U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

[Zora]

Meanwhile: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...can-use/?utm_term=.5686ec9ddc6e&noredirect=on

The rule, which Pruitt has described in interviews with select media over the past month, would only allow EPA to consider studies for which the underlying data are made available publicly. Advocates describe this approach as an advance for transparency, but critics say it would effectively block the agency from relying on long-standing, landmark studies linking air pollution and pesticide exposure to harmful health effects.

Yes, the rule is designed to sound innocuous enough, but there's a breadth of reasons data isn't made publicly available. If you think it's no big deal, you're almost surely not a scientist. For example, one reason described:

“The best studies follow individuals over time, so that you can control all the factors except for the ones you’re measuring,” said McCarthy, who now directs the Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment at Harvard’s public health school. “But it means following people’s personal history, their medical history. And nobody would want somebody to expose all of their private information.”

This rule is made to disregard inconvenient studies, plain and simple. But yes, please go on that liberals are stiffling speech (that's sarcasm) while the EPA is censoring voices of people who study environment... over how to regulate the environment.

 

[EnglishALT]

When you have 16 different accusers, is non admission of guilt that relevant? The statistical likely hood all of them are money grubbing, attention seeking ho's is pretty slim. The hyperbole is for effect, please don't quote me clarifying you didn't use those words. The point is: calling them "wild" accusations is in...poor taste, to say the least. Tack in the comments about pussy grabbing and his daughter, anyone viewing his accusers with hard skepticism needs to check themselves.

Let's not forget he was going to go to trial for the rape of a 13 year old until she and her family
charges in the face of threats from his supporters.

I was never speaking to the accusers when saying they were wild accusations, merely the three accusations that bobjr stated with out proof that Trump admitted to rape, pressured his wife to have an abortion, and that Reagan had Alzheimer’s in the White House.

For the accusations of rape, you are certainly correct the sheer number is troubling, I do not know if they are true or not. I do think being a rich high profile figure makes him an easy target for lawsuits hoping to get a settlement just to make them go away, yet as you said the sheer volume is troubling.

As for the 13 year old, the whole thing did reek of political motivation on the lawyer’s part, who was known as a “eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow

Also attorney Lisa Bloom who was also involved in the lawsuit before dropping has been found to have been desperately asking for accusers to come forward before Election Day and was found to have been trying to get money from Clinton PACs to pay for atleast one accuser upwards of six figures.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...wyer-sought-donor-cash-for-two-trump-accusers

 

[Zora]

Are you seriously being an apologist for "grab em by the pussy" Trump?

When his ex-wife strongly implied she was raped and Trump launched a legal claim against their divorce agreement's confidentiality clause (!) because of said allegation, the idea he might have raped her doesn't sound wild at all. Also unpack why Trump has a confidentiality clause for a divorce in the first place.

This is to say nothing about the myriad of sexual assault allegations. I don't have time to track down veracity of each one; but journalists do corroborate the information within their ability. Even one is too much, and the idea that all sixteen or seventeen are false seems unlikely. I'm with Baba Yaga.

And let's take a step back and ask a big picture question: why are you so intent on presuming Trump's innocence? Why don't you believe even one of the women? Sure, go through a formal trial/investigation before applying criminal charges, but we're not even doing that because so many people (you included) already believe these women are not to be taken seriously. All what "but the DNC paid them" is adding to that problem.

 

[Scammel]

It's pretty clear Trump didn't rape his wife. She is pretty clear that he didn't.

It's also pretty clear that Trump is a disgusting sexual predator.

 

[EnglishALT]

Are you seriously being an apologist for "grab em by the pussy" Trump?

When his ex-wife strongly implied she was raped and Trump launched a legal claim against their divorce agreement's confidentiality clause (!) because of said allegation, the idea he might have raped her doesn't sound wild at all. Also unpack why Trump has a confidentiality clause for a divorce in the first place.

This is to say nothing about the myriad of sexual assault allegations. I don't have time to track down veracity of each one; but journalists do corroborate the information within their ability. Even one is too much, and the idea that all sixteen or seventeen are false seems unlikely. I'm with Baba Yaga.

And let's take a step back and ask a big picture question: why are you so intent on presuming Trump's innocence? Why don't you believe even one of the women? Sure, go through a formal trial/investigation before applying criminal charges, but we're not even doing that because so many people (you included) already believe these women are not to be taken seriously. All what "but the DNC paid them" is adding to that problem.

Honestly I believe Trump’s first wife, despite the fact she walked it back. Which is why in 2016 if I had voted I would have voted for Clinton. My mom is a victim of spousal rape and I could not vote for some one who I believe had done that with his wife.

That all being said I do have some questions with some of these people. We have an attorney in Lisa Bloom who was desperate to get someone to file a lawsuit, and was willing to pay close to a million dollars in Clinton PAC money to people that would step forward. That kind of desperation and money can bring out any number of people.

 

[Zora]

That all being said I do have some questions with some of these people. We have an attorney in Lisa Bloom who was desperate to get someone to file a lawsuit, and was willing to pay close to a million dollars in Clinton PAC money to people that would step forward. That kind of desperation and money can bring out any number of people.

My Arceus, you're trying my patience.

There is nothing worthwhile in the Lisa Bloom story. Jill Harth, who filed her case originally 1997 received money per Bloom's fundraising efforts that, yes, allowed the client, Jill Harth, to pay off her mortgage. Most of the money was from an unknown donor and not a Super PAC (although one was contacted). Makes you wonder why the Super PAC was mentioned in the first place. To extrapolate from this story to seriously considering every sexual harassment as quid pro quo is baseless. And precisely because people like you buy into such baseless claims makes you part of the problem.

We all know the Hollywood Access Tape triggered the widespread reporting in Trump sexual harassment stories, but Ivana Trump, Harth, and Zervos all filed claims well before election 2016 hardly make such claims new. A more interesting question is why it took something like Hollywood Access for us to report such stories; but now that it's happened the #MeToo snowball isn't losing momentum.

 

[EnglishALT]

My Arceus, you're trying my patience.

There is nothing worthwhile in the Lisa Bloom story. Jill Harth, who filed her case originally 1997 received money per Bloom's fundraising efforts that, yes, allowed the client, Jill Harth, to pay off her mortgage. Most of the money was from an unknown donor and not a Super PAC (although one was contacted). Makes you wonder why the Super PAC was mentioned in the first place. To extrapolate from this story to seriously considering every sexual harassment as quid pro quo is baseless. And precisely because people like you buy into such baseless claims makes you part of the problem.

We all know the Hollywood Access Tape triggered the widespread reporting in Trump sexual harassment stories, but Ivana Trump, Harth, and Zervos all filed claims well before election 2016 hardly make such claims new. A more interesting question is why it took something like Hollywood Access for us to report such stories; but now that it's happened the #MeToo snowball isn't losing momentum.

I am not speaking of Jill Harth, after the accusation of rape against the 13 year old went down, Lisa Bloom went to another accuser in hopes of getting a rape allegation by Election Day.

“I’m scared Lisa. I can’t relocate. I don’t like taking other people’s money,” the woman wrote to Bloom.

“Ok let’s not do this then,” Bloom responded. “We are just about out of time anyway.”

The woman then texted back demanding to know why there was a deadline. “What does time have to do with this? Time to bury Trump??? You want my story to bury trump for what? Personal gain? See that 's why I have trust issues!!”

By early November, the woman said, Bloom’s offers of money from donors had grown to $50,000 to be paid personally to her, and then even higher.

“Another donor has reached out to me offering relocation/security for any woman coming forward. I’m trying to reach him,” Bloom texted the woman on Nov. 3, 2016. Later she added, “Call me I have good news.”

The woman responded that she wasn’t impressed with the new offer of $100,000 given that she had a young daughter. “Hey after thinking about all this, I need more than $100,000.00. College money would be nice” for her daughter. “Plus relocation fees, as we discussed.”

The figured jumped to $200,000 in a series of phone calls with Bloom that week, according to the woman. The support was promised to be tax-free and also included changing her identity and relocating, according to documents and interviews.

Bloom told The Hill that the woman asked for money as high as $2 million in the conversations, an amount that was a nonstarter, but the lawyer confirmed she tried to arrange donations to the woman in the low six figures.

This accuser clearly saw this as a pay day and Lisa Bloom was willing to give upwards of six figures for her story as long as it was before Election Day.

Lisa Bloom has denied she had any contact with the Clinton Campaign, but is non commital on if she had contact with Clinton PACs for donations.

Stories like this do give me some pause, on who may be telling the truth and who may be lying just to get money.

Also before you say that some accusations came before the campaign, I am well aware of that, however as we have seen with Stormy Daniels, Trump like many other rich people, have no problem just throwing money at a person and signing an NDA than litigating a potentially embarrassing situation in court.

 

[Skiks]

Should I believe the women or the man who lied to get on the Forbes list using a fake name and then used it to get loans he couldn't pay off?

 

[EnglishALT]

Should I believe the women or the man who lied to get on the Forbes list using a fake name and then used it to get loans he couldn't pay off?

Why not just merely be open to the possibility it happened, but wish for more details, witnesses, rape kit tests, anything more than just his word vs hers? At this point with what information we have, there is more information and evidence provided by Juanita Broaddrick than some of these women, such as the one accusing Trump raping her at 13.

 

[bobjr]

Oops, it's like people here forgot the basic courtesy of believing the victim of sexual crimes rather than the perpetrator. Let's put in a solid reminder here. If you have to counter decades of sexual abuse with "Oh X person might have done this as well", you are literally part of the problem. You are passing the blame while some people have to struggle with an issue their entire lives.

I'd expect a "Well Bill Clinton did X" post after this, but a lot of that came to light later. not during the actual campaign, and used that on several attacking points. Don't take this as a defense, but as a condemnation of any sexual crimes. We should always expect better, especially now, and to bring up the past while ignoring the present means you have an agenda that serves you, not humanity as a whole.

 

[Trainer Yusuf]

In global news, World Press Freedom Index has been out:
https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table

Turkey and Iraq drop two points, and so does the US. Biggest drop is Malta, however, dropping a whopping 18 points(biggest rise is Gambia by 21, followed by South Korea by 20 points, due to impeachment of former President Park Guen-hye which avoided further state control of media).

I'll post something regarding the current situation in Syria and Turkey later.

Edit: F*** me, Fragile States Index was out as well.

 

[chess-z]

I remember this time last week people were worried about the potential of WW3 (although, let's be honest, it's WW4 at this point). So much whiplash between foreign and domestic issues, absolutely no stability, not even for a moment. Being politically engaged in 2018 is exhausting.

 

[Scammel]

In global news, World Press Freedom Index has been out:
https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table

Turkey and Iraq drop two points, and so does the US. Biggest drop is Malta, however, dropping a whopping 18 points(biggest rise is Gambia by 21, followed by South Korea by 20 points, due to impeachment of former President Park Guen-hye which avoided further state control of media).

Great to see that the index is just as much hot liquid shite as always.

Surinam - 'Criticism of the government is punishable by up to seven years in prison' - rank 21.

USA - 'Trump said mean words' - rank 45.

 

[Trainer Yusuf]

I remember this time last week people were worried about the potential of WW3 (although, let's be honest, it's WW4 at this point). So much whiplash between foreign and domestic issues, absolutely no stability, not even for a moment. Being politically engaged in 2018 is exhausting.

Statistically you are wrong, world besides US is continuing to improve. It is just democracy that is decaying instead of peace.

 

[Skiks]

So by calling into fox news and rambling for literally 30 minutes and not letting fox news hosts get even one word edge wise, he managed to confirm he knew about Daniels being paid by Cohen. It was so bad Fox had to get him to stop by telling him he probably has a million things to do.

 

[Zora]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9f6da85cf084

Article Headline: Judge puts Stormy Daniels case on hold for 90 days, citing likelihood Michael Cohen will be indicted

A federal judge on Friday granted Michael Cohen’s request for a delay in a lawsuit brought against him by porn star Stormy Daniels, saying it appeared likely Cohen will be indicted in a related criminal investigation.

So that happened.

Also, on a completely different note, I'm not entirely sure what to make of Chaplain being fired thing. On one hand, it feels like an unambiguous case of Paul Ryan disdaining that the Chaplain's religious views don't conform to his politics; on the other hand, is pointing out that the religious right is primarily motivated by politics/broader culture and not scripture even news? I've been mulling that over in my head.[/hr]

 

[bobjr]

American Christianity has always had a problem with Catholics. Look at how Kennedy was treated for it.

 

[Swordsman4]

Christians are also not supposed to judge others, forgive our enemies, and turn the other cheek. If you want to act like a Christian maybe not engage in lobbing insults.

Judge not lest you be judged, no one bothers on the context of that.

It’s not referring to doctrinal correction, but condemnation like what Job’s friends did.

Christ rebuked Pilate for striking him.

I started by pointing out the absolute stupidity of the global warming narrative to which a certain individual decided to reply with condescending arrogance.

The only reply you get from the ignorant, brainwashed masses of the left is “science denier!”

Hmm, awfully familiar huh? It’s the Catholic Church’s inquisition reborn.

Don’t question our established science or die!

 

[Swordsman4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

my ****ing guy

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

If I wanted to right now I could edit the article to say that aliens were responsible for the incident.

Funny how we think that Wikipedia is such a trustworthy site...

 

[chess-z]

Ok, let's engage with you in good faith. It is the established scientific consensus among climate scientists that both climate change is happening, and it's humans who are causing it. This has been the consensus for years. If you were to go to google scholar to verify this claim, trying to load all of the studies would literally break your computer.

Now, let's use Occam's Razor here; what requires the least presuppositions about reality:

A: that there is a massive unilateral conspiracy by the "left" to create a worldwide hoax, to the end of destroying jobs, redistributing wealth, and ending coal power, and nearly all climate scientists are in on it, and the voices of dissenters are squelched.

Or:

B: Multiple independent labs have verified results that strongly suggest that climate change is happening, and humans are the cause, through the use of the scientific method and peer review.

I'd like to see your sources about global warming, because honestly, you seem like you're trolling lmao