宜宾割双眼皮后的照片(宜宾眼袋是怎么形成的) (今日更新中)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The CEOs of Twitter, Facebook and Google have received a hectoring from Republicans at a Senate hearing for alleged anti-conservative bias in the companies’ social media platforms. And the CEOs are being put on notice about potential restrictions that may be coming. Some lawmakers are looking to challenge the companies' long-enjoyed bedrock legal protections for online speech. The protections stem from Section 230 of a 1996 communications law. Senators in the hearing extracted promises from Twitter's Jack Dorsey, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Google's Sundar Pichai that their companies will take needed measures to help ensure election security.Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., asked the CEOs if they have a plan “if the president uses your platforms to say, on the day of the election, that there is rigging or fraud, without any basis in evidence, or attempts to say the election is over.”President Donald Trump has refused to publicly commit to accepting the results if he loses the presidential contest. He also has raised the baseless prospect of mass fraud in the vote-by-mail process.Testifying via video, the executives said their companies are taking a number of measures, including partnerships with news organizations to get out accurate information. Dorsey said Twitter was working closely with state election officials. “We want to give people using the service as much information as possible,” he said.Republicans, led by Trump, have accused the social media platforms, without evidence, of deliberately suppressing conservative, religious and anti-abortion views.Zuckerberg acknowledged that Congress “should update the law to make sure it’s working as intended.” Dorsey and Pichai urged caution in making any changes.The executives rejected accusations of bias. “We approach our work without political bias, full stop,” Pichai said. “To do otherwise would be contrary to both our business interests and our mission.”The companies have wrestled with how strongly they should intervene with speech. They have often gone out of their way not to appear biased against conservative views — a posture that some say effectively tilts them toward those viewpoints. The effort has been especially strained for Facebook, which was caught off guard in 2016, when it was used as a conduit by Russian agents to spread misinformation benefiting Trump’s presidential campaign. 2413

WASHINGTON (AP) — The actual crisis of the coronavirus pandemic and a manufactured crisis over voting fraud featured heavily in President Donald Trump's misstatements during the 2020 campaign's final week. Democrat Joe Biden went astray on trade as he assailed the president's record on China.Straining to make the pandemic look less dire than it is, Trump baselessly alleged that the death count is inflated by instances of doctors falsifying the cause of death. He produced no evidence of that, and there is strong contrary evidence that the death toll attributed to COVID-19 actually understates how many Americans are dying from it.A sampling of political rhetoric from the week:TRUMP: "You know, our doctors get more money if somebody dies from COVID. You know that right? I mean, our doctors are very smart people. So what they do is they say, 'I'm sorry, but, you know, everybody dies of COVID.'" — rally Friday in Waterford Township, Michigan.THE FACTS: No, the virus death count has not been overstated because of doctors lying to get more money. No evidence has emerged of such systemic fraud.Almost 230,000 deaths from COVID-19 have been confirmed as of Saturday. The true number is almost certainly higher by a considerable margin.As of Oct. 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention counted 299,000 more U.S. deaths than would be expected in a normal year. Some of those deaths are sure to have been from COVID-19 — how many cannot be known.It's true that hospitals may get higher reimbursement from the government to treat COVID-19 patients. Hospitals were given a 20% add-on for Medicare patients who test positive for the virus to cover the additional costs of treating the disease, such as buying supplies. The higher reimbursements are based on a COVID-19 diagnosis, not on the cause of death as Trump stated.The Healthcare Financial Management Association, which works with hospitals on billing matters, says providers must support COVID-19 billing with test results or a physician's statement. The organization says hospitals expect to be audited for this billing and know that Medicare cheaters may have to pay back three times what they overcharged or even lose access to Medicaid patients.Susan R. Bailey, president of the American Medical Association, said Trump's allegation of COVID-19 overcounting, which he has made several times, "is a malicious, outrageous, and completely misguided charge."___VIRUSTRUMP: "In California, you have a special mask. You cannot under any circumstances take it off. You have to eat through the mask." — Arizona rally on Wednesday.THE FACTS: Those statements are false.California residents are not required to wear "special" masks nor are they required to wear them all the time and "eat through the mask."Gov. Gavin Newsom's statewide mask order allows Californians to wear basic coverings such as homemade ones and people are not required to wear them when at home, outdoors more than 6 feet from others, or when eating and drinking.His office this month did tweet out a graphic advising people to "keep your mask on in between bites" when going out to eat at restaurants. That was mocked because Californians were also advised to minimize the number of times they touch their masks. Newsom told reporters that one of his staffers had sent out the tweet, which the governor said was intended to indicate that if people start to read a book at the table, they may want to put their mask back on.___TRUMP: "We have a spike in cases ... And you know why we have so many cases? Because we test more." — Michigan rally Tuesday.THE FACTS: No, increased testing does not fully account for the rise in recorded cases, and Trump is contradicted by his own top health officials. People are also infecting each other more than before as distancing rules recede, some shun masks and community spread picks up.Adm. Brett Giroir, the Health and Human Services Department official overseeing the nation's coronavirus testing efforts, stressed anew that the increases can't be explained by just additional testing."We do believe and the data show that cases are going up," Giroir told NBC's "Today" show on Wednesday. "Yes, we're getting more cases identified, but the cases are actually going up. And we know that, too, because hospitalizations are going up."More testing actually does not mean more infections at all; people are getting sick regardless of whether their illness is recorded. More testing can help prevent the disease's spread by letting people know COVID-19 is rising in their area.Practically every state is now seeing a rise in cases. The virus has now killed over 228,000 in the U.S., according to the count kept by Johns Hopkins University.Giroir warned that local governments may be forced to take "draconian measures" if Americans don't take safety precautions seriously. "Cases will go up if we don't make a change," he said.___TRADEBIDEN, comparing Trump's record on trade with that of the Obama administration: "We have a trade deficit that's larger with China than when we were there." – interview on "60 Minutes," Oct. 25.THE FACTS: Biden's claim is outdated and no longer true. The U.S. deficit in the trade of goods and services with China fell last year to 8 billion — the lowest since 2013 — as Trump slapped taxes on most Chinese imports to the United States. And the gap is down again so far this year.In the first two years of the Trump presidency, however, the United States ran higher trade deficits with China — 0 billion in 2018 and 7 billion in 2017 — than any recorded during the Obama administration. The deficit was 0 billion in 2016, the last year of the Obama presidency.___2020 ELECTIONTRUMP: "It would be very, very proper and very nice if a winner were declared on November third, instead of counting ballots for two weeks, which is totally inappropriate and I don't believe that that's by our laws." — remarks to reporters Tuesday.THE FACTS: "Our laws" don't require the immediate reporting of all election results in the country on election night. Delayed counting is unavoidable.Apart from the usual lags in rounding up and reporting totals from every precinct in the country, the U.S. is seeing unprecedented numbers of early votes, and some battleground states won't even start counting them until Election Day votes have been tallied.Indeed, the Supreme Court is allowing Pennsylvania to count mailed ballots that are not even received by elections officials for three days after the election, as long as there's no evidence that such ballots were filled out after Nov. 3. The decision isn't final: Justices left open the possibility of reviewing the matter after the election.The court is also allowing absentee ballots in North Carolina to be received and counted up to nine days after Election Day.Earlier in the campaign, Trump asserted that the winner should be declared on election night, another outcome no one can guarantee and one that may elude the country Tuesday. There is no requirement that the winner is determined on Election Day.He once raised the question of delaying the election, then dropped the thought, but has persisted in groundless allegations that the election is certain to be plagued by fraud.___TRUMP: "Strongly Trending (Google) since immediately after the second debate is CAN I CHANGE MY VOTE? This refers to changing it to me. The answer in most states is YES. Go do it. Most important Election of your life!" — tweet Tuesday.THE FACTS: Not so fast. Some states allow voters to switch their early vote, but laws vary and many have restrictions.Minnesota, for instance, allows voters to "clawback" their vote and change it, but the deadline for that has passed. Wisconsin allows people to change their vote up to three times, though it doesn't happen often. Florida allows voters who received mail ballots to choose to vote in person instead, but they cannot vote more than once.If a voter has already sent his or her mail-in ballot and then goes to vote in person, "the (mail) ballot is deemed cast and the voter to have voted," according to Florida law.David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation said changing a vote in states where that is possible is "extremely rare" and very complicated."It's hard enough to get people to vote once — it's highly unlikely anybody will go through this process twice," he said.Trump's suggestion that he did so well in the debate that people who already voted for Biden wished they could switch to him is not borne out by the search engine's statistics.Google searches for "change my vote" did not crack the top 20 searches that night or after. Jill Biden was the subject of Google's 20th most popular search that day. On Friday, the new "Borat" movie, presidential polls, and college football were among the subjects drawing the top 20 attention.___TRUMP: "Big problems and discrepancies with Mail-In Ballots all over the USA." — tweet Monday.THE FACTS: No, the catastrophe Trump has warned darkly about for months in mail-in voting has not materialized.There have been sporadic reports of voters receiving mail ballots that were incorrectly formatted and other localized hitches in the record early turnout, but large-scale disenfranchisement has not been seen.Trump has conspiratorially inflated local incidents, contending, for example, that mail-in ballots filled out for him are being dumped in rivers or creeks. This is a fabrication.Three trays of mail were found by the side of a road and in a ditch — not a river or creek — in Greenville, Wisconsin, in mid-September. The sheriff initially said "several absentee ballots" were in the mix. The state's elections officer later said no Wisconsin ballots were in the lost mail after all. No one said ballots marked for Trump were thrown out in the incident.Trump's motive for challenging votes by mail is plain: Democrats are dominating that segment of voting. Registered Democrats have also outnumbered registered Republicans in early voting in person at polling places, though the gap is narrower than with mailed ballots.In short, Trump may need supporters to show up in huge numbers Tuesday if not before, and his baseless allegations of early-voting irregularities are designed to motivate them to do so as well as to portray the result as illegitimate if Biden wins.___VOTING FRAUDTRUMP, suggesting that Nevada's Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak will add fraudulent votes: "We're worried about the governor. ... Some of these people, in Nevada, they want to have the election. They want to have the count weeks after November 3rd. So let's all wait for the governor to count them up good, and how many is he going to add during that two weeks, right?" — Arizona rally Wednesday.TRUMP, on Pennsylvania's Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf: "The governor counts the ballots. ... This is the guy that's counting our ballots? It doesn't work. It doesn't work." — remarks Monday in Pennsylvania.THE FACTS: To be clear, governors don't count the votes, and they can't just manufacture votes in the election.Local county officials in Pennsylvania send out the ballots and count the votes. The state's top elections official is Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Wolf appointee.In Nevada, Sisolak has been a target of Trump's ire after Sisolak in September criticized Trump's indoor rally in a Las Vegas suburb for violating the state's large-scale ban on indoor gatherings. But Sisolak doesn't tally the votes himself, and Trump makes a baseless assertion that he can add fraudulent votes to the count.Nevada's secretary of state oversees that state's new all-mail election. That office is held by Barbara Cegavske and she is a Republican.___TRUMP: "In Nevada, they want to have a thing where you don't have to have any verification of the signature." -- New Hampshire rally Oct. 25.THE FACTS: Not true, despite his frequent assertions to the contrary. The state's existing law requires signature checks on mail ballots. A new law also spells out a process by which election officials are to check a signature against the one in government records.In Nevada's June primary, nearly 7,000 ballots were thrown out due to mismatched or missing signatures.___TRUMP: "I say the biggest risk we have are the fake ballots." — New Hampshire rally.THE FACTS: His claim, frequently made in the last days before the election, is overblown.It's true that many states are expecting a surge in mail-in voting because of the coronavirus pandemic, which may lead to longer times in vote counting. The Supreme Court, for instance, will allow Pennsylvania to count mailed-in ballots received up to three days after the election; it also will allow North Carolina to count votes received nine days after the election so long as ballots are postmarked by Nov. 3.But there is no evidence to indicate that massive fraud is afoot. Any delay in declaring a winner of the presidential race after Tuesday would not in itself be illegal.Broadly speaking, voter fraud has proved exceedingly rare. The Brennan Center for Justice in 2017 ranked the risk of ballot fraud at 0.00004% to 0.0009%, based on studies of past elections.In the five states that regularly send ballots to all voters who have registered, there have been no major cases of fraud or difficulty counting the votes.Even if the election is messy and contested in court, the country will have a president in January — and not have vote counting going on "forever" as he asserts — because the Constitution and federal law ensure it. 13516

WASHINGTON, D.C. – One hundred years after the 19th Amendment became law, eligible women voters could end up as the definitive political power in the 2020 election.“Women are the most consistent, reliable voting bloc across the country, across the elections, year in and year out,” said Jeanette Senecal with the League of Women Voters.The numbers bear that out. According to the Pew Research Center, women have outnumbered men in the voting booth in every presidential election since 1984.In 2016, 63% of eligible women voted, versus 59% of men.Those numbers have implications for both the Democratic and Republican parties, according to American University professor Jane Hall.“We are seeing a very striking acceleration of what has been a trend for some time, which is a gender gap between women voting for Democrats and men voting more for the Republican party,” Hall said.In the 2018 midterm elections, that gender gap became pronounced.Among registered voters, 50% of men identified as either Republican or leaning Republican, while 42% of men went with Democrats, a difference of 8%.Yet, among women, that gap more than doubled: 56% of women identified as Democrats, but only 38% with Republicans – a gap of 18%.How women choose to vote, though, is more complex than just two political parties, said Howard University political science professor Dr. Keesha Middlemass. There are differences in race and ethnicity, as well as levels of education and income.“We have to think about women as multiple blocs of voters,” Dr. Middlemass said. “They’re not a monolith.”That’s something the two presidential candidates seem to realize. President Donald Trump recently said he’s trying to appeal to what he calls “suburban housewives,” while Joe Biden picked a woman, California Senator Kamala Harris, as his running mate.“Anecdotally, talking to a lot of women: representation matters, seeing yourself there matters,” Hall said.What impact all of this has on the upcoming election remains to be seen.“Women want policies: ‘how are you going to make my life better?’ well, that requires policy,” Dr. Middlemass said. “But that whole idea of gender politics is going to be very evident in getting out the vote.”All of it is happening in an election where gender could tip the balance of power one way, or another. 2318

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Democratic lawmakers in both chambers of Congress are introducing a bill that would ban the federal government from using biometric technology, including facial recognition technology.The bill would also effectively strip federal support for state and local law enforcement entities that use biometric technology. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass) is joining forces with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) to introduce the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act in the House and Senate.This measure comes amid growing calls from civil rights advocates who say facial recognition technology disproportionately misidentifies non-white individuals. It’s the first bicameral piece of legislation introduced that focuses on the tech since police brutality protests began about a month ago.In a press release, Markey cited a growing body a research that points to inaccuracy and bias issues with these technologies, which pose disproportionate risks to people of color.Markey points to a National Institute of Standards and Technology report on facial recognition tools that found Black, Brown and Asian people were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than white male faces.The bill’s introduction comes just one day after the ACLU amplified the story of a Black man in the Detroit area who says he was wrongfully arrested after this kind of technology misidentified him as a man seen stealing ,800 worth of watches.Specifically, the proposed legislation would do the following:Place a prohibition on the use of facial recognition technology by federal entities, which can only be lifted with an act of Congress;Place a prohibition on the use of other biometric technologies, including voice recognition, gate recognition, and recognition of other immutable physical characteristics, by federal entities, which can only be lifted with an act of Congress;Condition federal grant funding to state and local entities, including law enforcement, on those entities enacting their own moratoria on the use of facial recognition and biometric technology;Prohibit the use of federal dollars for biometric surveillance systems;Prohibit the use of information collected via biometric technology in violation of the Act in any judicial proceedings;Includes a private right of action for individuals whose biometric data is used in violation of the Act and allows for enforcement by state Attorneys General; andAllow states and localities to enact their own laws regarding the use of facial recognition and biometric technologies.“Facial recognition technology doesn’t just pose a grave threat to our privacy, it physically endangers Black Americans and other minority populations in our country,” said Markey. “As we work to dismantle the systematic racism that permeates every part of our society, we can’t ignore the harms that these technologies present. I’ve spent years pushing back against the proliferation of facial recognition surveillance systems because the implications for our civil liberties are chilling and the disproportionate burden on communities of color is unacceptable. In this moment, the only responsible thing to do is to prohibit government and law enforcement from using these surveillance mechanisms. I thank Representatives Jayapal and Pressley and Senator Merkley for working with me on this critical legislation.” 3433

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican-led Senate is expected to move quickly toward a confirmation vote for President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hasn’t yet said for certain whether a final vote will come before or after the Nov. 3 presidential election, just a little more than five weeks away, but Republicans are eyeing a vote in late October.Ginsburg’s Sept. 18 death put the Senate in uncharted political terrain. A confirmation vote so close to a presidential election would be unprecedented, creating significant political risk and uncertainty for both parties. Early voting is underway in some states in the races for the White House and control of Congress.A look at the confirmation process and what we know and don’t know about what’s to come:WHO DID TRUMP PICK?Trump on Saturday nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, whose three-year judicial record shows a clear and consistent conservative bent. She is a devout Catholic and mother of seven, who at age 48 would be the youngest justice on the current court if confirmed.WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?It is up to the Senate Judiciary Committee to vet the nominee and hold confirmation hearings. The FBI also conducts a background check. Once the committee approves the nomination, it goes to the Senate floor for a final vote.Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who faces his own tough reelection contest, has said he will move quickly on Trump’s pick. The nominee traditionally meets with individual senators before the confirmation hearings begin.WHEN WILL THE HEARINGS START?Graham has not yet announced a timetable. But if Republicans are able to complete all of the necessary paperwork and Barrett quickly meets senators, three or four days of hearings could start the first or second week of October.WILL THERE BE A VOTE BEFORE THE ELECTION?Republicans are privately aiming to vote before the election while acknowledging the tight timeline and saying they will see how the hearings go. McConnell has been careful not to say when he believes the final confirmation vote will happen, other than “this year.”Senate Republicans are mindful of their last confirmation fight in 2018, when Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations of a teenage sexual assault almost derailed Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. The process took longer than expected after Republicans agreed to allow Blasey Ford to testify. Kavanaugh, who denied the allegations, was eventually confirmed in a 50-48 vote.DOES THE SENATE HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO MOVE FORWARD AND CONFIRM?McConnell does appear to have the votes, for now. Republicans control the Senate by a 53-47 margin, meaning he could lose up to three Republican votes and still confirm a justice, if Vice President Mike Pence were to break a 50-50 tie.At this point, McConnell seems to have lost the support of two Republicans — Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, both of whom have said they don’t think the Senate should take up the nomination before the election. Collins has said the next president should decide the nominee, and she will vote “no” on Trump’s nominee on principle.CAN THE DEMOCRATS STOP THE VOTE?There isn’t much they can do. Republicans are in charge and make the rules, and they appear to have the votes for Trump’s nominee, at least for now. Democrats have vowed to oppose the nomination, and they are likely to use an assortment of delaying tactics. None of those efforts can stop the nomination, however.But Democrats will also make the case against Barrett’s nomination to voters as the confirmation battle stretches into the final weeks — and maybe even the final days — of the election. They say health care protections and abortion rights are on the line, and argue the Republicans’ vow to move forward is “hypocrisy” after McConnell refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, several months before the 2016 election.HOW DOES THE CAMPAIGN FACTOR IN?Republicans are defending 25 of the 38 Senate seats that are on the ballot this year, and many of their vulnerable members were eager to end the fall session and return home to campaign. The Senate was originally scheduled to recess in mid-October, but that now looks unlikely.While some senators up for reelection, like Collins, have opposed an immediate vote, others are using it to bolster their standing with conservatives. Several GOP senators in competitive races this year — including Cory Gardner in Colorado, Martha McSally in Arizona, Kelly Loeffler in Georgia and Thom Tillis in North Carolina — quickly rallied to Trump, calling for swift voting.HOW LONG DOES IT USUALLY TAKE TO CONFIRM A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?Supreme Court nominations have taken around 70 days to move through the Senate, though the last, of Kavanaugh, took longer, and others have taken less time. The election is fewer than 40 days away.COULD THE SENATE FILL THE VACANCY AFTER THE ELECTION?Yes. Republicans could still vote on Barrett in what’s known as the lame-duck session that takes place after the November election and before the next Congress takes office on Jan. 3. No matter what happens in this year’s election, Republicans are still expected to be in charge of the Senate during that period.The Senate would have until Jan. 20, the date of the presidential inauguration, to act on Barrett. If Trump were reelected and she had not been confirmed by the inauguration, he could renominate her as soon as his second term began.DIDN’T MCCONNELL SAY IN 2016 THAT THE SENATE SHOULDN’T HOLD SUPREME COURT VOTES IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR?He did. McConnell stunned Washington in the hours after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016 when he announced the Senate would not vote on Obama’s potential nominee because the voters should have their say by electing the next president.McConnell’s strategy paid off, royally, for his party. Obama nominated Garland to fill the seat, but he never received a hearing or a vote. Soon after his inauguration, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill Scalia’s seat.SO WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE 2016?McConnell says it’s different this time because the Senate and the presidency are held by the same party, which was not the case when a vacancy opened under Obama in 2016. It was a rationale McConnell repeated frequently during the 2016 fight, and other Republican senators have invoked it this year when supporting a vote on Trump’s nominee.Democrats say this reasoning is laughable and the vacancy should be kept open until after the inauguration. 6630

来源：资阳报