bcking

Antifa, what a joke, but this is dangerous.

Again do you have any idea of the risk of that? If it's 1 in 1,000 we shouldn't assume 1,000 "parents" are all molesters.
 
We can't just pull random rare risks out of a hat and use that to justify a policy that applies to an entire population. That's irrational.

Not only the separation of families, but also our recent Kim Jong Un "Fan Party" makes this especially awkward...

I agree with you generally, with one caveat.
 
In my opinion, I don't think a proper deterrent for families to not enter illegaly is to separate them from their children. I definitely think we can be firmer with illegal immigration, and we definitely can send a message that it won't work, you won't be welcomed, and you will be sent back. But through all of that, I think we could do it in a way that doesn't separate families. We could hold them together, process them, and then send them back together. Is family separation an effective deterrent? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I think we can hold ourselves to a higher moral standard, while still enforcing immigration laws and still curbing illegal immigration.
 
When we decide to use something like "family separation" as a deterrent for the parents, we are involving other people (the children) who aren't involved in the decision making, but can suffer as a result. While yes their parents are committing a crime, and shouldnt' be encouraged to do so, they are still their parents and the child shouldn't be separated unless deemed necessary. Separation should be an exception, not a rule.

I hope this withdrawal really is just a protest for their hypocrisy and that the US will finally actually take human rights seriously. 

Not sure about Australia but Lyme disease treatment is covered in the Canadian health system. Getting an actual diagnosis has been the main issue for many years, as there seems to be a prevalent belief among many in the medical community that it is not endemic in Canada, therefore it must be something else.  Getting a diagnosis in the chronic stages can be challenging anywhere outside endemic areas, but there are definitely more specialists in the USA who are familiar with this, so much more likely to get a diagnosis and treatment. 
 
  
 

Lyme disease, and tick borne illnesses in general, are very challenging. The symptoms are non-specific. It can be Lyme, it can be another tick borne illness, or it can be something else entirely.
 
Even if you know it to be Lyme, treatment is also not all that successful, so it also wouldn't surprise me if some countries that are more "cost-conscious" or "value-based" don't support all of the treatment options we cover in the USA. Symptoms from Lyme disease will often resolve even without therapy, and will commonly recur even with therapy (making judgments about how successful treatment is difficult), not to mention the longer treatment courses often prescribed lead to side effects. There is no doubt in certain situations people benefit, but some places in the US may over treat. 

Do we have any estimate of the number that are falsifying parenthood? How many anecdotes of that do we even have to begin to form an estimate? 
 
I'm sure those cases probably exist but in ~1,950 adults we should try to have some idea of how many there are in that situation. If it's 1% or something, we can't make all of our decisions based around that 1%. That isn't reasonable.
 
A minority of people wanting to a buy a gun want to do so for violent/criminal purposes. However I'm sure many people here would argue that we shouldn't form all of our gun laws around those few people with ill intent.

Do we have any estimate of the number that are falsifying parenthood? How many anecdotes of that do we even have to begin to form an estimate? 
 
I'm sure those cases probably exist but in ~1,950 adults we should try to have some idea of how many there are in that situation. If it's 1% or something, we can't make all of our decisions based around that 1%. That isn't reasonable.
 
A minority of people wanting to a buy a gun want to do so for violent/criminal purposes. However I'm sure many people here would argue that we shouldn't form all of our gun laws around those few people with ill intent.

https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/
 
"One in five uninsured adults in 2016 went without needed medical care due to cost."
 
So that means in American we have about 8.8 million people who "went without needed medical care" - Not just "waited for 10 weeks". 
 
Unfortunately it's a hard one to study. If many uninsured people don't seek even a regular doctor, how can you determine what medical care they need? I'm sure many of them are walking around with undiagnosed conditions and have "needed medical care" that they don't even know about. 

Interesting.
 
If that is all being followed, the government should be able to put out some statistics regarding how many of the 1950 adults/2000 children were only "briefly separated" (IE - they followed the course in the first paragraph), and how many have aggravating factors, and how many are claiming asylum.
 
There is a lot of negative press on this. I would expect they would want to start put out some statistics that help paint it in a better light. If the majority of the children are only being separated for 1-2 days I personally would feel a bit better about the situation. If the parents have aggravating factors then, as hard as it may be, separation may be the best thing (at least temporarily). If they are claiming asylum, I find it sad that they still need to be separated. Yes some of those cases may be fraudulent but I can't imagine being someone who is actually genuine, reaching the border, and then realizing you now won't be able to see your children for 20+ days after fleeing horrible conditions where your life was at risk.
 
This is something that could be solved rather quickly, but unfortunately like similar issues in the past year or two (DACA, for example), it is being used as a bargaining chip. Trump is a pretty successful "spin doctor" when it comes to placing the blame on those who aren't actually in power...as if they somehow were the ones that decided to start doing this.

Do we have any estimate of the number that are falsifying parenthood? How many anecdotes of that do we even have to begin to form an estimate? 
 
I'm sure those cases probably exist but in ~1,950 adults we should try to have some idea of how many there are in that situation. If it's 1% or something, we can't make all of our decisions based around that 1%. That isn't reasonable.
 
A minority of people wanting to a buy a gun want to do so for violent/criminal purposes. However I'm sure many people here would argue that we shouldn't form all of our gun laws around those few people with ill intent.

Interesting.
 
If that is all being followed, the government should be able to put out some statistics regarding how many of the 1950 adults/2000 children were only "briefly separated" (IE - they followed the course in the first paragraph), and how many have aggravating factors, and how many are claiming asylum.
 
There is a lot of negative press on this. I would expect they would want to start put out some statistics that help paint it in a better light. If the majority of the children are only being separated for 1-2 days I personally would feel a bit better about the situation. If the parents have aggravating factors then, as hard as it may be, separation may be the best thing (at least temporarily). If they are claiming asylum, I find it sad that they still need to be separated. Yes some of those cases may be fraudulent but I can't imagine being someone who is actually genuine, reaching the border, and then realizing you now won't be able to see your children for 20+ days after fleeing horrible conditions where your life was at risk.
 
This is something that could be solved rather quickly, but unfortunately like similar issues in the past year or two (DACA, for example), it is being used as a bargaining chip. Trump is a pretty successful "spin doctor" when it comes to placing the blame on those who aren't actually in power...as if they somehow were the ones that decided to start doing this.

No.
 
The argument is, don't separate a toddler from her parents.
 
Refuse them entry together, or detain them together, or let them in pending asylum together, but don't rip young children from their parents arms.
 
We are the United States of America. We aren't Al Qaeda, we don't practice cruelty for no reason.

Their Director did. The same director that coordinate 15 other intelligence groups.
 
But yes, the most important are the FBI, CIA and NSA. They all agreed and signed onto the report as well.
If you call a report fromODNI, FBI, CIA and NSA just "hearsay" from "Obama loyalists" then there is no point trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.

Because suddenly once Trump is in office their statistics become 100% accurate.
 
It's called magical thinking. We study it in childhood development.

We aren't talking about skewing facts.
 
We are talking about lying. Trump made the point several times that the "real unemployment rate" was astronomically higher than the stats and now suddenly they're accurate.
 
He was lying. You can skew facts a little. Trump throws them in the dirt and steps on them. Magnitudes different.

No she is guilty. I agree it didn't warrant criminal charges, but she definitely made a mistake.
 
I see no evidence so far that Obama did anything wrong, hwoever. Nor do I see definitive evidence that he lied.

Because suddenly once Trump is in office their statistics become 100% accurate.
 
It's called magical thinking. We study it in childhood development.

Repeating something does not make it true. Again, Steele was not a "Foreign Agent." He was not carrying out the interests of a Foreign Government. He was an independent contractor.
 
On the other hand, Manafort and others associated with the Trump campaign were acting as Foreign Agents, and were not registered as such.
 
As for evidence, the Mueller investigation has already indicted 20 people, 3 companies, and secured 5 guilty pleas.

Absolutely. The other problem I didn't initially think about was the majority of medical education occurs in large academic centers (makes sense). So even if training was incorporated, it would be mostly geared to that practice environment. They would have to bring in people from private practice (who often don't have academic appointments and don't regularly teach) to talk about their unique circumstances. Then you have to deal with the fact that each individual trainee will ultimately usually go into one arena or the other (private or academic), and they only infrequently swap. 
 
A brand new July is just around the corner, with fresh faced medical students, residents and fellows. Stay out of the hospital  (Though in reality things are MUCH better than they used to be, in America. Trainees are probably over-monitored at this point, to the point where they have very limited responsibility).

What is your definition of a "foreign agent", because I don't think it is the standard one?
 
A "foreign agent" is someone who is actively carrying out the interests of a foreign country while located in a host country. Steele wasn't a "foreign agent". He had prior experience working with the British government but I don't believe he was actively working for them at the time. He wasn't carrying out the interests of the United Kingdom in any capacity. He was working as an independent agent. The Clinton campaign worked with a "foreigner", but not a "foreign agent". Steele's contacts in Russia, to our knowledge, were also not "carrying out the interests" of Russia considering there is extensive separate evidence that it was in "Russia's interest" for Trump to be elected. So if anything his Russian contacts were doing exactly the opposite of "carrying out the interests" of their country. So again, no "foreign agents", just "foreigners".
 
Do you have a problem with people who work with foreigners?
 
EDIT: An example of a "foreign agent" would be Manafort. You don't even need to be a citizen of the foreign country.

I've said this before here.
 
We cannot expect our intelligence agencies to only hire people without political opinions. That can't be a criteria to be an intelligence agent. We would have none.
 
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and they are entitled to share that opinion with other people. So it absolutely DOES matter where they did it and through what medium. They weren't sending "official FBI memos" talking about stopping Trump. They were text messaging. More importantly, the most important issue is whether their opinion/views influenced their ability to do their job. 
 
A doctor can be sexist and racist, but still be a good doctor to ALL patients as long as he keeps his personal opinions separate from his profession. He'd still be a horrible person though. Similarly I may extremely dislike Putin and in some ways wish him dead, but if I happened to be the nearest medical professional and he needed life sustaining treatment, I could still do my job to the best of my ability without letting my personal opinion of him influence what I'm doing. It's called being a professional.