cle23

Elementary school were going the computer route long before COVID. As far as grandparents, my dad passed relatively early, before there were vaccines or anything else. He had some health problems, but nothing that wasn't manageable. My mother passed in February, after a person came to a kid's birthday party KNOWING they were positive, but they were a "it's not real" quack. She caught it, and went from relatively good health for a 64 year old woman, to dead in 3 weeks. It was entirely preventable if people weren't idiots.

1. Provide any evidence for #7, please. Trump is now what, 1/76 in court cases? Also, the rest were all started under Trump. All of them. Trump approved $3.1T of the stimulus, with Biden adding $1.9T more. Not sure where the $9T is coming from. I also keep hearing how the shutdowns ruined kids lives, possibly forever? I have 2 kids, and did it effect them? Sure. Are they still perfectly happy, functioning, normal kids? Absolutely. What hurt my kids more is losing 2 grandparents to COVID in a 13 month time frame. That will hurt them more.

Fair notice to the players in the dramatic shift in punishment length. Not just Watson. If the standard punishment for speeding is a $100 fine, and 3 year later, for the same offense, someone else gets a $1000 fine, that's not "fair." I am not defending Watson. Sure sounds like he is a sexual deviant/assaulter. Just showing that everyone knows sexual assault is wrong, and that Robinson was not saying that the NFLPA didn't know it is wrong. Just that there was a dramatic shift in the punishment that the NFL wanted to impose.

That is not at all what she said. She said that the NFL never said the punishment went from 6 games (past violations) to 17 games (as requested by the NFL.) It's odd either way that they needed to specify, but she didn't say "you didn't tell him it was wrong!"

They didn't appoint her to THIS case. They jointly appointed her to rule over all cases of the PCP. Just so happens this is the first one to come up.

From what I have read, Goodell does not have the power to just raise it to whatever he wants. He has to be able to justify it based on her statements and the evidence listed. Some believe that is why Robinson went into such great detail in regards to some of the issues. Goodell has to be able to back up his changes with precedent and with reasonable cause given the violations that Robinson did find.

Insight #1: Aaron Donald is good.

If he goes from 6 to 17, the NFLPA will sue. Owners getting nothing and Watson gets 17? Also, I can't imagine the 1st case by the neutral judge getting almost tripled. I think it'll stay at 6 with a hefty fine attached.

To be fair, she is pretty involved year round. But I am sure that having her listed 1st was intentional.

Cleveland's 1st division game last year was week 8. Buffalo also has 1 divisional game in the 1st 6 weeks (technically 7) as their 8th game is vs the Jets.

I saw a few places put it out there as such: "Robinson says that another player was suspended 3 games for sexual misconduct of a non-violent nature and that came after he was warned by the league after an offense." Apparently that is the major "precedent" case they are using.

The independent judge is part of the process now as part of the CBA. It isn't going anywhere. Robinson was selected by the NFL and NFLPA.

Again, not saying the ruling is correct or anything, but Robinson is ruling on the 4 cases the NFL brought before her, not the 24 filed. She can't factor in something not brought up in the NFL's case.

The NFL only presented 4 cases. Not 24. People keep throwing out 24, but the NFL chose to focus on 4, so the other 20 don't have relevance in the NFL's case. I have no idea why they only focused on 4.

I can see a situation where the league leaves the suspension at 6, but imposes a larger fine. How that plays out, who knows.

Because the NFL is only looking at 4 cases. That was the case they brought on. And apparently from their investigating there was not much evidence. Robinson can't look at the 24 cases as that was not what was presented. Also, what evidence has been shown? I am not questioning that there is, but I honestly haven't seen anywhere that was presented other than the he said/she said. All I am saying is that if they can't show evidence, then it is hard to convict/punish someone for something that may or may not have happened. That is usually what makes these types of cases so hard. I am not saying it didn't happen as I have no idea, but without DNA evidence, witnesses, or something along those lines, it is extremely hard to prove. If there is no evidence of him "ejaculating on strangers" then it can't be used in consideration. If she has the clothing she was wearing with the DNA evidence, then by all means, use it. Also, the league never said he "served his time." Robinson isn't the league. And as far as I can tell, last year wasn't used for the ruling in any way. I have said this before several times. Watson sure seems to be a sexual deviant of some kind. How extreme he is, or how far he is willing to push the envelope, is unknown. If there is any evidence at all that he assaulted one of these women, he should be in jail and suspended. But so far, from what I have seen, there hasn't been any evidence presented. Doesn't mean there isn't, but in these types of cases, you can't just guess or assume. It's crazy tough on everyone to get this right.

Jerome Bettis.

Each situation depends. A lot of them, white/black/brown/whatever, yes it does. A lot it doesn't. Different situations. It was a barricaded door with quite a few protestors behind it. Behind the officer was Congress, in session. He gave a lawful command and she continued through a broken window, ignoring his drawn gun and orders to stop. There is no way to tell from his end if she was unarmed.

Yep, ignoring lawful commands from an officer while climbing through a broken window, into a restricted area with Congress meeting, all while having a gun pointed at you and ignoring the said commands, is about a simple as it gets. If you're dumb enough to do that, you get what you get.

Exactly what ChiGoose said. The Supreme Court's job isn't to make laws, but it is to make sure the rights of the people are not infringed upon, and that includes from states and the populace. Majority rule is not how a republic works. That's how a pure democracy works, and that is also why we are not a pure democracy.

But they don't though. They are making the restrictions tighter, not helping girls like this. NC is trying to make abortion a death penalty offense. That's my issue. In that case, shouldn't they have left abortion legal and worked towards it from there rather than what they've done?

If they let the abortion happen early, no issues. I do not agree with late term abortions, but I also don't agree with ruining a young girls life over something she had zero control over.

I agree the "father" should go to jail, but what is the plan for the raped other then? You going to raise the kid? You going to financially support her? So many people are "pro life" yet have no plan to help anyone once the life is here.

Ha. Yeah, my party? I didn't vote for Biden. Didn't vote for Hillary either. I did vote for Obama. I love how anyone who doesn't step in line with Trump false narrative is a marxist clown. The 2 party system is the issue. People jumping in lockstep for literally no reason other than party is the issue.

There may be. There has been zero evidence presented to say there was. It's definitely possible, but when people all over claim fraud, and then have absolutely nothing to back it up other than "there could be" then it's bogus. Present evidence and I'll jump right on board.