Your answer was not like @Minstrel. Sorry. Saying the case was "re-opened" didn't validate my statute of limitations question. Minstrel explaining it was from a case in 2004, and re-opened 2015, is a perfect explanation.
I already explained why i mentioned formal investigation. It wasn't my term originally as it was a carry over from the discussion with eblazer. Formal, informal, no investigation. Choose whatever you want. It's really not an issue in my book. I just want a consistent set of standards used on all.
https://morningconsult.com/2020/05/...ms-1-in-4-democrats-want-a-different-nominee/ After Watching Biden Deny Reade’s Claims, 1 in 4 Democrats Want a Different Nominee Former Vice President Joe Biden’s unequivocal denial of Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation is considered credible by most Democratic voters, according to a new Morning Consult poll that showed a video of his comment, but more than a quarter of the party’s rank and file nonetheless want the presumptive nominee replaced. Twenty-six percent of Democratic voters in the May 2-3 survey said the party should select a different candidate for the 2020 general election, while 61 percent said Biden should still be the one to challenge President Donald Trump in November. Support for replacing Biden atop the ticket was driven by the party’s youngest voters, a group that mostly backed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Democratic primary and is more likely to view the former vice president with skepticism. Forty percent of Democrats under the age of 45 said the party should pick a different nominee, compared to 15 percent of those ages 45 and older. The responses came after respondents were shown a 35-second video clip of Biden’s first interview on the subject, where MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski detailed Reade’s allegation and asked point-blank if he sexually assaulted her. “No. It is not true. I’m saying unequivocally: It never, never happened. It didn’t. It never happened,” he said. Biden’s response was deemed credible by 61 percent of Democrats, but the issue revealed generational and gender lines: Younger Democrats, at 53 percent, were 14 percentage points less likely than their elders to consider Biden’s answer credible and Democratic men (68 percent) were 12 points more likely than Democratic women to believe Biden. Among the overall electorate, 41 percent said Biden’s denial was credible, while 38 percent said it was not. The poll, which surveyed 1,991 registered voters, has a 2-point margin of error. While Reade’s allegation that Biden sexually assaulted her when she worked in his congressional office during the 1990s has put the former Delaware senator under the microscope, Trump faces over two dozen allegations of sexual misconduct, including an allegation of rape that emerged last year by the writer E. Jean Carroll but fell largely on deaf ears. Reade has not spoken on camera about her allegation, but is looking to do so. “I’m digesting and processing everything he said,” she told The Wall Street Journal. “I will respond.” In the absence of that platform, 41 percent of voters, including 26 percent of Democrats, said they view her allegation as credible. By comparison, amid Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination fight in 2018, 38 percent of voters — and 65 percent of Democrats — initially found Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against him to be credible, a figure that increased after her highly publicized testimony. Democrats were also far more likely in 2017 to believe allegations of sexual misconduct against two other Democratic politicians, then-Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota (48 percent credible) and then-Rep. John Conyers of Michigan (43 percent credible), a Morning Consult/Politico poll conducted at the time found. Voters’ views about political consequences for politicians who are facing credible accusations of sexual misconduct have shifted since that December 2017 poll, when allegations against Franken, Conyers and Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore moved the ongoing #MeToo discussion into the political arena. Since the poll conducted that month, the share of voters who said a politician should resign in the face of credible allegations has dropped 18 points, while the share who said the decision should be made at the ballot box increased 10 points. (Respondents were shown this question before viewing the MSNBC clip.) While most Democrats and independents in 2017 agreed that the elected official should resign, independents are now evenly split and only a plurality of Democrats still hold that view. And while nearly half of Republicans used to back resignation for such officials, a plurality now says the voters should decide the politician’s future. Among the overall electorate, a separate Morning Consult poll tracking the 2020 presidential race, conducted April 27-May 3, found Biden’s standing unchanged in a head-to-head matchup against Trump, with 46 percent supporting him and 42 percent supporting the incumbent.
Sounds great to me. You think things are unfair? Where would you start to resolve that? My parents always told me "life isn't fair", but feel free to tell them they were wrong. That would help me out a lot.
Hey Cup, how's it? I lament the lack of ethical standards in our country daily. What makes matters worse is the wrecking ball which is this administration has knocked the desire for ethical standards out of its flock. I am truly embarrassed listening to them adopt any position of judgment. If it weren't so ghastly, it'd be laughable. My point is this: the right is lost in the swamp. The proverbial "sold their soul" applies here. They have embraced the pettiness and the conspiratorial viewpoint. They are disrespectful and disingenuous. They'd rather burn it down than build it for everyone. They are internet trolls in the flesh. In other words, there is no meaningful discussion to be had about ethics, since they've abandoned them long ago...
lol...thanx for that wall of words/graphs...have you overtaken @MARIS61's mind with some sort of Vulcan mind meld? The election isn't in May and many Dems and Reps still have plenty of time to judge how to vote.
I know...we have to get HCP out of the damn house. We should start a go-fund me account to have HCP go to Texas and video-document the month long mating rituals of Monarch butterflies
So 76% say he should be the nominee. That would even override a presidential veto if it were a bill Wonder how many of those 24% are Bernie supporters and really not even democrats?
It's just a poll pertaining to this thread. It's actually a well established poll. Same polling group that has Biden beating Trump in a general election.
You want this to be a case of what's fair for one party is fair for the other. It's never going to work that way unless it's put into election law, but that's a matter for a different discussion. To my way of thinking, this should have absolutely nothing to do with the Republicans. Political parties are about finding candidates and platforms that pull together enough voters to get your candidates elected. The Democrats have assembled a very diverse group of interests under the big tent of the Democratic Party. It's always a bit like herding cats trying to satisfy enough of those disparate groups' interests to keep the whole show together. One of the biggest platform differences between the Democrats and the Republicans in recent years has been women's rights, including most recently, the #MeToo movement. When that's one of your biggest policy interests and its important enough to a large segment of the Party's support base, having your presumptive presidential nominee accused of sexual assault, even if it's decades old, is a big deal. Joe just saying "It never, never happened" (a rather painful double negative, by the way) doesn't cut it, especially after making such a big case in the Kavanaugh hearings about a woman's right to be heard. Trump can get away with ignoring his multiple accusers by saying nothing happened because his backers don't seem to have much interest in women's rights. Unless someone can come up with a criminal assault case against him, he's never going to agree to an investigation because it earns him nothing politically. He can also get away with refusing to disclose his income tax returns because, again, his backers don't care about such things. The Dems can't expect Trump to agree to play by their rules, but they can certainly use his failure to be open about his past harassment/assault accusations against him in the fall campaign. Unfortunately, that doesn't play as well if Biden is also under the cloud of such an accusation. The only way to retain the Dems' moral superiority with women voters on this issue is for them to openly review the evidence. Let Ms. Reade testify under oath, if possible. Pin her down on her story and then look for any holes in it that would lend support for Biden's claim that it didn't happen. Talk to people who say that she told them about the assault and pin them down as well. Interview Biden's office staff. It doesn't look as though the Senate will allow the release of any complaint that may have been filed, but they did release information about the process that would have been required for Ms. Reade to go through before filing such a complaint. What is her response to that? Hopefully, after all of that the Party can say Joe is exonerated or, at a bare minimum say that there isn't sufficient supporting information to verify that the assault is plausible. If they find something that does tend to verify her charges though, wouldn't you rather it occur now at a time when a different candidate can be selected than have the Republicans bring it out during the campaign? Either way, the Democratic Party comes out looking better for having gone through an investigative process than just glossing over it with Biden's disclaimer.
Umm, reopening the case was precisely the reason the statute of limitations was still within the limits. You asked a question...I gave you an answer. Thought you might actually research it yourself...my bad. "In Pennsylvania, where that guilty verdict came down, that incident was from 2004 and the case was reopened in 2015, happening within the state's 12-year time frame for prosecuting criminal cases." https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...of-limitations-in-the-cosby-case/65-546731503 You're welcome.
It's a strange time we are living in and this administration continues to lower the bar to new levels. There has always been division for the most part but nothing to this extreme and we have a sitting president that instigates it pretty much on a daily basis. Now he is trying to completely alienate the democratic party. I want a president that will push for unity, not keep blaming the media or the other party.
