-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback It shouldn't, but IIRC that was the first question of the last debate (or the first one?)
-
@canefan said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback It shouldn't, but IIRC that was the first question of the last debate (or the first one?)
I am struggling with what you are getting at. Not asking him about his treatment does or not not indicate a sympathetic moderator?
-
@canefan said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback It shouldn't, but IIRC that was the first question of the last debate (or the first one?)
I'm confused. So the last moderator was unfair?
How does that make Chris Wallace friendly?
-
@Catogrande said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
Wikileaks' material is gold because it is an original source without a slant being placed on it by some journalist.
You forgot the fishing emoji
Sorry. Gold when liberals used it for their agenda against Bush and co., but a terribly biased Russian inspired source when used against liberals.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia
There is not really any such thing as 'reputable' press. CNN is just bloody hopeless for example, yet many consider them main stream.
Reputable is incredibly subjective. For example I bet we have very different opinions on which news outlets are reputable.And since when does Herald validate or corroborate a story??? They make stuff up and regurgitate left wing propaganda on a daily basis. Maybe it was the shock value of them doing for a right wing article that got you by surprise?
Theres no definitive measure by which to say one outlet is reputable, its relative imo which is why there's typically no one go to source for any news. Some are more reputable than others for example, WSJ has a considerably better reputation for credibility and newsworthiness than Huff Post, Mother Jones, Slate etc.
There was no surprise of the kind you suggest - as I said, it was in line with my "Very poor" expectations of NZHerald which sounds not too dissimilar to your own.
-
-
I am seriously considering just outsourcing most of my thoughts on this election to Dave Rubin.
-
History of abortion laws in the United States
According to the Court, "the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage." Providing a historical analysis on abortion, Justice Harry Blackmun noted that abortion was "resorted to without scruple" in Greek and Roman times.[7] Blackmun also addressed the permissive and restrictive abortion attitudes and laws throughout history, noting the disagreements among leaders (of all different professions) in those eras and the formative laws and cases.[8] In the United States, in 1821, Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion. Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.[9] In the United States, abortion was sometimes considered a common law crime,[10] though Justice Blackmun would conclude that the criminalization of abortion did not have "roots in the English common-law tradition."[11]
Prior history of the case
In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found that the unauthorized facility had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.[12] (McCorvey would give birth before the case was decided.)
In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, who represented the State of Texas. McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was a result of rape, and later acknowledged that she had lied about having been raped.[13][14] "Rape" is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in the case.[15]
On June 17, 1970, a three-judge panel of the District Court, consisting of Northern District of Texas Judges Sarah T. Hughes, William McLaughlin Taylor, Jr. and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Irving Loeb Goldberg, unanimously [16] declared the Texas law unconstitutional, finding that it violated the right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment. In addition, the court relied on Justice Arthur Goldberg's concurrence in Griswold v. Connecticut. The court, however, declined to grant an injunction against enforcement of the law.[17]
US Politics