The Trump Presidency

[Marou]

H-1B Applications Drop as U.S. Employers Anticipate Reforms

Trump to sign 'Buy American, Hire American' order targeting the main visa program for tech workers

[Zavon]

[VKhaun]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/u...ic-island.html

I wish we had someone left-leaning to explain this outrage to me... why the fuck would an appointed, rather than elected, person in Hawaii be able to allow immigration to all the other 49 states, overruling the POTUS?

A quick google shows results from February citing 1800-2500 people entering the U.S. from countries that would have been banned, so something like 5,000 now in April? And Hawaii takes in 1-10 per year? Is that right?

[Marou]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/u...ic-island.html

I wish we had someone left-leaning to explain this outrage to me... why the fuck would an appointed, rather than elected, person in Hawaii be able to allow immigration to all the other 49 states, overruling the POTUS?

A quick google shows results from February citing 1800-2500 people entering the U.S. from countries that would have been banned, so something like 5,000 now in April? And Hawaii takes in 1-10 per year? Is that right?

I dunno that there is anyone left-leaning remaining here to answer you. Left leaning thought has largely retreated from open message boards and migrated to various safe spaces and echo chambers with heavy moderation/censorship. Every lightly moderated or anything goes boards I am aware of have become right wing or center/right. While we may enjoy arguing the various merits and pitfalls of something the same can not be said of everyone. Insults and faux disgust are not discourse.

Volvo to produce cars in US for export to China and Europe

[Zavon]

Trump Signs Financial Services Executive Order:



Top Comment: #mypresident

[VKhaun]

Fucking Trump, at it again. Pandering to oil companies to destroy the planet and being soft on Russia...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/21/news...ons/index.html

[Ozoron]

Fucking Trump, at it again. Pandering to oil companies to destroy the planet and being soft on Russia...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/21/news...ons/index.html

The funny thing about that is if he had allowed Exxon to drill it would be an article about Trump being in collusion with the Russians and how hes disregarding the environment.

[VKhaun]

https://archive.is/dpe8G

Randomly pro-trump poll interpretation on CNN as a top story on google... who fell asleep and let that slip through?

[Zavon]

Alright boys, it's time to play Ride of the Valkyries. Shit's going down:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/27/tr..._medium=Social



The MAD DOG is off his LEASH... REPEAT... The MAD DOG is off his LEASH

[Zavon]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/st...rticle/2621232

[Zavon]

Trump invites Duterte to the White House.


Also, in case you haven't seen it yet, the based madman gave a speech during the correspondents dinner (at a Rally in Pennsylvania) condemning the media whilst also mocking them.

[Zavon]

[VKhaun]

Maps

I love this. I wonder what greater point he made with it, if any.

I've always liked the whole "he's elected by racists" thing coming from the same people who say he "didn't win a majority". Put the two together and it means either all the racists all over the country couldn't be arsed to go vote against Obama, twice, or they voted in the first black president twice.

[Zavon]

I love this. I wonder what greater point he made with it, if any.

I've always liked the whole "he's elected by racists" thing coming from the same people who say he "didn't win a majority". Put the two together and it means either all the racists all over the country couldn't be arsed to go vote against Obama, twice, or they voted in the first black president twice.

Yeah, I kind of hope he didn't make a point with it. The more he talks to them like they are stupid the more I find the entire thing funny. The twitter outrage over it is kind of fun to scroll through too.

In fact, I've noticed that people that hate Trump love, and I mean love to jump on tag lines as quick as possible. For instance, a FB friend of mine posted this article last night, complaining about Trump being an idiot:

"Trump appoints woman who believes abortion causes breast cancer to top post at HHS".

So, naturally, I thought... Hmm that is strange, why would anyone believe something that stupid? Well, I decided to google it, for shits and giggles. Turns out, apparently the American Cancer Society has an entire page devoted to this and research on it. Now, this to me brings up two major points:

1. Though the data is conflicting, there is some evidence to support a link between Abortions and Breast Cancer. If some studies were able to show the link, that automatically makes it a reasonable thing to think is a potential problem.
2. A lot of fucking people, a lot smarter than me devoted a lot of time to research this subject. That, also, means that it is not completely stupid to think could be an issue/something to believe is a problem.

But all that being said, if you just say "Yeah Trump appointed someone that thinks breast cancer is caused by abortions, lol" you can sit on your moral high horse about being smarter than Trump supporters.

[VKhaun]

abortion causes breast cancer

...eh... you're right, but you're taking their bait.

Hormonal changes that affect the breasts increase cancer risk. This can seem shady or in contention when you look at one particular issue but if you google other things that affect hormones you'll find link after link. The important thing here is that someone has deliberately taken one arbitrary cause of hormone changes and made it into a non-arbitrary highlight for political reasons. The hook in the bait is that it is ultimately wrong to make policy decisions based on "abortion causes breast cancer" because so does NOT having an abortion. Any liberal could flip the script and make the same argument, saying pregnancy causes cancer therefore anyone should be allowed to have an abortion, and be no more or less wrong. Except the whole... you know... "murder" thing... What this does amount to however is a fantastic argument for contraception.

http://ww5.komen.org/KomenPerspectiv...survival-.html

DOES PREGNANCY AFFECT BREAST CANCER RISK AND SURVIVAL?
...
Pregnancy and breast cancer risk
"Pregnancy is a time of breast development and hormone changes, so it is not surprising that it affects your breast cancer risk."

[Zavon]

...eh... you're right, but you're taking their bait.

Hormonal changes that affect the breasts increase cancer risk. This can seem shady or in contention when you look at one particular issue but if you google other things that affect hormones you'll find link after link. The important thing here is that someone has deliberately taken one arbitrary cause of hormone changes and made it into a non-arbitrary highlight for political reasons. The hook in the bait is that it is ultimately wrong to make policy decisions based on "abortion causes breast cancer" because so does NOT having an abortion.

http://ww5.komen.org/KomenPerspectiv...survival-.html

There isn't any bait here and I didn't take it. Re-read what I wrote. In fact, re-read the American Cancer Society page too while you're at it (though I'm sure that you hadn't).

I know continuing this conversation further than that is probably a waste of my time, but here goes:

1. An abortion is something that you do. This means that you have control over it (usually).
2. "Concern about a possible link between abortion and breast cancer has been raised because abortion is thought to interrupt the normal cycle of hormones during pregnancy. Some believe that this interruption might increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer."
3. The question is: Does deciding to have an abortion, which interrupts the normal cycle, put you at a higher risk for breast cancer?
4. It doesn't matter if other things also do this. The only thing that matters is if there is a link between something that you have the power of decision over, and how it effects you. (I'm trying to explain an abstraction so bear with me here if you are able too)
5. "In 2004, the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, put together the results of many studies that looked at abortion and breast cancer risk. It looked at both cohort and case-control studies. When the studies that gathered information retrospectively (case-control studies) were looked at together, there were about 39,000 women with breast cancer (the cases) that were compared to about 48,000 women who hadn’t had breast cancer (the controls). They found about an 11% increased risk of breast cancer in women who reported having an induced abortion.

Some other retrospective studies published since then have also found an increased risk, including a case-control study of about 1,300 women from China (published in 2012) and a case-control study of 300 women in Iran (published in 2011)."
6. There is some evidence to support that having an induced abortion puts you at greater risk for breast cancer. There is conflicting data.

-----------


So the question I had originally, and the point of my post was: Did Trump put an idiot in charge somewhere? The article would have you believe this to be the case.

Based off of what I have seen, she is not an idiot from this belief. There are at least three studies that support what she believes to be true; one of which with an incredibly large pool of data (this is important for studies). Because of this, I conclude that it is reasonable for her or anyone for that matter to think that there is a connection. I have no idea what she plans to do with what she believes. She never actually stated that Abortions cause breast cancer. The New York time stated, "I was surprised, then, when the next thing she said was that abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer.".

I do not believe her to be an idiot for making that statement. That is the only statement that I have made. I am not pro-life now. I am not going to start telling people that have had abortions to go in for more check ups. I am merely unconvinced that the person that Trump picked for a position is a moron from seeing a reasonable connection between abortion and increased risk factors with breast cancer.. Again, that is the only statement that I have made. It is ok if you want to dismiss any data that disagrees with your worldview (I try not to do that.). It is ok if you want to attack the credibility of the three cited studies on the American Cancer Society page. Feel free to do so on your own time, and with yourself (I don't care, and the word of the American Cancer Society is good enough for me to form a tenuous opinion on a woman I don't know and on a subject I don't care much about). It is ok if you decide you want to call this woman an idiot because she believes something that you don't.

The article failed to convince me. Me and me alone. No one else is saying this. There is no bait. I have gotten a lot of people pregnant, and most of them have had abortions. I have always supported their choice. It will make me happy if some of them die from breast cancer (not really).

[VKhaun]

Sorry if I"m going Full Donkey on you again but it seems like you're just not understanding simple paraphrasing here.

When they say it "increases the risk" they're not talking about the mother being haunted by a ghost fetus that gives them cancer. The abortion (+/- psychological effects?) will cause hormonal changes. Hormonal changes increase the risk of breast cancer. There is nothing special about abortion here, other than that it was chosen for studies and as a political pivot point. I don't see anything that ends with a conclusion like ...abortion increases risk more than a successful pregnancy or ...more than hormone replacement therapy. Progesterone -a "natural" hormone- is literally a carcinogen. The longer you're pregnant the more carcinogens you have in you. Changing sexes is literally done by taking measured doses of carcinogens.

The only thing new you put up were the words "abnormal" and saying it's "a choice".

Abnormal = ? = Does the body react by creating more hormones after an abortion than it does to miscarriages and stillbirths? This would also get into asking what role the mind plays, as the mindset is very different from patient to patient relative to the cause.

Choice = irrelevant. You can have the abortion (--> hormonal changes) or you can... not have the abortion (--> hormonal changes). Both increase your risk of breast cancer. Are you trying to quantify the risk of each and make your way up to backing a statement that abortion is a more dangerous choice than pregnancy? Lets say I concede that entirely. What policy does that mean we should pursue?

----------
^I'll use one of these as well then.

Okay, she's probably not an idiot just because of that one anecdote.

That's all I've said. I speak only for me. About nothing. :^)

[Zavon]

Sorry if I"m going Full Donkey on you again but it seems like you're just not understanding simple paraphrasing here.

When they say it "increases the risk" they're not talking about the mother being haunted by a ghost fetus that gives them cancer. The abortion (+/- psychological effects?) will cause hormonal changes. Hormonal changes increase the risk of breast cancer. There is nothing special about abortion here, other than that it was chosen for studies and as a political pivot point. I don't see anything that ends with a conclusion like ...abortion increases risk more than a successful pregnancy or ...more than hormone replacement therapy. Progesterone -a "natural" hormone- is literally a carcinogen. The longer you're pregnant the more carcinogens you have in you. Changing sexes is literally done by taking measured doses of carcinogens.

The only thing new you put up were the words "abnormal" and saying it's "a choice".

Abnormal = ? = Does the body react by creating more hormones after an abortion than it does to miscarriages and stillbirths? This would also get into asking what role the mind plays, as the mindset is very different from patient to patient relative to the cause.

Choice = irrelevant. You can have the abortion (--> hormonal changes) or you can... not have the abortion (--> hormonal changes). Both increase your risk of breast cancer. Are you trying to quantify the risk of each and make your way up to backing a statement that abortion is a more dangerous choice than pregnancy? Lets say I concede that entirely. What policy does that mean we should pursue?

----------
^I'll use one of these as well then.

Okay, she's probably not an idiot just because of that one anecdote.

That's all I've said. I speak only for me. About nothing. :^)

Yes, you have again gone full donkey. I'm glad (trust me I really mean this, I'm ecstatic) that you are able to understand that correlation does not equal causation. That is an abstract idea, which from the evidence that I have seen from you is a huge leap for your fatty tissue covered walrus brain. You are an idiot on a scale I've rarely seen... I often take for granted your inability to see such things that are probably obvious to most other folks. A good risk factor study will control for other variables. I am assuming that the oxford group (and the other two who published studies) controlled for other variables. Or maybe not, maybe the journals that published their studies and conclusions about induced abortion increasing the risk factor of breast cancer JUST NEED YOU to be on their editorial board. The obvious flaw that only the fat fucking miracle donkey can see. Like the rain man who is good at math, you are good at eating copious amounts of Chinese food and finding flaws in scientific studies LOL.

Holy shit, LOL.

[VKhaun]

...conclusions about induced abortion increasing the risk factor of breast cancer

Srsly tho. I'm at work and can't get into the studies tonight. Are you seeing something that ends saying increases risk "more than X", or "increases risk by...<some quantification that we can compare to alternatives>"?

[Zavon]

Srsly tho. I'm at work and can't get into the studies tonight. Are you seeing something that ends saying increases risk "more than X", or "increases risk by...<some quantification that we can compare to alternatives>"?

Well, apart from the 11% increase in risk factor that they got from directly comparing 39,000 women with breast cancer to 48,000 without breast cancer? Like I said, I took the American Cancer Society (and Oxford at their word by proxy) stated at face value. They found a specific number of increase by doing a risk study factor with a huge pool of data. Btw, these kinds of studies are usually huge crap shoots where they throw in a shit load of other variables to see what sticks. That kind of thing is great for leads into other investigative areas. The problem is that they of course, can't ethically conduct an experiment on women to see if it's truly a causal relationship. A risk factor is about all we can hope for.

It could be the case that abortions in the UK, Iran, and China (the three studies) all use some chemical that lowers a woman's ability to fight breast cancer. It could be the case that women that are poor have a worse diet and are also more likely to have abortions (though like I said, I have to believe that they controlled for the obvious), which in turn increases chance of breast cancer. All that we know, is that you are 11% more likely to have breast cancer if you had an abortion (for whatever reason).

Honestly, I'd never have connected the two things. I thought the idea was outright preposterous.

[VKhaun]

January actions on trade: Withdrew from TPP.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/fr.../tpp-full-text

VK's 2¢: A topic that I don't pretend to fully understand at this time, but the essence of which is clear: Obama traded trade terms which were unfavorable to the U.S., which would take effect during some other president's term, in exchange for advancing corporate interests and securing promises of international policy changes not related/not limited to trade. Maybe I'm way off, but that's my honest take right now and I'm documenting it next to the balance of trade for January-February.

Media Consensus: Limited coverage largely implies the move "did nothing" because it had not taken effect, and of course no business in the world would do something as outlandish as planning for the future. Certainly not international businesses with a stake in international trade agreements.

"What did Trump do Monday?
Trump formally withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- a 12-nation deal that had been negotiated under former President Barack Obama.
Nothing changes because of Trump's move. Congress had not yet approved the TPP -- its fate was bleak on Capitol Hill no matter what the White House did -- and the deal had not yet taken effect.
However, by pulling the United States out of the deal, Trump fulfilled a campaign promise.
And in doing so, he ends all hopes for a deal Obama wanted as a major part of his legacy.
The TPP -- which has also included Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and Brunei -- would have slashed tariffs for American imports and exports with those countries. In exchange, the United States had negotiated labor, environmental and intellectual property protections that major businesses sought. The deal's critics complained that it didn't directly address the issue of currency manipulation."

February balance of trade screenshot from
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...lance-of-trade

[Marou]

January actions on trade: Withdrew from TPP.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/fr.../tpp-full-text

VK's 2¢: A topic that I don't pretend to fully understand at this time, but the essence of which is clear: Obama traded trade terms which were unfavorable to the U.S., which would take effect during some other president's term, in exchange for advancing corporate interests and securing promises of international policy changes not related/not limited to trade. Maybe I'm way off, but that's my honest take right now and I'm documenting it next to the balance of trade for January-February.

Media Consensus: Limited coverage largely implies the move "did nothing" because it had not taken effect, and of course no business in the world would do something as outlandish as planning for the future. Certainly not international businesses with a stake in international trade agreements.




February balance of trade screenshot from
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...lance-of-trade

The TPP was full of the worst sort of corporate bootlicking, and entrenched us getting fucked by currency manipulation. I'd have voted for Trump on his TPP position and H1B1 positions alone, if I hated everything else he stood for.

[Zavon]

I love it, he does an interview and insults the guy right to his face. Best president ever.

[Marou]

Infosys To Hire 10,000 American Workers After Trump Blasts "Rampant, Widespread H-1B Abuse"

[Marou]

Donald Trump fires FBI director James Comey after he misled Senate over Hillary Clinton emails