Excerpts:

A year after some of the world’s richest men cut aid for the world’s poorest children, they’re trying to roll out a new public relations narrative:

Aid continues! We’re saving lives from AIDS! Anyway, aid never really worked, so we’re focused on trade! Building opportunities for American companies while saving babies!

Let’s first concede a few points. American humanitarian aid was never great at nurturing economic growth, but it did save one life every 10 seconds until last year. It’s also true that public pressure led the administration and Congress to retain some lifesaving programs, particularly for H.I.V./AIDS, and to its credit the administration has expanded use of a drug called lenacapavir to fight AIDS. Finally, the Trump administration is right that trade is crucial, which is why President Bill Clinton started a fine trade program with Africa; unfortunately, it expires this year, and its long-term future under Trump is in doubt.

None of this changes the fact that this glossy new Trump narrative is absurd. Trump’s most lethal policy will almost surely be his 71 percent cut in humanitarian aid from 2024 to 2025. A Boston University researcher estimated that the aid cuts cost more than 750,000 lives worldwide in their first year. A recently published study in The Lancet, the British medical journal, forecast that at present rates the defunding will cost 9.4 million lives by 2030, including 2.5 million children under the age of 5.

Are these figures correct? Exaggerated? I can’t be sure, and neither can Trump or anyone else, partly because the administration has cut data collection that might help us assess mortality accurately.

Meanwhile, Trump and his aides continue to take steps that will add to the toll.

The administration is now withholding aid for vaccines for poor countries in ways that may cost the lives of vast numbers of children. Trump slashed funding for an international vaccine alliance called Gavi, and now the administration is also refusing to release $600 million for Gavi that Congress has already appropriated and that must be spent by September.

Gavi is one of the most cost-effective aid programs in history. One study found that each dollar spent on vaccines in poor countries brings a return of $54 in reduced health costs and other benefits. I was once hospitalized with a serious case of malaria that I caught in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and I think it’s a miracle that a few doses of a $3 malaria vaccine can now save a Congolese child’s life — and a scandal that administration officials are willing to let such children die because of ideological hostility toward vaccines.

Gavi also pays for HPV vaccines that prevent cervical cancer, which kills more than 900 women every day worldwide. Cervical cancer is an excruciating, humiliating way to die — it is sometimes diagnosed partly by the odor of rotting flesh — yet a $4 vaccine can prevent it. Gavi’s vaccinations have already averted almost one million of these horrific deaths from cervical cancer.

Trump’s cuts have created a budget crisis for Gavi and other aid agencies. It has been magnified because European countries followed America’s lead with cuts to their own aid budgets. Gavi estimates that 600,000 lives will be unnecessarily lost by 2030 as a result. Think of your mother, wife, daughter; multiply by 600,000, and you glimpse the cost of Trump’s destruction of just the Gavi element of American aid.

The Trump administration is also, unintentionally, exacerbating global poverty with its catastrophic war with Iran, and not just because the war has displaced more than 2.2 million women and girls in Iran and Lebanon. Because of the war, diesel prices have risen 160 percent in Myanmar and 87 percent in Nigeria, while 40 percent of gas stations have closed in Laos, according to the United Nations. Rising fuel prices are increasing costs of transportation and thus food.

The upshot is that if the Gulf crisis doesn’t end by next month, an additional 45 million people worldwide are likely to suffer severe hunger in the latter part of this year, according to Cindy McCain of the U.N World Food Program.

An even bigger impact may come, after a delay, from shortages of fertilizer, often made with oil and gas byproducts from the Persian Gulf. Perhaps one-third of the world’s fertilizer production will be disrupted if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and shortages will most likely mean lower crop yields, higher food prices and more starvation. José Andrés of World Central Kitchen has warned that fertilizer shortages could lead to a multi year famine beginning as early as the end of this year.

Think of it this way: Artificial fertilizers keep roughly half of humans alive. Without them, the earth would be able to produce enough food to support only about 4 billion people.

Even as the Trump administration has created this crisis, it has unraveled some of the global health systems that would normally save lives of starving children. And Trump administration proclamations of “trade over aid” sound empowering until you realize that what they mean in practice is that America is talking about withholding lifesaving medicines from villagers in Zambia unless the Zambian government sells more minerals to American companies.

A new book, “Into the Wood Chipper,” recounts the reckless way in which DOGE officials dismantled the United States Agency for International Development. Written by Nicholas Enrich, a former top health official at the agency, it chronicles the “callousness, dishonesty and ineptitude” of Trump aides who destroyed programs that they didn’t understand.

Please excuse my intemperate tone. But in my travels over the last year, I’ve seen children dying because of our aid cuts. This doesn’t feel like policymaking so much as vandalism, accompanied by wasted food, ruined contraceptives and an estimated $6.4 billion spent closing down the United States Agency for International Development (that sum alone could have saved more than one million children’s lives).

Actually, for all my harsh words, Trump is talking about providing emergency financial support for one nation. That’s the United Arab Emirates, which is pinched by the Iran war and may get a lifeline from Washington to support its currency.

So we’re ready to support a country that is roughly as rich as Britain and France and is fueling the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, in Sudan, by arming a militia committing mass murder and mass rape? Could one factor be that high-level Emiratis have approved investments of half a billion dollars in a Trump family crypto company?

Forget the efforts to dress this show up. The truth is ugly: The world’s richest men are crushing the world’s poorest children.


Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/09/opinion/foreign-aid-cuts.html

(no message)

Instead, you ran a low-I.Q. cackling buffoon who has never accomplished a thing beyond the worst border crisis in history. And a veep candidate who believes free speech should be criminalized, men can be women, and oversaw billions in fraud.

And that's before we even get into you people being in bed with communists, cheering on terrorists, and dismissing the murder of innocents by unvetted scum you forced onto communities.

CA homeowners who were victimized by the GOP's Laissez-Faire induced "Great Recession"...Jamie Dimon wasn't laughing at her after that experience. Kamala demonstrated the kind of toughness you want in a Public Servant on behalf of her constituents...not her own financial largess. KH is not a criminal...like DJT certainly is.

Judging a person's qualifications based on how they express honest laughter is about as shallow a criteria as one could imagine. You make poor choices.

As for the Border...Biden/Harris negotiated a Bi[partisan Senate Bill through hard work with the GOP...Trump killed it, even though it authorized much more than what he himself asked from Congress back in 2019.

Got to run, but I'll be back later...should give you time enough to try and think of one thing DJT has done to justify your support of hm.


Link: https://fortune.com/2024/07/22/kamala-harris-jamie-dimon-settlement-california-homeowners-big-banks-financial-crisis/

Too funny. A competent attorney could have gotten a far better deal. It was a softball for anyone with half a brain, but as you know, you struggled with and failed the bar exam.

She was so eager to settle and claim a "victory" that billions were left on the table for actual California citizens because she had zero plan for litigation.

Your handlers failed you again.

...here's an excerpt from the linked article summarizing the entire 'battle' over Harris' victory. Note that a plethora of other State AGs...who most likely passed their bar exams on the first try...weren't anywhere near as tough, committed and successful as Kamala Harris. Your assessment of her is worth no more than a passing "Cackle" ;-)

--------------------
Calls from the white house come in with the number blocked. People who are used to getting them know to pick up. And invitations to sit in the first lady’s box for the State of the Union address don’t come around very often. People who get them know to say yes.

Kamala Harris received one of those invitations at the end of January 2012. She was in Washington, D.C., for meetings at the Justice Department about a multibillion-dollar settlement among states, the federal government, and American banks over the predatory mortgages that had helped sink the economy. The banks wanted to pay as little as possible, and then be released from any future claims. President Barack Obama’s administration wanted to get results—and move on. Harris, who was one year into her job as California’s attorney general, had broken with most of the rest of the state attorneys general, hoping to get more money for California.

Harris declined the invitation. She wasn’t done negotiating. She didn’t want to give the wrong impression.

When Harris and I spoke about the mortgage settlement a few days before Joe Biden named her as his running mate, she wasn’t happy that I had heard the story about the State of the Union. She’s always wary of being seen as at odds with Obama. But the year Harris spent negotiating the mortgage settlement—fighting with the banks, the administration, and even her fellow attorneys generals—was transformative for her. During the mortgage fight of 2011 and early 2012, she was in a big new job, figuring out how to leverage her power. The experience was also, she told me, weirdly relevant to the position she’s in now, with a COVID-induced foreclosure-and-eviction crisis looming. This moment is “actually similar in many ways,” Harris told me.

The mortgage fight was personal to her: She still remembers the day, when she was in high school, when her mother bought their first house, and the pride and stability and vision of their family’s future that came with it. “The thing that I think that experience reinforced, that people like Dr. King knew … the ability of all people to be able to buy a home is—it is one of the essential elements of a healthy community,” she said.
--------------------

Read the whole article...even your misogyny can't put a dent in what Kamala Harris has accomplished for millions of people in this country.

btw, what is your career field?


Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/08/kamala-harris-biden-mortgage-settlement/615394/

Rather than relying on campaign propaganda.

"She was so eager to settle and claim a "victory" that billions were left on the table for actual California citizens because she had zero plan for litigation."

Now, here's my substantiated reply...from a 1st hand account...

The banks wanted to pay as little as possible, and then be released from any future claims. President Barack Obama’s administration wanted to get results—and move on. Harris, who was one year into her job as California’s attorney general, had broken with most of the rest of the state attorneys general, hoping to get more money for California.

Harris declined the invitation. She wasn’t done negotiating. ....and Kamala got 'Over 5X' MORE from the Big Banks...another fact.

You lose.

(no message)

(no message)

You know for a fact Trump wasn't what I wanted. But those 2 alternative incompetent dolts on the other ticket were terrifying.

That post shows (1) you have horrific judgment, and (2) you have an issue with black women in positions of authority or power.

(no message)

(no message)

If I were you I'd be thinking about finding a different party to support. At least the MAGA folks have something to show for it, they won all of the battleground states. The arrogance of people like Conor and you after losing to the orange man again is unbecoming. And you haven't apologized for all the lies.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

This Administration is the biggest clusterf*ck in US history.

And it will get worse.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

he's done to 'Make America Greater' than it was before? If it's not too much to ask, can you cite two, three or four more admirable contributions?

(no message)

A Dec 2025 Quinnipiac poll found only 18% of voters approved of Democrats in Congress, while 73% disapproved, marking a new record low for that poll.

....for example...
---------------------
Voters Give Democrats In Congress A Record Low Job Approval
But Still Might Vote For Them In 2026,
Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds;
Majority Think Trump's Use Of Presidential Power Goes Too Far
---------------------

Read the entire article, and note all the negative opinions of Trump and his administration...as well as the Voters preference in 2026...

A Swing and a Miss...care to try again?


Link: https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3943

(no message)

with Democrats…it’s impossible to ‘Grade’ the Dems in Congress…since they are effectively neutered and can’t accomplish anything.

On the other side. Trump and his Congress have every opportunity to satisfy the needs of the electorate…they have failed miserably…just read the Quinnipiac Polling Report for statistical support.

It’s Trump’s fault? That is hilarious.

the House and Senate allows them to set priorities and control what gets voted on...that leads to enormous frustration on the part of a significant portion of the voting public, and IMO is what's behind the low satisfaction level pointed out in the Quinnipiac poll.

Now...go look at the whole report I provided...the majority of American voters are displeased with virtually all of what Trump and the GOP have been doing...which translates into that majority "Possibly" flipping the House...and "Maybe" the Senate. This is also typical of Mid-Term elections when the minority party makes gains in Congress...i.e. not at all "Nonsensical"...

They are horrible

Carville admits it. You do not.

THAT is a fact.

candidates will pay the price this fall...and given the slim margins in both the House and Senate, prepare yourself for Democrats restoring a functional Congress...to the satisfaction of those in subsequent Quinnipiac polls...

Your time is better spent thinking of how to repair the GOP than complaining about Schumer and Jeffries...

Whining about Trump will not solve your problems.

Neither will bravado.

Take additional rants to the top of page.

ratings for Democrats in Congress, they find statistical justification for Democrats winning control of the House in the Fall Midterms. As the following excerpt from a CNN/SSRS poll explains, the dissatisfaction of voters for Congressional Democrats is largely due to them not resisting Trump enough...i.e. they can't stand DJT...and by association...any candidates who support him. Why else would Quinnipiac come to the same conclusion?

Here's that excerpt...provided in a very civil manner...and in hopes of a respectful review plus commentary on the content by you...
---------------------
Americans’ views of both the Democratic and Republican parties remain deeply negative, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. And in an election year that may turn on which party voters see as the lesser of two evils, the Democrats hold an early advantage.

About one-quarter of the public holds a negative view of both parties – so-called double haters. Voters in that group prefer the Democrats in the upcoming midterms by 31 points.

In an era characterized by negativity toward all sides in Washington, the voting patterns and preferences of people who have negative feelings toward both Democrats and Republicans can play a key role in elections.

Those voters who had unfavorable views of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton proved decisive in the 2016 election and broke in Trump’s favor again in 2024. In the 2022 election, when both parties were viewed negatively by just over half of all voters, “double-hater” voters broke in Republicans’ favor by a wide margin, according to CNN exit polls.

The vote preferences of the current crop of double haters are driven more by opposition to the GOP rather than enthusiasm for the Democrats.
Just 28% of Americans hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party, with the Republican Party a few points higher at 32%, in large part because Republicans take a more positive view of their own party than do Democrats.

Compared to the midterms in President Donald Trump’s first term, both the president and the Democrats have grown less popular. While Trump’s 35% approval rating is 7 points lower than it was at this point in the 2018 midterm cycle, the Democratic Party’s net favorability has shifted from about even then to net negative by nearly 30 points now. Ratings for the GOP were deeply underwater in both years.

Overall, registered voters say by a 6-point margin that they’d prefer the Democratic Party’s candidate over the Republican candidate if the elections for Congress were held today.

The most motivated voters break 57% for the Democrats to 38% for the Republicans on the generic ballot; it was a similar 56% Democrats to 41% Republicans among that group in January.

What do double haters hate?

When asked what they most dislike about each party, double haters offer different reasons for their dissatisfaction with each. Their most common reasons for disliking Democrats are viewing them as do-nothing (22% say this), saying they’re not standing up enough to Trump and the GOP (11%) or they’re too liberal (10%). Another 9% call them weak or spineless, with another 9% saying the party doesn’t care about people.

Double-haters’ most common reason for disliking the GOP is what they see as the party’s failure to stand up to Trump (14%), followed by a sense that the party doesn’t care about people (10%), views about Trump more generally (8%), and a perception of the party as corrupt (8%).

“There is such a divide and no one can compromise to get anything done,” wrote an independent who answered the survey. “They act like spoiled brats.”

Democrats have an advantage with their base

The Democratic Party faces greater internal discontent and dissension than the GOP, but also a clear advantage in motivating its base and an ability to capitalize on anti-Trump sentiments.

Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters are 17 points likelier than those aligned with the GOP to describe themselves as extremely motivated to vote even as they’re 14 points less likely to hold a favorable view of their own party.

Democrats’ overall advantage in motivation and on the generic ballot, which has remained relatively stable in recent polling, also match a trend in midterm politics that predates Trump: Voters tend to swing against the party in power, particularly when the occupant of the White House is as unpopular as Trump currently is.

More than three-quarters of voters who plan to support the Democrats in the midterms see their vote as a message of opposition to Trump, while only about half who plan to vote Republican say they’ll do so as a way to show support for the president. That could help to carry even some voters who aren’t enthusiastic about the Democratic Party: 44% of voters who plan to vote Democratic say that their vote will be primarily motivated by opposition to the Republican candidate, higher than the share who plan to vote
Republican out of opposition to the Democrats.

Both parties’ leaders in Congress, meanwhile, remain deeply unpopular with the public. GOP leaders Mike Johnson and John Thune and Democratic leaders Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer all see negative ratings.

Schumer sees particularly low numbers, with a net minus-32 favorability rating among the public as a whole and a net minus-4 even among those aligned with the Democratic Party. Jeffries, Johnson and Thune all see net positive ratings within their respective parties, although Thune remains largely unknown to the publi

What’s dividing each party?

Both parties’ supporters largely see their own party as more united than divided. Only about one-third of Democratic-aligned adults see their party as mostly divided, and just 19% of Republican-aligned adults say the same of the GOP – numbers that are little changed since last January.

But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t meaningful fractures within each party. On the Democratic side, 72% say that a divide over the nation’s approach to Israel is causing problems within the party. About two-thirds say that the Democratic Party is facing problematic divides over its priorities and its ideological position, with a smaller 58% majority seeing the party divided on whether Democratic elected officials should ever cooperate with Trump.

Just above half of Republican-aligned adults think the GOP is facing problems due to divides on what the party should focus on (54%), whether it should move rightward or to the center (52%), or whether Republican officials should ever publicly oppose Trump (52%). Slightly fewer than half, 47%, say Israel is posing a problematic divide with the party.

But there’s also a split on how divisive those issues are within the GOP: Moderates are 24 points likelier than conservatives to say the party faces problems from divides over ideology, and those younger than 45 are 24 points likelier than older Republicans to view Israel as controversial.

Those younger Republican-aligned voters, meanwhile, stand out as particularly disengaged from the coming election: Just 33% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters younger than 45 say they’re extremely motivated to vote, compared with a majority of older Republicans.
-------------------

The stock responses are from your handlers. Not from who you claim to be.

Everyone knows this.

We can't let them off easy for this insanity they went along with.

(no message)

preference, while leading the way to reduced inflation due to COVID, and working with Republicans to craft a Border Security and Immigration Bill that even Trump had called for...on the Domestic front...and Internationally, they strengthened our Alliances...supported democracy (e.g. Ukraine)...and got us out of a war...not starting one.

Donald Trump is a proven "Mistake" that needs to be remedied...accept it, and let's move on...with a major lesson learned.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

i that they are still shit holes?