Donald I, emperor of the world.

[First Aspect]

The Ghislaine Maxwell thing is not going to amount to much, because she's hardly either credible or independent. Whatever she says will be disputed by someone.

This story will develop based on documentary evidence, I think. The WSJ clearly has a bit more to release yet and it's in their interests to drip feed.

 

[cookiemonster]

The Ghislaine Maxwell thing is not going to amount to much, because she's hardly either credible or independent. Whatever she says will be disputed by someone.

This story will develop based on documentary evidence, I think. The WSJ clearly has a bit more to release yet and it's in their interests to drip feed.

Or Maxwell will be killed first as Epstein was.

 

[Ian H]

Or Maxwell will be killed first as Epstein was.

It runs in the family.

 

[All uphill]

Or Maxwell will be killed first as Epstein was.

She will know that candour would be bad for health. How many lies must she have told for Epstein?

In a strange way I imagine she can be depended on.

 

[Pross]

I've always rather enjoyed the line from "I believe" - "And I believe that in 1978 God changed his mind about black people"
and also in All American Prophet:


You have to give kudos to the Mormons though. They could have gone all protesty as happened with Jerry Springer the Opera. Instead they just advertise in every playbill inviting people to find out more about Mormonism if they enjoyed the show. Now that's genius.

Yeah, the first time we came out the wife thought the cast were outside talking to people. I had to point out they were real Mormons (I particularly liked their sign 'you've seen the show now read the book').

 

[Pinno718]

Or Maxwell will be killed first as Epstein was.

That would be so glaringly suspicious and would only fuel the conspiracy fire.

The problem with subpoenaing G Maxwell is that she's a known liar and was constantly being contradicted in her court case and shown for it. So even if the conspiring Trumpsters get her into court, that reputation will precede her.
It would truly be Popcorn time if we see her testifying in front of congress. The eloquent Dems such as Kelly and Crocket would have a field day. There maybe even press who will pass on info. to whoever senator.

"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"

 

[icowden]

That would be so glaringly suspicious and would only fuel the conspiracy fire.

Not *that* suspicious if done right. He is 94 after all.

The problem with subpoenaing G Maxwell is that she's a known liar and was constantly being contradicted in her court case and shown for it. So even if the conspiring Trumpsters get her into court, that reputation will precede her. It would truly be Popcorn time if we see her testifying in front of congress. The eloquent Dems such as Kelly and Crocket would have a field day. There maybe even press who will pass on info. to whoever senator.
"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"

True - but she no longer has anything to lose by telling the truth.

 

[Psamathe]

The problem with subpoenaing G Maxwell is that she's a known liar and was constantly being contradicted in her court case and shown for it. So even if the conspiring Trumpsters get her into court, that reputation will precede her.

True. But also those believing conspiracy theories often are not too concerned about "reliability" or history of lying. More important is selected information that confirms their preconceptions.

G. Maxwell is in quite a powerful position. Trump has the power to pardon her and she has the power to fuel the fire. Even making vague suggesting statements and many will do 2+2=22, they'll use "but she didn't say". They'll latch onto that she didn't deny an allegation, maybe didn't clear Trump but avoided a straight answer.

Ian

 

[Pinno718]

Not *that* suspicious if done right. He is 94 after all.

True - but she no longer has anything to lose by telling the truth.

Not if she's looking for a reduced sentence.
She really does hold a number of cards.

 

[First Aspect]

Or she will say nothing, under advice of counsel. What's her legal position regarding crimes committed in other jurisdictions, once she is out of prison in the US?

 

[Stevo 666]

1) Seems that The Times is doing advertorials now for Trumpsanistan

2) I bet it doesn't mention the concentration camp.

3) Or that home insurance on a $500k home is $15k pa.

4) Or that a family's health insurance costs on average $7500 pa.

Other than that, top journalism.

View attachment 9208

Given the percentage of total UK state spending taken up by the NHS (and presumably the percentage of my taxes that go towards that), $7,500 a year looks like an absolute bargain.

It's already been mentioned that home insurance premiums are going to be sky high if you live in places prone to flooding and/or the sort of bad weather that obliterates your house.

 

[Pinno718]

wards that), $7,500 a year looks like an absolute bargain.

Yes, but we benefit from the collective 'pot'.

You know very well that in the US, often in middle to higher positions, the umbrella is the corp.. With all the benefits of health care, dental care and even housing and schools that go along with a job.
If you are not under the corporate umbrella, you're left in a voluntarist position where you hope you earn enough to cover all these premiums. If not, there's Medicare/Medicaid. With the cuts to Medicaid, it is estimated that 16.7m will not be covered by any sort of health care.
A woman (if you read up thread) has 2 severely disabled daughters and her monthly prescription bill without Medicare, she will not be able to afford. She's dedicated most of her life working on a farm. She has paid her taxes. You work, you get taxed and the taxes pay for benefits. What happens to her (and millions) who won't even be able to cover prescription costs, never mind an insurance premium - and for her, that premium will be through the roof? i'e unaffordable That does not include the impact of x numbers of elderly in care homes that are covered my Medicare. They are going to hope that relatives can finance their care or take them or... charidee?. God help them.
You can't just remove a safety net and you cannot justify the removal an essential safety net within an economy that can afford it.
Also (you must be aware of this?); the cuts to healthcare in the US is from shifting monies in the trillions in tax cuts for the super rich (whilst also simultaneously adding to a huge increase in national debt through the Bill recently passed by the fascists* in government). There's no way you in your capacity would endorse such economics. They are supposed to be the richest nation in the world yet they have massive inequality. There's an estimated 41m people in the US living in poverty now. What happens when the Medicare cuts kick in? 50m... 60m in poverty?! In the richest nation in the world.
They didn't take premiums out in the first place because they thought they were covered by the state.
The watershed will come where to get that initial premium (for many) will be impossible or unaffordable.
What do you say to those getting cancer treatment under the current system who are basically going to have their care severed? There are already hospitals threatening to shut in the US such is the impact. What impact will that have?

https://www.ruralhealth.us/blogs/20...ural-hospitals-and-residents-new-report-finds

Taking the annual cost of an average health care insurance premium out of context is one dimensional. A $7k premium will not be not a $7k premium if you are highly dependent.
*Do you want to argue that one?

 

[First Aspect]

There's also a cap on insurance payouts. What seems like a reasonable cost becomes crippling if your treatment goes through it.

I corresponded with a guy who had the same ankle injury as me. Research scientist, so professional. He ran out of cover and had to find his own physio. And will likely have to pay for follow up fusion surgery in time. Given my physio lasted 6 months and was 2x 2 hrs a week, my equivalent US medical costs would not have been cheap compared to NI.

 

[Stevo 666]

Yes, but we benefit from the collective 'pot'.

You know very well that in the US, often in middle to higher positions, the umbrella is the corp.. With all the benefits of health care, dental care and even housing and schools that go along with a job.
If you are not under the corporate umbrella, you're left in a voluntarist position where you hope you earn enough to cover all these premiums. If not, there's Medicare/Medicaid. With the cuts to Medicaid, it is estimated that 16.7m will not be covered by any sort of health care.
A woman (if you read up thread) has 2 severely disabled daughters and her monthly prescription bill without Medicare, she will not be able to afford. She's dedicated most of her life working on a farm. She has paid her taxes. You work, you get taxed and the taxes pay for benefits. What happens to her (and millions) who won't even be able to cover prescription costs, never mind an insurance premium - and for her, that premium will be through the roof? i'e unaffordable That does not include the impact of x numbers of elderly in care homes that are covered my Medicare. They are going to hope that relatives can finance their care or take them or... charidee?. God help them.
You can't just remove a safety net and you cannot justify the removal an essential safety net within an economy that can afford it.
Also (you must be aware of this?); the cuts to healthcare in the US is from shifting monies in the trillions in tax cuts for the super rich (whilst also simultaneously adding to a huge increase in national debt through the Bill recently passed by the fascists* in government). There's no way you in your capacity would endorse such economics. They are supposed to be the richest nation in the world yet they have massive inequality. There's an estimated 41m people in the US living in poverty now. What happens when the Medicare cuts kick in? 50m... 60m in poverty?! In the richest nation in the world.
They didn't take premiums out in the first place because they thought they were covered by the state.
The watershed will come where to get that initial premium (for many) will be impossible or unaffordable.
What do you say to those getting cancer treatment under the current system who are basically going to have their care severed? There are already hospitals threatening to shut in the US such is the impact. What impact will that have?

https://www.ruralhealth.us/blogs/20...ural-hospitals-and-residents-new-report-finds

Taking the annual cost of an average health care insurance premium out of context is one dimensional. A $7k premium will not be not a $7k premium if you are highly dependent.
*Do you want to argue that one?

I know how the NHS works. Just comparing my financial contributions on the health front here compared to what it would be on the other side of the pond. Clearly not the same for everyone, as it depends how much you contribute in tax.

 

[First Aspect]

I know how the NHS works. Just comparing my financial contributions on the health front here compared to what it would be on the other side of the pond. Clearly not the same for everyone, as it depends how much you contribute in tax.

To be honest Stevo, over the course of your life you are almost certain to need to pay more in the US. It's a shiity system that no country should emulate. There are better insurance based models to follow.