What a Great week this has been in the world

[richard51]

Ebaynut: go and look up Tom Price on wiki.

There are references there and I'm sure that he would have disowned them if they were untrue.

NB Its at the end of the early life education and medical career section. It would appear that he is more interested in money than applying the hippocratic oath. What an absolute ****.

What is your comment about that?

[richard51]

He is the nominee for secretary of health no less.

[Jonzjob]

Is it going to be the UST Inc., the United States of Thumpington Inc. that's going to emerge?

Will he build a wall all the way around his world so high and tight that nowt can penitrate it?

If so, will someone come along and fill it with water [6]

Now, the Mexicans would be the first in the queue to pay for that wall me-thinks [:-))]

Edit :  - I get totally confused at just what the Nut is quoting, what is being said in reply and only just making out the 'signature' (I suppose that's what it's supposed to be?) about the wall that the Mexicans are going to be forced (?) to pay for? Is it because I woun't go near Twatter/Farsebook/etc. or is it because I am just not in the same generation even if the same age?

[ebaynut]

Cathar Tours wrote,

 

Even worse he probably won't be president in

10 years time and with all his money what does he care. Be interesting to see

exactly how he intends to get the money from the Mexicans to pay for his wall,

that should be quite hilarious.

 

 

Talk about state the obvious, a person can

only serve as POTUS for a maximum of two, four year terms, so for once, you are

right.

 

Well, I hope you enjoy watching him make the

Mexicans pay for the wall, because they will, one way or another. You may recall

how you thought it ‘quite hilarious’ when he stood to be the republican

candidate. No doubt you thought it ‘quite hilarious’ when he ran for the

presidency, you no doubt also thought it ‘quite hilarious’ when he said there

would be a wall along the southern border. Well I hope you enjoy the enjoy the

next stage as much, I am sure I will. [:D]

[ebaynut]

Richard51 wrote,

 

Ebaynut: go and look up Tom Price on wiki.

There are references there and I'm sure that he would have disowned them

if they were untrue.

NB Its at the end of the early life education and

medical career section. It would appear that he is more interested in money than

applying the hippocratic oath. What an absolute ****.

What is your

comment about that?

 

 

 

My comment?  Well, if you wish to try to prove

a point you are making, then you should not expect the other party to spend

their time, looking up things they really don't care about to try to

prove your point.

I would suggest you find the

information and learn how to post it  in a Link. 

[richard51]

Sorry, didn't realise you have to select the actual us politician if you go direct to wiki. That takes some doing!

If you google Tom Price then the right person comes up straight away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Price_(U.S._politician)

Perhaps cutting and pasting is not too strenuous.

You are so clever knowing how to do links. With your comment could you supply a link to show how to make a link, rather than to the rather biased fox news.

[Cathar Tours]

Well Ebaynut you should have read the 22nd Amendment in full, it's two 4 year terms but up to 10 years in office which is why rather than say defiantly I said probably.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/amend22.htm

Well Trump never won the popular vote so I guess more people in the US think he should not be president than those that think he should. Something you can see really riles him.

Personally I was totally amazed that the UK voted to leave although over 17M refused to ignore the lies and vote to remain. Likewise I was amazed that more people voted against Trump than for him yet the American system of colleges means he becomes president.

Interestingly you chose Murdoch's (known for his right wing support) FOX News interview and not the one from the day before with NBC but then as Trump said there are few honest journalists and they seem to only work for FOX.

In December 2016 the EU and Mexico agreed to look at upgrading their 1997 free trade agreement to include more goods so in the long run it won't make much difference to Mexico only to American consumers who will be paying the tax so no Mexico won't be paying, the American consumer will.

By the way the wall-builder Todd Sternfeld has suggested that it is more likely to come in at $26 billion (£20.6bn) with a further $25 billion to replace the existing fences.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/758714/Trump-Mexico-border-wall-How-much-cost-who-pay-immigrants

There are more sources that all come out at much the same number, well short of the $8 billion Trump said it will cost.

In the link to his FOX interview you gave he also said he will cut public spending and increase spending on the military. Seeing he has one of the biggest military forces on the planet this would seem a bit of a waste. He then went on to contradict himself by saying he would spend more on Schools and the transport infrastructure which I thought were public services. I wonder where that money will come from, he didn't say?

[Jonzjob]

There CT, just to keep our Mr Nut happy

This is your link activated

I'd hate to meet him on a bad day, Mr Nut that is [:-))]

[Lehaut]

To add to the joy, gather this was slipped through on Trump day and will come into play in 2017. Think it is a great idea!

From April 2017 the UK will introduce its own two child policy. Of course the UK’s two child policy is not as brutal as China’s one child policy was. But it marks a clear change in the way benefits are assessed and paid to low income families.

So all we need now is a system that converts body fat to heating oil and the UK will surge ahead.

[idun]

And I am for this new law, cannot come quickly enough for me.

Unless say twins or more are born at the second birth, who I hopeshould be OK and I really hope that they are. It seems perfectly OK to me.

I don't care how wealthy or not people are, the planet is overpopulated and people living too long........ so I would like to see something done internationally to reduce population growth in general.

[Lehaut]

Yes, twins, triplets are covered, so are births due to rape.

[lindal1000]

To be clear it isn't limiting the number of children anyone can have, but limiting benefits, in particular tax credits, to two children. It only applies to new claimants. As with many things it will affect poorer people more than the wealthy.

[idun]

 I have two kids..........  we could not afford more and even all them years ago, replacing us as a couple seemed OK. And I have not got a clue as to why anyone with limited ressources would have endless kids......... AND expect the likes of me to pay for them, I do not want to.

And still there is this overpopulated world, so anything that encourages a reduction in population is OK with me.

[lindal1000]

Although that assumes people have children because of the money available . My guess is it will put off very few poorer people from having children. It certainly never did in the past.

I don't have any kids..something I'm very grateful for when I see the dystopian future to which we are heading.

[idun]

I never suggested that it put anyone off having children completely, but as parents we are supposed to be responsible for the children we have.

Although sometimes despite our best efforts, other factors ruin lives, ie my youngest son........... a messed up life, completely damaged adult........ and at least two of the three factors involved are down to his life in France.