sturg33
I
I havent watched Fox news since my dad died. It's a trash network
Woman's March
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
I havent watched Fox news since my dad died. It's a trash network
57Brave
Well-known member
The Rude Pundit
@rudepundit
Remember back in 2015 when the Center for "Medical Progress"
released heavily-edited videos supposedly proving that
Planned Parenthood illegally sold fetal tissue?
PP sued and, today, those lying worms at CMP
just lost big.
Helen Christophi
@helenchristophi
·
19m
Planned Parenthood spox confirms: PP awarded
over $2 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
@rudepundit
Remember back in 2015 when the Center for "Medical Progress"
released heavily-edited videos supposedly proving that
Planned Parenthood illegally sold fetal tissue?
PP sued and, today, those lying worms at CMP
just lost big.
Helen Christophi
@helenchristophi
·
19m
Planned Parenthood spox confirms: PP awarded
over $2 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
striker42
Well-known member
It was always silly to think Planned Parenthood would sell fetal tissue at a profit themselves. They don't have to. It's far cleaner to partner with companies who are given the tissue for free but who also give Planned Parenthood donations. All completely legal and above board. Also tax deductible for the companies.
57Brave
Well-known member
Patrick S. Tomlinson
@stealthygeek
·
7h
Hillary had a bad cold and the media was fitting her for a coffin.
Trump is rushed to Walter Reed on a Saturday, transparently lies about why, then cancels all his events by 9am on Sunday and no one's talking about his health.
This is what institutional misogyny looks like.
we used to have a poster here that often wonders "what do women want?"
This could be a start
@stealthygeek
·
7h
Hillary had a bad cold and the media was fitting her for a coffin.
Trump is rushed to Walter Reed on a Saturday, transparently lies about why, then cancels all his events by 9am on Sunday and no one's talking about his health.
This is what institutional misogyny looks like.
we used to have a poster here that often wonders "what do women want?"
This could be a start
striker42
Well-known member
The difference is Hillary passed out in public. There's not much public info about Trump's visit to Walter Reed. Give it time for details to come out. You can bet every major news agency is digging into it.
striker42
Well-known member
That being said, no one is buying his early physical explanation. Any labs he needed for a physical could be done in the White House clinic.
Considering he has heart disease, my guess is something happened and they wanted to rule out a heart attack. They did that and he went back home.
Considering he has heart disease, my guess is something happened and they wanted to rule out a heart attack. They did that and he went back home.
Runnin
Well-known member
It's terrible that politicians can't just be honest and matter of fact when normal things happen. When you've got a guy over 70 in the WH, there will and should be, medical issues that have to be delt with, even if it's just lots of tests.
Over 70 is too old for a first time President.
acesfull86
Well-known member
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/story/_/id/29125363/judge-sides-us-soccer-uswnt-equal-pay-lawsuit
A federal judge in California ruled in favor of the United States Soccer Federation on most of the key points in the ongoing wage discrimination lawsuit brought by members of the U.S. women's national team player pool, dealing a potentially fatal setback to the players in the high-profile case.
Judge R. Gary Klausner on Friday ruled for U.S. Soccer's motion for summary judgment with regard to the Equal Pay Act, stating in his decision that the players "have not demonstrated a triable issue that WNT players are paid less than MNT players."
Klausner's ruling was informed by the federation's contention that women's players were paid more in total and on a per-game basis than their male counterparts were during the period in question. Friday's ruling cited as undisputed fact that from 2015 to 2019, the women's national team averaged $220,747 per game in total payments (for a total of $24.5 million), while the men's national team averaged $212,639 per game in total payments (for a total of $18.5 million).
Klausner effectively concluded that differences in payment structure were the result of choices made by the women's players and their union -- including guaranteed annual salaries of at least $100,000 for 20 contracted players -- and not discrimination by the federation.
The 32-page ruling went through a detailed history of the collective bargaining process that led to the current CBA between U.S. Soccer and the USWNTPA that was signed in 2017. Klausner noted that representatives for the players rejected a pay-for-play model identical to the men early in those negotiations in 2016. In later negotiations, the players offered a counterproposal with lesser bonuses than the federation's offer in exchange for more contracted players and higher base salaries -- benefits not part of the CBA between U.S. Soccer and the men's union.
Therefore, while the women's players argued that, after winning the World Cup in 2015 and 2019, they would have made more money under the terms of a men's CBA, which offered higher game bonuses, the court noted that there was "indisputably economic value" to the guarantees included only in the women's CBA.
"Merely comparing what WNT players received under their own CBA with what they would have received under the MNT CBA discounts the value that the team placed on the guaranteed benefits they received under their agreement," the ruling stated, "which they opted for at the expense of higher performance-based bonuses."
A federal judge in California ruled in favor of the United States Soccer Federation on most of the key points in the ongoing wage discrimination lawsuit brought by members of the U.S. women's national team player pool, dealing a potentially fatal setback to the players in the high-profile case.
Judge R. Gary Klausner on Friday ruled for U.S. Soccer's motion for summary judgment with regard to the Equal Pay Act, stating in his decision that the players "have not demonstrated a triable issue that WNT players are paid less than MNT players."
Klausner's ruling was informed by the federation's contention that women's players were paid more in total and on a per-game basis than their male counterparts were during the period in question. Friday's ruling cited as undisputed fact that from 2015 to 2019, the women's national team averaged $220,747 per game in total payments (for a total of $24.5 million), while the men's national team averaged $212,639 per game in total payments (for a total of $18.5 million).
Klausner effectively concluded that differences in payment structure were the result of choices made by the women's players and their union -- including guaranteed annual salaries of at least $100,000 for 20 contracted players -- and not discrimination by the federation.
The 32-page ruling went through a detailed history of the collective bargaining process that led to the current CBA between U.S. Soccer and the USWNTPA that was signed in 2017. Klausner noted that representatives for the players rejected a pay-for-play model identical to the men early in those negotiations in 2016. In later negotiations, the players offered a counterproposal with lesser bonuses than the federation's offer in exchange for more contracted players and higher base salaries -- benefits not part of the CBA between U.S. Soccer and the men's union.
Therefore, while the women's players argued that, after winning the World Cup in 2015 and 2019, they would have made more money under the terms of a men's CBA, which offered higher game bonuses, the court noted that there was "indisputably economic value" to the guarantees included only in the women's CBA.
"Merely comparing what WNT players received under their own CBA with what they would have received under the MNT CBA discounts the value that the team placed on the guaranteed benefits they received under their agreement," the ruling stated, "which they opted for at the expense of higher performance-based bonuses."
sturg33
I
My position is that the government cares about nothing but their own power.