“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…
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).
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.
Sure, as long as we also have a competency test for retirees as well.
I wonder who scores better?
I get why people do it, but man do I hate the glorification of Sherman when it comes to addressing Confederates southern conservatives.
He used the same tactics that he used against the Confederacy against the Native Americans, to vile ends.
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.
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.
He’d probably have to put all of his eggs in the reincarnation basket and start doing some good deeds.
Or bad deeds, depending on your opinion of actors.
This line from Schindler’s List always stuck with me:
“Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
The context is that at the end of the movie Schindler is distraught thinking of how many more he could have saved if he just did certain things differently, like selling a ring and using that money to hire another Jewish worker. One of the people he saved tells him the above line.
It’s stuck with me for two reasons, I think.
First, it’s an interesting perspective on individuality. Each person has their own unique perspective of the world. When that person dies, that perspective is gone forever. An entire universe dies with them, never to be seen again. I think that’s a powerful way to view the individual.
Second, it’s a reminder that we do what we can, and while it may be imperfect, it’s enough. You can’t save everyone, just live well and help those you can in the capacity that you can. If you save one of those people, you’ve saved the world.
The Exorcist got me pretty good
They claimed that his statements made while President served an interest to the government. It’s wildly stupid, and really just a flimsy excuse to protect him, but that’s what they said.
I think this may just be another excuse, but part of why they’re reversing course is that he’s now made statements long after losing office, so how could you argue that his actions were driven by his service to the office?
Justice Department lawyers said they took into consideration Trump’s deposition that was played in the battery and defamation trial, as well as statements Trump made last October repeating the denials long after he left office, as an indication that he was not motivated to protect and serve the US when he first made the comments.
Bathtub is a common spot for my GSD during fireworks and thunderstorms.
When the success of a media organization is bound to the rules of capitalism, it’s unsurprising that their objectives becomes capitalistic. The responsibilities of the 4th estate and the incentives of capitalism are misaligned.
The catch-22 is that the solution to this is regulation by the government. But the 4th estate is itself a check on government. So if the government is given regulatory control over the 4th estate, you open up the possibility of neutering that check.
Then again, that check has already been neutered by capitalism so…
In this case the article states Meta did not comply with the requests and responded to the FBI with concerns about the accounts being flagged. It also states that Meta was not pressured to comply with the requests.
I think this is a tricky situation. It’s in the interest of social media companies to limit the spread of misinformation on their platforms. When that misinformation is coming from state actors (e.g. Russia) it’s not uncommon for the US Government to have the best knowledge of those efforts. It follows that the social media company would want to consult with the US Government to improve their efforts. But the US Government obviously also has its own interests and biases that can very easily corrupt those efforts.
There has been cases (as pointed out in the last court case) where I think the government did cross the line from advisory to directive. I think that’s a problem that absolutely needs to be addressed.
IMO the answer to this is a bit of a one-way communication and transparency. The US Government should keep a publicly accessible database of what it believes to be misinformation efforts including posts, accounts, etc. Third parties can audit that DB and conduct their own reviews. It would then be up to them whether or not to use that information to aid their own efforts. The public can also review that information and they (and the media) can point out the flaws and mistakes they believe are being made.
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