-
Irene Montero has sparked controversy after telling Donald Trump he should send his own son, Barron Trump, to fight if he supports war.
The Spanish MEP argued that leaders who push for military action should be willing to send their own children to the front lines rather than the children of ordinary families.
Her comments have triggered a fierce debate online about political leaders, war, and who bears the cost of conflict.Irene Montero has sparked controversy after telling Donald Trump he should send his own son, Barron Trump, to fight if he supports war. The Spanish MEP argued that leaders who push for military action should be willing to send their own children to the front lines rather than the children of ordinary families. Her comments have triggered a fierce debate online about political leaders, war, and who bears the cost of conflict.
0 Comments 0 Shares 105 Views 0 Reviews
3
-
James Carville just went on a furious rant against President Donald Trump, claiming he has TDS and he doesn’t want to be cured, he wants more.James Carville just went on a furious rant against President Donald Trump, claiming he has TDS and he doesn’t want to be cured, he wants more.
0 Comments 0 Shares 130 Views 0 Reviews
3
-
Tucker Carlson called Trump’s decision to attack Iran “absolutely disgusting and evil,” and he’s now making his thoughts on Israel very clear.Tucker Carlson called Trump’s decision to attack Iran “absolutely disgusting and evil,” and he’s now making his thoughts on Israel very clear.
0 Comments 0 Shares 152 Views 0 Reviews
3
-
Marine Veteran and father of four Brian McGinnis, who was dragged out of a briefing for shouting "no one wants to die for Israel!" by Sen. Tim Sheehy, has not been allowed to see his wife, his children, or his legal counsel, according to a public statement he made on his Instagram page. He is currently awaiting surgery for severe injuries.Marine Veteran and father of four Brian McGinnis, who was dragged out of a briefing for shouting "no one wants to die for Israel!" by Sen. Tim Sheehy, has not been allowed to see his wife, his children, or his legal counsel, according to a public statement he made on his Instagram page. He is currently awaiting surgery for severe injuries.
0 Comments 0 Shares 106 Views 0 Reviews
3
-
"I hate Black people more than I hate being a cop." A California officer name Mark Namara texted this, and he's now permanently banned from policing.
The San Jose, California, police officer who was exposed for sending racist text messages, has officially lost his certification, according to a report.
It comes after McNamara resigned from the department earlier this month following the revelation that he sent the messages to another employee, referencing the March 2022 shooting involving K’aun Green."I hate Black people more than I hate being a cop." A California officer name Mark Namara texted this, and he's now permanently banned from policing. The San Jose, California, police officer who was exposed for sending racist text messages, has officially lost his certification, according to a report. It comes after McNamara resigned from the department earlier this month following the revelation that he sent the messages to another employee, referencing the March 2022 shooting involving K’aun Green.
0 Comments 0 Shares 145 Views 0 Reviews
3
-
After the U.S. House of Representatives voted 375-65 to block the release of internal reports detailing sexual misconduct and harassment allegations involving members of Congress, Rep. Nancy Mace who was heading it up called out AOC for voting to block, labeling her a 'fraud' for voting against it.
AOC has hit back at Mace claiming that it was too 'messy' and full of loopholes. She additionally explained:
"The idea is good but the text itself was rushed and not thought through. It violated a lot of standard practices to protect survivors and due process:
1. It also released documents related to allegations found to be false or unsubstantiated, not just verified violations or settlements. So innocent people would get lumped in with violators.
2. To our knowledge, there was zero victim consent or consultation on this text. That is very different than with Epstein, where victims are centered and consulted at every step. Here, victims offered all their statements with the promise of protection and anonymity. The text gave them no way to have a voice in what information of theirs or their accounts they wanted public or keep private. That is important because…
3. Although there was a throwaway line about redacting victim names, I do believe full witness or victim statements would have been released. With the way employment at the House works (offices are small, time periods of staff employment are publicly disclosed, etc) it means that even with names redacted you can definitely track details in witness statements and use that to ID victims without their consent. And there was zero mechanism for victims themselves to assert their privacy.
Originally we were supposed to debate the details of the text over two days but for some reason they rushed the vote so we couldn’t iron out any of these details to get this information properly disclosed in a way that guarantees victim safety.
If the text was clean I think you’d get a lot more support. As a survivor, I know why the vast majority of women never report at all and a lot of those reasons, even if unintentionally or inadvertently, were included here. For me at least, guaranteeing the safety and agency of victims and survivors would get me to a YES."After the U.S. House of Representatives voted 375-65 to block the release of internal reports detailing sexual misconduct and harassment allegations involving members of Congress, Rep. Nancy Mace who was heading it up called out AOC for voting to block, labeling her a 'fraud' for voting against it. AOC has hit back at Mace claiming that it was too 'messy' and full of loopholes. She additionally explained: "The idea is good but the text itself was rushed and not thought through. It violated a lot of standard practices to protect survivors and due process: 1. It also released documents related to allegations found to be false or unsubstantiated, not just verified violations or settlements. So innocent people would get lumped in with violators. 2. To our knowledge, there was zero victim consent or consultation on this text. That is very different than with Epstein, where victims are centered and consulted at every step. Here, victims offered all their statements with the promise of protection and anonymity. The text gave them no way to have a voice in what information of theirs or their accounts they wanted public or keep private. That is important because… 3. Although there was a throwaway line about redacting victim names, I do believe full witness or victim statements would have been released. With the way employment at the House works (offices are small, time periods of staff employment are publicly disclosed, etc) it means that even with names redacted you can definitely track details in witness statements and use that to ID victims without their consent. And there was zero mechanism for victims themselves to assert their privacy. Originally we were supposed to debate the details of the text over two days but for some reason they rushed the vote so we couldn’t iron out any of these details to get this information properly disclosed in a way that guarantees victim safety. If the text was clean I think you’d get a lot more support. As a survivor, I know why the vast majority of women never report at all and a lot of those reasons, even if unintentionally or inadvertently, were included here. For me at least, guaranteeing the safety and agency of victims and survivors would get me to a YES."
0 Comments 0 Shares 306 Views 0 Reviews
3
More Stories
Language
VN
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek
Arabic