That's not how democracy or press conferences work.

1: journalists absolutely do NOT have to accept a politicians answer. They are fully entitled to demand a real answer.

2: they're also entitled to follow up questions. Acostas behaviour is completely normal for any member of the press and far less "rude" than anything Fox News did to Obama.

And as for CNN coverage of Trump's achievements....
*related=https://videosift.com/video/CNN-Red-Pills-itself-The-Economy-is-GREAT

Bob, you been drinking again?

They're - they are.

Waist - the part of the human body below the ribs and above the hips.

Waste - an act or instance of using or expending something carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.
"it's a waste of time trying to argue with him"

Your - belonging to or associated with any person in general.
"the sight is enough to break your heart"

------------------------

You make it sound as though they are after YOUR entitlements.

Lots of good comments here... this might take a while so bear with me.

@Mordhaus, I haven't read that book but I'd be interested to see his sources. Everything I've googled suggests the rate is really low.

As for Ford, obviously, I can't say for certain whether she is telling the truth. She may even believe she is telling the truth and still be wrong. I think she was entitled to the benefit of the doubt in terms of an investigation. Of course, it's possible she was doing this for political reasons, but that feels like a stretch to me.

@bcglorf
In some ways, I can understand the desire to remove the vexatious complaints cause. Coming forward with a report of sexual assault is traumatic enough already.
A) you may not be believed
B) even if you are, you're in for an experience many assault survivors have described as "being raped a second time"
If you add the possibility that your complaint could potentially get you sanctioned if no one believes you, that's a pretty awful situation to be in.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with this stance, but I can understand it. I think you would need to clear a very high bar to prove a complaint is malicious. Presumption of innocence applies to the complainant also.

"The first 3 levels of sexual violence ALL involve no physical contact and are entirely verbal. "
100% fine with this. You can be a creepy sleazebag without touching someone and it's still not ok.

"lots of people are very much arguing that lives should be destroyed then and there"
Sorry, I just don't see it. That said, if there are people arguing for that... I'm against them.

"We'll even right songs to laugh at them when they complain."
This song was mocking the bullshit "it's a scary time to be a man" line, and deservedly so. I'm a man, and I'm not scared of being accused of sexual assault. None of my male friends are scared either. But it fucking crushes my soul to think of how many of the women in my life have ACTUALLY experienced some form of sexual assault (and that's just the ones I know of).

@scheherazade
Completely agree that eyewitness testimony is borderline useless in terms of evidence. Go back through my comment history... you'll see I even said I doubt you could prove Kavanaugh's guilt. All I've ever said is that it warrants an investigation. (sidenote: I totally agree with @vil and @Mordhaus on this... polygraphs are junk science, but Kavanaugh's boorish behaviour should have been grounds not to confirm him).

Regarding your friend that was raped by a girl: that's awful, and yes, we really have to stop this childish attitude of somehow thinking female on male rape is either funny or that the guy was lucky. But it is unrelated to this discussion.

@MilkmanDan, I pretty much agree with everything you've said.

Being falsely accused of rape would be terrible, even if you weren't convicted. No disagreement there at all.

"Second, as I've pointed out before, the idea that we're seeing an epidemic of false accusations is not supported by evidence."

I am seeing a strong movement to demand that accusations be enough to get people suspended, expelled and fired though. The Canadian Federation of Students has been pushing a campaign to improve campus sexual assault policies. Their plan specifically includes things they don't want any policy to have, including any " SANCTIONS FOR VEXATIOUS, MALICIOUS OR FALSE COMPLAINTS". They sigh an example section from Dalhousie University's sexual assault policy that they believe is wrong and should be removed:
"A complaint made in bad faith shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action against the complainant, which shall be commenced in accordance with applicable disciplinary processes. A bad faith complaint is a complaint that is made with a conscious design to mislead or deceive, or with a malicious or fraudulent intent. "

More insidiously, strong movements across Canada are training the workplace on what sexual violence is. The first 3 levels of sexual violence ALL involve no physical contact and are entirely verbal. When people are manipulating language to make actions seem worse than they are, you are acting in bad faith and I think it should be called out.

" If a woman (or a man) comes forward with a claim of sexual assault, they are entitled to be taken seriously."

Agreed, but lots of people are very much arguing that lives should be destroyed then and there, just to be safe and/or to balance things out finally so men can be victimized too so they know how it feels. We'll even right songs to laugh at them when they complain.

IMO, the real issue here is one of deflection. Trump and his cronies
No disagreement there. I both vehemently disagree with virtually everything Trump says or does. At the same time, still don't like how far the condemn the accused pushes are looking to go.

"You give the woman a victim hood mentality ."

First, sexual assault happens to both men and women.
Second, yes, because I am specifically talking about VICTIMS of sexual assault.

"What about the guy? He too carries this to his grave. He too sufferer a life of pain of a un erasable false accusation. "

Yes, a false accusation of rape is awful. I've said so multiple times now. But it's still not as bad as being raped. I don't want to break my arm, but I'll take it over being shot in the chest. See how too things can be bad, but one is worse than the other?

Plus, at least, with a false accusation of rape, there's a chance you will get your name cleared.

"The difference The man carries a tag on his back for all to see and discriminate against.
The woman carries internal pain. Which is hurt most?"

Easy. The rape victim.

"this does not give society the obligation to take her at her word just because she is a woman."

Which is exactly why I never said that. What I said is that anyone who makes a claim of sexual assault is "entitled to be taken seriously", i.e. have said claim investigated. Due process still applies.

"Even is false hoods are 1% - that is too much, if it is you. Just think today if a work colleague told your boss that you grabbed he upper spots? Not even rape. You would loose your job. Then what How do you explain this at the next job? No one would hire you , just to be on the safe side. You are black listed."

Can you please try using a spell checker? That is really hard to read. What the hell is "you grabbed he upper spots" supposed to mean?

Anyway, assuming you're talking about sexual harassment in the workplace, I would expect not to be fired until an investigation had proved I was in the wrong.

Again, false accusations are bad, and yeah, it would totally suck if it happened to you.

But it's just not that common. The numbers don't support your case at all. Rape far out numbers false accusations, and that's not even getting into other forms of sexual assault, like groping or catcalling, most of which isn't even reported.

Newsflash: most women don't WANT to be perceived as a victim of sexual assault.

"Trump has nothing to do with this."
Yeah, he does. He (and you) contributes to the culture that is more worried about a tiny percentage of false accusations than the NINETY FUCKING THOUSAND RAPES THAT OCCUR EVERY YEAR IN THE US.

You can totally be against both. Most reasonable people are.

What you shouldn't do is assume that they are both equally bad and equally prevalent (important note: I'm not saying @bcglorf is doing this.... but other people are definitely doing this).

Obviously, a false accusation of rape is a terrible thing. In the most extreme circumstances, it can lead to having years of your life taken away in prison. But sexual assault is a life sentence, you will carry that to your grave.

Second, as I've pointed out before, the idea that we're seeing an epidemic of false accusations is not supported by evidence. The numbers are hard to come by, but it's not even 1% of actual rapes (nevermind lesser sexual assault like groping, etc).

Finally, where is the abandoning of proof and evidence? Show me someone who has been convicted of sexual assault without any evidence. There's a big difference between accepting an allegation is worth looking into and convicting that person.

If a woman (or a man) comes forward with a claim of sexual assault, they are entitled to be taken seriously. That doesn't mean their alleged assailant is guilty though.

IMO, the real issue here is one of deflection. Trump and his cronies are basically inventing this narrative of victimhood where women are on the lookout for men to falsely accuse of rape, which is patently bullshit.

As I said, it's a semantic argument about what you call an attack. Most people call intruding on a secure government system, testing security, and stealing data an attack, obviously they, and you, don't. You're entitled to that opinion, I'm entitled to disagree if I so choose.

Yes, it's normal across the web to have a pubic website's security tested by potential attackers by scanning the system before launching an attack.

What's not such regular activity is someone successfully breaking into secure government election systems using among other methods Trojan horse emails known to have been designed by hostile foreign powers, which was one detail I recall from 2016.

That's the kind of foreign policy we only like to export from America, not import, cause Merica first!

So what.. it was just one point... even if it was an unfair call. Unfair calls happen all the time... suck it up buttercup.

But noooo, not with this one... she lost her shit repeatedly and pushed her luck past the pale.

It was a pathetic display of entitlement.

At this point, you calling someone in America a traitor is a compliment. If you applauded them, that's become insulting evidence against them. You act like a caricature, a compilation of all the worst of the know nothing rabid Trumpeteers, it's impossible to take you seriously.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how ignorant, vapid, feculent, and infantile they want that opinion to be, but you, sir, are taking excessive advantage of that entitlement.

Trump's draft dodging and tax evasion and multiple intentional bankruptcies at taxpayers expense were traitorous, McCain's decades of honorable service and self sacrifice were heroic and excessively patriotic.

If you honestly think you're fair and balanced, you must honestly be severely mentally unbalanced. You couldn't be more biased with an entire troll farm behind you....and I think you have one, comrade.

This comment would only be made by an enemy of America and disgusting human being, both.

Jesus bob, that's fucking low, even for you.

And yeah, you're entitled to your opinion. The same everyone else is entitled to tell you exactly what they think of you and your opinion.

Traitor McCain
Should have been KIA not DOA.
Defending Obama is the least of Conservative gripes.

Before you all get pissy and go ape shit and try banning me , piss off. All entitled to opinion.

At least I'm fair and balanced I said about the same about Ted Kennedy passing.

Absolutely...the important question is "how fast is he going down?"

Especially when the EIA candidate decides to climb above someone who is taking reasonable care. Should he fall, there's a pretty good chance he's going to injure or take someone else with him now. He's entitled to risk his own life (although I'd not be happy about paying for his hospital bills). But he needs to take his own path, rather than put others at risk.

Personally, the only one I care about is Weinstein, because he indirectly had a hand in some of my favourite movies.

Gibson, meh... I can happily go the rest of my life without seeing anything he's done again.

Louis CK is a comic genius, but I won't be giving him any more money and Cosby....well, you're perfectly entitled to do that... although why you'd want to submit yourself to actually watching the Cosby show is beyond me. Either way, it won't do Bill any good while he's dying in a prison cell.

"Aren't there incel women? "

Actually, I believe the term was coined by a woman, who meant it to be a positive group for socially awkward, marginalised or mentally ill people.

"How about a program....hookers for incels....or something similar?"
That's one of the reasons why decriminalisation of prostitution is a good thing.

"Making them feel more inadequate and less a part of society will definitely lead to more attacks, so that seems like a really dumb move."
To be fair, Jim does address this. As he said himself, almost all humans are incel at some point.

I think there's also a reasonable case to be made for people to be less hung up on looks.

But if your response to being incel is to act like an entitled arsehole on reddit, or worse, to do something like this, it's kinda hard to have sympathy for you. (obviously, not you, newt... I'm sure you're a fine looking nad who has 5s of sex a year )

.... cringe... not sure I can even watch the whole thing, after only 30 seconds I feel like slapping her in the face.
#entitlement