太原痔疮和肛瘘有什么区别山西哪家痔疮,山西痔疮掉下怎么办,山西痔疮会有什么症状,太原拉屎 血,山西韩国电子肠镜,山西痔疮会传染的吗,太原肛门长个水泡

Unilever, the company that owns Ben & Jerry's, is telling consumers some of their ice cream may not be safe to eat.Ben & Jerry's issued a voluntary recall on a limited quantity of Coconut Seven Layer Bar bulk and Chunky Monkey pints. They say the two flavors may inadvertently have tree nuts, including almonds, Brazil nuts and hazelnuts that are not declared in the ingredient list or allergy information list.Both affected flavors have a "contains walnuts" and a "may contain other tree nuts" labels on the back of the pack, according to Unilever.Unilever published the following details regarding Ben & Jerry's recent recall: 652

WESTERVILLE, Ohio - Former Vice President Joe Biden said on Tuesday at the Democratic presidential debate that he and his son Hunter did not commit any wrongdoing by advocating for the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor while his son was employed by a Ukrainian company under investigation. "My son did nothing wrong," Biden said. "I did nothing wrong. I carried out the policy of the United States government in rooting out corruption in Ukraine. And that's what we should be focusing on."The issue did not get much airplay on Tuesday from other candidates. The only candidate who was asked about Biden's conduct was Sen. Bernie Sanders, who opted not to attack Biden. In 2016, Sanders also did not go after opponent Hillary Clinton for her handling of government emails on a personal server. But it appeared at least one other candidate wanted to expound on Biden's conduct as moderators moved on. One of the candidates who tried to interject could be heard saying, "It is wrong to move on."Candidates agree on impeachmentThe opening question at Tuesday’s debate was on why President Donald Trump should be removed from office instead of waiting for voters to decide next November. All 12 Democrats on stage have come out in support of impeachment of Trump.Several candidates, including Sanders and Biden, said that Trump is the “most corrupt president in history.”Among those on stage, there were six current members of Congress. Among them are five U.S. senators who could be asked to consider convicting Trump and removing the president from office. “The president has not been putting America ahead of his own interests,” Minnesota U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar said. The candidates agreed that Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s president was an impeachable offense. While the candidates agreed that Trump crossed a red line, some of the candidates cautioned fellow Democrats. "If the House votes to impeach, the Senate does not vote to remove Donald Trump, he walks out and he feels exonerated, further deepening the divides in this country that we cannot afford," said Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who said Democrats should accept that Trump won the 2016 election. Warren refuses to say 'Medicare For All' would increase taxesMassachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a supporter of "Medicare For All," was pressed on whether taxes would go up under her plan. Warren refused to say that middle class taxes would go up, instead saying that costs would go down. "I have made clear what my principles are here. Costs will go up for the wealthy and big corporations,” Warren said.South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg said it was a simple yes or no question that Warren refuses to answer. "That didn't get a yes or no answer,” Buttigieg said. “This is why people here in the Midwest are so frustrated with Washington in general and Capitol Hill in particular.”Sanders, also a supporter of "Medicare For All," said that it is fair to say taxes would go up with the plan. "As somebody who wrote the damn bill, let's be clear: Under the Medicare For All bill I wrote, premiums are gone, co-payments are gone, deductibles are gone. All out of expenses are gone," Sanders said.Sanders said that a "Medicare For All" plan would cost trillion over 10 years. Overall, Americans spend .5 trillion in healthcare per year, the Congressional Budget Office says. But the CBO could not put an estimate on exactly how much the average person would spend with a Medicare-for-All system. A CBO report says a number of factors, such as whether state governments will pay into the system and whether citizens can opt out of public insurance all options, would affect costs.The CBO states that the federal government has lower administrative costs than private insurance. The cost to administer all of Medicare was 6 percent, compared to 12 percent for private insurers in 2017, the CBO says.The CBO added that administrative costs could decrease even further as a Medicare-for-All system would have fewer eligibility exclusions.Protests line streets near the debateHundreds of protesters supporting Trump and other Democratic candidates lined the streets of Westerville as debate attendees walked by. At times, police officers used bicycles to push protesters back onto the sidewalk. Most of the protesters remained several city blocks away as the debate was held at a private university. 4377

Twitter is considering labeling tweets that violate its rules but should remain on the platform because they're in the public interest.Vijaya Gadde, Twitter's head of legal, policy and trust made the announcement during an on-stage 244

White House officials have begun to have preliminary discussions about replacing Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats amid concerns that President Donald Trump may soon dismiss him, two senior administration officials told CNN, despite the President's public denial he's considering the move.The conversations began this week in the West Wing after Trump spent the holiday weekend at Mar-a-Lago venting to friends and advisers about the director of national intelligence, 491

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams disagrees so much with a gun bill making its way through the Colorado legislature that he's willing to go to jail rather than enforce it."It's a matter of doing what's right," he said.He's not the only one who feels so strongly.The controversial "red flag" bill aims to seize guns temporarily from people who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.Colorado's state Senate passed the bill Thursday by a single vote, without any Republican support, and the bill is expected to pass the House, possibly this week. With Democratic majorities in both chambers, state Republicans have too few votes to stand in the way.But more than half of Colorado's 64 counties officially oppose the bill. Many have even declared themselves Second Amendment "sanctuary" counties in protest.Failure to enforce a court order to seize a person's guns could mean sheriffs being found in contempt. A judge could fine them indefinitely, or even send them to jail to force them to comply.Reams says it's a sacrifice he'd be forced to make.What is the bill?Colorado's "extreme risk protection order" bill would allow a family member, a roommate, or law enforcement to petition a judge to take someone's firearms if they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.The push for legislation followed the death of Zack Parrish, the 29-year-old Douglas County sheriff's deputy killed in 2017 by a man with an arsenal of weapons who authorities said had a history of bizarre behavior, including threats to police.Parrish's former boss, Sheriff Tony Spurlock, has been one of the most vocal advocates of the bill and says he believes it could have prevented Parrish's death. Democratic House Majority Leader Alec Garnett, one of the bill's primary sponsors, agrees.The other House sponsor is Rep. Tom Sullivan, whose son, Alex, was killed in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting in 2012.Garnett says he won't lose any sleep if Reams or another Colorado sheriff opts for jail instead of enforcement of a court order."What I'm going to lose sleep over is, if that's the choice that they make and someone loses their life, someone in crisis goes on a shooting spree, (or) someone commits suicide" because a gun wasn't taken away, he said.What's so controversial?Gun rights activists, and an increasing number of law enforcement leaders, say the bill goes too far.David Kopel, a constitutional law expert who has written extensively about gun policy in the United States, says he thinks the bill is generally a good idea but that he has serious reservations about how it is written -- in part because of outside influence."The gun ban lobbies are getting more and more extreme and aggressive," he said.The bill allows a judge to order a person's guns to be seized before the person has a chance to appear in court. The bill does require a second hearing with the gun owner present to be held within 14 days, where the owner could make a case to keep the weapons -- but if the owner is unsuccessful, a judge could order the guns seized for as long as a year.Kopel said it would be difficult to prevent a nightmare scenario in which someone misuses the law to take guns away from a person they intend to target violently.The burden of proof is low -- "preponderance of the evidence," which is the same standard used in civil cases, and a much lower bar than the criminal standard, "beyond a reasonable doubt."Reams said he also worries about the potential to aggravate an already volatile person by taking their weapons."Going in and taking their guns and leaving the scene, I can't see how that makes them less of a risk. It just takes one tool away," said Reams, arguing that a person bent on hurting someone could do it with a knife or a car.In 2018, 3783