Discussion about hot topics trending today

[SoulReaver]

there should be an no investigation. Just like there should have been one was none with Kavanaugh

fixed

[Annoyed]

Personally? I think there should be an investigation. Just like there should have been one with Kavanaugh (I don't consider that three day farce an investigation). If the accusations don't pass muster, then he keeps his cushy job. The first accuser doesn't want to press charges so I can count that one as a secondary issue. Sorry , you don't get to throw an accusation around and not press charges when you are able to. It doesn't make any sense being willing to publish your name to the world at large, talk about the attack, and then offer to testify in a congressional committee but somehow not wanting to testify in front of a jury while maintaining privacy thanks to shield laws? I find that incredibly questionable.

The second accuser should be the focus of state assembly investigation. Unfortunately for her, the statute of limitations ran out a few years ago so she has no option of pressing criminal charges, unlike Tyson who certainly has such an option.

One of the same questions that was relevant in the Kavanaugh case: Why was no police report made at the time?

Sorry, but I don't think you should be able to smear someone with accusations decades after the alleged offense, particularly with no hard evidence to back it up. As a TV sitcom put, "those are toothpaste words, you can't put them back in the tube".

And just as in the Kavanaugh case, if it turns out that no case can be made, the accusers ought to be charged with falsely reporting an incident or whatever other legal terminology means "false accusation"

[jelgate]

We never found out if no case could be made though. If was just swept under the rug and ignored

[Annoyed]

We never found out if no case could be made though. If was just swept under the rug and ignored

Yes, we did. You just didn't like the outcome because Kavanaugh is a staunch conservative.

At the end of the day, there wasn't even enough evidence to present to a grand jury, let alone bring him to trial.

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, we did. You just didn't like the outcome because Kavanaugh is a staunch conservative.

At the end of the day, there wasn't even enough evidence to present to a grand jury, let alone bring him to trial.

No, what there was, was an statement of his alleged wrongdoing, and an absolute refusal to give any of it creedence. They essentially said "we don't want to know, so who needs a grand jury?"
To take a case to a GJ, there is investigation to provide evidence to present to them, in this case, there was no investigation.

[Chaka-Z0]

No, what there was, was an statement of his alleged wrongdoing, and an absolute refusal to give any of it creedence. They essentially said "we don't want to know, so who needs a grand jury?"
To take a case to a GJ, there is investigation to provide evidence to present to them, in this case, there was no investigation.

Not to mention the bogus mandate given to the FBI. ''Look under his rug, if there's nothing there he's clean''.

[Gatefan1976]

Not to mention the bogus mandate given to the FBI. ''Look under his rug, if there's nothing there he's clean''.

Should have given them the "Al Frankin"
Smells bad, it's out.
But a judge is not a senator, so it's OK, right?

[Annoyed]

No, what there was, was an statement of his alleged wrongdoing, and an absolute refusal to give any of it creedence. They essentially said "we don't want to know, so who needs a grand jury?"
To take a case to a GJ, there is investigation to provide evidence to present to them, in this case, there was no investigation.

She filed no report at the time of the alleged assault.
She had no evidence whatsoever except her word. "She Said/He Said"
She had no corroboration at all. One person she said would back her up declined to do so.

Nothing provable at all.

[Chaka-Z0]

Nothing provable at all.

Kay. Why wasn't there a full mandate given to the FBI to clear Kavyboy's name then? I don't see why he wouldn't score some points and show to the world Kavanaughty was CLEAN and a GOOD (footballer) American?

Hell, even I would say he was innocent if I could have the actual truth. But as Jel said, it was swept under the rug.

[Annoyed]

Kay. Why wasn't there a full mandate given to the FBI to clear Kavyboy's name then? I don't see why he wouldn't score some points and show to the world Kavanaughty was CLEAN and a GOOD (footballer) American?

Hell, even I would say he was innocent if I could have the actual truth. But as Jel said, it was swept under the rug.

We had the truth. But the Democrats wanted to block him simply on the basis of the accusation, which is unacceptable.

I'm actually not surprised that they tried the same stunt again, just that the target this time is one of their own.

[Gatefan1976]

We had the truth. But the Democrats wanted to block him simply on the basis of the accusation, which is unacceptable.

I'm actually not surprised that they tried the same stunt again, just that the target this time is one of their own.

Yet stopping Garland was all good?

[jelgate]

We had the truth. But the Democrats wanted to block him simply on the basis of the accusation, which is unacceptable.

I'm actually not surprised that they tried the same stunt again, just that the target this time is one of their own.

You're making stuff up again

[Annoyed]

*Snicker*
Hey, Andy!

How about you read the handwriting on the wall?
Take a meat axe to NY spending so you can cut state taxes. Then you won't have this problem!

How hard is that to figure out?

New York Gov. Cuomo to urge Trump to rethink tax changes

Cuomo said the cap is prompting wealthy residents to flee New York and contributing to a recent drop of more than $2 billion in tax receipts.

The cap is nationwide, Andy. It's not the cap that is chasing them out, it's NY's high taxes.

And you know it:

"This is not an academic discussion, my friends. This is real life," Cuomo told reporters Monday when he announced the trip. "This changes the economic trajectory of the state. People are mobile. And they will go to a better tax environment."

I heard a radio report that the feds told Andy to take a flying leap on this. Good!

Too bad he don't have the brains to realize that the only solution is to cut state spending so taxes can be cut to levels competitive with other states.

[Chaka-Z0]

And today on Who screwed the economic pooch, a recurring guest, Donald!

He's right you know, Corps don't have feelings, don't care about ideology or walls. Simple mathematics. They will move and you will lose capital.

That is why deductions exist, you can't really change the tax rates in a globalized economy, unless every single country concurs on the same level, which won't happen anytime soon.

[Annoyed]

And today on Who screwed the economic pooch, a recurring guest, Donald!

He's right you know, Corps don't have feelings, don't care about ideology or walls. Simple mathematics. They will move and you will lose capital.

That is why deductions exist, you can't really change the tax rates in a globalized economy, unless every single country concurs on the same level, which won't happen anytime soon.

You know you just reinforced my argument about why NY needs to cut spending so it can cut taxes, right?

The change to the deductions rules was identical in all 50 states. The difference is that it affects high tax states more. So the lesson is that high tax states need to cut taxes. And to do that, they have to cut spending.

I consider that a very smart strategy on the part of the feds that will benefit the taxpayers in those high tax states over the long run.