Published on  March 14, 2017
• Featured in: Economy, Healthcare, Law & Government, US Politics

• LikeSo, What Happens if Millions of Americans Lose Healthcare Coverage?

   

  1,685
• Comment

   

  821
• ShareShare So, What Happens if Millions of Americans Lose Healthcare Coverage?

   

  307

Michelle Chaffee

FollowMichelle Chaffee

 

Tech Founder & Healthcare Professional

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released findings this week on their assessment of the new healthcare bill proposed by the Trump administration, also called The American Healthcare Act or "Trumpcare" depending on your political persuasion. They suggest that, over a period of 10 years, 24 million Americans would likely lose healthcare coverage. As early as next year, 14 million could be uninsured because the insurance plans available to them would be unaffordable. Republican leaders who are in support of the new bill dispute the findings and counter that the new legislation would result in $337 billion in federal budget savings.

So, what does that mean for you and me? For me, the Republican bill could actually reduce my premiums because under the Affordable Care Act my income is too high to receive any subsidies. The portion of healthcare costs under the new proposed plan, that would be coming directly out of my pocket, is still an unknown. Some analysts say the ones that would be most affected by the new plan are the poorest and the sickest. Americans who are currently receiving the most assistance via combinations of support from Medicare and Medicaid would be left underinsured or even uninsured, as the money to fund those programs would be drastically cut. I have been told by more than a handful of people over the past few months, some in more delicate ways than others, that we simply can’t afford to cover people who don’t work, have children they can’t support or who can’t even support themselves. They believe that those individuals don't deserve the same healthcare as those who pay for coverage. While I disagree with the assumptions that most people who don’t have insurance are lazy slackers who should get a job and take responsibility, I do understand enough about economics and numbers to know the poor and chronically ill do cost a great deal to provide healthcare to. What I think some people are missing is the impact on the entire healthcare system when millions don’t have access to preventative care and medicine.

The impact on hospitals is dramatic and far reaching. Hospitals depend on reimbursement from insured patients to operate. During the burst of the housing bubble, I watched as my friends and family members lost jobs and homes at alarming rates. They would comment, “you are so lucky you work in healthcare, you will always have a job.” I hoped they were right, but tried to think of scenarios that could mean the dire economic downturn would impact me and my family. People didn’t stop getting sick just because the economy tanked, right? True, but what did happen over a period of about 2-3 years was that the people who lost their jobs, even the young healthy people, no longer had insurance. This meant they weren’t going to their family doctor anymore or having regular testing to prevent a health crisis or even taking their medicine. I started to experience patients asking how much a cardiac stress test cost and walking out of the room when the answer was thousands of dollars that they would have to pay themselves. They used the Emergency Department more. They used the Emergency Department because they were sicker from not having their blood pressure medicine. They also used it for things like an abscessed tooth, a diabetic crisis and a sore throat that could have been treated at a much lower cost than what the Emergency Department charged. What most Americans don’t seem to realize is that hospital Emergency Departments can’t tell people they won’t see them or treat them. There are laws in place that say you cannot refuse patients emergency care and you can't ask if they are insured. The only way uninsured people can get care is in its most costly form.

So what happens when the hospital is being used for primary care by the uninsured? The hospital doesn’t get reimbursed. The hospital has to treat patients but if the patients can’t pay, the hospital has to absorb that cost. When this happens often enough, the hospital has to start cutting costs and these cuts ultimately lead to laying off staff, including staff that provide care directly to patients. They don’t just cut staff for poor uninsured patients, they cut staff that provide care to everyone. It doesn’t matter if you have a “Cadillac health plan,” are the wealthiest person in America or are even a doctor yourself, when staff is cut and patient workloads get higher, care suffers and mistakes, sometimes deadly ones, increase. I saw this cascade of events, as did other healthcare professionals, over a relatively short period of time before the implementation of the ACA. There is no discrimination within the walls of the hospital and the impact of staff shortages and budget cuts affect everyone.

The impact on our aging population is great. Over 25 million Americans over age 60 are living below the poverty level. They are former teachers, veterans and others who in their younger years were active and productive members of society. They depend on social security to survive but for many, this equates to well under $24,000 per year. Medicare doesn’t offer enough coverage for them to afford the medication, diagnostic or home care services required for them to stave off a health crisis so they get supplemental state provided assistance through Medicaid. When states are forced to work with a dramatically smaller pool of money, they will have to choose who has the greatest need and for others, costs will rise to the point they have to make the choice between medicine or food. We know this as we have been here before. Too many will not be able to afford the medical services they need to stay moderately healthy and will ultimately cost far more to treat.

Health insurance providers feel the pinch. Health insurance companies need people enrolled and paying into the pool of money that they need to negotiate prices with hospitals and healthcare organizations and to cover their sickest members. Many of the people who will opt out of buying health insurance are the young healthy people that are willing to roll the dice, betting the odds are in their favor that they will stay well. The 23 year old woman in law school who can afford (barely) a healthcare plan costing $260 per month because of government subsidies, is likely to drop insurance entirely if the cost goes up even $100. This would be especially true if that plan no longer covers the things she really needs like birth control and good preventative care. If younger, healthier Americans opt out of coverage it means higher costs for all of us one way or another.

It may seem easy for some to say we simply can’t afford to provide care to everyone or to think it’s a matter of working hard and doing the right thing to pay your own way. The hard reality is that unless we start turning people away from Emergency Departments, all of us are impacted when a considerable number don’t have access to healthcare. What kind of country we want to be, is ultimately what we need to decide.

Michelle Chaffee Founder & CEO alska

 

ShareShare So, What Happens if Millions of Americans Lose Healthcare Coverage?

 

[Section_31]

I would

[Denny Crane]

"When it comes to being wire tapped by the previous President, that's one thing that perhaps we have in common" #Trump to #Merkel

[Red Phoenix]

"When it comes to being wire tapped by the previous President, that's one thing that perhaps we have in common" #Trump to #Merkel

 

He's unreal. There's a clip of it here. Merkel looks baffled, and the press seemed to have had a good laugh at the same time : https://twitter.com/USAAssociation/status/842822772766244865

[Kevin D]

I'm not sure he's such a big threat.

 

Racist eejits thought they'd voted for a tells-it-as-it-is, independent thinker who would use common sense and deal-making acumen to turf the corrupt vested interests out of Washington. What they really voted for was an idiot bullshit child who would hold the door for the same vested interests to run amok at the expense of the American people like never before.

Neo-liberal economic policies hammered workers to the point of the desperation. And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn't fully yet understand.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

The Taoiseach laying it down in front of Trump. I'll bet he was seething.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/enda-kenny-donald-trump-undocumented-irish-us

[AngryOfTuebrook]

He's unreal. There's a clip of it here. Merkel looks baffled, and the press seemed to have had a good laugh at the same time : https://twitter.com/USAAssociation/status/842822772766244865

It's clear that she thinks - she knows - that he's a fucking idiot a million miles out of his depth.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

The Taoiseach laying it down in front of Trump. I'll bet he was seething.

[Anubis]

It was actually this I was referring to.