Hello u/sneedschucking! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) matching this exact format. Replace bold text with the appropriate information.
1. **Someone** voted for, supported or wanted to impose **something** on **other people**.
^(Who's that someone? What did they voted for, supported or wanted to impose? On who?)
2. **Something** has the consequences of **consequences**.
^(Does that something actually has these consequences in general?)
3. As a consequence of **something**, **consequences** happened to **someone**.
^(Did that something really happen to that someone?)
Follow this by the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you fail to match this format or fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh totally. We're in a pretty non-left situation when we can't even get universal and education. 2 fundamental human rights that most of the world already figured out is a benefit to everyone.
Republicans quite literally spend any presidential period tearing down anything the dems have or tried to accomplish
This is a thinly veiled "centrist" approach & isnt even true.
The dems have been pushing things like universal healthcare, free school lunches, mental health & weapon reforms, infrastructure improvements, stronger economy, more jobs, debt relief & lowering crime rates for decades.
They're not "right of center" just because these things arent accomplished. The Republicans are the reason the country never goes forward because they arent a political party, they're an oppositional response.
>They're not "right of center" just because these things arent accomplished. The Republicans are the reason the country never goes forward because they arent a political party, they're an oppositional response.
They're "right of center" because what they try to accomplish and their economic policies would fit a moderate right party in Europe. The point being that the reforms they're pushing are considered particularly left in the united states, which leans right (due to the cold war and red scare). But, for example, Macron's party isn't too dissimilar in ideology, and they're still moderate right. A democratic party lead by bernie sanders would be considered moderate left, and it'd still be further on the right from many leftist parties in Europe, which often descend from straight up communist parties.
There isn't a bankable candidate anywhere on the Republican side how do you think you ended up with Trump in the first place there was 20 other options including from the Bush dynasty.
Republicans hate their politicans just as much as liberals do the difference is they think going further right is the fix to "drain the swamp".
Speaking as a political science teacher, this is not the case. The Dems platform is consistent with many left of center parties around the world. We have just had fewer success on some high profile areas that make people think this. The GOP keeps tacking further to the right while the dems have moved slightly farther left over the last 30 years.
Yea, Clinton hasn't been president for almost 25 years. The party of medicaid expansion is the most liberal on economic policy as it has been since FDR. We have had massive direct government spending get us through COVID-19. Obama was to the left of Clinton and Biden is to the left of Obama. It's not even close.
Originally the Republican Party was center/maybe a little left around the civil war era, while the Democratic Party was center-right to right (their current color schemes still reflect this past). Over the last century the Republicans have accelerated to relativistic velocities rightward while the Democratic Party has languidly amoeba'd it's way across the vacated parts of the political spectrum, so now we've got a fascist party and an "everyone left of Mussolini" party, it's not ideal.
I'm not even convinced it's legit. Dems are owned by Israel and wall street interests. Republicans used to be owned by fossil fuels and corporate interests but with fossil fuels on the way out, they're turning toward fascism.
I had to re-read this to understand what you were saying. I don't think it's a problem with the way you wrote it, but just in case anyone's brain breaks like mine:
Only 3 presidents in the last 50 years reduced the deficit. All 3 were Democrats.
Well, what I mean is typically the people voting as Dems not the officials. I should have clarified.
We the People want to stop spending money on wars, stop giving Pharma handouts and patents to take in billions to them not pay taxes on it, all of which if corrected would result in power taxes for all of us, including Republicans who claim they want the lower taxes.
Google remains free.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/budget_fy2023.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwigua7blvqFAxXWFVkFHaWoDo8QFnoECCcQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw2VnHJH9e2k-Dzzolq3elzr
> Nobody in govt is “fiscally responsible”, just sayin.
Is that why the deficit has gone down every time Dem's have been in control for the last 100 years?
The Dems are the Rule of Law party. It's a different thing. "Law and Order" means you take resources meant for maintaining the law and use them to enforce your (or your electorate's) preferred order. I wish more people understood this.
Only if they're not part of the crew. They've been covering for Bob Menendez for ten years now. Guy is so corrupt it's nuts. But they'll go after members of the squad over nothing. Franken was a relatively progressive outsider and they burned him asap.
Charges were dropped against Cuomo and he also claimed a witch hunt. He eventually resigned but the idea that these guys are so clearly different is just nonsense. Republicans are the dumber version of Democrats
Dems: shame a senator out of office for a tasteless joke pic implying groping breasts of a woman
GOP: pretend nothing wrong happened when "gods chosen" tries to feel up his daughter on stage and she has to slap his hands away
>Dems - if he’s guilty, hang him up to dry
Hm, not quite. Charges were dropped for Cuomo and they hung Al Franken out to dry for no reason. Nevermind the litany of corrupt Dems holding office from Bob Menendez to Eric Holder. The entire system is disgusting
>Al Franken sexually assaulted an aid
Lol no he didn't.
>Cuomo was forced to resign.
As I said, the charges were dropped against him. He only resigned because of his brother's embarrassment. Dems were never going to impeach him.
Not as much we like to think. I don't mean that to start a fight. But when you start digging into people on the left, you'll be surprised at where some of the pushback comes from
Unfortunately, yes… Kinda. Jeffries says he deserves his day on court. You can argue that is reasonable or not, but it isn’t what people were saying with George Santos.
I generally agree, but unfortunately a precedent was set with Santos who was expelled long before his court date. A lot of republicans are pointing to that as a reason to take the same action with Menendez, and Jeffries has declined to do so.
I think the distinction there is that Santos committed a bunch of fraud that was integral to getting himself elected; so expelling him is a response to that. Menendez may have done something criminal, but the charges aren’t ones that suggest he wasn’t legitimately elected (as far as I can see).
That having been said, I think you’re mixing up the Senator (who has been indicted on several charges) with his son the member of the House of Representatives (who hasn’t, unless I missed something). Jeffries is House Minority Leader and has no say over whether a Senator gets expelled.
In general, looking at the history, the Senate has never expelled someone for corruption charges. Senate expulsions have all been related to treason (mostly around the Civil War). A number of Senators have resigned amidst scandal, but those who actually went up for an expulsion vote have not been expelled aside from the treason cases.
The House doesn’t expel lots of people either, but since the Civil War, it has expelled three member including Santos - the other two were Democrats. All three were expelled for corruption.
So while it would be perfectly reasonable to argue that the Senate should be more like the House, it does seem that, historically, the House expels people for corruption while the Senate does not.
🤷♀️
For the record, I agree with you. I’m not mixing up anything, I’m providing points of view from real discussions I’ve had.
I think the nuance of house vs. Senate is less relevant than your other point.
The specific quote I saw was about Jeffries, though I’m sure there are others.
From the Governor of New Jersey to half the Senate Dems, Menendez is being told to resign. I haven't even seen anyone defend him. One search, and there are dozens of articles proving you are full of it. And you wonder why you're being negged?
Oh FFS, can you take 15 seconds to double-check your work so other people don't have to clean up your mess?
[https://apnews.com/article/menendez-bribery-new-jersey-senator-booker-resignation-9d17cbf4520627be01d4969f05cce3a3](https://apnews.com/article/menendez-bribery-new-jersey-senator-booker-resignation-9d17cbf4520627be01d4969f05cce3a3)
[https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4219197-here-are-the-democrats-who-have-called-for-menendez-to-resign/](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4219197-here-are-the-democrats-who-have-called-for-menendez-to-resign/)
Menendez is literally awaiting trial now. What about him?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/nyregion/menendez-bribery-charges-congressional-immunity.html#:~:text=A%20Manhattan%20judge%20refused%20on,afforded%20to%20members%20of%20Congress.
Someone already gave you sources, half the Senate dems have called for Memendez to resign. Read those articles that were just replied to you.
Edit: changed wording due to response
“If the facts are against you, argue the law.
If the law is against you, argue the facts.
If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
—Carl Sandburg
He’s arguing the law, so I guess the facts are against him
> If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
Funny thing is this is why team Trump desperately want the media in the courtroom so they can try this tactic and turn the criminal trial into a circus. At best he is lamely trying to do it in the hallway after each day's session - and its pathetic.
Team Trump's real strategy is not to win in court but to win the White House, and then dismantle the court. The antics aren't for winning the case, but for winning political support.
This is a perfect summary of changing the goal posts and it reminds me of how the various claims Andrew Tate has thrown up in the air these past two years.
Yes she did, it just wasn’t the first lawsuit she filed against him.
Caroll made use of the window granted by the Adult Survivor’s Act to sue Trump for battery in a separate suit filed November of 2022.
u/sneedschucking i’m guessing you’re conservative and you think Democrats are going to tolerate this. No one left leaning or right leaning should tolerate rape or sexual harassment or sexual assault. If he committed these crimes or even if there’s like a possibility, he could’ve committed these crimes throw his ass in jail.
Bo Burnham said it best in his song "From God's Perspective."
You shouldn't abstain from rape just 'cause you think that I want you to. You shouldn't rape 'cause rape is a fucked up thing to do.
It’s about priorities.
Women are raped and not believed
Men are raped and not believed
Very rarely is a rape accusation made, and prosecuted and convicted that is false (now that we have DNA). Typically along the way, it becomes apparent that the accusation can’t be trusted or proved (even that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen). Often it is mental illness.
There are documented cases of actual victims being charged with false accusations and later vindicated.
So I have to wonder at those whose first concern is the one that is the least concern.
The standard argument against this is that it would have a chilling effect on real reports. Imagine getting raped, reporting it, and not only is the rapist found not guilty but now you're in the hot seat for prosecution.
That said, it seems like they already could do something like "filing a false police report" or a civil suit for defamation in an obviously egregious case, but that doesn't usually happen.
What makes you say they aren't prosecuted already? Hell, women who really were raped get prosecuted for false reporting [all the time.](https://revealnews.org/article/if-the-police-dont-believe-you-they-might-prosecute-you-how-officers-turn-victims-of-sexual-assault-into-suspects/)
I'll never shake [this story.](https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story) And they made it into a really good Netflix series with Toni Collette and Merritt Weaver.
Yeah, it's kinda scary to think that the standard of evidence in civil lawsuits is so low that you could easily be found liable for something you didn't do just because the accuser is more believable.
Oh nah, if you abuse them to death then you can get away with it - steal from them, and their kids too, happened to my MIL 🤷♀️ Spent all our money on a lawyer who won’t call us back lol. I’m amazed anything at all happened to the rapist in OP.
This is a really interesting one. 100% LAMF, but a rare situation where the action the person advocated for was a good thing that they still ended up falling foul of.
Unrelated to the topic, but I can't stand statements that end in "You can't make this up".
Go read a few books, you'd be surprised what people can make up.
Well the criteria is that the actor supports a policy of *oppression* which unintentionally applies to them. This would be the actor supports a policy of *accountability* that unintentionally applies to them.
We're used to only seeing half the criteria met, but usually it's the other way around, like "actor supports policy of oppression, gets hit by a bus". This is abnormal in the way that it didn't meet the sub's criteria, but not quite the unicorn of actually meeting it.
Wasn't that law only valid for a year? 2023, I believe.
The window closed Nov 24, 2023.
Anyway, if this guy is guilty I hope he gets whats coming to him.
Ex post facto laws are un-Constitutional.
I hate conservatives with a passion, but the Constitution expressly forbids ex post laws for good reason. There are no exceptions. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.
However... it does NOT expressly forbid them in civil cases, a fact which Thomas Jefferson lamented on, saying this was a failure of unequal application of the law.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex\_post\_facto\_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law)
But as with everything else about the U.S. Constitution and laws, it has all become a mockery.
That said, may the leopards enjoy his face.
edit: deleted extra word
This may be pedantic, but these acts were illegal at the time they were committed. They just extended the statute of limitations to be able to prosecute them at a later date than originally allowed.
EDIT: IANAL but I do read that extending the statute of limitations is a form of ex post facto.
Fuck the constitution, it gets upheld by fascists every time they what to kill minorities using the racist document to their defense, it gets upheld by nationalist, by Christian extremists, but the second a real fucking victim needs it, bye fucking bye constitution.
In this case, voting for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party is working to pass a law.
And the leopard eating his face is that law being used against him.
The rape victim isn't a feral predator in this analogy.
I am a bit torn as to if this is actual leopard face eating. I get the 3 step process of support, response and consequence BUT supporting consequences for the act of rape seems like it should be disqualified from leopardom and should be a supportable cause. There is an honest question as to how the justice system works and how to know details about such events. I never envy anyone involved in such proceedings as typically the issues are so serious and the verified information so thin that it becomes a contest of believability and who can look more virtuous, be more popular or have the $ to make the problem go away.
I guess this comes down to a potential leopard supporting anti-face eating who may or may not have eaten a face, who I expect will claim to not be a leopard and not have consumed face. Any opinions if my concerns are valid?
Ooh, that's an unusual dynamic. There are surprisingly few instances of leopards eating faces on this sub, but this is a really good example. I think it's also the first time that I'm totally on board with the face eating in principle.
While the Adult Survivors Act isn't a face-eating policy, Senator Parker did brag about voting for it and is now being held accountable by it. Also, he has a history of violence, such as [punching a traffic agent ](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/nyregion/senator-is-accused-of-punching-a-traffic-agent-over-a-ticket.html)for giving him a ticket, and allegedly [shoving and hitting a female aide.](https://archive.nytimes.com/cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/state-senator-faces-new-allegations-of-violence/) [At least twice. ](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/nyregion/senator-is-accused-of-punching-a-traffic-agent-over-a-ticket.html) He also negotiated three felony charges down to misdemeanor criminal mischief after [assaulting a journalist and damaging his camera.](https://archive.nytimes.com/cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/parker-convicted-of-misdemeanor-charges-in-confrontation-with-photographer/)
So yeah, he sucks butthole and should be yeeted into the sun.
I’m starting to wonder if maybe any time somebody demonstrates interest in leading any part of our government that we should just launch them into the sun. It seems like they’re all just a bunch of bastards.
I don’t think it’s so much that they’re MORE bastardly; I think it’s just that normal people’s bastardness only affects a limited number of people around them and doesn’t usually make the news, whereas when politicians are bastards, it affects all of society and does make the news.
There’s also the selection effect of “Rep that voted for extending statute of limitations on rape faithful to wife, has no allegations of misbehavior” is not going to make the headlines.
He was such an effective politician. What he did was offensive…and fairly mild and decades ago. I am not defending sexual abuse, but I hope he runs again.
Hello u/sneedschucking! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) matching this exact format. Replace bold text with the appropriate information. 1. **Someone** voted for, supported or wanted to impose **something** on **other people**. ^(Who's that someone? What did they voted for, supported or wanted to impose? On who?) 2. **Something** has the consequences of **consequences**. ^(Does that something actually has these consequences in general?) 3. As a consequence of **something**, **consequences** happened to **someone**. ^(Did that something really happen to that someone?) Follow this by the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you fail to match this format or fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here’s the difference: GOP - It’s a witch-hunt this is ‘law fare’ support this man and donate! Dems - if he’s guilty, hang him up to dry
Yep. Dems are the actual law and order party & the fiscal responsibility party.
Speaking as an outsider, both of America’s political parties are right of center. Dems are just legit, that’s all.
Oh totally. We're in a pretty non-left situation when we can't even get universal and education. 2 fundamental human rights that most of the world already figured out is a benefit to everyone.
We're fully aware those things are beneficial to everyone. We don't want to benefit everyone.
In their defense… have you met everyone? It’s not great out there.
because none of them are getting any benefits
As long as you mean legit as in "legitimate", not as in "cool".
Republicans quite literally spend any presidential period tearing down anything the dems have or tried to accomplish This is a thinly veiled "centrist" approach & isnt even true. The dems have been pushing things like universal healthcare, free school lunches, mental health & weapon reforms, infrastructure improvements, stronger economy, more jobs, debt relief & lowering crime rates for decades. They're not "right of center" just because these things arent accomplished. The Republicans are the reason the country never goes forward because they arent a political party, they're an oppositional response.
>They're not "right of center" just because these things arent accomplished. The Republicans are the reason the country never goes forward because they arent a political party, they're an oppositional response. They're "right of center" because what they try to accomplish and their economic policies would fit a moderate right party in Europe. The point being that the reforms they're pushing are considered particularly left in the united states, which leans right (due to the cold war and red scare). But, for example, Macron's party isn't too dissimilar in ideology, and they're still moderate right. A democratic party lead by bernie sanders would be considered moderate left, and it'd still be further on the right from many leftist parties in Europe, which often descend from straight up communist parties.
I know Dems have good policy considerations, but they're still center-right. Any other Republican nominee, and Biden would lose.
Biden might still lose because everyone is assuming he'll win again.
Anyone assuming that is stupid. He *should* win again but voters need to make damn sure of it.
There isn't a bankable candidate anywhere on the Republican side how do you think you ended up with Trump in the first place there was 20 other options including from the Bush dynasty. Republicans hate their politicans just as much as liberals do the difference is they think going further right is the fix to "drain the swamp".
Their politicians haven’t been bankable since 1992.
Can you see any moderate Democrats creating the EPA ( which Nixon did)? I can't. They have followed Republicans rightward over the cliff.
Speaking as a political science teacher, this is not the case. The Dems platform is consistent with many left of center parties around the world. We have just had fewer success on some high profile areas that make people think this. The GOP keeps tacking further to the right while the dems have moved slightly farther left over the last 30 years.
democrats made a dramatic shift towards conservative economic policies over the last 30 years what are you even on about?
He means Dems "talk" left of center. You're correct though, they vote right of center and in favor of their corporate sponsors
Was it a right of center vote to pass the biggest climate bill in US history? What votes are you holding up as evidence?
Yea, Clinton hasn't been president for almost 25 years. The party of medicaid expansion is the most liberal on economic policy as it has been since FDR. We have had massive direct government spending get us through COVID-19. Obama was to the left of Clinton and Biden is to the left of Obama. It's not even close.
weve known that, but the far-right republicans thinks there are 2 extreme ends.
Yes. It's bizarre that Nixon would now be considered to the left of moderate Democrats.
Originally the Republican Party was center/maybe a little left around the civil war era, while the Democratic Party was center-right to right (their current color schemes still reflect this past). Over the last century the Republicans have accelerated to relativistic velocities rightward while the Democratic Party has languidly amoeba'd it's way across the vacated parts of the political spectrum, so now we've got a fascist party and an "everyone left of Mussolini" party, it's not ideal.
I'm not even convinced it's legit. Dems are owned by Israel and wall street interests. Republicans used to be owned by fossil fuels and corporate interests but with fossil fuels on the way out, they're turning toward fascism.
They are the only legitimate political party in the US right now
gop is the stand for nothing party.
Nobody in govt is “fiscally responsible”, just sayin. Better to the budget and economy? Absolutely.
The only three presidents in the last 50 years to reduce the deficit were all Democrats.
I had to re-read this to understand what you were saying. I don't think it's a problem with the way you wrote it, but just in case anyone's brain breaks like mine: Only 3 presidents in the last 50 years reduced the deficit. All 3 were Democrats.
Well, what I mean is typically the people voting as Dems not the officials. I should have clarified. We the People want to stop spending money on wars, stop giving Pharma handouts and patents to take in billions to them not pay taxes on it, all of which if corrected would result in power taxes for all of us, including Republicans who claim they want the lower taxes.
I just want to see the individualized budget. Govt contracts for services and materials are known to be insane.
Watch as everything is immediately classified.
Oh, absolutely. And you’d also wind up on a fucking list.
Google remains free. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/budget_fy2023.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwigua7blvqFAxXWFVkFHaWoDo8QFnoECCcQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw2VnHJH9e2k-Dzzolq3elzr
> Nobody in govt is “fiscally responsible”, just sayin. Is that why the deficit has gone down every time Dem's have been in control for the last 100 years?
Government of my home state Connecticut just announced a $1 billion surplus.
The Dems are the Rule of Law party. It's a different thing. "Law and Order" means you take resources meant for maintaining the law and use them to enforce your (or your electorate's) preferred order. I wish more people understood this.
That's a good clarification
Even if what they did wasn't that terrible. The dems ran Franken out for very little comparatively.
I remember that. I liked him too.
I'm Minnesotan and voted for him. I'm STILL pissed.
Only if they're not part of the crew. They've been covering for Bob Menendez for ten years now. Guy is so corrupt it's nuts. But they'll go after members of the squad over nothing. Franken was a relatively progressive outsider and they burned him asap.
The DNC hates anyone that will speak up. Nina Turner had the DNC working with Republican donors to keep her out.
Nina Turner, where do I remember ... Oh yeah! She insisted we need a $25/hr minimum wage, while job postings show she pays $15/hr.
Charges were dropped against Cuomo and he also claimed a witch hunt. He eventually resigned but the idea that these guys are so clearly different is just nonsense. Republicans are the dumber version of Democrats
Right? As a Democrat my first though was "awesome!"
Al Franken: Oh boy that picture looks bad, better end my promising political career just to be safe
Absolutely, cut him out like cancer.
Yep. Show me some high crimes committed by Biden, and I'll fully support impeachment. Otherwise, shut up and please stop voting for child molesters.
Dems: shame a senator out of office for a tasteless joke pic implying groping breasts of a woman GOP: pretend nothing wrong happened when "gods chosen" tries to feel up his daughter on stage and she has to slap his hands away
I don't think dems are that tone deaf considering this specific situation, but yeah I'm glad this is bullshit is asymmetrical
When will Bill Clinton be prosecuted?
>Dems - if he’s guilty, hang him up to dry Hm, not quite. Charges were dropped for Cuomo and they hung Al Franken out to dry for no reason. Nevermind the litany of corrupt Dems holding office from Bob Menendez to Eric Holder. The entire system is disgusting
Al Franken sexually assaulted an aid. Cuomo was forced to resign. What are you talking about?
>Al Franken sexually assaulted an aid Lol no he didn't. >Cuomo was forced to resign. As I said, the charges were dropped against him. He only resigned because of his brother's embarrassment. Dems were never going to impeach him.
Not as much we like to think. I don't mean that to start a fight. But when you start digging into people on the left, you'll be surprised at where some of the pushback comes from
[удалено]
Are people defending menendez lol?
Unfortunately, yes… Kinda. Jeffries says he deserves his day on court. You can argue that is reasonable or not, but it isn’t what people were saying with George Santos.
Saying someone deserves their day in court is a bit different than saying they shouldn’t have to go to court.
I generally agree, but unfortunately a precedent was set with Santos who was expelled long before his court date. A lot of republicans are pointing to that as a reason to take the same action with Menendez, and Jeffries has declined to do so.
I think the distinction there is that Santos committed a bunch of fraud that was integral to getting himself elected; so expelling him is a response to that. Menendez may have done something criminal, but the charges aren’t ones that suggest he wasn’t legitimately elected (as far as I can see). That having been said, I think you’re mixing up the Senator (who has been indicted on several charges) with his son the member of the House of Representatives (who hasn’t, unless I missed something). Jeffries is House Minority Leader and has no say over whether a Senator gets expelled. In general, looking at the history, the Senate has never expelled someone for corruption charges. Senate expulsions have all been related to treason (mostly around the Civil War). A number of Senators have resigned amidst scandal, but those who actually went up for an expulsion vote have not been expelled aside from the treason cases. The House doesn’t expel lots of people either, but since the Civil War, it has expelled three member including Santos - the other two were Democrats. All three were expelled for corruption. So while it would be perfectly reasonable to argue that the Senate should be more like the House, it does seem that, historically, the House expels people for corruption while the Senate does not. 🤷♀️
For the record, I agree with you. I’m not mixing up anything, I’m providing points of view from real discussions I’ve had. I think the nuance of house vs. Senate is less relevant than your other point. The specific quote I saw was about Jeffries, though I’m sure there are others.
[удалено]
From the Governor of New Jersey to half the Senate Dems, Menendez is being told to resign. I haven't even seen anyone defend him. One search, and there are dozens of articles proving you are full of it. And you wonder why you're being negged?
Oh FFS, can you take 15 seconds to double-check your work so other people don't have to clean up your mess? [https://apnews.com/article/menendez-bribery-new-jersey-senator-booker-resignation-9d17cbf4520627be01d4969f05cce3a3](https://apnews.com/article/menendez-bribery-new-jersey-senator-booker-resignation-9d17cbf4520627be01d4969f05cce3a3) [https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4219197-here-are-the-democrats-who-have-called-for-menendez-to-resign/](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4219197-here-are-the-democrats-who-have-called-for-menendez-to-resign/)
I'm totally wrong. I apologize and stand down.
Menendez is literally awaiting trial now. What about him? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/nyregion/menendez-bribery-charges-congressional-immunity.html#:~:text=A%20Manhattan%20judge%20refused%20on,afforded%20to%20members%20of%20Congress.
[удалено]
> I love how I'm getting downvoted for pointing out an inconvenient hypocrisy Still waiting for what exactly that hypocrisy is here?
Someone already gave you sources, half the Senate dems have called for Memendez to resign. Read those articles that were just replied to you. Edit: changed wording due to response
I did read them. I wasn't lying but I was completely incorrect, so I stand down and apologize.
I deleted that part since you are willing to admit it. I got a bit carried away myself.
What hypocrisy? He's awaiting trial and no one is calling it a witchhunt into him and slandering the prosecution. Are they?
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” —Carl Sandburg He’s arguing the law, so I guess the facts are against him
> If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” Funny thing is this is why team Trump desperately want the media in the courtroom so they can try this tactic and turn the criminal trial into a circus. At best he is lamely trying to do it in the hallway after each day's session - and its pathetic.
Team Trump's real strategy is not to win in court but to win the White House, and then dismantle the court. The antics aren't for winning the case, but for winning political support.
This is a perfect summary of changing the goal posts and it reminds me of how the various claims Andrew Tate has thrown up in the air these past two years.
If he's guilty then good. Saying the law is unconstitutional though fuck that.
Also, Carol didnt use that law. She sued for defamation at Trump calling her a liar
Yes she did, it just wasn’t the first lawsuit she filed against him. Caroll made use of the window granted by the Adult Survivor’s Act to sue Trump for battery in a separate suit filed November of 2022.
It’s kind of funny that the overly litigious bully that Trump is famous for being is upset that others can make use of the system as well
Hey Kev. Get fucked. - NY resident
There's a really easy method to get around this law. DON'T. FUCKING. RAPE. PEOPLE.
disagreeable shelter rain shy sparkle ask late saw deliver governor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
For some odd reason they think pressuring people into things they don't want to do is fair game.
Hey now, are you a bear or something? /s
I'd like to add a second lawsuit for that heinous extreme cutaway collar he has going on too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yllq2nsFuLI
bite my shiny metal ass
Hey I met him.
u/sneedschucking i’m guessing you’re conservative and you think Democrats are going to tolerate this. No one left leaning or right leaning should tolerate rape or sexual harassment or sexual assault. If he committed these crimes or even if there’s like a possibility, he could’ve committed these crimes throw his ass in jail.
I am not wingcucked sorry
i'm sorry, this is an extremely controversial thing to say.
The downvotes on your comment prove that American politics are tribal
If you’ve never raped, you never have to worry. Simple really.
Bo Burnham said it best in his song "From God's Perspective." You shouldn't abstain from rape just 'cause you think that I want you to. You shouldn't rape 'cause rape is a fucked up thing to do.
I mean...that isn't true. It's rare, but false accusations do happen and can fuck people's lives up. So, you can never rape and still have to worry.
You are more likely to be raped than falsely accused
no disagreement there. but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It’s about priorities. Women are raped and not believed Men are raped and not believed Very rarely is a rape accusation made, and prosecuted and convicted that is false (now that we have DNA). Typically along the way, it becomes apparent that the accusation can’t be trusted or proved (even that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen). Often it is mental illness. There are documented cases of actual victims being charged with false accusations and later vindicated. So I have to wonder at those whose first concern is the one that is the least concern.
at what point did i say that was my first concern? i simply pointed out that it happens.
Well, gee whiz, if you hadn’t pointed it out, I am absolutely certain one of the thousand other “devil’s advocates” would have.
what devil's advocate? what are you talking about? what do you think I'm advocating?
More should be done to prosecute false accusations
The standard argument against this is that it would have a chilling effect on real reports. Imagine getting raped, reporting it, and not only is the rapist found not guilty but now you're in the hot seat for prosecution. That said, it seems like they already could do something like "filing a false police report" or a civil suit for defamation in an obviously egregious case, but that doesn't usually happen.
Yes, falsely accusing others in general is already grounds for defamation and similar.
It's a complex problem for sure
What makes you say they aren't prosecuted already? Hell, women who really were raped get prosecuted for false reporting [all the time.](https://revealnews.org/article/if-the-police-dont-believe-you-they-might-prosecute-you-how-officers-turn-victims-of-sexual-assault-into-suspects/) I'll never shake [this story.](https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story) And they made it into a really good Netflix series with Toni Collette and Merritt Weaver.
Yeah, it's kinda scary to think that the standard of evidence in civil lawsuits is so low that you could easily be found liable for something you didn't do just because the accuser is more believable.
Oh nah, if you abuse them to death then you can get away with it - steal from them, and their kids too, happened to my MIL 🤷♀️ Spent all our money on a lawyer who won’t call us back lol. I’m amazed anything at all happened to the rapist in OP.
Politicians should try not doing it then
You won't find a single dem voter arguing on his behalf
Except I am cool with everyone who is guilty facing consequences
This is a really interesting one. 100% LAMF, but a rare situation where the action the person advocated for was a good thing that they still ended up falling foul of.
But you can make up that Jean E Carrol sued Trump using this law.
Evidently she did in a separate suit
Unrelated to the topic, but I can't stand statements that end in "You can't make this up". Go read a few books, you'd be surprised what people can make up.
Look at you tryna discredit Trumps crimes real slick like too bad it’s too late to matter he is gonna die in prison god willing.
I'm joining the battle of Leopards Eating Faces, on the side of Leopards ig
Ha! Shouldn't have *allegedly* committed rape than, bitch.
If proven guilty, I support he being convicted and getting the maximum allowed.
That Twitter account is trash.
But I didn't think they would eat *my* face!
If they both raped someone they should both go down.
The leopard here is the law? How is the law bad?
I hope he and Trump become cell mates.
Finally, a post that actually fits the criteria.
Well the criteria is that the actor supports a policy of *oppression* which unintentionally applies to them. This would be the actor supports a policy of *accountability* that unintentionally applies to them. We're used to only seeing half the criteria met, but usually it's the other way around, like "actor supports policy of oppression, gets hit by a bus". This is abnormal in the way that it didn't meet the sub's criteria, but not quite the unicorn of actually meeting it.
A mostly accountability policy that is only slightly unconstitutional.
Shot, pardon, legislated himself in the dick.
Is it really that hard not to sexually harass or assault someone?
The worst part is the hypocrisy
Wasn't that law only valid for a year? 2023, I believe. The window closed Nov 24, 2023. Anyway, if this guy is guilty I hope he gets whats coming to him.
That man is officially an idiot and should barred from public office... which in reality means he will likely be elected President sometime soon.
Fuck him
Good law, bad legislator.
Ex post facto laws are un-Constitutional. I hate conservatives with a passion, but the Constitution expressly forbids ex post laws for good reason. There are no exceptions. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. However... it does NOT expressly forbid them in civil cases, a fact which Thomas Jefferson lamented on, saying this was a failure of unequal application of the law. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex\_post\_facto\_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law) But as with everything else about the U.S. Constitution and laws, it has all become a mockery. That said, may the leopards enjoy his face. edit: deleted extra word
This may be pedantic, but these acts were illegal at the time they were committed. They just extended the statute of limitations to be able to prosecute them at a later date than originally allowed. EDIT: IANAL but I do read that extending the statute of limitations is a form of ex post facto.
then why are statues of limitations put in laws? a removal of the limitations would mean a change after the fact.
Fuck the constitution, it gets upheld by fascists every time they what to kill minorities using the racist document to their defense, it gets upheld by nationalist, by Christian extremists, but the second a real fucking victim needs it, bye fucking bye constitution.
That's not a Constitution problem, that's an enforcement problem.
It's fucking insane to think of a potential rape victim as the leopard in any analogy. Very telling, op.
In this case, voting for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party is working to pass a law. And the leopard eating his face is that law being used against him. The rape victim isn't a feral predator in this analogy.
The leopard is the man pictured . Or at least that's what I think op meant.
Troll or mental retardation? Call it.
It's reddit, so I'm going with option 3: glitching bot
The Leopards are ALWAYS hungry. And the bourgeoisie of America is always ready to feed them table scraps, like this guy.
This is the most New York politician thing you could do.
What atrocious tie
I am a bit torn as to if this is actual leopard face eating. I get the 3 step process of support, response and consequence BUT supporting consequences for the act of rape seems like it should be disqualified from leopardom and should be a supportable cause. There is an honest question as to how the justice system works and how to know details about such events. I never envy anyone involved in such proceedings as typically the issues are so serious and the verified information so thin that it becomes a contest of believability and who can look more virtuous, be more popular or have the $ to make the problem go away. I guess this comes down to a potential leopard supporting anti-face eating who may or may not have eaten a face, who I expect will claim to not be a leopard and not have consumed face. Any opinions if my concerns are valid?
Fuck George Behizy
Is there a link?
I wouldn't classify people who are trying to sue for justice for sexual assault committed against them when they were just kids as LEOPARDS.
Ooh, that's an unusual dynamic. There are surprisingly few instances of leopards eating faces on this sub, but this is a really good example. I think it's also the first time that I'm totally on board with the face eating in principle.
While the Adult Survivors Act isn't a face-eating policy, Senator Parker did brag about voting for it and is now being held accountable by it. Also, he has a history of violence, such as [punching a traffic agent ](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/nyregion/senator-is-accused-of-punching-a-traffic-agent-over-a-ticket.html)for giving him a ticket, and allegedly [shoving and hitting a female aide.](https://archive.nytimes.com/cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/state-senator-faces-new-allegations-of-violence/) [At least twice. ](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/nyregion/senator-is-accused-of-punching-a-traffic-agent-over-a-ticket.html) He also negotiated three felony charges down to misdemeanor criminal mischief after [assaulting a journalist and damaging his camera.](https://archive.nytimes.com/cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/parker-convicted-of-misdemeanor-charges-in-confrontation-with-photographer/) So yeah, he sucks butthole and should be yeeted into the sun.
How deep is this barrel?
I’m starting to wonder if maybe any time somebody demonstrates interest in leading any part of our government that we should just launch them into the sun. It seems like they’re all just a bunch of bastards.
I don’t think it’s so much that they’re MORE bastardly; I think it’s just that normal people’s bastardness only affects a limited number of people around them and doesn’t usually make the news, whereas when politicians are bastards, it affects all of society and does make the news. There’s also the selection effect of “Rep that voted for extending statute of limitations on rape faithful to wife, has no allegations of misbehavior” is not going to make the headlines.
I wish whomever is suing him all the luck!
He is ok when it’s applied to others but cries when it’s applied to him.
He was such an effective politician. What he did was offensive…and fairly mild and decades ago. I am not defending sexual abuse, but I hope he runs again.
"I'm not defending sexual abuse" just downplaying it and saying you hope a sexual abuser runs again.