Right, and while it's true that public figures, politicians and celebrities in general may be targets of false accusations, just by nature of being in the news, they also may for that same reason trigger memories in real victims that encourage them to come out and tell the truth, so it can work both ways. I felt his demeanor during the questioning seemed to suggest the appearance of guilt, and, given his "questionable" years of partying as a student, his vehement denials didn't seen credible. I understand that from a strictly legal standpoint it makes sense to categorically deny the accusations, but given the circumstances, I think that even if he genuinely didn't remember the incidents in questions, the ethical move would have been to withdraw his nomination.
Agreed. Its not a criminal court of law where the question is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There are dozens of "sauber" candidates who could have been nominated with no problem. Why was this one so crucial? It calls into question the credibility of the Court
... regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That must be one CRAZY fecking school if you don't recall that sort of incident
You are like a meme-bot of every internet American leftist. So what does it mean to "call into question the credibility of the Court"? Just start ignoring Supreme Court orders because you feel it is no longer "credible"?
Not if she was pass out drunk herself at the time. Bush v. Gore killed the court’s credibility. “Here is our ruling. But you can’t use it as a precedent. Move along, nothing to see here.”
FAKE NEWS! is real news, and real news is fake news. For all its faults, even the bad version of the NYT is a lot more fair than the right wing media.
This is really the problem now days People cant differentiate between valid critique of news media and dismissing all media as fake while mainlining Facebook and Fox
The majority specifically wrote that their logic/arguments weren’t binding. Here’s why that matters. Poor counties have older, worse voting machines with higher spoilage rates. They also have more POC, and therefore skew Democratic. The logic of the decision would be that states had to provide the same voting system across the state. Had that been in place in 2000, given the closeness of the vote, that would have put Gore in the White House, and probably saves trillion of dollars and several thousand US lives and 10s of thousands of Iraqi lives. As a Democrat, at least saying that voters in a state have a constitutional right to equal voting systems would have been a mediocre reach around while we were getting ********ed in the ass. But since it was an unprincipled, partisan decision, we didn’t even get that.
Do you mean there are more poor counties with POC on that on average a poor county would have more POC than a richer county? There are a lot of shit lot of counties that have poor white people, so if poor counties have the shittier machines, that is a lot of poor white voters also being affected, depending on their political leaning, that could mean GOP votes. I could not find a breakdown of poor counties by race, all I found was this one of poverty rates by voting district. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...f-the-week-poverty-by-congressional-district/ While the poverty rate among black people is 25% or so, 22% or so for Hispanics, and only 12% or so among whites, that still means there are more poor whites than poor POC, according to the chart below, there are about 27 million poor whites and about 10 million poor blacks, about 12 million Hispanic poor and 2+ million Asian/Native poor. So about 27 million to 24 million, how are they scattered by county I do not know. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2013/acs/acsbr11-17.html https://www.povertyusa.org/facts https://www.povertyusa.org/data There is also this, the county to work out as you point out superdave, has to be poor and heavy populated. https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-democrats/
Ronan Farrell can flat out write...Brilliant article on Black Cube & Weinstein. Will definitely buy his book. https://www.newyorker.com/news/anna...twitter&utm_medium=social&mbid=social_twitter
Matt Lauer accussed of raping an NBC staffer at Sochi Olympics in 2014. Ronan Farrow is all over this again. There's even a Weinstein angle where Harvey conferred with the scum at the National Enquirer to get Lauer dirt. So the thinking from Harvey is "we'll expose Lauer's misdeeds unless you tell Farrow (NBC employee) to stop digging into my past." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/f...instein-may-have-leveraged-matt-lauer-1246149 I'll say it again - HR depts are completely inept at handling these issues. And corporations spend untold millions on "doing the right thing" trainings (just took one last week) that I have to take and I'm sure many of you do as well. It's a farce how it's actually handled when something happens in the real world.
Here is a follow-up from Ronan Farrow’s producer at NBC, on how NBC’s top executives killed the Weinstein story. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...al_twitter&utm_brand=vf&utm_social-type=owned
The only question now is, which actors will be playing the lead parts in the hollywood film about all this. I'm guessing probably not many people who were given their brakes by Weinstein.