.....unlike Splinter favorite Bernie Sanders’ record on immigration.

What alternative are candidates offering? Are we talking amnesty for everyone? Anyone who makes it to the US gets to stay? No one should be deported?

For some people, apparently?  I think decriminalization and providing a pathway to citizenship is a great stance, but some people won’t settle for anything less than wide open borders.

Hold up..... So, deporting people who are here illegally at all is now terrible?

What the fuck?

Please read the South Carolina declaration of secession. They were the first state to secede and very clearly say they wanted to leave to union to maintain slavery. Other states had similar secession documents. Nowhere in the US Constitution allows for a state to secede from the union. So South Carolina chose to…

Interesting if true. Any sources for that?

That’s incredible!

Even if you’re right about every detail here, I don’t see that it moves the needle. Mayer’s article shows that Tweeden’s accusation was highly misleading and a baldfaced political hit job orchestrated by GOP gorilla Roger Stone. And that Schumer denied Franken the hearing — the due process — he asked for.

This piece is written as if the writer blew the lid off Mayer’s story, but it comes down to a series of picayune rhetorical arguments over things like whether news outlets “passed” on the story. The Globe did pass on the story. It was brought to them, they did what they could to report it out, and, when they lost the…

Sorry, I just don’t agree. I read the article by Jane Mayer, and it seemed to echo my reactions during the affair as it originally unfolded. To me is all stank of a setup by right-wingers to take down a rising star among the Democrats: Franken was probably the most effective voice in the Senate against the Trump/GOP…

What utter hogwash! You should read the piece in the New Yorker!

I read the article by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker and your piece here, and I don’t think you have more than an extremely weak and spindly leg to stand on. I read carefully and tried to go with your line of reasoning and interpretation of the facts, but I don’t think you get anywhere near to proving that Mayer’s piece…

You may have a point, but it feels like a pretty nuanced one. Which is the entire point of scrutinizing the #metoo movement. There is nuance that people want to ignore.

Exactly. The New Yorker article assumed, correctly, that in the Globe’s eyes, “too weak” in corroboration (i.e., no participation from the woman the kiss happened to) means “too weak” as a publishable fact. There is no real distinction.

You’re making a distinction without finding an actual difference.

I really wish we were not in an era where people seemingly don’t understand the chasm of difference between a place like Jezebel, and the New Yorker.

Your characterization of the New Yorker’s usage of the phrase “too weak” is dubious at best. Nowhere in their usage of that phrase do they indicate that the basis of that judgement by the Globe is a factual one. In fact the preceding sentence includes the Globe’s requirement that the accuser be identified, which if…

It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when Gawker Media gets all holier-than-thou.

Hmm.

That’s brilliant--especially that the song happened to be Opportunities--perfect!