Fleeing an abusive stepfather in El Salvador, Gabriela headed for Oakland, California, where her grandfather had promised to take her in. When the teenager reached the U.S. border in January 2017, she was brought to a federally funded shelter in Texas. Initially, staff described her as receptive and resilient. But as she was shuttled from one Texas shelter to another, she became increasingly depressed. Without consulting her grandfather, or her mother in El Salvador, shelter staff have prescribed numerous medications for her, including two psychotropic drugs whose labels warn of increased suicidal behavior in adolescents, according to court documents. Still languishing in a shelter after 18 months, the 17-year-old doesn’t want to take the medications, but she does anyway, because staff at one facility told her she wouldn’t be released until she is considered psychologically sound.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » It has to be said though that there was a sustained, bitter, vehement, toxic campaign of lies and propaganda against her. If anyone wants to look for Russian meddling there it is, right there.
irishash wrote: » She was always fighting an uphill battle and any other woman in the future will face the same.
badtoro wrote: » Oh sure, I agree. But she didn't do her best as a candidate imo. Wasted opportunity for the Dems.
badtoro wrote: » I don't agree either with the woman in power type comment. How many said that before Obama was elected that a black man would never be president? How many wanted Michele Obama or oprah to run, it just needs to happen, rather than there being a problem. It's like Dana not being president here, shes one woman, the wrong woman. When we've had good women presidents.
aloyisious wrote: » Maybe he should consult a lawyer, putting his 2nd complaint first….. Rudy!!!
Itssoeasy wrote: » Also why did he reference George Washington in his tweet at the very end ? Oh wait sorry he thinks he's the favourite president ? Ah sure isn't it great he has a sense of humour about these things.
pixelburp wrote: » I think the potential legality issue being implied is that Cohen recorded Trump without the latter knowing, but as I understand it, New York has 1 party consent for recordings; therefore Cohen was well within his rights to tape the meetings without Trump's own knowledge or agreement. Many other states demand 2 party consent, which is the fudging and disinformation that Trump and co. will rely on to discredit this latest piece of evidence.
aloyisious wrote: » Just closing down, saw a report on MSN about Don's isolation since his Helsinki comments on his US Intelligence agency. I'm unable to provide a link to MSN report so googled for info. There are four links on the issue, all bearing a similar story. The oldest from 13 hours ago freshest 4 hours ago, so I went for an original 13 hour one. http://www.readingeagle.com/ap/article/inside-trumps-isolation-after-putin-summit-walkbacks It seems several of his closest Admin team, incl Mike Pence, got him alone in the Oval Office and talked him into his walk-back. Para 2 of the report refers.
Vice President Mike Pence, National Security Adviser John Bolton and chief of staff John Kelly stood united in the West Wing on Tuesday in their contention that the commander in chief had some cleanup to do. They brought with them words of alarm from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as from a host of congressional leaders and supporters of the president for whom Trump’s public praise of Putin proved to be a bridge too far.
Captain Obvious wrote: » It's from Associated Press sources I believehttps://apnews.com/3bf4a82e32af4240a9528bcadc5e2411/Inside-Trump's-isolation-after-Putin-summit,-walkbacks
pixelburp wrote: » Constitution experts: can a sitting President replace a VP without approval from any other branch of government? Trump has fired all and sundry from many posts, but I'd presumed Pence is safe in what amounts to a protected role? If Trumps flailing moods swung negatively towards Pence, I wonder if he could be sacked.
Water John wrote: » Will Pence be, sitting in, on the next meeting between Trump and Putin to take place in the WH?
rossie1977 wrote: » Trump is 72, Biden 75 and Sanders is 76 so not alot between them age wise. As far as polarizing goes it really depends on can the Democratic candidate win Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. There won't be anywhere near the black cloud hanging over whatever candidate the Dems pick next summer compared to Clinton whom right wing media and the Republican party had been preparing to face since 2004.In the end regardless who the Dems pick the 2020 election is going to come down to a handful of states. Trump's not winning a state he didn't win in 16 unless something dramatic like 9/11 happens between now and then and whatever candidate Dems pick they aren't winning any state in the deep South or great plains obviously meaning only the yellow states are up for grabs
RIGOLO wrote: » The Dems wont represent a real threat in 2020, they got so lost in identity politics , they have lost their own identity and the factions within the party are still vying for control . It will take 10 years for them to figure out who and what they are and for the old guard to give up control to whatever new form the take. The Republicans are locked in for 2020 and even beyond.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I think that the USA has become a failed experiment. For a long time, its problems were masked by its economic success and prosperity. However, the tide of anti-intellectualism, doublethink and raw hatred that Donald Trump is currently riding can only lead to somewhere terrible. The alt-right has currently become the mainstream while moderate Republicans like Jeff Flake of Arizona are very much sidelined. Meanwhile, the left continues to appeal to individual minority groups and lacks any sort of galvanising narrative which they need if they're ever going to have a broad appeal.The USA, like the two political parties that have governed it is simply too grand a coalition to survive in its current form. I don't know what the next shock is going to be but I think it needs to either split up entirely or cede much more decision-making power to individual states while reforming its political system. Given the lack of interest in the latter, I think the former is more likely to happen.
Captain Obvious wrote: » Another poor reflection on Trump supporters All over a balloon.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Idiots on both sides.
FrostyJack wrote: » You could say the exact same for the GOP, they are lost and now the party of Trump and will have that stain for decades. The weekly mess up by Trump and when the economy falters, which will happen ( though he will blame Hillary, Obama, JFK, immigrants etc) he will be found out he has don't nothing but embarrass the country on the World stage, kill ties with allies and pushed the nation debt through the roof. All he done is keep the momentum of the Obama economy but instead of doing so like an adult, he has lowered tax revenue and increased spending to keep it as it was, which is not sustainable.
Christy42 wrote: » I think the plan of giving the states more powers (a Republican plan by the way, not specific to Trump himself) is simply due to the failed nature of political discourse in the country - the US president no longer stands for, or even pretends to stand for, the entire country. Devolution on the scale indicated would simply be admitting the country is fractured beyond repair (in the short term).
Townton wrote: » Christy42 wrote: » I think the plan of giving the states more powers (a Republican plan by the way, not specific to Trump himself) is simply due to the failed nature of political discourse in the country - the US president no longer stands for, or even pretends to stand for, the entire country. Devolution on the scale indicated would simply be admitting the country is fractured beyond repair (in the short term). The president was never intended to have such a standing. That was the whole point of federalism and the constitutional make up of the United States. The idea of de centralising power down to the states is actually quite a good one and intended to allow states that felt unrepresented at the federal level to make the majority of their own laws regardless.
Townton wrote: » He has also cut a massive amount of regulation, which from a business perspective particularly small and medium has been far more effective and helpful then the tax reforms/cuts. Both together are really adding to the economy dispite what some said prior to their implementation. Was in the US couple of months ago and a number of small and medium business owners (most of restaurant owners) have said they have never seen it so busy. Food for thought but on the ground thinks certainly seem to be working. Which will be very hard for the Dems to counter unless there is some sort of slow down. As Bill Maher said he is hoping for a recession because without one the Dems could unfortunately be in trouble. But plenty of time to go yet!
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Which regulations has he cut?
