Look who’s excited for a center left party!

I’m going to copy and paste my reply from elsewhere:

Of course we shouldn’t lock someone up based on an accusation but courts are imperfect. Many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit and other crimes are difficult to convince people on. It’s also highly unlikely Gaiman will ever go to a criminal trial over this, like so many other people who commit sexual assault. That’s why you don’t wait for a conviction to support women.

Estimates of false accusations are usually under 1 in 20. This article claims 2-10%. why would you default to that position? Again, we are not a court of law. You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.

Regardless, the evidence presented so far is more than sufficient for a conviction. In the Gaiman cases, we have multiple witnesses and contemporaneous evidence for both women. It’s not just 2 random people making claims. Why would this be a vast conspiracy of 2 women who faked contemporaneous evidence and both have multiple witnesses and physical evidence? What evidence do you have that all of their evidence is fake?

Edit: let’s go one step farther. The 2 women have witnesses and contemporaneous evidence. Gaiman made a claim that one woman had a memory disorder, which has already been proven false. Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence, you are siding with the one whose only evidence has been debunked within hours. Again, why?

Of course we shouldn’t lock someone up based on an accusation but courts are imperfect. Many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit and other crimes are difficult to convince people on. It’s also highly unlikely Gaiman will ever go to a criminal trial over this, like so many other people who commit sexual assault. That’s why you don’t wait for a conviction to support women.

Estimates of false accusations are usually under 1 in 20. This article claims 2-10%. why would you default to that position? Again, we are not a court of law. You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.

Regardless, the evidence presented so far is more than sufficient for a conviction. In the Gaiman cases, we have multiple witnesses and contemporaneous evidence for both women. It’s not just 2 random people making claims. Why would this be a vast conspiracy of 2 women who faked contemporaneous evidence and both have multiple witnesses and physical evidence? What evidence do you have that all of their evidence is fake?

Edit: let’s go one step farther. The 2 women have witnesses and contemporaneous evidence. Gaiman made a claim that one woman had a memory disorder, which has already been proven false. Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence, you are siding with the one whose only evidence has been debunked within hours. Again, why?

Executive actions and orders are not laws.

And any law is subject to the constitution. If I write a law that says “all Japanese people must be sent to internment camps,” a court should intervene and say “no, that’s not legal.”

I doubt many of the employees making these decisions are even Redditors

How dare you insult the greatest American tradition?!

Yes, it’s a conspiracy! That’s a great first assumption. Classic misogyny

The list repeats until a name is “retired,” as this one probably will be

He did public rallies?

E day is not Inauguration Day

They’re always so vocal on the posts about Biden not being a perfect saint and weirdly absent on these

Just to be clear, I didn’t mean to insinuate that. Posting this more as a “look how shitty our world is” than a “yay, good reforms!” kinda post.

Except the whole “women coming after him” is steeped in misogyny and not reality. How many people get accused by multiple victims of the same thing, with evidence and witnesses? I’m not clear about the 2005 case, but the more recent one has physical evidence and witnesses. Gaiman’s evidence is an already disproven claim. One side has physical evidence while one is lying.

To be fair, I think there’s only one person who can’t put that down

I rely on 30+ sources. I do not work for any of them, although I (edit: pay to) subscribe to 3 or 4 (edit: NyTimes, WaPo, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Wired, if anyone cares). Every weekday, I ensure ProPublica’s work gets posted somewhere on Lemmy, that’s probably the only one I never skip.

I don’t alter site headlines and can’t force any outlet to write a better article. The news here is that Boebert said a racist thing. The low-quality journalism thing where they do the “what does twitter have to say about this?” isn’t really important.

You mean like hoods executive order that was blocked by courts? I’m not saying he’s the biggest trans ally but saying he’s done almost nothing is unfair imo

The House Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, which Republicans currently lead, approved a spending bill that would cut at least $419 million from federal AIDS programs.

Sure it can. You need a simple majority in committee

deleted by creator

Because if you don’t quote someone it sounds like you’re saying it and then you get sued

Editing this comment because it appears it has come across to some as doubting the accusers, when I intended to present a skeptical comment about Gaiman. To clarify, my point is that they have plenty of evidence and he has made one rebuttal, which included a lie about one of the victims.