Also, they are not very competant

Holy shit, Lebron. I forgot how goddman good he was (and he’s still pretty good).

That some teams have “drafted well” doesn’t prove it’s not a crapshoot. In anything that involves luck, you have a shitton of people in the middle, and some outliers on both ends. So luck—a crapshoot—suggests that some teams are “good” at drafting because they are lucky. It fits in perfectly. Just like some people who…

lol ‘drastically’

This is not fucking hard. The Constitution imposes no duty on the Senate to confirm or hold hearings. A nominee must be confirmed by the damn Senate. If the Senate is like “fuck that,” guess what? That is their prerogative!

Who cares what picture he used?

Not “making” them compete in poop water? They are COERCED to compete in the olympics!

Steph definitely had a amazing game. But really Klay Thompson’s 4th quarter bailed out the Warriors

This might be the least important story of all time

Really ended in hilarious fashion

This is exactly right. Sure, be angry that this story was shit. But don’t be angry about the idea of writing a story from a criminal’s perspective. We need more of that.

No. And I’m not defending Holtzclaw. I’m defending reporters’ duty to present the side of convicted criminals.

he will b a great prez

This is so true. Sure, this guy was convicted and from the very little amount of information I know about him is probably extremely terrible as a person.

Magary slowly aging into Boomer talk

Yes, as I’ve said, of course you don’t have to presume he’s innocent. That much is obvious. The rules of the court of law don’t apply in the public sphere. No one is arguing that. I’m arguing that we should presume innocence before rushing to judgment.

Name calling? What?

lol no. This grossly misunderstands how civil settlement work. People settle shit they didn’t do all the time, just like people plead guilty to crimes they didn’t do all the time.

OK if that’s what you want to do, that’s fine. Like I said, you do not have to abide by the presumption of innocence. I just think it’s something we should do considering the huge number of cases where, in the media, the person is “clearly guilty” (often when they literally admit to a crime), but in fact the person is…

That the public is not required to presume innocence is a dumb argument for why we shouldn’t.