Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 25 2018 12:55 Tachion wrote: So that's a pretty openly hostile move from Cohen against Trump, especially leaking it to CNN of all places. What could be the motivators behind that decision?
Cohen entire office was raided and most of the things in it were “stripped” of attorney client privilege by a judge. Which is fucking crazy. Cohen is ruined and will likely lose his license. He has every reason to make sure Trump gets burned too.
Technically Trump waived privilege as it pertains to the tapes. The judge didn’t strip it. However, depending upon what’s on the tapes, the judge may have been able to strip the privilege under the crime-fraud exception.
And yes, Cohen is going to lose his license, Surreptitiously recording clients is a big no-no.
lol losing his license is not the big question here. Shell companies are also looking relevant.
On July 25 2018 12:55 Tachion wrote: So that's a pretty openly hostile move from Cohen against Trump, especially leaking it to CNN of all places. What could be the motivators behind that decision?
Cohen entire office was raided and most of the things in it were “stripped” of attorney client privilege by a judge. Which is fucking crazy. Cohen is ruined and will likely lose his license. He has every reason to make sure Trump gets burned too.
"Cause fuck you too"?. Is it really that simple? What happened to taking a bullet for him?
Trump publically started attacking him and distancing himself from him. Cohen's comments up to that point seemed to suggest that he was expecting a pardon that never materialised.
And as Plansix said, Trump has a weird ability to make people think he'll return loyalty that's demonstrated to him despite a long, established history of fucking over everyone within ten miles of him that isn't a direct member of his family.
On July 25 2018 12:55 Tachion wrote: So that's a pretty openly hostile move from Cohen against Trump, especially leaking it to CNN of all places. What could be the motivators behind that decision?
Cohen entire office was raided and most of the things in it were “stripped” of attorney client privilege by a judge. Which is fucking crazy. Cohen is ruined and will likely lose his license. He has every reason to make sure Trump gets burned too.
"Cause fuck you too"?. Is it really that simple? What happened to taking a bullet for him?
Trump publically started attacking him and distancing himself from him. Cohen's comments up to that point seemed to suggest that he was expecting a pardon that never materialised.
And as Plansix said, Trump has a weird ability to make people think he'll return loyalty that's demonstrated to him despite a long, established history of fucking over everyone within ten miles of him that isn't a direct member of his family.
Trump's marriage to Ivana fell apart when he began an affair with the model Marla Maples, which dominated the tabloids in the early 1990s.
Wouldn't say they can be sure he will stick with them.
On July 25 2018 12:55 Tachion wrote: So that's a pretty openly hostile move from Cohen against Trump, especially leaking it to CNN of all places. What could be the motivators behind that decision?
Cohen entire office was raided and most of the things in it were “stripped” of attorney client privilege by a judge. Which is fucking crazy. Cohen is ruined and will likely lose his license. He has every reason to make sure Trump gets burned too.
"Cause fuck you too"?. Is it really that simple? What happened to taking a bullet for him?
Trump publically started attacking him and distancing himself from him. Cohen's comments up to that point seemed to suggest that he was expecting a pardon that never materialised.
And as Plansix said, Trump has a weird ability to make people think he'll return loyalty that's demonstrated to him despite a long, established history of fucking over everyone within ten miles of him that isn't a direct member of his family.
On July 25 2018 12:55 Tachion wrote: So that's a pretty openly hostile move from Cohen against Trump, especially leaking it to CNN of all places. What could be the motivators behind that decision?
Cohen entire office was raided and most of the things in it were “stripped” of attorney client privilege by a judge. Which is fucking crazy. Cohen is ruined and will likely lose his license. He has every reason to make sure Trump gets burned too.
"Cause fuck you too"?. Is it really that simple? What happened to taking a bullet for him?
Trump publically started attacking him and distancing himself from him. Cohen's comments up to that point seemed to suggest that he was expecting a pardon that never materialised.
And as Plansix said, Trump has a weird ability to make people think he'll return loyalty that's demonstrated to him despite a long, established history of fucking over everyone within ten miles of him that isn't a direct member of his family.
Trump's marriage to Ivana fell apart when he began an affair with the model Marla Maples, which dominated the tabloids in the early 1990s.
Wouldn't say they can be sure he will stick with them.
Oh, I don't think Trump counts his wives as family. I meant his kids.
If push comes to shove he would throw every single one of them under the bus, no doubt about it.
So if you were as confused about this tweet as I was, with Trump stating Russia doesn't want him to win because he's so hard on them, mere days after Putin literally said he wanted Trump to win in 2016, well that's because the White House wants a different reality, where that was never said. So it's not in the transcript, and not in the official video, because it was inconvenient.
The question asked was: President Putin, did you want president Trump to win the election, and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?
In the transcript the 'wanting to win the election' part is gone:
And the official White House video makes it look as if that part of the question was never asked:
This is pure information warfare against your own people.
On July 25 2018 20:36 Gorsameth wrote: We have gone full 1984 and are going back to alter records to meet the new truth(tm).
That isn't new, though. I seem to recall that some US history books are notorious for 'bending' events in the past to make America seem better and/or different than it was.
For those who don't like to read links (or for some reason can't access it), a couple of highlights:
*A number of government and world history textbooks exaggerate Judeo-Christian influence on the nation’s founding and Western political tradition.
*All of the world geography textbooks inaccurately downplay the role that conquest played in the spread of Christianity.
*Most U.S. history textbooks do a poor job of covering the history of LGBT citizens in discussions of efforts to achieve civil rights in this country.
*Text mentions Moses and claims that the “biblical idea of a covenant, an ancient Jewish term meaning a special kind of agreement between the people and God, influenced the formation of colonial governments and contributed to our constitutional structure.”
What’s Wrong?
The American Founders did believe in a social contract, but their version of that contract was derived primarily from modern British political thought, and John Locke’s thought in particular. Since Locke’s version of the social contract was in many ways a repudiation of the biblical covenant view referenced in this passage, this passage provides the student with almost the opposite of the historical truth.
The Trump administration has told a federal judge that it has reunited more than 1,000 parents with their children after the families were separated at the U.S.-Mexico border, but it has lost track of hundreds more parents.
The data, submitted in court hearing on Tuesday, suggests that, by the government's accounting, it will largely meet a second deadline imposed by the judge to bring eligible immigrant families back together.
U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw set a deadline of this Thursday late last month, giving the government 30 days to reunite more than 2,500 children, ages 5 to 17, with their parents. He set an earlier deadline of July 10 for children under 5.
In the older group, the administration confirmed that 1,012 adults have been reunited with their children so far, and another 600 are set to meet over the next two days, pending transportation and weather-related delays.
But lawyers for the government also revealed that as many as 463 parents may have been deported or have voluntarily left the U.S. without their children. Justice Department attorneys were unable to offer any details about the circumstances under which they were removed, where they might reside and why their children may have been left behind.
The government is still trying to determine whether reunification is required or even possible for another 260 children. They may have been released to other family members or are in the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, according to Sarah Fabian, an attorney for the Department of Justice.
Fabian reported 127 parents had waived their reunification rights explaining that parents often base their decision "on the desire to have the child released to another relative."
Sabraw commended the government for its swift efforts calling it a "remarkable achievement." But he also ordered the government to release more information about the hundreds of parents who were removed from the U.S. without their children and those who waived their right to reunification.
An update on the sage of the state funded child abuse, it looks like we might have separated close to 500 children from their parents and then deported them. Given the reports of how bad the conditions are in these camps, the “leaving voluntarily” is something I am taking with a grain of salt. The only upside to this is that nationwide public opinion is turning on ICE, where they are the least trusted federal agency in the country. They beat out the tax man, which is a special feat.
On July 25 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote: Medicaid for all at the state level is the only way to get the ball rolling. The federal government isn’t becoming functional in the next decade, so the state level is the only proving ground for universal healthcare available.
And then when state budgets can't handle it because they are users of the currency and not the issuer, neolibs can point to it and say it won't work.
This is the only plan you have right now. Or some magical way to take control of both chambers and win the white house again, while also signing everyone up for the healthcare fight of 2008 all over again.
State level funding and then push for more federal dollars for the program.
I wouldn't be totally against the idea, but I worry about how the political games would be played once state budgets are strained.
The shit you are worried about is the same this that the traditional liberals worried about when the ACA. They were not wrong at the time, that no Republican buy in meant that they could attack the ACA for 3 full election cycles.
But the difference is that our healthcare system has really started to rot under Republican governance. The mortality rate for women giving birth, the merit used for nearly a century to judge the quality of healthcare in a nation, has been going up for several years how. As long as progressive stick to the argument that its, A: The federal governments fault for playing political games with healthcare and B: Up to the states to fix the problem and the Federal government should just foot the bill, it could gain political traction.
maybe the mortality rate is higher because median pregnancy age is higher?
Nope. Median age of pregnancy is still low when compared to almost all other developed nations, and yet by basically every measurable index our healthcare system is horrendous.
The U.S. healthcare system is just objectively terrible, and infant mortality is only one of many measurements by which this is true. There really aren't many positives to say about our system unless you're well off.
maybe. but even if median pregnancy age is still low compared to other developed nations maybe our birthing mortality has also always been higher compared to other developed countries. maybe our healthcare seemed artificially better for a while because we had a much lower median pregnancy age than those countries and now that the age is creeping up the "quality" has only seemed to drop because now there are more age related complications to deal with
in other words you arent making the right comparison here: age-adjusted birthing mortality within the US over time
Infant mortality rate is worse with young births, not better.
Infant mortality is strongly correlated with socioeconomic status, which is usually quite a bit lower for women that have children at young ages.
Not only this, but the U.S.'s median age of birth (~26) is still an absolutely prime age to have children. You wouldn't see an increase in infant mortality for nearly another decade.
I don't know why you brought up age with this discussion but it really doesn't factor into this.
On July 25 2018 12:55 Tachion wrote: So that's a pretty openly hostile move from Cohen against Trump, especially leaking it to CNN of all places. What could be the motivators behind that decision?
Cohen entire office was raided and most of the things in it were “stripped” of attorney client privilege by a judge. Which is fucking crazy. Cohen is ruined and will likely lose his license. He has every reason to make sure Trump gets burned too.
"Cause fuck you too"?. Is it really that simple? What happened to taking a bullet for him?
Trump publically started attacking him and distancing himself from him. Cohen's comments up to that point seemed to suggest that he was expecting a pardon that never materialised.
And as Plansix said, Trump has a weird ability to make people think he'll return loyalty that's demonstrated to him despite a long, established history of fucking over everyone within ten miles of him that isn't a direct member of his family.
Trump's marriage to Ivana fell apart when he began an affair with the model Marla Maples, which dominated the tabloids in the early 1990s.
Wouldn't say they can be sure he will stick with them.
Oh, I don't think Trump counts his wives as family. I meant his kids.
It's like that saying "You can choose your friends, not your family." That doesn't apply to spouses.
On July 25 2018 12:55 Tachion wrote: So that's a pretty openly hostile move from Cohen against Trump, especially leaking it to CNN of all places. What could be the motivators behind that decision?
Cohen entire office was raided and most of the things in it were “stripped” of attorney client privilege by a judge. Which is fucking crazy. Cohen is ruined and will likely lose his license. He has every reason to make sure Trump gets burned too.
"Cause fuck you too"?. Is it really that simple? What happened to taking a bullet for him?
Trump publically started attacking him and distancing himself from him. Cohen's comments up to that point seemed to suggest that he was expecting a pardon that never materialised.
And as Plansix said, Trump has a weird ability to make people think he'll return loyalty that's demonstrated to him despite a long, established history of fucking over everyone within ten miles of him that isn't a direct member of his family.
everyone thinks they're special, until they have to test the theory.
On July 25 2018 22:28 Mohdoo wrote: Theory: they released the tape because they want Trump's team to fully deny everything before releasing the next tape that proves it 1000%
The theory is that he is showing he is willing to cooperate with the special counsel/FBI, while undercutting Trump’s main defense against the raid on Cohen’s office.
Straight up, that tape would end a presidency if this was anyone but Trump. And it might end him yet.
On July 25 2018 10:11 ShoCkeyy wrote: Idk if anybody has mentioned this but the IRS has made changes to the new 1040 form as it is more shorter and combined the 1040 the 1040A and the 1040ez into 1 aggregate form. The claiming of non children as dependents. There are also limits capped off as far as what you can claim for property taxes as well ($10k it seems). Along with other changes too. The middle class is about to get destroyed in 2018.
And this is my friend who recently had a child no more than a month ago, and went to the hospital because the kid got a cold.
Little guys trip to the hospital some weeks ago consisted of two over the counter medications and we got to take home with us three super awesome pacifiers.
Grand total: $13,000..
The system is broken, and it's only going to get worse it seems.
to be honest, I'm not really shocked. I've heard horror stories from Canadians. For 13000$ he could have moved to a more civilized part of the world and enjoy life.
On July 25 2018 22:28 Mohdoo wrote: Theory: they released the tape because they want Trump's team to fully deny everything before releasing the next tape that proves it 1000%
The theory is that he is showing he is willing to cooperate with the special counsel/FBI, while undercutting Trump’s main defense against the raid on Cohen’s office.
Straight up, that tape would end a presidency if this was anyone but Trump. And it might end him yet.
And this is just 1 of 12. There are 11 more such recordings. The recording we're discussing might also be longer than the version released to CNN. I think it is very likely this gets 100x worse very soon.
On July 25 2018 22:28 Mohdoo wrote: Theory: they released the tape because they want Trump's team to fully deny everything before releasing the next tape that proves it 1000%
The theory is that he is showing he is willing to cooperate with the special counsel/FBI, while undercutting Trump’s main defense against the raid on Cohen’s office.
Straight up, that tape would end a presidency if this was anyone but Trump. And it might end him yet.
And this is just 1 of 12. There are 11 more such recordings. The recording we're discussing might also be longer than the version released to CNN. I think it is very likely this gets 100x worse very soon.
I’ve said it before, but Trump is the best Nixon Admin speed runner out there. Recording the tapes before taking office is that special glitch that shaves like 6 years off the entire process.
On July 25 2018 20:12 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: So if you were as confused about this tweet as I was, with Trump stating Russia doesn't want him to win because he's so hard on them, mere days after Putin literally said he wanted Trump to win in 2016, well that's because the White House wants a different reality, where that was never said. So it's not in the transcript, and not in the official video, because it was inconvenient.
The question asked was: President Putin, did you want president Trump to win the election, and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?
In the transcript the 'wanting to win the election' part is gone:
And the official White House video makes it look as if that part of the question was never asked:
This is pure information warfare against your own people.
So what is the opinion on this from our conservative and or Trump supporting posters? Even the most skeptical of all things Trump / Russia has to look at this and think something might be off, no?
On July 25 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote: Medicaid for all at the state level is the only way to get the ball rolling. The federal government isn’t becoming functional in the next decade, so the state level is the only proving ground for universal healthcare available.
And then when state budgets can't handle it because they are users of the currency and not the issuer, neolibs can point to it and say it won't work.
This is the only plan you have right now. Or some magical way to take control of both chambers and win the white house again, while also signing everyone up for the healthcare fight of 2008 all over again.
State level funding and then push for more federal dollars for the program.
I wouldn't be totally against the idea, but I worry about how the political games would be played once state budgets are strained.
The shit you are worried about is the same this that the traditional liberals worried about when the ACA. They were not wrong at the time, that no Republican buy in meant that they could attack the ACA for 3 full election cycles.
But the difference is that our healthcare system has really started to rot under Republican governance. The mortality rate for women giving birth, the merit used for nearly a century to judge the quality of healthcare in a nation, has been going up for several years how. As long as progressive stick to the argument that its, A: The federal governments fault for playing political games with healthcare and B: Up to the states to fix the problem and the Federal government should just foot the bill, it could gain political traction.
maybe the mortality rate is higher because median pregnancy age is higher?
Nope. Median age of pregnancy is still low when compared to almost all other developed nations, and yet by basically every measurable index our healthcare system is horrendous.
The U.S. healthcare system is just objectively terrible, and infant mortality is only one of many measurements by which this is true. There really aren't many positives to say about our system unless you're well off.
maybe. but even if median pregnancy age is still low compared to other developed nations maybe our birthing mortality has also always been higher compared to other developed countries. maybe our healthcare seemed artificially better for a while because we had a much lower median pregnancy age than those countries and now that the age is creeping up the "quality" has only seemed to drop because now there are more age related complications to deal with
in other words you arent making the right comparison here: age-adjusted birthing mortality within the US over time
Infant mortality rate is worse with young births, not better.
Infant mortality is strongly correlated with socioeconomic status, which is usually quite a bit lower for women that have children at young ages.
Not only this, but the U.S.'s median age of birth (~26) is still an absolutely prime age to have children. You wouldn't see an increase in infant mortality for nearly another decade.
I don't know why you brought up age with this discussion but it really doesn't factor into this.
well plansix said "the mortality rate for mother's giving birth," not infant mortality.
secondly, teenage pregnancy is down, such that the riskier "very young" mothers are going down, while more and more women are conceiving in their mid 30s and beyond.
NPR and ProPublica teamed up for a six-month long investigation on maternal mortality in the U.S. Among our key findings:
More American women are dying of pregnancy-related complications than any other developed country. Only in the U.S. has the rate of women who die been rising.
There's a hodgepodge of hospital protocols for dealing with potentially fatal complications, allowing for treatable complications to become lethal.
Hospitals — including those with intensive care units for newborns — can be woefully unprepared for a maternal emergency.
Federal and state funding show only 6 percent of block grants for "maternal and child health" actually go to the health of mothers.
In the U.S, some doctors entering the growing specialty of maternal-fetal medicine were able to complete that training without ever spending time in a labor-delivery unit.
The reasons for higher maternal mortality in the U.S. are manifold. New mothers are older than they used to be, with more complex medical histories. Half of pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, so many women don't address chronic health issues beforehand. Greater prevalence of C-sections leads to more life-threatening complications. The fragmented health system makes it harder for new mothers, especially those without good insurance, to get the care they need. Confusion about how to recognize worrisome symptoms and treat obstetric emergencies makes caregivers more prone to error.
Now of course, there are a number of factors and IgnE is correct that one of them is older mothers. However, that is one of many factors, which also include income levels and a patchwork healthcare system and lack of insurance.
But I would argue the real reason people should be alarmed is the lack of alarm or passing interest in the issue. This is a clear since of a systemic, growing problem with one of the most basic functions of our healthcare system and it isn’t a topic of public discussion. Woman are dying in childbirth in increasing numbers, something we attribute with births from the early part of the 19th century, and this news cannot rise above the din that is our public discourse. How much worse will it need to get before people start addressing the problem?
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8C1fP6F.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa10/hstat/mh/images/405mmVa.gif)
