OFFICIAL LRC President Donald Trump SECOND TERM Thread

Precious Roy wrote:

Always making Horrible decisions ! wrote:

"The decision by the U.S. Department of Education to exclude nursing (as well as physical therapy, physician assistant, and audiology) from its definition of a "professional degree" program under new federal student loan rules is projected to hurt the American people primarily by worsening the existing healthcare worker shortage and potentially reducing the quality and accessibility of patient care."

Dementia at its best !!

My wife is a speech language pathologist. SLPs are included in this decision. SLPs have to have a masters degree. To get into the masters program, you need a very long list of prerequisites from undergrad in communication sciences and disorders plus biology, physics or chem, psychology and statistics. Most of those who enroll in the masters program will have taken a "post-bacc" year of courses to meet all the pre-requisites.

The masters program is very time consuming, with students in their second year working 30-40 hours a week their entire second year in clinical externships while going to school at night. You can do the first year as a part time student, but you cannot work while you are doing the clinical externship.

Pay for SLPs in schools is just a bit above the pay for classroom teachers. SLPs working in hospitals make about what a nurse makes. Turnover is pretty high because it is a female dominated industry and women frequently go in and out of the SLP workforce to have children. A good number will drop the profession altogether to move to better paying work.

The number of SLPs coming out of graduate programs has not kept up with demand. Most school districts have SLPs who have too many cases and cannot keep up with demand for therapy. Schools then have to turn to companies who provide SLPs on a contract basis to fill gaps. Those companies have been lobbying state governments to repeal licensing laws for SLPs so they can just train any schmo to do therapy and pay them $15 an hour to do go on zoom with some kid at a random school in the US and charge the school $60 an hour.

Without timely and competent intervention by an SLP, speech sound disorders, lisps, stuttering and other developmental delays and disorders which are very treatable can become permanent.

Oldrunningguy wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

My wife is a speech language pathologist. SLPs are included in this decision. SLPs have to have a masters degree. To get into the masters program, you need a very long list of prerequisites from undergrad in communication sciences and disorders plus biology, physics or chem, psychology and statistics. Most of those who enroll in the masters program will have taken a "post-bacc" year of courses to meet all the pre-requisites.

The masters program is very time consuming, with students in their second year working 30-40 hours a week their entire second year in clinical externships while going to school at night. You can do the first year as a part time student, but you cannot work while you are doing the clinical externship.

Pay for SLPs in schools is just a bit above the pay for classroom teachers. SLPs working in hospitals make about what a nurse makes. Turnover is pretty high because it is a female dominated industry and women frequently go in and out of the SLP workforce to have children. A good number will drop the profession altogether to move to better paying work.

The number of SLPs coming out of graduate programs has not kept up with demand. Most school districts have SLPs who have too many cases and cannot keep up with demand for therapy. Schools then have to turn to companies who provide SLPs on a contract basis to fill gaps. Those companies have been lobbying state governments to repeal licensing laws for SLPs so they can just train any schmo to do therapy and pay them $15 an hour to do go on zoom with some kid at a random school in the US and charge the school $60 an hour.

Without timely and competent intervention by an SLP, speech sound disorders, lisps, stuttering and other developmental delays and disorders which are very treatable can become permanent.

Thanks for posting..

It is helpful to have real life examples on how bad Trump's rule is hurting Americans. Sad that 30% of the country can't see it with their own eyes and instead buy into the garbage that Trump is just hurting libs by removing "woke" stuff..

It will take some time but a crackpot, corrupt authoritarian wrecking the country to enrich himself and family by selling it off in parts will be felt by all. And especially MAGA.

gnarlysheen wrote:

El Runkin wrote:

At the risk of ever indulging your childish, zealot, lying posts, I didn't point to Epstein's word as the truth, I never said I trusted him, and you haven't made any point from which to counterpoint to.

That said, a normal, interested person would review at the Epstein-Maxwell email and employ all the usual methods of evaluating the accuracy and meaning of any written document - context, language, intended audience, expression, time, motive/intent, cross-referencing, etc.

It's a private email from Epstein to a co-conspirator Maxwell, both of whom have expectations of privacy regarding what is being said between them. It is not a public announcement or an answer to a media interview. The motive to lie in this type of private conversation, especially between two conspirators, is low.

The email is confessional and against the declarant's (Epstein) interests. Saying "[Trump] knew about the girls" acknowledges that "the girls" alleged to have been assaulted by Epstein do indeed exist and that he indeed assaulted them. Statements made by a declarant that are against a declarant's own penal or pecuniary ($) interests are considered accurate and truthful -- so much so that they are actually exceptions to the rule against admission of hearsay in American courts.

The email uses language indicating that the recipient, who is a co-conspirator, knew the subject matter well. The recipient (G. Maxwell) tacitly acknowledges the accuracy of the statement in the email ("I've been thinking that too"), and she doesn't contradict, qualify, or protest the accuracy of the statement that "[Trump] knew about the girls." That's a high indicia of reliability.

The email does not recite behavior that would be considered much worse. It does not recite "[Trump] knew about the girls and also assaulted them" indicating accuracy and honesty about the expressed extent of Trump's involvement.

The email is drafted years after Epstein's conviction. The email is in the form of a lament and does not express any intention to perform future affirmative acts by Epstein.

So, that's what a normal person would make of the Epstein-Maxwell email where Epstein said "[Trump] knew about the girls."

Cool. Can you try without name calling? Then maybe I'll respond.