I mean, my contribution wouldn’t be helpful if it weren’t accurate, but it is. So again, you’re quite welcome.

You’re welcome, glad to help clarify the situation.

It’s not exactly surprising given that this race is nowhere near as close as the race in ‘08 was. The two races aren’t remotely comparable.

They will if he stays past Tuesday.

I’m not crying. Nope.

Okay, maybe read the actual article about the accusations that’s directly linked to before asserting that there are credibility concerns.

The police were also called when it happened. While he was still in town.

Yeah, someone else commented that that’s the case in Texas too. I think such laws can work, just saying why they’re often a line that legislatures won’t cross.

There are also just general concerns about getting into legislating affirmative conduct. In terms of people’s freedom, there is an analytical gap between forbidding people from doing things that hurt other people and legally requiring citizens to actively help others. And then it gets into a slippery slope - why just…

I think those laws only apply to particular people (such as teachers and doctors) who are mandatory reporters. In general legislatures are loath to make laws requiring affirmative conduct (such as reporting). This was a big debate in Pennsylvania when the Sandusky story broke.

The logic is the same as the logic for any other type of case - evidence goes away over time, people’s memories become worse, people forget things. But there’s been a big push to do away with statutes of limitations for rape and child abuse because of the psychological factors at play that mean that victims don’t…

Yeah, I think he’s saying that if he named names of other people’s abusers the other people have no reason to come forward and press charges since the statute of limitations has run, so he would be the focus of any law suits.

Sigh. I can’t begin to imagine the number of defamation suits he’d be slapped with if he did name names. Defamation is very hard to prove but even defending such a suit through the motion to dismiss stage can be crazy expensive, and I can’t imagine it’s something he’d be able to (or want to) take on financially.

Going to the effort of correcting someone on something like this without bothering to consider that maybe the presence of the person both most in focus and most in the foreground of the photograph could be meaningful is pretty deserving of snark.

Yeah, I was in a similar situation in my last job (except my boss didn’t even have any interest in me whatsoever and was like a father to me, the other bosses just assumed that he must be interested because why else would a powerful man want to mentor and pass clients on to a woman and it couldn’t possibly be because…

Uhhh actually Warren had low favorable ratings (in the 40s) when she was running for Senate. People don’t like women who ask for promotions. So maybe her ratings wouldn’t be quite as low as Clinton’s, but there’s no reason to think she’d be immune from the usual effects of bias on women’s perceived likability.

It is lazy to make up something, but I didn’t make up anything? Nothing in my post suggests I’m speaking from anything other than personal experience, but I have personally experienced a lot of Bernie supporters telling me that while they prefer Bernie above all, they wish Biden had run because they’d be more…

While specifically saying he opposed reducing sentencing for crack cocaine users. Whereas Clinton co-sponsored legislation to reduce sentences for crack cocaine to put them in line with powdered cocaine sentencing.

Then why do so many Bernie supporters wax poetic about how they wish Biden had run? Biden who was even more vehemently in favor of the Iraq war, has pushed through more pro-bank legislation, and has taken tons of money from Wall Street?

In context it was more like people in gangs who murder kids are what people are calling superpredators and Bernie called the same people sociopaths on the floor.