It was a defamation case in which the courts determined that Trump made false statements by denying the allegations because he most likely did sexually assault E. Jean Carroll.
No criminal case was brought because it's beyond the statute of limitations, and since the legal bar in a criminal case is higher I don't think any prosecutor would bring those charges even if statute of limitations wasn't an issue.
"Not guilty" is distinct from "innocent", and such a verdict, if a trial ever comes of this, would not impact libel or slander. Being unable to prove your accusations in court to the standard required is not a determination that the accusations were false, only that doubt remained.
The data shows the Liberals in a distant third place for 18-29 year olds with 15.97 per cent, compared to the Conservatives and the NDP with 39.21 per cent and 30.92 per cent respectively.
It’s a dip for the Liberals, who were at 26.8 per cent at the beginning of August for the same age group. And it’s a boost for the Conservatives, who are up from 29.3 per cent at the beginning of the month.
That large of a swing over the course of a month seems like a red flag for the data. Did something happen that would explain the shift?
I know people are quick to jump on this as a sign of cognitive impairment, but could this be a form of aphasia resulting from his fall a few months ago?
I just ask because it's possible it's a motor issue (knows what he wants to say but can't physically say it) rather than a cognitive issue (can't think of something to say).
As much as I'd love for McConnell to GTFO, and certainly support age/term limits in Congress, if it is a motor issue it'd be similar to what Fetterman has dealt with since his stroke (auditory issue vs. cognitive issue).
I thought it was pretty when it was novel, but it's been around long enough now that it just kind of blends in. I think it's still a nice clean design, but not really eye catching anymore.
What procedural step is being abused here to allow one Senator to have this much influence? Or is this another case of one Senator being the face while backed by the rest of their party?
I do think libertarianism has some principles and concepts that are valuable, I would have even called myself libertarian-ish at certain points, but over the years it's fallen into a similar bucket as communism from my perspective.
It's an attractive system until you start introducing the people.
I think too often we get caught up on "the game" and try to frame decisions solely in that context.
The reality is that sometimes in politics people hold genuine beliefs, and when it comes to the GOP I think a non-insignificant caucus of them genuinely opposes abortion for various personal reasons.
He qualified it by specifying it's if you were "unfairly" facing repercussions, which of course means he can deny or accept anyone he wants for any reason that he wants and still claim he's upholding his pledge.
There's a significant difference between the people rising against their government and the people rising against some of the government on behalf of the rest of the government.
That's what happened on Jan 6th. Those people were launching an assault to support their preferred representatives, they were very much pro-government. Nothing libertarian about it.
It's so incredibly frustrating. One of the main reasons Trump rose to popularity was his campaigning against D.C. ineptitude and corruption. Drain the swamp and all of that. And now we have the perfect encapsulation of why those issues exist. He is the ineptitude and corruption. But the people who are supposedly railing against that are embracing him without wavering. Now they're about to nominate someone who had a laundry list of indictments.
If you can't hold yourselves accountable how could you ever expect to hold others accountable? It doesn't work like that. The GOP is broken, but perhaps more concerning are the supposed independents who for one reason or another just don't seem to care.
It was a defamation case in which the courts determined that Trump made false statements by denying the allegations because he most likely did sexually assault E. Jean Carroll.
No criminal case was brought because it's beyond the statute of limitations, and since the legal bar in a criminal case is higher I don't think any prosecutor would bring those charges even if statute of limitations wasn't an issue.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/e-jean-carroll-sued-trump-defamation-last-resort-blame-statute-ncna1077321
"Not guilty" is distinct from "innocent", and such a verdict, if a trial ever comes of this, would not impact libel or slander. Being unable to prove your accusations in court to the standard required is not a determination that the accusations were false, only that doubt remained.
I don't know much about Canadian politics, but...
That large of a swing over the course of a month seems like a red flag for the data. Did something happen that would explain the shift?
Thought for a second that was a magic cupholder built into the spoiler.
I know people are quick to jump on this as a sign of cognitive impairment, but could this be a form of aphasia resulting from his fall a few months ago?
I just ask because it's possible it's a motor issue (knows what he wants to say but can't physically say it) rather than a cognitive issue (can't think of something to say).
As much as I'd love for McConnell to GTFO, and certainly support age/term limits in Congress, if it is a motor issue it'd be similar to what Fetterman has dealt with since his stroke (auditory issue vs. cognitive issue).
Good riddance, though a plane crash seems like a relatively easy way to "kill" someone while they go into hiding.
I thought it was pretty when it was novel, but it's been around long enough now that it just kind of blends in. I think it's still a nice clean design, but not really eye catching anymore.
Genuine belief in fraud, ignoring that it's obviously bs for a moment, does not give you a right to usurp power through illegal means.
Well, takes one to know one, ya know?
What procedural step is being abused here to allow one Senator to have this much influence? Or is this another case of one Senator being the face while backed by the rest of their party?
I get why people do it, but man do I hate the glorification of Sherman when it comes to addressing
Confederatessouthern conservatives.He used the same tactics that he used against the Confederacy against the Native Americans, to vile ends.
https://www.history.com/news/shermans-war-on-native-americans?cmpid=FACEBOOK_FBPAGE__20181210&linkId=60909388
I do think libertarianism has some principles and concepts that are valuable, I would have even called myself libertarian-ish at certain points, but over the years it's fallen into a similar bucket as communism from my perspective.
It's an attractive system until you start introducing the people.
I think too often we get caught up on "the game" and try to frame decisions solely in that context.
The reality is that sometimes in politics people hold genuine beliefs, and when it comes to the GOP I think a non-insignificant caucus of them genuinely opposes abortion for various personal reasons.
Of course, it's just his "get out of jail free" card to save face publicly when he starts rejecting requests.
He qualified it by specifying it's if you were "unfairly" facing repercussions, which of course means he can deny or accept anyone he wants for any reason that he wants and still claim he's upholding his pledge.
There's a significant difference between the people rising against their government and the people rising against some of the government on behalf of the rest of the government.
That's what happened on Jan 6th. Those people were launching an assault to support their preferred representatives, they were very much pro-government. Nothing libertarian about it.
I think their words are accurate, it's just that their allegiance isn't to the United States of America.
I don't think he knows how SCOTUS works...
Haven't used my desktop in ages, has been completely replaced by my personal and work laptops.
It's so incredibly frustrating. One of the main reasons Trump rose to popularity was his campaigning against D.C. ineptitude and corruption. Drain the swamp and all of that. And now we have the perfect encapsulation of why those issues exist. He is the ineptitude and corruption. But the people who are supposedly railing against that are embracing him without wavering. Now they're about to nominate someone who had a laundry list of indictments.
If you can't hold yourselves accountable how could you ever expect to hold others accountable? It doesn't work like that. The GOP is broken, but perhaps more concerning are the supposed independents who for one reason or another just don't seem to care.