monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Angel Moms Protest at Schumer’s Office and Demand the Border Wall

and yet here in the US we know Trump won the electoral college exactly because he IS a career criminal lying little bitch who will abuse every living thing unfortunate enough to fall under his piggy eyed gaze.

There will never be enough power, enough money or enough women to satisfy his gluttonous appetites.

He is stupid about the important things and resents anyone who isn't stupid about the important things.

Ultimately, he is a zero....

Quote:

You go, girl!

You did not tell her where to go. Would you like some suggestions?

I had no idea

Ive never said Trump supporters are morons. I may have accused YOU of being one, or Ol Grumpy and a limted number of others. There are some very intelligent Trump supporters . The only thing I doubt is their "stickiness" to his Plumpness. Our President is obviously in waaaay over his head and many GOP are beginning to surmize that.

That, to me is an oxymoron on the scale of something being simultaneously present and absent.

Experts say the administration is blatantly dismantling proven programs, and the consequences could be dire

Donald Trump’s administration is cutting programs scientists say are proven to protect Americans, from pollution safeguards to teen pregnancy prevention and healthier school lunches, with effects that could last for years.

Experts who have worked in the federal government under Republicans and Democrats say both have sometimes put politics ahead of science but none have done so as blatantly as Trump. And they warn the consequences could continue long into the future.

“It’s as egregious as I’ve ever seen it, starting from the very top with the president just denying the existence of science, manipulating the system on behalf of special interests,” said the former surgeon general Richard Carmona, who testified to Congress that the George W Bush administration pushed him to weaken or suppress public health findings.

Trump’s high-profile denial of manmade climate change has occasionally overshadowed the many other ways his agencies are contradicting established research.

The agriculture department last month rolled back standards for schools to serve more whole grains, less salt and non-fat flavored milk. Department officials claimed schools struggled with the programs because students wouldn’t eat healthier foods.

But research found the food changes didn’t deter students from getting lunch and didn’t cause more plate waste. And the healthier food requirements were projected to be effective: one study estimated they could prevent 1.8 million cases of childhood obesity over a decade.

“I do think it’s pretty clear that these standards are working and that given more time, they will work better,” said Karen Perry Stillerman, a food policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The Trump administration is also cutting short evidence-based grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs, favoring curriculum focused on abstinence instead, despite a large body of research that shows abstinence-only programs don’t work. A 2007 evaluation of four federal abstinence programs found that they had no impact on sexual activity or rates of unprotected sex among teens.

Sara Flowers, the vice-president of education for Planned Parenthood, said the majority of the programs previously funded demonstrated young people changed their behavior in at least one of five categories: delaying sex, reducing sexual partners, increasing contraceptive use, reducing rates of sexually transmitted infections or reducing rates of pregnancy.

“The administration is really not using science. The administration is really using ideology, and those are very different,” Flowers said. “This [program] has been rigorously tested by experts and vetted and analyzed.”

The Trump administration has also erroneously questioned the effectiveness of contraceptives in rules expanding exemptions for employers that don’t want to cover them under insurance plans.

Climate change and environmental science have also been at the forefront of the battle between science and the Trump administration. Power plant and car standards are being rolled back, as are pesticide restrictions and wildlife protections.

The Trump administration has ignored climate scientists’ warnings that rising temperatures and more extreme weather will hurt the US economy and risk lives. The interior department initially sought to remove references to manmade climate change in a report about how sea-level rise might flood national parks.

“The notion of there being political appointees who try to impose their political agenda in a way that is contrary to scientific evidence is not a new thing, but it has reached an entirely new level in the Trump administration,” said the Obama science adviser John Holdren.

One of the first major decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was to forego a ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which is associated with developmental delays and health problems in children and has sickened farm workers. Judges ordered the EPA to bar the substance, citing the science that shows it is dangerous. The agency is appealing the case.

Agency officials have also made fundamental changes to how the federal government weighs environmental and health research.

The former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt barred scientists working with EPA grants from serving on the science advisory panels that help shape policies. Instead, industries and states now have more sway over those boards.

The agency also plans to limit what science it will consider, requiring any studies used in the regulatory process to publish confidential participant data.

A Democratic staffer for the House science committee, which plans to investigate the administration’s science cuts, said it’s been hard to even track all the agency changes.

John Bachmann, who advised the controversial Reagan-era EPA appointee Anne Gorsuch Burford on air pollution science, said she would listen to briefings on peer-reviewed data, even as she slashed budgets and eased enforcement.

“That was the most comparable period,” Bachmann said. “That was nothing compared to what we’re seeing now.”

President Trump has said the US will "devastate Turkey economically" if Ankara decides to attack Kurdish groups in Syria.

Mr Trump was referring to his plan to pull US forces out of Syria, where they have been fighting alongside a Kurdish militia against the Islamic State (IS) group.

Turkey regards the Kurdish group as terrorists.

The US president's comments drew a sharp response from Turkey, which said Mr Trump would not get anywhere by threatening the country economically.

After Mr Trump's tweet, the Turkish lira dropped in value against the US dollar.

It then recovered its value, suggesting that his remarks had limited impact.

So how could the US damage Turkey economically - if it wanted to?

The relationship between Washington and Ankara has historically been close - politically, economically and militarily.

Turkey - a Nato member - is a vital partner for the US but there have been significant strains in the partnership.

These came out into the open last August, when the US slapped sanctions on Turkey over the continued detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson.

It marked a new low in relations and was a further blow to an already fragile economy.

The US also doubled tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminium that month, leading to further falls in the value of the Turkish lira - some 40% since the beginning of 2018.

Turkey responded in kind, raising tariffs on cars from the US to 120%, on alcoholic drinks to 140% and on leaf tobacco to 60%.

In fact, only 5% of Turkish exports head to the US and Turkey imports only slightly more from there.

Turkey's trading relationships with China, Russia and Germany are more important.

But even though overall trade with US is not as large, there are key vulnerable sectors: air transport, iron and steel and machinery - and this is where the US has chosen to target previous sanctions.

Turkey has historically had a deficit in international trade, in that it imports more from the rest of the world than it exports.

However, the trade gap did narrow considerably in 2018 on the back of the weakness of the lira, which made Turkey's exports more competitive and imports more expensive.

Turkey may be vulnerable over its high levels of debt.

As of the end of September 2018, its external debt amounted to over 50% of its gross domestic product (GDP) - the value of all the goods and services it produces in a year - according to official figures.

"This is Turkey's Achilles heel," says York University economist Gulcin Ozkan.

"It puts the country at the mercy of international investors and makes it vulnerable to exchange rate movements."

There are two features of Turkey's foreign debt increase that are concerning.

It has a relatively high level of short-term debt, which is due for repayment in the near future.

That means having a greater reliance on external finance.

In addition, most of its overall debt is in foreign currencies such as the US dollar and the euro.

So, the debt becomes more expensive as the Turkish currency loses value and other currencies - such as the US dollar - strengthen.

In fact, the lira had been struggling for most of last year, recording its worst decline since 2001.

This currency weakness also aggravates Turkey's persistent inflation problem, which at one point in 2018 peaked at over 25%.

It's important to point out that the Turkish economy has been growing strongly for most of the period since 2001.

But confidence in Turkey was beginning to wane last year over concerns that the economy was overheating due to huge spending and borrowing.

In addition, the Turkish government has taken away some power from the central bank, leading investors to worry about the direction of fiscal policy.

So any fallout with the US could further sour the financial markets' view of the health of the Turkish economy.

"This could lead to a decline in capital inflows and impact the value of the Turkish currency," says economist Gulcin Ozkan.

But given the importance of the political and strategic relationship with Turkey, which shares borders with Syria, Iraq and Iran, the US may want to tread carefully.

Turkey is the biggest recipient of US defence equipment after Israel and the UAE and the vast majority of its air force is US supplied.

It also hosts US and Nato forces at its Incirlik airbase, in the south of the country.

So Turkey may be economically vulnerable but politically and strategically it remains very important.

An Irish fast food company has won a case against McDonald's to prevent it trademarking the terms "Big Mac" and "Mc" in some instances in Europe.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office ruled McDonald's had not proven genuine use of "Big Mac" as a burger or restaurant name.

Galway-based Supermac's said it opened the door to register its brand in Europe as a trademark.

Supermac's managing director hailed the "end of the McBully".

This is not the first time McDonald's has gone to the courts over prefixes.

A European court upheld a ruling that a Singaporean company - MacCoffee - had unfairly benefited from the branding of the US burger giant due to its use of the "Mac" prefix.

However, Tuesday's judgement rebukes that.

Supermac's had previously attempted to expand operations into UK and Europe.

However this move was brought to a halt after McDonald's won a battle over the similarity between the name Supermac's and Big Mac.

Supermac's managing director Pat McDonagh told Irish broadcaster RTÉ it had been a "David versus Goliath scenario"

"But just because McDonald's has deep pockets and we are relatively small in context, doesn't mean we weren't going to fight our corner," he added.

"We've been saying for years that they (McDonald's) have been using trademark bullying.

"This is the end of the McBully."

Eleven Senate Republicans joined Democrats on Tuesday to on a measure intended to stop the Treasury Department from easing sanctions on an oligarch close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The 57-42 vote, following a GOP lunch briefing by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, put a squeeze on Republicans torn between support for the Trump administration and concerns about going soft on Russia, in this case companies linked to Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska.

"This is a hard vote," said Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, who opposed the measure. "This is not a black-and-white vote."

Republican senators who voted to open debate on the resolution of disapproval drafted by Democrats included Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Marco Rubio of Florida and Susan Collins of Maine.

The Senate planned to hold another procedural vote Wednesday at 12:30 p.m. It will have a higher, 60-vote threshold.

“We’re only two Republican votes short of the U.S. Senate telling Putin he can’t run the show no matter what President Trump and his administration try to do," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

At issue are plans by Treasury to relax sanctions on Russian companies Rusal, EN+ and EuroSibEnergo, which had been targeted because of their ties to Deripaska. The firms produce aluminum and electricity. A congressional review period for lawmakers to intervene in the decision expires this week.

Mnuchin has said Treasury should ease up on the companies because they agreed to sever Deripaska's control — proof that the sanctions had the desired effect, he said. He has promised that the administration will keep pressure on Deripaska.

"Sanctions are designed to change behavior," Senate Banking Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) said. "What this has accomplished is that."

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Jim Risch (R-Idaho) accused Democrats of pulling a political stunt.

"This thing is nothing but something to embarrass the president," he said.

Senate Democrats argued that the Trump administration should stand firm against Russian aggression and that lifting sanctions sent the wrong message.

Democrats were unified in supporting the measure, though some privately questioned the wisdom of second-guessing career Treasury officials and cranking up partisan conflict in an area where there has otherwise been bipartisan cooperation.

Schumer, who instigated the vote, justified the move by pointing to Deripaska's ties to Putin and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a target in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into election interference by Russia.

"It is deeply suspect that the Trump administration would propose sanctions relief for Deripaska’s companies before the special counsel finished his work," Schumer said. "We should not allow any sanctions relief for President Putin’s trusted agents or the companies they control before the conclusion of the investigation."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer introduced his own disapproval resolution on Tuesday, saying in a statement that Deripaska had been "key to much of the malign activities Russia directs against the United States."

It's unclear when the House will vote on the measure.

shocked! SHOCKED I tell you! A judge sided against a Republican?! GASP!

Ronald Reagan is probably rolling over in his grave

How would he feel about a president cowtowing to the Saudis and Israhell?

Given that he authorized illegal arms sales to Iran

Israhell?

Or do you consider them to be allies?

Given that he authorized illegal arms sales to Iran