I agree -- that and a set of policies that make the people want to go out and vote. A more polite man or woman peddling the same bullsh1t will see Trump re-elected, imo.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
American politics
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
I agree -- that and a set of policies that make the people want to go out and vote. A more polite man or woman peddling the same bullsh1t will see Trump re-elected, imo.
I agree. They could get someone who wants to put forward the Poch brother's agenda but is actually competent and knows how to get the legislation through Washington and isn't an oaf like Trump.
Some cheeky bastard changed k.o.c.h to Poch
Last edited:
SteveAWOL
Andy Thompson
Fake news ®
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
Haha, I think you took my post a bit too literally (or I didn't set the tone for it).
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
How embarrassing was that Mike Pence walkout; i mean really..
He is meant to by VP ffs and he lowers himself down to 'dissing an NFL game'; it's one thing Trump goping for cheap points, but we know that he's a man-child at heart. But Pence?
He is meant to by VP ffs and he lowers himself down to 'dissing an NFL game'; it's one thing Trump goping for cheap points, but we know that he's a man-child at heart. But Pence?
Rock Strongo
dodgy Dave Goosegog
Donald told him to do so, apparently. The whole sharade is just extremely embarrassing. I wonder if the Donald boys genuinely believe that this is about the national anthem, and a protest to it, or if they actually know what it's about?
I'm sorry Yerimauhu, but your country is partially (roughly 50%) fudged up. At least North Koreans have an excuse, they all got guns to their heads. I guess, in a way, so do Americans.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Oi leave Poch out of this, he is the best coach we have ever had and I do not think I ever read a political statement from him. Does not even moan about the congestion charge.
When the Trump administration elected to stop requiring many employers to offer birth-control coverage in their health plans, it devoted nine of its new rule’s 163 pages to questioning the links between contraception and preventing unplanned pregnancies.
In the rule released Friday, officials attacked a 2011 report that recommended mandatory birth-control coverage to help women avoid unintended pregnancies. That report, requested by the Department of Health and Human Services, was done by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine -- then the Institute of Medicine -- an expert group that serves as the nation’s scientific adviser.
“The rates of, and reasons for, unintended pregnancy are notoriously difficult to measure,” according to the Trump administration’s interim final rule. “In particular, association and causality can be hard to disentangle.”
Multiple studies have found that access or use of contraception reduced unintended pregnancies.
Claims in the report that link increased contraceptive use by unmarried women and teens to decreases in unintended pregnancies “rely on association rather than causation,” according to the rule. The rule references another study that found increased access to contraception decreased teen pregnancies short-term but led to an increase in the long run.
“We know that safe contraception -- and contraception is incredibly safe -- leads to a reduction in pregnancies,” said Michele Bratcher Goodwin, director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. “This has been data that we’ve had for decades.”
Riskier Behavior
The rules were released as part of a broader package of protections for religious freedom that the administration announced Friday.
The government also said imposing a coverage mandate could “affect risky sexual behavior in a negative way” though it didn’t point to any particular studies to support its point. A 2014 study by the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis found providing no-cost contraception did not lead to riskier sexual behavior.
The rule asserts that positive health effects associated with birth control “might also be partially offset by an association with negative health effects.” The rule connects the claim of negative health effects to a call by the National Institutes of Health in 2013 for the development of new contraceptives that stated current options can have “many undesirable side effects.”
The rule also describes an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality review that found oral contraceptives increased users’ risk of breast cancer and vascular events, making the drugs’ use in preventing ovarian cancer uncertain.
Federal officials used all of these assertions to determine the government “need not take a position on these empirical questions.”
“Our review is sufficient to lead us to conclude that significantly more uncertainty and ambiguity exists in the record than the Departments previously acknowledged.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...spute-birth-control-benefits-to-justify-rules
In the rule released Friday, officials attacked a 2011 report that recommended mandatory birth-control coverage to help women avoid unintended pregnancies. That report, requested by the Department of Health and Human Services, was done by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine -- then the Institute of Medicine -- an expert group that serves as the nation’s scientific adviser.
“The rates of, and reasons for, unintended pregnancy are notoriously difficult to measure,” according to the Trump administration’s interim final rule. “In particular, association and causality can be hard to disentangle.”
Multiple studies have found that access or use of contraception reduced unintended pregnancies.
Claims in the report that link increased contraceptive use by unmarried women and teens to decreases in unintended pregnancies “rely on association rather than causation,” according to the rule. The rule references another study that found increased access to contraception decreased teen pregnancies short-term but led to an increase in the long run.
“We know that safe contraception -- and contraception is incredibly safe -- leads to a reduction in pregnancies,” said Michele Bratcher Goodwin, director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. “This has been data that we’ve had for decades.”
Riskier Behavior
The rules were released as part of a broader package of protections for religious freedom that the administration announced Friday.
The government also said imposing a coverage mandate could “affect risky sexual behavior in a negative way” though it didn’t point to any particular studies to support its point. A 2014 study by the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis found providing no-cost contraception did not lead to riskier sexual behavior.
The rule asserts that positive health effects associated with birth control “might also be partially offset by an association with negative health effects.” The rule connects the claim of negative health effects to a call by the National Institutes of Health in 2013 for the development of new contraceptives that stated current options can have “many undesirable side effects.”
The rule also describes an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality review that found oral contraceptives increased users’ risk of breast cancer and vascular events, making the drugs’ use in preventing ovarian cancer uncertain.
Federal officials used all of these assertions to determine the government “need not take a position on these empirical questions.”
“Our review is sufficient to lead us to conclude that significantly more uncertainty and ambiguity exists in the record than the Departments previously acknowledged.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...spute-birth-control-benefits-to-justify-rules
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
So, Trump is turning his back on a US territory in need and also withdrawing the US from UNESCO at the end of 2018.
(Serious question, not trolling)
With the continued US moves away from the global to the internal focus and the knowledge we need a bumper deal with them post Brexit, do any Brexiters genuinely believe that is going to happen without having to sacrifice too much (I'm thinking in terms of quality of goods and ownership of UK companies. But interpret as you see fit).?
I genuinely think the world has changed significantly enough since the referendum and it's clear where certain parts are headed, that we should have a second referendum now. Not because I didn't like the result, but because the conditions are now very very different.
(Serious question, not trolling)
With the continued US moves away from the global to the internal focus and the knowledge we need a bumper deal with them post Brexit, do any Brexiters genuinely believe that is going to happen without having to sacrifice too much (I'm thinking in terms of quality of goods and ownership of UK companies. But interpret as you see fit).?
I genuinely think the world has changed significantly enough since the referendum and it's clear where certain parts are headed, that we should have a second referendum now. Not because I didn't like the result, but because the conditions are now very very different.
Hotshot-Tottenham
Dean Richards
I think the answer is clear: "America first. America first".
Mr_B
Niko Kranjcar
Correct, Trump wanted to pull out of NATO, he didnt understand why he had to fund other nation's defences. Apart from his obvious stupidity, this is all part of his Make America great shtick.