Follow TV Tropes
Short short version of unpacking that:
1. Mail Order brides are a sample you should not draw from to judge the whole, are famously a scam, and come from a desire to escape abject poverty in an unstable region even in the stereotype.
2. Melanie was rich before but became super-rich with Trump.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Oct 10th 2018 at 7:14:57 AM
Because Russia seems like it has a very patriarchal, male-dominated culture? Because domestic violence in Russia is decriminalized if it doesn't break bones? Because abused women are generally made to pay their abuser's legal fees? Because this was the general Russian reaction to #MeToo?
But you're right, they must just be after those deep American pockets.
Edited by RedSavant on Oct 10th 2018 at 10:23:58 AM
Let's knock that ludicrous nonsense off, yeah?
This is a very interesting interview on Melania.
Do you have another source? The Daily Mail's quality and political leanings are equivalent to Breitbart and thus really shouldn't be used unless necessary.
I thought it was the fact it was an interview not an article.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Oct 10th 2018 at 7:35:03 AM
Yeah, this is why Republican keep winning.
They get away with shit like this.
Keep winning? They've been losing a lot of special elections.
Even so, shit like that isn't good.
I hold that M84 has the best signature for situations like these...
... that's my state, I hope he gets electorally slaughtered.
Edited by TroperOnAStickV2 on Oct 10th 2018 at 10:49:53 AM
That article says they have 26 months to address the issue. Is that a typo or are they running a two year campaign in that state?
Republicans gonna Republican I guess.
Since it's likely that this story has been buried under everything else in the past month, here's a story about how children who have been separated from their parents due to the latter's deportation are being permanently adopted without notifying their parents.
Edited by Shaoken on Oct 11th 2018 at 5:25:59 AM
America was a mistake.
Foot has been extracted from mouth. My main question is, how can we get more perpetrators of sexual assault to face legal consequences/ punishments for their actions? Would we have to change the very nature of our justice system?
I think it's more about changing how it's applied, on the criminal system side. One of the biggest issues is that Victims are too afraid no one will believe them to ever press charges to begin with.
That needs to be changed. It needs to be a certainty that this will be investigated and prosecuted, together with making sure that there is enough funds for it (there've been stories of rape-kits not being processed and literally piling up)
Though I'd also like a clear 'No Means No' passus in the respective laws, to eliminate any textual ambiguities.
“No means no” isn’t the point, though. And it leaves out drunk people and people who freeze in fear. “Everything but an enthusiastic yes is a no” is better.
How about looking what the Swedes did? They actually tackled the problem (which is part of the source for the "rape capital of Europe" myth) and whatever they did it seems to work.
One of the issues with prosecuting those cases is that they’re typically “he-said she-said” cases, in which it can be very difficult to prove criminal liability. The standards of proof are too high in criminal courts.
Getting police and hospitals to actually perform rape kits and process them would be a good start. Educating men on what not to do would probably also be helpful.
The funny thing is, there are robbery and murder cases where the only evidence is he said she said, and we convict people.
Just something to chew on.
I remember reading an old Film Critic Hulk blog post that posited an explanation for why rape is such an uncomfortable topic for us. This was from 2013.
WE NEED TO CHANGE HOW WE TALK ABOUT RAPE
It's a long and worthwhile read, but one line sums up the way we handle rape nicely.
Those cases are usually taken to civil court, which is a totally different thing and where they can be resolved more easily. It’s very rare for a he-said she-said case to result in a criminal conviction, unless there are outside circumstances that influence the judge or jury one way or another (for example, if the defendant has priors for the same crime)
Edited by archonspeaks on Oct 11th 2018 at 5:31:52 AM
Uhm. I’m in law school? I read a lot of criminal cases. And a lot of robberies and a decent amount of assault and battery and murder cases rely exclusively on witness testimony, with almost no forensic evidence or video footage etc.
Community Showcase More