US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5221

On September 27 2016 20:56 DickMcFanny wrote:


Take out your "pretense to dismiss news as illegitimate"-dice:
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article158049400/Fluechtlinge-machen-Urlaub-wo-sie-angeblich-verfolgt-werden.html

Again, if they're in Germany, they passed at least six different safe countries, so they're not refugees, they're welfare tourists.

The inquiry included testimonies from registered asylum seekers in Germany who are entitled to so-called HARTZ-IV social benefits. Some of them confirmed to the newspaper that they “traveled for a short period of time back to countries like Syria, Afghanistan or Lebanon.”
...
“There are such cases,” an unnamed spokesperson for the German Federal Employment Office (BA) confirmed to the publication. The representative, however, stressed that no official numbers are available.
...
“We do not conduct any analysis or statistics on this subject and therefore we do not have any information,” the source added. The body is now trying to figure out the number of refugees opting for such a “vacation” in their homeland.
..
“In the case, however, when the journey is being conducted for leisure purposes, this may be an indication that the refugee fears no persecution,” BAMF added as quoted by the German outlet. That would in return lead to stripping of asylum status.

On September 27 2016 21:04 Ghostcom wrote:
If you two really want to have that discussion again, might I suggest either the Syrian civil war thread or the EU politicis thread? (Or you could just read through the EU politics thread again and realize that neither of you are going to convince the other as the truth is somewhere in the middle of both of you).

The list of preventive services that women can receive without paying anything out of pocket under the health law could grow if recommendations from a group of mostly medical providers are adopted by federal officials later this year.

The draft recommendations, which are open for public comment until Sept. 30, update the eight recommended preventive services for women. The list was developed by the Institute of Medicine (now called the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) to build on existing recommendations and fill in gaps that weren't addressed in the health law. Under the IOM list, which took effect in 2012, most health plans are required to cover well-woman visits, screening and/or counseling for sexually transmitted infections, domestic violence and gestational diabetes as well as breastfeeding support and supplies.

In addition, most health plans must cover, without cost sharing, all methods of contraception that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. That controversial requirement led to numerous lawsuits by religious institutions and employers that object to providing such coverage, including several cases that reached the Supreme Court.

When it developed the initial list, the IOM advised that the guidelines be reviewed and updated at least every five years in order to stay current with scientific evidence. This year, the review panel also weighed in on breast cancer screening, coverage of follow-up testing or procedures as part of the preventive services and male methods of birth control.

The proposed new recommendation would allow women at average risk for breast cancer to begin screening as early as age 40 and receive a mammogram every one or two years. That is a more liberal standard than the guidelines that insurers rely on for free screening from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends women generally be screened every other year starting at age 50.

"We have really confused the heck out of women," said Dr. Hal Lawrence, executive vice president and chief executive officer of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "Do I start at age 40, do I start at 50, do I do it every year or do I do it every other year? We wanted to get some uniformity."

ACOG was awarded a five-year grant to manage the review process, working in conjunction with a steering committee of nearly two dozen provider groups from different women's health disciplines.

On September 27 2016 21:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Taking credit for Obama's birth certificate and doubling down on stop and frisk is what surprised me the most. It makes no sense. He did really, really poorly last night. I am now convinced that he's actually this person. If he was actually well calculated, he would have appeared as normal as possible. I think from here, support crystallizes and Clinton sweeps.

Clinton taking full responsibility for emails and saying she wouldn't do it again just makes any more questions besting a dead horse. What a relief.

On September 27 2016 21:22 Mohdoo wrote:

Clinton taking full responsibility for emails and saying she wouldn't do it again just makes any more questions besting a dead horse. What a relief.

Saudi Arabia is mounting a last-ditch campaign to scuttle legislation allowing families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to sue the kingdom — and they're enlisting major American companies to make an economic case against the bill.

General Electric, Dow Chemical, Boeing and Chevron are among the corporate titans that have weighed in against the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, which passed both chambers unanimously and was vetoed on Friday, according to people familiar with the effort. The companies are acting quietly to avoid the perception of opposing victims of terrorism, but they're responding to Saudi arguments that their own corporate assets in the kingdom could be at risk if the law takes effect.

Meanwhile, Trent Lott, the former Senate majority leader who now co-leads Squire Patton Boggs' lobbying group, e-mailed Senate legislative directors on Monday warning that the bill could lead other countries to withdraw their assets from the United States and retaliate with laws allowing claims against American government actions.

"Many foreign entities have long-standing, intimate relations with U.S. financial institutions that they would undoubtedly unwind, to the further detriment of the U.S. economy," reads one of the attachments, obtained by POLITICO. "American corporations with interests abroad may be at risk of retaliation, a possibility recently expressed by GE and Dow."

Still, the Saudis and their agents face a significant uphill battle, with lawmakers loath to take a vote against victims of the 9/11 attacks right before an election. There was little public opposition to the bill as it made its way through the Capitol, and even now, efforts to tweak the bill haven't caught much traction.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced Monday that the Senate will vote Wednesday on a motion to override President Barack Obama's veto, and if override advocates are successful there, the House will take the same vote Thursday or Friday, a House Republican leadership aide said.

But even if Obama receives the first veto override of his presidency, the story won't end there: the Saudis will seek a new bill to scale back the law in the lame-duck session or in the next session, after lawmakers are relieved from the heat of the campaign, people familiar with the plans said.

On September 27 2016 22:08 Aquanim wrote:
Does the moderator personally determine the questions which are asked? If not, who does?

On September 27 2016 22:03 biology]major wrote:
Trump sucked, and got baited left and right. I expected him to keep his composure and he failed. I have no doubt the this moderator was in some way influenced or biased as fuck. No question on benghazi, no question on clinton foundation, no question on emails. Meanwhile he asks trump about tax returns, birther movement, and his language against women. In fact lester holt asked hrc only a few direct questions the entire debate. I would have easily given this win to HRC but if the moderator isn't gonna ask questions fundamental to why HRC is considered a untrustworthy human being while asking questions central to why trump is a racist/misogynist then I have no hope for the remaining debates.

Call it whining about the moderator, sure. One candidate got off easy here given how much baggage BOTH of them have.

On September 27 2016 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


The moderator did ask Hillary a question about her e-mails. You might have missed that because Hillary formally apologized, took the hit like a man woman who knows how to actually own up to her mistakes, and then they moved on.

It was Trump's fault for rambling on and on for several minutes at a time with non-answers to his scandal questions.

The moderator is a Republican and Trump walked all over him in terms of interrupting non-stop. If the moderator had done his job correctly, Trump would have looked even worse. At least the moderator fact-checked Trump one time (on Trump's Iraq War lie) and held Trump to actually answering one or two questions after the incoherent ramblings.

On September 27 2016 22:18 biology]major wrote:


No, if trump didn't bring it up, that question would have never been asked. He simply let her respond to his attacks. All of trumps scandals were directly asked, in a leading manner. Clinton got none of it.

On September 27 2016 22:18 biology]major wrote:


No, if trump didn't bring it up, that question would have never been asked. He simply let her respond to his attacks. All of trumps scandals were directly asked, in a leading manner. Clinton got none of it.