- Joined
- Mar 9, 2017
- Messages
- 27,156
- Reaction score
- 19,533
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
No, its most certainly is a 'rule for thee, but none for me', in essence its Republicans shouldn't have gallery visitors who are cancer patients, while Democrats may.
I guess we'd have to have @Lovebug elaborate what she meant by her post.
So take the lack of clapping and standing by congressional Democrats for the kid as showing a lack of support for police?
OK.
Well, the Dems did start and support the 'defund the police' bullshit, so I guess that'd be accurate.
This requires closer examination as I referred to in post #124.
Of the 'cuts' implemented, many of them actually impacted 'indirect costs' (i.e. overhead expenses), not cancer research efforts themselves.
Indirect Cost Caps: A key policy involved capping "indirect costs" (e.g., facilities, utilities, administrative support) for NIH grants at 15%, down from an average of 30-50%. This was estimated to save $4 billion annually but was criticized by researchers as effectively cutting research capacity, as these costs are essential for maintaining labs and clinical trials. For example, the University of Washington projected losses of $90-110 million, potentially halting trials for cancers and other diseases. A federal judge blocked this cap in March 2025, citing "irreparable harm" to research and patients, so it has not been fully implemented.
and even those were 'not been fully implemented'. So what's the real truth behind this push narrative from the left?
Sorry, this did not refute my post.