Celtics Blog Forums

Other Discussions => Off Topic => Current Events / Political Discussion => Topic started by: Roy H. on November 15, 2017, 01:17:00 PM

Title: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 15, 2017, 01:17:00 PM
CelticsBlog might not be the right place for this, but I’m curious how people see the allegations against him.  As far as I know, there are three classes of allegations:

1. Unlawful groping / sexual contact with a 14 year old;

2.  Attempted sexual assault of a 16+ year old waitress;

3.  Kissing (and perhaps more) with 16+ year olds when he was in his 30s.

#1 and #2 are illegal, and are disqualifying. The accusers seem credible. It’s deviant behavior that shouldn’t be excused. I think the State GOP should boot him from the Party.

#3 gets lumped in with the other allegations, and I guess philosophically, I wonder if it should be. Should legal conduct from 40 years ago be treated as sexual harassment or worse? Does it show poor judgment by Moore? Can we forgive somebody for being creepy in the past, if they’ve had a clean record for 30 - 40 years?

It’s an academic question because of the first two allegations. Moore allegedly crossed the line from creepy to violent criminal. His political career will hopefully be over. But, I do find the concept of “legal but immoral” to be an interesting one as it relates to politics.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on November 15, 2017, 01:22:38 PM
Well, Rush Limbaugh said he was a Democrat when he committed those crimes, so righteous indignation is ok from both sides :P
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on November 15, 2017, 01:44:33 PM
CelticsBlog might not be the right place for this, but I’m curious how people see the allegations against him.  As far as I know, there are three classes of allegations:

1. Unlawful groping / sexual contact with a 14 year old;

2.  Attempted sexual assault of a 16+ year old waitress;

3.  Kissing (and perhaps more) with 16+ year olds when he was in his 30s.

#1 and #2 are illegal, and are disqualifying. The accusers seem credible. It’s deviant behavior that shouldn’t be excused. I think the State GOP should boot him from the Party.

#3 gets lumped in with the other allegations, and I guess philosophically, I wonder if it should be. Should legal conduct from 40 years ago be treated as sexual harassment or worse? Does it show poor judgment by Moore? Can we forgive somebody for being creepy in the past, if they’ve had a clean record for 30 - 40 years?

It’s an academic question because of the first two allegations. Moore allegedly crossed the line from creepy to violent criminal. His political career will hopefully be over. But, I do find the concept of “legal but immoral” to be an interesting one as it relates to politics.
I'm probably a bit pessimistic when it comes to politicians in general but I think pretty much all of them have broken some law or another for personal gain and are for the most part ethically challenged in some regard. 

Moore's accusers seem more credible than him so far.  I found the information concerning his actions at that mall to be more than disturbing and help lend credibility to his accusers. 

Personally, I don't think someone so unable to separate church and state like Moore should be in any elected government position but the current push by the republican party to get him out of the race seems a lot like the pot calling the kettle black.  I seriously doubt there'd be more than a handful of Congressional members that would be able to withstand a full background check of their personal/business/public-service lives.  I have no proof of this but it's just my overall impression and disgust with politicians.

that said, as long as he hasn't broken any laws preventing him from holding office, he should be able to run and let the voters decide -- no matter how misguided they may be.  a number of interviews in Alabama since this story broke have shown the voters just don't care about what he's done.  used to be in this country that type of scandal would be a political death sentence but no longer in the Age of Trump
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Moranis on November 15, 2017, 01:50:37 PM
Depending on what the immoral is, I have no real issue with a politician (or anyone for that matter) being immoral in general. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Fan from VT on November 15, 2017, 01:58:20 PM
It would be interesting to look at it academically and more broadly, because i wonder how often they are really separate instances. Inother words, for more, all 3 behaviors sound quite related and part of his predatory nature. Its not like he was having sweet romantic dates with some 16 year olds, then tried to rape another 16 year old, then drastically changed it up and groomed/targeted a bulnerable 14 year old girl. Seems like it was all part of a pattern: target young vulnerable kids, exert pressure using emotional manipulation and leverage, and sometimes exert force. I would guess this is tip of the iceberg stuff, given the reports he wasbanned from a mall for praying on teens. This is a guy who worked in the court system who picked out girls who were waiting for custody hearings in the courthouse! Definition of vulnerable and underage kids.


As to the original question, statutory laws will always be tricky, because they have to be defined somewhere. There can be clearly immoral things that are illegal, in which case the person should not belegally barred from something but could absolutely be criticized for by politicians and is suitable for debate for a vote. Also interesting is when something is clearly immoral but legal (underage sex, rape of a spouse, etc), someone does it, then it becomes illegal and they stop. I would say this issubject to criticism justlike the above. And i dont think there is a statute of limitations that makes things off limits if you run for office in terms of whether an opponent cam bring something up for you to address.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 15, 2017, 02:12:28 PM
The whataboutism from his backers is infuriating. What about JFK? What about Bill Clinton? What about this video of Joe Biden that isn't relevant?

Also the 'they didn't file charges so it doesn't count' take is disgusting.

Also the 'the age of consent in Alabama is 16 so the other 2 are not problematic at all' take is gross.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on November 15, 2017, 02:15:50 PM
Given Ted Kennedy's involvement in Chappaquiddick and subsequent long career in the Senate, I am not sure anyone on the left currently in the House or Senate should have any problem with Moore's long time past moral decisions.

Personally I think he should step aside due to the allegations and probably for the good of his party. If he continues to run the Republicans could lose a valuable Senate seat.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: jambr380 on November 15, 2017, 02:35:12 PM
I think the difference between sexual misconduct and rape has become very blurred these past few weeks (Kevin Spacey, Louis CK, Matthew Wiener, etc) and it has seemingly ruined people's careers. While I do not agree with entertainers trying to kiss underage people or asking a co-worker to get naked is fantastic behavior, it does not constitute rape.

In looking at Roy Moore, I think a different level of 'morality' is required. These are people we are electing to help pass laws for our country - there is a very real consequence here. You can make comparisons to Clinton or JFK, but we didn't know about those things until after they were elected and held their positions for some time.

It also doesn't help that the guy is such a hypocrite and slime ball. He literally thinks gay people should be in jail for conducting homosexual activities - even behind closed doors - and has likened it to bestiality. These supposed 'perfect' candidates getting exposed is fantastic and a net positive for the information age.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 15, 2017, 03:19:10 PM
It also doesn't help that the guy is such a hypocrite and slime ball. He literally thinks gay people should be in jail for conducting homosexual activities - even behind closed doors - and has likened it to bestiality. These supposed 'perfect' candidates getting exposed is fantastic and a net positive for the information age.

He also proposed an explicit religious test for holding office - no Muslims allowed in Congress - which is the most overtly anti-Constitutional position I've ever heard any major candidate express. It's literally directly contradicted by the text. And a charitable foundation he promotes turns out to have paid him over $1 million in salary for part-time work, which he lied about, so there's major corruption there too.


Here's something I've never seen before - the National Republican Senate Committee has just "leaked" an internal poll they commissioned showing Moore down 51-39. That's not only way out of whack with any current public poll, but it's gotta be the first time in history a partisan group leaked a poll to promote the idea that their candidate was losing.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: mef730 on November 15, 2017, 03:20:39 PM
I would guess this is tip of the iceberg stuff, given the reports he wasbanned from a mall for praying on teens.

Well, he does claim to be a very religious guy, but that would be a new way of harassing teenagers...

:D

Mike
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: jambr380 on November 15, 2017, 04:43:33 PM
I would guess this is tip of the iceberg stuff, given the reports he wasbanned from a mall for praying on teens.

Well, he does claim to be a very religious guy, but that would be a new way of harassing teenagers...

:D

Mike

Ha - great catch! Reminds me of one of my favorite Bad Religion songs.

http://www.thebrpage.net/discography/song.asp?songName=Don%27t+Pray+On+Me (http://www.thebrpage.net/discography/song.asp?songName=Don%27t+Pray+On+Me)

Also, great info - as always - from fwf.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Vermont Green on November 15, 2017, 04:54:19 PM
#3 gets lumped in with the other allegations,

I think if#3 was all that was out there, it would not even be a blip on his political radar.  The vast majority of is voter support would remain and the establishment would not even be talking (or being asked) about him.

Unfortunately for Moore, #3 in the context of #1 and #2 is making everything somewhat worse, especially for a guy who plays the bible chip so publicly.

I have another take on him.  He fought to keep a statue of the 10 Commandments in his court house.  It seems that many of his supporters view this as honorable, a righteous god fearing man being persecuted from exercising his faith.

That bothers me.  What if then Gov. Romney had decided he wanted to put a statue of Brigham Young or the book of Mormon or something like that in the State House or the court house.  Would that be viewed as equally honorable or righteous by the rank and file Massachusetts voter?  Or how about if a Jewish judge wanted a star of David in his court room.  Or taken further, if an American Muslim wanted some Islamic religious symbol in his court.

I think religion and "State" should be separate, and more than any place in the courts.  Can a gay man really get a fair trial in Judge Moore's court (for example).  I suppose in theory yes but in reality in this case with this man, I doubt it.  (For those who may not know, Moore is credited with claiming that 9/11 was God's punishment on America for allowing gay marriage).

Is he the type of man (even sexual activities aside) we want leading our country?  What are his supporters willing to overlook in the name of partisanship?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on November 15, 2017, 05:00:22 PM
The non-illegal creepy behavior is relevant if it contributes to evidence of a pattern of character-questionable behavior in which more egregious behavior took place (as in Moore's case).   The hypocrisy of Roy Moore makes it worse.   Bill Clinton's infidelity spoke to character but, at least for me, the Lewinsky affair sealed the deal as I thought this crossed a huge line with regard to creepiness and misuse of power. 

The creepy Moore behavior of trying to date or "sweet-talk" 16-18 year olds when he was 30, if not connected to the pattern of predatory behavior would probably be forgivable if it happened 40 years ago and not since.  But with the believable harassment of the 14 yo and the assault of the 16 yo, the creepy stuff gets mixed into an unforgivable pattern.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on November 15, 2017, 05:02:01 PM
It also doesn't help that the guy is such a hypocrite and slime ball. He literally thinks gay people should be in jail for conducting homosexual activities - even behind closed doors - and has likened it to bestiality. These supposed 'perfect' candidates getting exposed is fantastic and a net positive for the information age.

He also proposed an explicit religious test for holding office - no Muslims allowed in Congress - which is the most overtly anti-Constitutional position I've ever heard any major candidate express. It's literally directly contradicted by the text. And a charitable foundation he promotes turns out to have paid him over $1 million in salary for part-time work, which he lied about, so there's major corruption there too.


Here's something I've never seen before - the National Republican Senate Committee has just "leaked" an internal poll they commissioned showing Moore down 51-39. That's not only way out of whack with any current public poll, but it's gotta be the first time in history a partisan group leaked a poll to promote the idea that their candidate was losing.
The Republicans are intellectually and morally bankrupt right now. That's the only way I can explain the fact that dudes like this one passed their Senate Judicial Committee hearing:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42001038
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 15, 2017, 05:23:14 PM
It also doesn't help that the guy is such a hypocrite and slime ball. He literally thinks gay people should be in jail for conducting homosexual activities - even behind closed doors - and has likened it to bestiality. These supposed 'perfect' candidates getting exposed is fantastic and a net positive for the information age.

He also proposed an explicit religious test for holding office - no Muslims allowed in Congress - which is the most overtly anti-Constitutional position I've ever heard any major candidate express. It's literally directly contradicted by the text. And a charitable foundation he promotes turns out to have paid him over $1 million in salary for part-time work, which he lied about, so there's major corruption there too.


Here's something I've never seen before - the National Republican Senate Committee has just "leaked" an internal poll they commissioned showing Moore down 51-39. That's not only way out of whack with any current public poll, but it's gotta be the first time in history a partisan group leaked a poll to promote the idea that their candidate was losing.
The Republicans are intellectually and morally bankrupt right now. That's the only way I can explain the fact that dudes like this one passed their Senate Judicial Committee hearing:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42001038

I don't disagree, and the ghost hunter guy is amazing and appalling at the same time. Hope he's booted out by the full Senate.

But with the unusual speed at which Republican leadership has abandoned Moore, and now seem to be actively working against him - I think they either already knew he had this stuff in his past or they've asked around and had it, and maybe worse, confirmed. Even though they already didn't like him, that seat is very valuable, and in an ultra-partisan time they dropped him stunningly fast.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: heyvik on November 16, 2017, 10:51:39 AM
did I just hear that 2 other women came forward within the last 24 hours?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Fafnir on November 16, 2017, 10:57:22 AM
But with the unusual speed at which Republican leadership has abandoned Moore, and now seem to be actively working against him - I think they either already knew he had this stuff in his past or they've asked around and had it, and maybe worse, confirmed. Even though they already didn't like him, that seat is very valuable, and in an ultra-partisan time they dropped him stunningly fast.
This is why they are theorycrafting delaying the election and/or having Strange resign to setup a different special election.

If he were to drop out officially they'd rally on voting for him on the ballot to setup a second election. (I'm assuming its too late to remove him from the ballot and that's why the weird scenarios are being floated)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 16, 2017, 10:58:15 AM
did I just hear that 2 other women came forward within the last 24 hours?

I think that's right.  At least one of them was another extra creepy account of "can I give you a ride", followed by a forced kiss.

Whether he wins or he doesn't, I really would like to see him expelled from the GOP.  For way too long we've seen politicians behaving badly, and it's time they started policing themselves.

Which city attracts the sleaziest human beings, D.C. or L.A.? 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 16, 2017, 11:06:04 AM
But with the unusual speed at which Republican leadership has abandoned Moore, and now seem to be actively working against him - I think they either already knew he had this stuff in his past or they've asked around and had it, and maybe worse, confirmed. Even though they already didn't like him, that seat is very valuable, and in an ultra-partisan time they dropped him stunningly fast.
This is why they are theorycrafting delaying the election and/or having Strange resign to setup a different special election.

If he were to drop out officially they'd rally on voting for him on the ballot to setup a second election. (I'm assuming its too late to remove him from the ballot and that's why the weird scenarios are being floated)

I'm surprised that they'd even worry about the rules related to removing him from the ballot.  It didn't stop Democrats illegally having Frank Lautenberg replace Robert Torricelli on the ballot in NJ in 2002, rubber-stamped by a partisan State Supreme Court.  Alabama Republicans don't have the institutions locked up down there enough to strong-arm whatever result they want?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: wdleehi on November 16, 2017, 12:23:23 PM
From the look of it, both parties in congress will soon have less time on their hands to look down on Moore.   15 million payed out?   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html


This is not a party issue.


Who know, maybe this will lead to some sweeping changes to who is in there and maybe we can get some people who can actually get something useful done. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 16, 2017, 12:30:32 PM
From the look of it, both parties in congress will soon have less time on their hands to look down on Moore.   15 million payed out?   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html


This is not a party issue.


Who know, maybe this will lead to some sweeping changes to who is in there and maybe we can get some people who can actually get something useful done.

So disgusting.

Al Franken is in the new today for kissing and growing a woman without consent. You’re right, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s a power and control, “I’ll do it because I’ll get away with it” issue.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: wdleehi on November 16, 2017, 12:32:33 PM
From the look of it, both parties in congress will soon have less time on their hands to look down on Moore.   15 million payed out?   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html


This is not a party issue.


Who know, maybe this will lead to some sweeping changes to who is in there and maybe we can get some people who can actually get something useful done.

So disgusting.

Al Franken is in the new today for kissing and growing a woman without consent. You’re right, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s a power and control, “I’ll do it because I’ll get away with it” issue.


And the fact that the 15 million in tax money is being used as "congress members are morons and are being sued" funds makes it even worse.   
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 16, 2017, 12:44:04 PM
I made a joke with my friends wife recently that I was getting concerned that the women were getting restless. I meant that I'm kinda seeing for the first time just how much they held back before, how many times they just didn't say anything.

But seriously, if you thought you could get away with it because 'that's how things were then', better lawyer up.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on November 16, 2017, 12:52:24 PM
From the look of it, both parties in congress will soon have less time on their hands to look down on Moore.   15 million payed out?   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html


This is not a party issue.


Who know, maybe this will lead to some sweeping changes to who is in there and maybe we can get some people who can actually get something useful done.

So disgusting.

Al Franken is in the new today for kissing and growing a woman without consent. You’re right, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s a power and control, “I’ll do it because I’ll get away with it” issue.


And the fact that the 15 million in tax money is being used as "congress members are morons and are being sued" funds makes it even worse.   
sucks that Franken (who I liked politically) offers an example of this behavior happening on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Moore.  as I mentioned in an earlier post, I seriously doubt more than a handful of Congressmen could withstand a background check without digging up some shameful/criminal/unethical behavior.  a lot of the pot calling the kettle black going on with these politicians.

The funds paid to cover it up is just an egregious topping on this poo-poo sundae. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: jambr380 on November 16, 2017, 12:58:18 PM
I made a joke with my friends wife recently that I was getting concerned that the women were getting restless. I meant that I'm kinda seeing for the first time just how much they held back before, how many times they just didn't say anything.

But seriously, if you thought you could get away with it because 'that's how things were then', better lawyer up.

I think it is fine if people (women and men) want to speak up to let folks know what kind-of creeps are out there, but I think it is total garbage that getting kissed or 'groped' completely ruined your life and you are now due a settlement of some sort.

Exceptions, of course, include rape and getting fired for not 'consenting.' These things are not really defensible and would have a lasting effect on someone's life.

And the fact that the 15 million in tax money is being used as "congress members are morons and are being sued" funds makes it even worse.

This is especially upsetting.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on November 16, 2017, 01:14:20 PM
did I just hear that 2 other women came forward within the last 24 hours?

I think that's right.  At least one of them was another extra creepy account of "can I give you a ride", followed by a forced kiss.

Whether he wins or he doesn't, I really would like to see him expelled from the GOP.  For way too long we've seen politicians behaving badly, and it's time they started policing themselves.

Which city attracts the sleaziest human beings, D.C. or L.A.?

That's a tough one.

I'd say DC is slightly worse, only because LA people are better-looking and don't have to be quite as sleazy to get what they want. I doubt Brad Pitt needs to threaten people to get sex. There are no Brad Pitts in DC, but there are plenty of Harvey Weinsteins. They also don't have to pretend to be religious/moral to get jobs, so the potential for hypocrisy is a lot lower. So DC wins by a crooked nose.  :P
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on November 16, 2017, 01:19:29 PM
From the look of it, both parties in congress will soon have less time on their hands to look down on Moore.   15 million payed out?   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html


This is not a party issue.


Who know, maybe this will lead to some sweeping changes to who is in there and maybe we can get some people who can actually get something useful done.

So disgusting.

Al Franken is in the new today for kissing and growing a woman without consent. You’re right, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s a power and control, “I’ll do it because I’ll get away with it” issue.
I don't think he's even touching her on that "groping" picture. That seems like hogwash to me.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 16, 2017, 01:29:58 PM
From the look of it, both parties in congress will soon have less time on their hands to look down on Moore.   15 million payed out?   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html


This is not a party issue.


Who know, maybe this will lead to some sweeping changes to who is in there and maybe we can get some people who can actually get something useful done.

So disgusting.

Al Franken is in the new today for kissing and growing a woman without consent. You’re right, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s a power and control, “I’ll do it because I’ll get away with it” issue.
I don't think he's even touching her on that "groping" picture. That seems like hogwash to me.

(http://images.tritondigitalcms.com/6616/sites/320/2017/11/15155723/leeann-airplane-pic.jpg)

Contact looks pretty clear. I don’t even think Franken is denying it.

It’s just not behavior that most people would be comfortable with.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Moranis on November 16, 2017, 01:33:59 PM
From the look of it, both parties in congress will soon have less time on their hands to look down on Moore.   15 million payed out?   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html


This is not a party issue.


Who know, maybe this will lead to some sweeping changes to who is in there and maybe we can get some people who can actually get something useful done.

So disgusting.

Al Franken is in the new today for kissing and growing a woman without consent. You’re right, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s a power and control, “I’ll do it because I’ll get away with it” issue.
I don't think he's even touching her on that "groping" picture. That seems like hogwash to me.

(http://images.tritondigitalcms.com/6616/sites/320/2017/11/15155723/leeann-airplane-pic.jpg)

Contact looks pretty clear. I don’t even think Franken is denying it.

It’s just not behavior that most people would be comfortable with.
yeah he admitted doing it.  said he was trying to be funny and knows he shouldn't have done it.  Also said he didn't recall the other allegation at all. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 16, 2017, 04:21:32 PM
Best case Franken is pantomiming sexual assault on a sleeping woman which is still gross. The other claims should probably get investigated - I'm not a fan of the kneejerk calls for resignation (I don't think Moore should withdraw either if he doesn't want to).  But if they're valid he should at least be censured for it, and if they're criminal, or if it's a pattern of behavior, he should probably leave office.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 16, 2017, 04:47:44 PM
I don't know if this is going too far off topic or if we should just make this a general sexual assault allegation thread, but a woman has accused Bush Sr. of groping her in 1992 while President. This is the 7th woman to allege groping and the 2nd outside of the last few years (the original excuse was that he was grabbing butts accidentally because he was in a wheelchair).

So...I guess congrats to Obama and W. for seemingly being the only non-sex offender POTUSes in at least the last 30 years.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on November 16, 2017, 05:38:09 PM
From the look of it, both parties in congress will soon have less time on their hands to look down on Moore.   15 million payed out?   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html


This is not a party issue.


Who know, maybe this will lead to some sweeping changes to who is in there and maybe we can get some people who can actually get something useful done.

So disgusting.

Al Franken is in the new today for kissing and growing a woman without consent. You’re right, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s a power and control, “I’ll do it because I’ll get away with it” issue.
I don't think he's even touching her on that "groping" picture. That seems like hogwash to me.

(http://images.tritondigitalcms.com/6616/sites/320/2017/11/15155723/leeann-airplane-pic.jpg)

Contact looks pretty clear. I don’t even think Franken is denying it.

It’s just not behavior that most people would be comfortable with.
yeah he admitted doing it.  said he was trying to be funny and knows he shouldn't have done it.  Also said he didn't recall the other allegation at all.
I don't know how contact is clear. Look at his left index finger. At worst, there's some incidental contact with the vest, but describing what's happening here as "groping" is awfully self-serving. It is quite horrible optics though (literally and figuratively) as a minimum, though., and he put himself in this position so he'll have to face the music.

Also, Franken doesn't admit to any sort of groping. Read the statement.

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/931215736927899648/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F11%2F16%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fal-franken-sexual-harassment-groping-forcible-kissing.html
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on November 16, 2017, 05:44:10 PM
Perspective IS a thing. I mean, this lady is clearly touching the Tower of Pisa, right?

(https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/6f/2f/8c/holding-up-the-tower.jpg)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 16, 2017, 05:46:35 PM
From the look of it, both parties in congress will soon have less time on their hands to look down on Moore.   15 million payed out?   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html


This is not a party issue.


Who know, maybe this will lead to some sweeping changes to who is in there and maybe we can get some people who can actually get something useful done.

So disgusting.

Al Franken is in the new today for kissing and growing a woman without consent. You’re right, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s a power and control, “I’ll do it because I’ll get away with it” issue.
I don't think he's even touching her on that "groping" picture. That seems like hogwash to me.

(http://images.tritondigitalcms.com/6616/sites/320/2017/11/15155723/leeann-airplane-pic.jpg)

Contact looks pretty clear. I don’t even think Franken is denying it.

It’s just not behavior that most people would be comfortable with.
yeah he admitted doing it.  said he was trying to be funny and knows he shouldn't have done it.  Also said he didn't recall the other allegation at all.
I don't know how contact is clear. Look at his left index finger. At worst, there's some incidental contact with the vest, but describing what's happening here as "groping" is awfully self-serving. It is quite horrible optics though (literally and figuratively) as a minimum, though., and he put himself in this position so he'll have to face the music.

Also, Franken doesn't admit to any sort of groping. Read the statement.

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/931215736927899648/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F11%2F16%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fal-franken-sexual-harassment-groping-forcible-kissing.html

Are you cool with a stranger touching your wife / daughter / mother like that?

If not, what are you arguing about?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on November 16, 2017, 05:50:02 PM
From the look of it, both parties in congress will soon have less time on their hands to look down on Moore.   15 million payed out?   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html


This is not a party issue.


Who know, maybe this will lead to some sweeping changes to who is in there and maybe we can get some people who can actually get something useful done.

So disgusting.

Al Franken is in the new today for kissing and growing a woman without consent. You’re right, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s a power and control, “I’ll do it because I’ll get away with it” issue.
I don't think he's even touching her on that "groping" picture. That seems like hogwash to me.

(http://images.tritondigitalcms.com/6616/sites/320/2017/11/15155723/leeann-airplane-pic.jpg)

Contact looks pretty clear. I don’t even think Franken is denying it.

It’s just not behavior that most people would be comfortable with.
yeah he admitted doing it.  said he was trying to be funny and knows he shouldn't have done it.  Also said he didn't recall the other allegation at all.
I don't know how contact is clear. Look at his left index finger. At worst, there's some incidental contact with the vest, but describing what's happening here as "groping" is awfully self-serving. It is quite horrible optics though (literally and figuratively) as a minimum, though., and he put himself in this position so he'll have to face the music.

Also, Franken doesn't admit to any sort of groping. Read the statement.

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/931215736927899648/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F11%2F16%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fal-franken-sexual-harassment-groping-forcible-kissing.html

Are you cool with a stranger touching your wife / daughter / mother like that?

If not, what are you arguing about?
There's no touching taking place. Way to build a strawman.

Are you cool with being accused with stuff that's deliberately misrepresented to make you look bad?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 16, 2017, 06:04:06 PM
From the look of it, both parties in congress will soon have less time on their hands to look down on Moore.   15 million payed out?   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html


This is not a party issue.


Who know, maybe this will lead to some sweeping changes to who is in there and maybe we can get some people who can actually get something useful done.

So disgusting.

Al Franken is in the new today for kissing and growing a woman without consent. You’re right, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s a power and control, “I’ll do it because I’ll get away with it” issue.
I don't think he's even touching her on that "groping" picture. That seems like hogwash to me.

(http://images.tritondigitalcms.com/6616/sites/320/2017/11/15155723/leeann-airplane-pic.jpg)

Contact looks pretty clear. I don’t even think Franken is denying it.

It’s just not behavior that most people would be comfortable with.
yeah he admitted doing it.  said he was trying to be funny and knows he shouldn't have done it.  Also said he didn't recall the other allegation at all.
I don't know how contact is clear. Look at his left index finger. At worst, there's some incidental contact with the vest, but describing what's happening here as "groping" is awfully self-serving. It is quite horrible optics though (literally and figuratively) as a minimum, though., and he put himself in this position so he'll have to face the music.

Also, Franken doesn't admit to any sort of groping. Read the statement.

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/931215736927899648/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F11%2F16%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fal-franken-sexual-harassment-groping-forcible-kissing.html

Are you cool with a stranger touching your wife / daughter / mother like that?

If not, what are you arguing about?
There's no touching taking place. Way to build a strawman.

Are you cool with being accused with stuff that's deliberately misrepresented to make you look bad?

The victim thinks she was touched, and felt humiliated. Franken hasn’t denied touching her. The picture shows apparent touching.  Yet, you’re convinced it didn’t happen.

Are you giving Moore the same benefit of the doubt?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on November 16, 2017, 06:19:43 PM
The victim thinks she was touched, and felt humiliated. Franken hasn’t denied touching her. The picture shows apparent touching.  Yet, you’re convinced it didn’t happen.

Are you giving Moore the same benefit of the doubt?
I'm looking at the same picture the victim was looking at to form her opinion of the situation. I don't see apparent contact. That's just me I guess. The picture situation is conjecture by all sides.

That picture is a poor taste and I can certainly understand why that person would feel humiliated. But we're setting an awfully low bar here for character assassination. Several hours ago someone popped out of the woodwork to complain that she felt harassed after she got into an argument with Franken after a talk show. What's next, a neighbor complaining that Franken trained his dog to pee on the daily paper?

I'm afraid that this is snowballing out of control and is doing a disservice to everyone who was assaulted. Being able to call a spade a spade is important. I guarantee you that people will start tuning the issue out.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on November 16, 2017, 06:34:00 PM
From the look of it, both parties in congress will soon have less time on their hands to look down on Moore.   15 million payed out?   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html


This is not a party issue.


Who know, maybe this will lead to some sweeping changes to who is in there and maybe we can get some people who can actually get something useful done.

So disgusting.

Al Franken is in the new today for kissing and growing a woman without consent. You’re right, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s a power and control, “I’ll do it because I’ll get away with it” issue.
I don't think he's even touching her on that "groping" picture. That seems like hogwash to me.

(http://images.tritondigitalcms.com/6616/sites/320/2017/11/15155723/leeann-airplane-pic.jpg)

Contact looks pretty clear. I don’t even think Franken is denying it.

It’s just not behavior that most people would be comfortable with.
yeah he admitted doing it.  said he was trying to be funny and knows he shouldn't have done it.  Also said he didn't recall the other allegation at all.
I don't know how contact is clear. Look at his left index finger. At worst, there's some incidental contact with the vest, but describing what's happening here as "groping" is awfully self-serving. It is quite horrible optics though (literally and figuratively) as a minimum, though., and he put himself in this position so he'll have to face the music.

Also, Franken doesn't admit to any sort of groping. Read the statement.

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/931215736927899648/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F11%2F16%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fal-franken-sexual-harassment-groping-forcible-kissing.html

Are you cool with a stranger touching your wife / daughter / mother like that?

If not, what are you arguing about?
There's no touching taking place. Way to build a strawman.

Are you cool with being accused with stuff that's deliberately misrepresented to make you look bad?

The victim thinks she was touched, and felt humiliated. Franken hasn’t denied touching her. The picture shows apparent touching.  Yet, you’re convinced it didn’t happen.

Are you giving Moore the same benefit of the doubt?

It's not bad optics -- this is behavior that men have gotten away with forever.  Many women in our country face one consistent, durable, identifiable fear in the workplace, in the community and at home -- and that is, men.  It isn't that Franken's thoughtless, humiliating behavior is the worst thing ever... it's that our culture generally has accepted that it's OK for men to humiliate, denigrate and objectify women.  What is happening now (what appears to be an opening of floodgates, but probably is only a trickle of the real volume) seems like a necessary first wave in getting the ball rolling, but I doubt it means the end male misuse of power just as the civil rights movement and the election of an African-American president did not end racism. 

The reasons it takes so long for some women to make an accusation are fundamentally reflective of what many (not all) women endure in our culture.  The question shouldn't be "why did she wait so long?", it should result in a look in the mirror -- "What do we do that cultivates the fear"? 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on November 16, 2017, 06:44:03 PM
It's not bad optics -- this is behavior that men have gotten away with forever.  Many women in our country face one consistent, durable, identifiable fear in the workplace, in the community and at home -- and that is, men.  It isn't that Franken's thoughtless, humiliating behavior is the worst thing ever... it's that our culture generally has accepted that it's OK for men to humiliate, denigrate and objectify women.  What is happening now (what appears to be an opening of floodgates, but probably is only a trickle of the real volume) seems like a necessary first wave in getting the ball rolling, but I doubt it means the end male misuse of power just as the civil rights movement and the election of an African-American president did not end racism. 

The reasons it takes so long for some women to make an accusation are fundamentally reflective of what many (not all) women endure in our culture.  The question shouldn't be "why did she wait so long?", it should result in a look in the mirror -- "What do we do that cultivates the fear"?
Sure, that's fine. Let's just remember why BLM crashed and burned so spectacularly, though.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on November 18, 2017, 05:04:10 PM

So apparently someone was impersonating a Jewish Washington Post reporter in an effort to discredit allegations against Moore. Seems to be in the mold of the far-right Yankee/media/Jewish conspiracy stuff.

It's both hilarious and disturbing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/14/alabama-pastor-says-man-posing-as-washington-post-reporter-offered-reward-for-dirt-on-roy-moore/?utm_term=.eb96feef027e
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: hwangjini_1 on November 18, 2017, 05:21:34 PM
clicked on the link, it is a pay site. would you able to summarize the key points for us cheaper human beings?  ;D
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: mef730 on November 18, 2017, 06:05:49 PM
clicked on the link, it is a pay site. would you able to summarize the key points for us cheaper human beings?  ;D

I'll let Trevor Noah take over from here, with a special guest star:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/3uqgx6/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-bernie-bernstein--aka-jon-stewart--crashes-the-daily-show

Mike
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on November 19, 2017, 02:49:14 PM
clicked on the link, it is a pay site. would you able to summarize the key points for us cheaper human beings?  ;D

Derp, good idea

Someone had been sending out robocalls to citizens in Alabama, identifying themselves as "Bernie Bernstein form the Washington Post" sporting a fake NY Jewish accent. The caller offers $5000-$7000 for any female ages 54-57 who will who will "damaging remarks" about Roy Moore.

There is no real "Bernie Bernstein" at the Washington Post and the calls are likely meant to confirm conspiracy theories that accuse Jewish Elites of using the "mainstream media" to concoct fake news against decent godfearing men like Roy Moore.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/11/15/call-fake-washington-post-reporter-asks-damaging-info-roy-moore/865981001/
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: liam on November 19, 2017, 03:46:40 PM
clicked on the link, it is a pay site. would you able to summarize the key points for us cheaper human beings?  ;D

Derp, good idea

Someone had been sending out robocalls to citizens in Alabama, identifying themselves as "Bernie Bernstein form the Washington Post" sporting a fake NY Jewish accent. The caller offers $5000-$7000 for any female ages 54-57 who will who will "damaging remarks" about Roy Moore.

There is no real "Bernie Bernstein" at the Washington Post and the calls are likely meant to confirm conspiracy theories that accuse Jewish Elites of using the "mainstream media" to concoct fake news against decent godfearing men like Roy Moore.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/11/15/call-fake-washington-post-reporter-asks-damaging-info-roy-moore/865981001/

It's a classic antisemitic tactic.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Fan from VT on November 19, 2017, 05:57:45 PM
Epidemic:

https://t.co/byOZoY3WMv

Former oklahoma senator and apparently trumps oklahoma campaign manager.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: spikelovetheCelts on November 19, 2017, 06:19:29 PM
Both DeMs and reps have issues all man struggle with the lust of sexual pleasures some just pray it off or learn to have what God desires a pure intimate relationship with your wife.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 19, 2017, 07:35:31 PM
Epidemic:

https://t.co/byOZoY3WMv

Former oklahoma senator and apparently trumps oklahoma campaign manager.

It’s disgusting, especially the child p0rn.

Allow me to rant about mandatory minimums, though. If I’m reading that right, engaging a 17 year old prostitute is 10 years in prison. Engaging an 18 year old prostitute results in a misdemeanor conviction and, in most cases, a fine.

Leave sentences up to judges, prosecutors and defense counsel. This scum bag probably deserves 10 years, but there are plenty of guys who wouldn’t.

Regarding Congress and the President, these are supposed to be the best members of our society. We’ve got an unethical womanizer in the White House, alleged sexual abusers in both Parties, members under investigation for bribery, tax fraud, etc. We gave two terms to a likely rapist, which was known information at the time, and NOW was actively supporting him. We’ve had allegations of inappropriate groping regarding other Presidents.

The Swamp does need to be drained, even if people voted the wrong loser into office.  There’s hardly a single person in government who is actually ethical.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: jambr380 on November 19, 2017, 07:42:32 PM
Epidemic:

https://t.co/byOZoY3WMv

Former oklahoma senator and apparently trumps oklahoma campaign manager.

It’s disgusting, especially the child p0rn.

Allow me to rant about mandatory minimums, though. If I’m reading that right, engaging a 17 year old prostitute is 10 years in prison. Engaging an 18 year old prostitute results in a misdemeanor conviction and, in most cases, a fine.

Leave sentences up to judges, prosecutors and defense counsel. This scum bag probably deserves 10 years, but there are plenty of guys who wouldn’t.

I am certainly not a proponent of child p0rn...like not at all, but it is basically treated like murder nowadays in the courts. Some of the sentences these guys receive are mind-blowing. It's honestly going to take a group of law makers to step up and stand up for child p0rn/underage sex offenders for things to not continue to spiral out of control. Not exactly a subject people really want to base their reputations on.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: More Banners on November 19, 2017, 07:43:03 PM
I'm with Larry Flint on one thing at least: those who go out publicly moralizing and endeavor to establish themselves as the moral arbiter for all had darn sure better have squeaky clean hands, at the very least, when they cast judgement on others in the court of public opinion.

Moore should join the very long list of the fallen from grace, and yet the religious voters seem to be sticking with him. I get that he's a R and all that, but isn't this like making a deal with the devil?  Sort of like the religious vote for Trump. I just don't get it.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: liam on November 19, 2017, 10:51:29 PM
Epidemic:

https://t.co/byOZoY3WMv

Former oklahoma senator and apparently trumps oklahoma campaign manager.

It’s disgusting, especially the child p0rn.

Allow me to rant about mandatory minimums, though. If I’m reading that right, engaging a 17 year old prostitute is 10 years in prison. Engaging an 18 year old prostitute results in a misdemeanor conviction and, in most cases, a fine.

Leave sentences up to judges, prosecutors and defense counsel. This scum bag probably deserves 10 years, but there are plenty of guys who wouldn’t.

I am certainly not a proponent of child p0rn...like not at all, but it is basically treated like murder nowadays in the courts. Some of the sentences these guys receive are mind-blowing. It's honestly going to take a group of law makers to step up and stand up for child p0rn/underage sex offenders for things to not continue to spiral out of control. Not exactly a subject people really want to base their reputations on.

Anyone involved in Child **** should get life. Using children in sexual ways is disgusting and I have no pity for the people involved in these child sex rings. None!
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 20, 2017, 10:24:15 AM
Quote
Via The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/361164-conway-on-moore-we-want-the-votes-to-pass-tax-reform): White House aide Kellyanne Conway on Monday suggested Alabama voters should support embattled Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore because he would vote for the GOP's tax reform legislation making its way through Congress.

“Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don’t be fooled. He will be a vote against tax cuts. He is weak on crime, weak on borders. He is strong on raising your taxes. He is terrible for property owners," Conway said on "Fox & Friends."

“So, vote Roy Moore?” host Brian Kilmeade interjected.

“I’m telling you that we want the votes in the Senate to get this tax bill through,” Conway said, calling Jones a “doctrinaire liberal.”

The President and those he surrounds himself with are sick feckless people. And Roy Moore sucks.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 20, 2017, 10:34:01 AM
Quote
Via The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/361164-conway-on-moore-we-want-the-votes-to-pass-tax-reform): White House aide Kellyanne Conway on Monday suggested Alabama voters should support embattled Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore because he would vote for the GOP's tax reform legislation making its way through Congress.

“Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don’t be fooled. He will be a vote against tax cuts. He is weak on crime, weak on borders. He is strong on raising your taxes. He is terrible for property owners," Conway said on "Fox & Friends."

“So, vote Roy Moore?” host Brian Kilmeade interjected.

“I’m telling you that we want the votes in the Senate to get this tax bill through,” Conway said, calling Jones a “doctrinaire liberal.”

The President and those he surrounds himself are sick feckless people. And Roy Moore sucks.

I agree. But, doesn’t this type of analysis happen all the time? Women’s groups supported Bill Clinton because he pushed their agenda.  Well-known feminists are supporting Al Franken because he pushes their agenda:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/17/im-a-feminist-i-study-rape-culture-and-i-dont-want-al-franken-to-resign/

It’s disturbing, but most of us are guilty of this. We overlook terrible character flaws so that “our side” wins. Look at 2016:  we had to choose between two vile people for President.

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: jambr380 on November 20, 2017, 11:00:53 AM
Epidemic:

https://t.co/byOZoY3WMv

Former oklahoma senator and apparently trumps oklahoma campaign manager.

It’s disgusting, especially the child p0rn.

Allow me to rant about mandatory minimums, though. If I’m reading that right, engaging a 17 year old prostitute is 10 years in prison. Engaging an 18 year old prostitute results in a misdemeanor conviction and, in most cases, a fine.

Leave sentences up to judges, prosecutors and defense counsel. This scum bag probably deserves 10 years, but there are plenty of guys who wouldn’t.

I am certainly not a proponent of child p0rn...like not at all, but it is basically treated like murder nowadays in the courts. Some of the sentences these guys receive are mind-blowing. It's honestly going to take a group of law makers to step up and stand up for child p0rn/underage sex offenders for things to not continue to spiral out of control. Not exactly a subject people really want to base their reputations on.

Anyone involved in Child **** should get life. Using children in sexual ways is disgusting and I have no pity for the people involved in these child sex rings. None!

I was referring to individuals who have child p0rn on their computers, not the ones who actually do the photography/distribution - kind-of the drug user vs the drug dealer theory. I have heard instances where they try to prosecute for 5 years per image. Again, this is a business I don't understand and want no part of, but that just seems a little much. As with drug users, there should really be a rehabilitation system available to these individuals, rather than locking them up for most of their adult lives.

I would imagine if you are in the child p0rn business (for profit, or otherwise), you are probably up to other no good deeds you would and should be punished more severely.

As I said before, nobody is fighting the good fight for child p0rn/underage sex offenders so any outrageous punishment seems just to most people. In Italy, for instance, the legal age for sex is 14 years old - they must think we are insane for locking away somebody for life for having consensual sex with a 16 year old. Even our state laws even vary from 16-18 depending on where you live.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Vermont Green on November 20, 2017, 11:23:40 AM
This guy Shortey is pretty bad, worse than Moore, at least what we know so far about Moore.  It really has nothing to do with Moore.  The flood gates are certainly open.

Tribalism seems to be the word-de-jour to describe the degree that people are willing to overlook things in the name of someone who supports their particular policy hot button (abortion, guns, tax reform, religious liberty, environment).  My list of these hot buttons is tilted to the right which may not be entirely fair but I feel it is "conservatives" who are more actively exploiting this scare tactic politicking (liberals want to take your guns away, that sort of thing), but tribalism is alive and well on both sides of the aisle.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Moranis on November 20, 2017, 11:27:53 AM
Quote
Via The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/361164-conway-on-moore-we-want-the-votes-to-pass-tax-reform): White House aide Kellyanne Conway on Monday suggested Alabama voters should support embattled Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore because he would vote for the GOP's tax reform legislation making its way through Congress.

“Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don’t be fooled. He will be a vote against tax cuts. He is weak on crime, weak on borders. He is strong on raising your taxes. He is terrible for property owners," Conway said on "Fox & Friends."

“So, vote Roy Moore?” host Brian Kilmeade interjected.

“I’m telling you that we want the votes in the Senate to get this tax bill through,” Conway said, calling Jones a “doctrinaire liberal.”

The President and those he surrounds himself are sick feckless people. And Roy Moore sucks.

I agree. But, doesn’t this type of analysis happen all the time? Women’s groups supported Bill Clinton because he pushed their agenda.  Well-known feminists are supporting Al Franken because he pushes their agenda:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/17/im-a-feminist-i-study-rape-culture-and-i-dont-want-al-franken-to-resign/

It’s disturbing, but most of us are guilty of this. We overlook terrible character flaws so that “our side” wins. Look at 2016:  we had to choose between two vile people for President.
There is a difference between statutory rape and affairs, though.  I think that is what most people take issue with with someone like Moore.  I mean even GOP people are saying they believe the women/allegations, but are saying they would vote for him anyway.  That is just disgusting and reprehensible that you would vote for someone you believe is a child rapist because he is in your party. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 20, 2017, 11:34:13 AM
Quote
Via The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/361164-conway-on-moore-we-want-the-votes-to-pass-tax-reform): White House aide Kellyanne Conway on Monday suggested Alabama voters should support embattled Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore because he would vote for the GOP's tax reform legislation making its way through Congress.

“Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don’t be fooled. He will be a vote against tax cuts. He is weak on crime, weak on borders. He is strong on raising your taxes. He is terrible for property owners," Conway said on "Fox & Friends."

“So, vote Roy Moore?” host Brian Kilmeade interjected.

“I’m telling you that we want the votes in the Senate to get this tax bill through,” Conway said, calling Jones a “doctrinaire liberal.”

The President and those he surrounds himself are sick feckless people. And Roy Moore sucks.

I agree. But, doesn’t this type of analysis happen all the time? Women’s groups supported Bill Clinton because he pushed their agenda.  Well-known feminists are supporting Al Franken because he pushes their agenda:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/17/im-a-feminist-i-study-rape-culture-and-i-dont-want-al-franken-to-resign/

It’s disturbing, but most of us are guilty of this. We overlook terrible character flaws so that “our side” wins. Look at 2016:  we had to choose between two vile people for President.
There is a difference between statutory rape and affairs, though.  I think that is what most people take issue with with someone like Moore.  I mean even GOP people are saying they believe the women/allegations, but are saying they would vote for him anyway.  That is just disgusting and reprehensible that you would vote for someone you believe is a child rapist because he is in your party.

I think Moore is unfit to be in Congress, so don't take it like I'm defending him.  And yes, there's certainly a spectrum.  But, the allegations against Clinton was a lot more than cheating on his wife.  There were credible allegations of sexual harassment and forcible rape. 

That's something we should all be able to get behind:  if you rape somebody -- adult or child -- you should not be voted into public office.  Policy wise, I think Clinton was a pretty good President, but he victimized a lot of women on his way into office, and once it was known, both parties should have gotten together to fully vet the allegations.  That's not how politics works, though.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 20, 2017, 11:42:44 AM
Quote
Via The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/361164-conway-on-moore-we-want-the-votes-to-pass-tax-reform): White House aide Kellyanne Conway on Monday suggested Alabama voters should support embattled Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore because he would vote for the GOP's tax reform legislation making its way through Congress.

“Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don’t be fooled. He will be a vote against tax cuts. He is weak on crime, weak on borders. He is strong on raising your taxes. He is terrible for property owners," Conway said on "Fox & Friends."

“So, vote Roy Moore?” host Brian Kilmeade interjected.

“I’m telling you that we want the votes in the Senate to get this tax bill through,” Conway said, calling Jones a “doctrinaire liberal.”

The President and those he surrounds himself with are sick feckless people. And Roy Moore sucks.

Think that's bad - the (female) R governor of Alabama, who hadn't endorsed Moore up to this point, says that A. She believes the women and B. She's voting for Moore anyway, so he can vote for SC justices.

There's some classic political tightrope walking here, but the statement boils down to supporting a candidate despite believing he's a criminal pedophile.  It isn't even party over country at this point, it's party over morality, criminality, everything is secondary to gaining more power.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 20, 2017, 11:55:35 AM
Quote
Via The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/361164-conway-on-moore-we-want-the-votes-to-pass-tax-reform): White House aide Kellyanne Conway on Monday suggested Alabama voters should support embattled Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore because he would vote for the GOP's tax reform legislation making its way through Congress.

“Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don’t be fooled. He will be a vote against tax cuts. He is weak on crime, weak on borders. He is strong on raising your taxes. He is terrible for property owners," Conway said on "Fox & Friends."

“So, vote Roy Moore?” host Brian Kilmeade interjected.

“I’m telling you that we want the votes in the Senate to get this tax bill through,” Conway said, calling Jones a “doctrinaire liberal.”

The President and those he surrounds himself are sick feckless people. And Roy Moore sucks.

I agree. But, doesn’t this type of analysis happen all the time? Women’s groups supported Bill Clinton because he pushed their agenda.  Well-known feminists are supporting Al Franken because he pushes their agenda:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/17/im-a-feminist-i-study-rape-culture-and-i-dont-want-al-franken-to-resign/

It’s disturbing, but most of us are guilty of this. We overlook terrible character flaws so that “our side” wins. Look at 2016:  we had to choose between two vile people for President.
There is a difference between statutory rape and affairs, though.  I think that is what most people take issue with with someone like Moore.  I mean even GOP people are saying they believe the women/allegations, but are saying they would vote for him anyway.  That is just disgusting and reprehensible that you would vote for someone you believe is a child rapist because he is in your party.

Yup - the usual whatabouting inadvertently makes a revealing point. While there were strong rumors of affairs even in his first run, Clinton's criminal accusers came forward after he'd taken office and the most serious were well after he'd won re-election. Republicans are now voting for candidates after credible accusations have been made.

It's basically like if Democrats had strong evidence from multiple diverse sources that Clinton was guilty of every major charge against him - not just the sex stuff but the corruption too - in 1992, and overwhelmingly voted for him anyway, presumably while getting keenly interested in talking about Nixon every time the issue came up.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 20, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Quote
Via The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/361164-conway-on-moore-we-want-the-votes-to-pass-tax-reform): White House aide Kellyanne Conway on Monday suggested Alabama voters should support embattled Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore because he would vote for the GOP's tax reform legislation making its way through Congress.

“Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don’t be fooled. He will be a vote against tax cuts. He is weak on crime, weak on borders. He is strong on raising your taxes. He is terrible for property owners," Conway said on "Fox & Friends."

“So, vote Roy Moore?” host Brian Kilmeade interjected.

“I’m telling you that we want the votes in the Senate to get this tax bill through,” Conway said, calling Jones a “doctrinaire liberal.”

The President and those he surrounds himself are sick feckless people. And Roy Moore sucks.

I agree. But, doesn’t this type of analysis happen all the time? Women’s groups supported Bill Clinton because he pushed their agenda.  Well-known feminists are supporting Al Franken because he pushes their agenda:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/17/im-a-feminist-i-study-rape-culture-and-i-dont-want-al-franken-to-resign/

It’s disturbing, but most of us are guilty of this. We overlook terrible character flaws so that “our side” wins. Look at 2016:  we had to choose between two vile people for President.
There is a difference between statutory rape and affairs, though.  I think that is what most people take issue with with someone like Moore.  I mean even GOP people are saying they believe the women/allegations, but are saying they would vote for him anyway.  That is just disgusting and reprehensible that you would vote for someone you believe is a child rapist because he is in your party.

Yup - the usual whatabouting inadvertently makes a revealing point. While there were strong rumors of affairs even in his first run, Clinton's criminal accusers came forward after he'd taken office and the most serious were well after he'd won re-election. Republicans are now voting for candidates after credible accusations have been made.

It's basically like if Democrats had strong evidence from multiple diverse sources that Clinton was guilty of every major charge against him - not just the sex stuff but the corruption too - in 1992, and overwhelmingly voted for him anyway, presumably while getting keenly interested in talking about Nixon every time the issue came up.

How many Democrats rejected, or even criticized,  Clinton when the credible rape allegations became public?

This isn’t a partisan thing. It’s a “powerful men behaving criminally” thing. It’s odd to point the finger at Republicans only, when the last Democrat candidate aided and abetted a rapist, while her chief of staff was married to a sexual deviant.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 20, 2017, 12:17:33 PM
Quote
..presumably while getting keenly interested in talking about Nixon every time the issue came up.

My mom, who was a never say die liberal before that was cool (actually, she started when it was cool, then stuck with it when it wasn't) always said that the reason the nation kept getting more and more divided is that the democrats couldn't forgive the republicans for Nixon, and the republicans couldn't forgive the democrats for not having their own Nixon. And everything that's been going on in the two parties diverging farther and farther apart comes down to that.

They made a Community episode about it.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_Studies_(Community))
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 20, 2017, 01:22:39 PM
Quote
..presumably while getting keenly interested in talking about Nixon every time the issue came up.

My mom, who was a never say die liberal before that was cool (actually, she started when it was cool, then stuck with it when it wasn't) always said that the reason the nation kept getting more and more divided is that the democrats couldn't forgive the republicans for Nixon, and the republicans couldn't forgive the democrats for not having their own Nixon. And everything that's been going on in the two parties diverging farther and farther apart comes down to that.

They made a Community episode about it.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_Studies_(Community))

I think a lot of it politically comes from Nixon - you can trace Clinton's impeachment directly to that - but socially the division stems more from the civil rights movement and its continuing aftermath (which Nixon drew a lot of political capital from).

Growing up I never really understood why "card-carrying member of the ACLU" was a common attack line from a party that claimed to cherish Constitutional rights, until I realized "civil liberties" was code for "being forced to treat minorities as equal citizens".



On a different note, another woman has accused Al Franken of grabbing her butt during a photo in 2010. Apparently made a contemporaneous Facebook post about it too.

If this is true, A. it's no longer a one-off misunderstanding but a pattern of behavior that continued after taking office, so Franken ought to be gone, and B. We're chugging right along for the perfect storm of Franken being forced out right as Moore is being elected, and the kneejerk bothsides types being completely undeterred by it.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Vermont Green on November 20, 2017, 02:15:38 PM
I think Moore is unfit to be in Congress, so don't take it like I'm defending him.  And yes, there's certainly a spectrum.  But, the allegations against Clinton was a lot more than cheating on his wife.  There were credible allegations of sexual harassment and forcible rape. 

That's something we should all be able to get behind:  if you rape somebody -- adult or child -- you should not be voted into public office.  Policy wise, I think Clinton was a pretty good President, but he victimized a lot of women on his way into office, and once it was known, both parties should have gotten together to fully vet the allegations.  That's not how politics works, though.

Amen (to the unfit for Office remark).

Regarding Clinton, he was in fact investigated, described as follows by Wikipedia:

Quote
Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, conducted a wide ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. In the course of the investigation, Linda Tripp provided Starr with taped phone conversations in which Monica Lewinsky, a former White House Intern, discussed having oral sex with Clinton. At the deposition, the judge ordered a precise legal definition of the term "sexual relations"[1] that Clinton claims to have construed to mean only vaginal intercourse. A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word "is." Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement".[2]

Clinton was also subjected to impeachment hearings, twice, and was acquitted in both cases.  I did not vote for Bill Clinton but like Roy says, his policy while president was actually very good, he reformed welfare, balanced the budget, and came up with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 20, 2017, 04:52:28 PM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system? 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 20, 2017, 06:10:58 PM
So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?

Well, the judicial system is imperfect. For instance, if a 35 year old pressures a 16 year old into intercourse, that’s not illegal. In many instances, sexual harassment isn’t illegal. In Minnesota, foribly grabbing somebody’s butt through clothing isn’t a sex crime. 

Even if conduct isn’t criminal it can be disqualifying, at least in my mind.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 20, 2017, 06:30:32 PM
So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?

Well, the judicial system is imperfect. For instance, if a 35 year old pressures a woman into intercourse, that’s not illegal. In many instances, sexual harassment isn’t illegal. In Minnesota, foribly grabbing somebody’s butt through clothing isn’t a sex crime. 

Even if conduct isn’t criminal it can be disqualifying, at least in my mind.
I agree with that, Roy, but it has to be proven through the system.  If has not yet, the voters are the only ones who can judge if it is qualifying...state voters in state races, u.s. citizens in national elections.  Some pretty unsavory characters have been and probably will continue to be elected.  Neither you nor I is the final word on that.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on November 20, 2017, 07:09:31 PM
So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?

Well, the judicial system is imperfect. For instance, if a 35 year old pressures a woman into intercourse, that’s not illegal. In many instances, sexual harassment isn’t illegal. In Minnesota, foribly grabbing somebody’s butt through clothing isn’t a sex crime. 

Even if conduct isn’t criminal it can be disqualifying, at least in my mind.
I agree with that, Roy, but it has to be proven through the system.  If has not yet, the voters are the only ones who can judge if it is qualifying...state voters in state races, u.s. citizens in national elections.  Some pretty unsavory characters have been and probably will continue to be elected.  Neither you nor I is the final word on that.

Being judgmental is not something most people proudly aspire to, but I have to say that I do make judgements without always relying on the judicial system for affirmation. 

I thought Bill Clinton was guilty of reprehensible behavior in the White House (before it was undeniable), I think Roy Moore, Harvey Weinstein and Al Franken are guilty as well.  My standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" in these cases, it is more like "do I view the accusers as credible".    I don't think I make these judgments lightly -- I watch/listen, read and conclude -- and I try to remain open to new information.  As Roy points out, some things that are bad are not necessarily criminal -- and the court system also blunders at times (e.g., OJ Simpson).   

No doubt in this world of instant "news" and partisan spins we speculate too widely and conclude too quickly ... but sometimes I think it's OK to draw conclusions as a thoughtful observer rather than as judge and jury.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 20, 2017, 07:24:59 PM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?
Is it judgmental to believe that it is wrong/disgusting/pathetic that the Governor of Alabama says that she believes the women's allegations but she is still going to vote for Moore?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 20, 2017, 09:16:28 PM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?
Is it judgmental to believe that it is wrong/disgusting/pathetic that the Governor of Alabama says that she believes the women's allegations but she is still going to vote for Moore?
i don’t know.  Was it wrong for those who believed that Ted Kennedy may have been criminally responsible for Maryjoe Konepke’s drowning death and coverup but voted for him anyway because he was a Democrat and a Kennedy and shared their political view?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 20, 2017, 09:24:20 PM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?
Is it judgmental to believe that it is wrong/disgusting/pathetic that the Governor of Alabama says that she believes the women's allegations but she is still going to vote for Moore?
i don’t know.  Was it wrong for those who believed that Ted Kennedy may have been criminally responsible for Maryjoe Konepke’s drowning death and coverup but voted for him anyway because he was a Democrat and a Kennedy and shared their political view?
First, let me answer your question directly as a a liberal Democrat:  take the "may" out of it and yes indeed it was wrong for people who believed that Ted Kennedy was criminally responsible for Ms. Konepke's death and cover up to vote for him.

Second, why does it seem like so many people on the right cannot reply or answer a question without deflection and whataboutism?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on November 20, 2017, 09:26:50 PM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?
Is it judgmental to believe that it is wrong/disgusting/pathetic that the Governor of Alabama says that she believes the women's allegations but she is still going to vote for Moore?
i don’t know.  Was it wrong for those who believed that Ted Kennedy may have been criminally responsible for Maryjoe Konepke’s drowning death and coverup but voted for him anyway because he was a Democrat and a Kennedy and shared their political view?

If your point is that both are wrong, then I agree with you.  People ignore a lot of very bad behavior from our politicians.  Perhaps this is a wake up call that we shouldn't.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 20, 2017, 09:43:09 PM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?
Is it judgmental to believe that it is wrong/disgusting/pathetic that the Governor of Alabama says that she believes the women's allegations but she is still going to vote for Moore?
i don’t know.  Was it wrong for those who believed that Ted Kennedy may have been criminally responsible for Maryjoe Konepke’s drowning death and coverup but voted for him anyway because he was a Democrat and a Kennedy and shared their political view?
First, let me answer your question directly as a a liberal Democrat:  take the "may" out of it and yes indeed it was wrong for people who believed that Ted Kennedy was criminally responsible for Ms. Konepke's death and cover up to vote for him.

Second, why does it seem like so many people on the right cannot reply or answer a question without deflection and whataboutism?

Because a lot of the questions aren’t questions, they’re political talking points.  Rather than answer a slanted question, some people prefer to point out hypocrisy and lack of principle (or, in the words of today’s left, “whataboutism”).

It is a 100% fair question / rheotorical device to inquire why somebody is outraged now but was fine with similar behavior previously, when the only thing that changed was the political party of the wrongdoer.

Roy Moore seems like a piece of garbage. However, it is completely valid to respond to criticism of Republicans standing by their candidate by pointing out examples of Dems doing similar things. Neither side has the moral high ground.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on November 20, 2017, 09:45:05 PM
I think Moore is unfit to be in Congress, so don't take it like I'm defending him.  And yes, there's certainly a spectrum.  But, the allegations against Clinton was a lot more than cheating on his wife.  There were credible allegations of sexual harassment and forcible rape. 

That's something we should all be able to get behind:  if you rape somebody -- adult or child -- you should not be voted into public office.  Policy wise, I think Clinton was a pretty good President, but he victimized a lot of women on his way into office, and once it was known, both parties should have gotten together to fully vet the allegations.  That's not how politics works, though.

Amen (to the unfit for Office remark).

Regarding Clinton, he was in fact investigated, described as follows by Wikipedia:

Quote
Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, conducted a wide ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. In the course of the investigation, Linda Tripp provided Starr with taped phone conversations in which Monica Lewinsky, a former White House Intern, discussed having oral sex with Clinton. At the deposition, the judge ordered a precise legal definition of the term "sexual relations"[1] that Clinton claims to have construed to mean only vaginal intercourse. A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word "is." Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement".[2]

Clinton was also subjected to impeachment hearings, twice, and was acquitted in both cases.  I did not vote for Bill Clinton but like Roy says, his policy while president was actually very good, he reformed welfare, balanced the budget, and came up with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

I guess "Don't Ask" was a move in the right direction at the time, but I hope in retrospect we would all see it as amazing that a person could not be openly gay and be in the US military until 2011 (when "Don't Ask" was finally repealed).
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Ilikesports17 on November 20, 2017, 09:46:45 PM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?
Is it judgmental to believe that it is wrong/disgusting/pathetic that the Governor of Alabama says that she believes the women's allegations but she is still going to vote for Moore?
i don’t know.  Was it wrong for those who believed that Ted Kennedy may have been criminally responsible for Maryjoe Konepke’s drowning death and coverup but voted for him anyway because he was a Democrat and a Kennedy and shared their political view?

If your point is that both are wrong, then I agree with you.  People ignore a lot of very bad behavior from our politicians.  Perhaps this is a wake up call that we shouldn't.
dont count on it.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 20, 2017, 10:31:55 PM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?
Is it judgmental to believe that it is wrong/disgusting/pathetic that the Governor of Alabama says that she believes the women's allegations but she is still going to vote for Moore?
i don’t know.  Was it wrong for those who believed that Ted Kennedy may have been criminally responsible for Maryjoe Konepke’s drowning death and coverup but voted for him anyway because he was a Democrat and a Kennedy and shared their political view?
First, let me answer your question directly as a a liberal Democrat:  take the "may" out of it and yes indeed it was wrong for people who believed that Ted Kennedy was criminally responsible for Ms. Konepke's death and cover up to vote for him.

Second, why does it seem like so many people on the right cannot reply or answer a question without deflection and whataboutism?

Because a lot of the questions aren’t questions, they’re political talking points.  Rather than answer a slanted question, some people prefer to point out hypocrisy and lack of principle (or, in the words of today’s left, “whataboutism”).

It is a 100% fair question / rheotorical device to inquire why somebody is outraged now but was fine with similar behavior previously, when the only thing that changed was the political party of the wrongdoer.

Roy Moore seems like a piece of garbage. However, it is completely valid to respond to criticism of Republicans standing by their candidate by pointing out examples of Dems doing similar things. Neither side has the moral high ground.
It is unconscionable for the Governor to say that she believes Mr. Moore's accusers and is still going to vote for him.  If she were a Democrat it would still be unconscionable.  Avoiding an inconvenient truth due to party affiliation is wrong and weak regardless of the party.  We (both Democrats and Republicans) cannot continue to merely deflect and accept poor behavior by saying "but he/she did...".  If we do we will continue to be represented by people like Moore, Anthony Weiner, Ralph Shortey and Eric Massa.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 20, 2017, 10:39:23 PM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?
Is it judgmental to believe that it is wrong/disgusting/pathetic that the Governor of Alabama says that she believes the women's allegations but she is still going to vote for Moore?
i don’t know.  Was it wrong for those who believed that Ted Kennedy may have been criminally responsible for Maryjoe Konepke’s drowning death and coverup but voted for him anyway because he was a Democrat and a Kennedy and shared their political view?
First, let me answer your question directly as a a liberal Democrat:  take the "may" out of it and yes indeed it was wrong for people who believed that Ted Kennedy was criminally responsible for Ms. Konepke's death and cover up to vote for him.

Second, why does it seem like so many people on the right cannot reply or answer a question without deflection and whataboutism?

Because a lot of the questions aren’t questions, they’re political talking points.  Rather than answer a slanted question, some people prefer to point out hypocrisy and lack of principle (or, in the words of today’s left, “whataboutism”).

It is a 100% fair question / rheotorical device to inquire why somebody is outraged now but was fine with similar behavior previously, when the only thing that changed was the political party of the wrongdoer.

Roy Moore seems like a piece of garbage. However, it is completely valid to respond to criticism of Republicans standing by their candidate by pointing out examples of Dems doing similar things. Neither side has the moral high ground.
It is unconscionable for the Governor to say that she believes Mr. Moore's accusers and is still going to vote for him.  If she were a Democrat it would still be unconscionable.  Avoiding an inconvenient truth due to party affiliation is wrong and weak regardless of the party.  We (both Democrats and Republicans) cannot continue to merely deflect and accept poor behavior by saying "but he/she did...".  If we do we will continue to be represented by people like Moore, Anthony Weiner, Ralph Shortey and Eric Massa.

So why, when somebody points out that BOTH parties have sexual predators, are they accused of “whataboutism”?

I don’t want Moore in office. But, I don’t want Franken in Office, either.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 20, 2017, 10:50:49 PM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?
Is it judgmental to believe that it is wrong/disgusting/pathetic that the Governor of Alabama says that she believes the women's allegations but she is still going to vote for Moore?
i don’t know.  Was it wrong for those who believed that Ted Kennedy may have been criminally responsible for Maryjoe Konepke’s drowning death and coverup but voted for him anyway because he was a Democrat and a Kennedy and shared their political view?
First, let me answer your question directly as a a liberal Democrat:  take the "may" out of it and yes indeed it was wrong for people who believed that Ted Kennedy was criminally responsible for Ms. Konepke's death and cover up to vote for him.

Second, why does it seem like so many people on the right cannot reply or answer a question without deflection and whataboutism?

Because a lot of the questions aren’t questions, they’re political talking points.  Rather than answer a slanted question, some people prefer to point out hypocrisy and lack of principle (or, in the words of today’s left, “whataboutism”).

It is a 100% fair question / rheotorical device to inquire why somebody is outraged now but was fine with similar behavior previously, when the only thing that changed was the political party of the wrongdoer.

Roy Moore seems like a piece of garbage. However, it is completely valid to respond to criticism of Republicans standing by their candidate by pointing out examples of Dems doing similar things. Neither side has the moral high ground.
It is unconscionable for the Governor to say that she believes Mr. Moore's accusers and is still going to vote for him.  If she were a Democrat it would still be unconscionable.  Avoiding an inconvenient truth due to party affiliation is wrong and weak regardless of the party.  We (both Democrats and Republicans) cannot continue to merely deflect and accept poor behavior by saying "but he/she did...".  If we do we will continue to be represented by people like Moore, Anthony Weiner, Ralph Shortey and Eric Massa.

So why, when somebody points out that BOTH parties have sexual predators, are they accused of “whataboutism”?

I don’t want Moore in office. But, I don’t want Franken in Office, either.
If someone were to point out that both parties have sexual predators that would be absolutely fine and legitimate.  That is not what happened here.  Avoiding an admission that Moore is likely a sexual predator and deflecting to something from 1969 is what makes it whataboutism.

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 20, 2017, 10:56:23 PM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?
Is it judgmental to believe that it is wrong/disgusting/pathetic that the Governor of Alabama says that she believes the women's allegations but she is still going to vote for Moore?
i don’t know.  Was it wrong for those who believed that Ted Kennedy may have been criminally responsible for Maryjoe Konepke’s drowning death and coverup but voted for him anyway because he was a Democrat and a Kennedy and shared their political view?
First, let me answer your question directly as a a liberal Democrat:  take the "may" out of it and yes indeed it was wrong for people who believed that Ted Kennedy was criminally responsible for Ms. Konepke's death and cover up to vote for him.

Second, why does it seem like so many people on the right cannot reply or answer a question without deflection and whataboutism?

Because a lot of the questions aren’t questions, they’re political talking points.  Rather than answer a slanted question, some people prefer to point out hypocrisy and lack of principle (or, in the words of today’s left, “whataboutism”).

It is a 100% fair question / rheotorical device to inquire why somebody is outraged now but was fine with similar behavior previously, when the only thing that changed was the political party of the wrongdoer.

Roy Moore seems like a piece of garbage. However, it is completely valid to respond to criticism of Republicans standing by their candidate by pointing out examples of Dems doing similar things. Neither side has the moral high ground.
It is unconscionable for the Governor to say that she believes Mr. Moore's accusers and is still going to vote for him.  If she were a Democrat it would still be unconscionable.  Avoiding an inconvenient truth due to party affiliation is wrong and weak regardless of the party.  We (both Democrats and Republicans) cannot continue to merely deflect and accept poor behavior by saying "but he/she did...".  If we do we will continue to be represented by people like Moore, Anthony Weiner, Ralph Shortey and Eric Massa.

So why, when somebody points out that BOTH parties have sexual predators, are they accused of “whataboutism”?

I don’t want Moore in office. But, I don’t want Franken in Office, either.
If someone were to point out that both parties have sexual predators that would be absolutely fine and legitimate.  That is not what happened here.  Avoiding an admission that Moore is likely a sexual predator and deflecting to something from 1969 is what makes it whataboutism.

I suppose my objection isn’t with you, but rather how the term was used by others immediately proceeding your post. There’s plenty of room for “whataboutism” on this subject, because plenty of our government officials are dirtbags.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 20, 2017, 11:03:07 PM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?
Is it judgmental to believe that it is wrong/disgusting/pathetic that the Governor of Alabama says that she believes the women's allegations but she is still going to vote for Moore?
i don’t know.  Was it wrong for those who believed that Ted Kennedy may have been criminally responsible for Maryjoe Konepke’s drowning death and coverup but voted for him anyway because he was a Democrat and a Kennedy and shared their political view?
First, let me answer your question directly as a a liberal Democrat:  take the "may" out of it and yes indeed it was wrong for people who believed that Ted Kennedy was criminally responsible for Ms. Konepke's death and cover up to vote for him.

Second, why does it seem like so many people on the right cannot reply or answer a question without deflection and whataboutism?

Because a lot of the questions aren’t questions, they’re political talking points.  Rather than answer a slanted question, some people prefer to point out hypocrisy and lack of principle (or, in the words of today’s left, “whataboutism”).

It is a 100% fair question / rheotorical device to inquire why somebody is outraged now but was fine with similar behavior previously, when the only thing that changed was the political party of the wrongdoer.

Roy Moore seems like a piece of garbage. However, it is completely valid to respond to criticism of Republicans standing by their candidate by pointing out examples of Dems doing similar things. Neither side has the moral high ground.
It is unconscionable for the Governor to say that she believes Mr. Moore's accusers and is still going to vote for him.  If she were a Democrat it would still be unconscionable.  Avoiding an inconvenient truth due to party affiliation is wrong and weak regardless of the party.  We (both Democrats and Republicans) cannot continue to merely deflect and accept poor behavior by saying "but he/she did...".  If we do we will continue to be represented by people like Moore, Anthony Weiner, Ralph Shortey and Eric Massa.

So why, when somebody points out that BOTH parties have sexual predators, are they accused of “whataboutism”?

I don’t want Moore in office. But, I don’t want Franken in Office, either.
If someone were to point out that both parties have sexual predators that would be absolutely fine and legitimate.  That is not what happened here.  Avoiding an admission that Moore is likely a sexual predator and deflecting to something from 1969 is what makes it whataboutism.

I suppose my objection isn’t with you, but rather how the term was used by others immediately proceeding your post. There’s plenty of room for “whataboutism” on this subject, because plenty of our government officials are dirtbags.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you on this.  As someone who is a (very small time) elected official and has in recent years become more politically active/aware that is very disheartening.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on November 21, 2017, 03:08:53 AM
(https://i.redditmedia.com/PhDvvOEktGtw08Pwu78m7zX71Tt2j8iEK_G2V7mBaTE.jpg?w=1024&s=674450aeb5627aa1f27fd42dde2d4225)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 21, 2017, 09:27:49 AM
i don’t know.  Was it wrong for those who believed that Ted Kennedy may have been criminally responsible for Maryjoe Konepke’s drowning death and coverup but voted for him anyway because he was a Democrat and a Kennedy and shared their political view?
First, let me answer your question directly as a a liberal Democrat:  take the "may" out of it and yes indeed it was wrong for people who believed that Ted Kennedy was criminally responsible for Ms. Konepke's death and cover up to vote for him.

Second, why does it seem like so many people on the right cannot reply or answer a question without deflection and whataboutism?

Because it allows users to implicitly defend indefensible behavior while still feeling personally above it. If all parties are always equally bad, and everyone is tainted by association with them, then nobody (save the whatabouter) has standing to criticize anything and all things are permissible.

It's also incredibly flexible as a tactic. You can whatabout events that are only trivially equivalent - if people dispute it you've still succeeded in changing the topic, which is a win. You can do it by attaching the behavior of one or a few to vast political categories, same thing. You can do it with events older than the person you're talking to, like here. Even if the behavior is genuinely unprecedented, you can just flat make up an alternate reality where the other side totally did the same thing and supporters will cheerfully whatabout that, like we saw with the obstruction of the last Supreme Court seat.

Basically the more rot a powerful group has, the harder it becomes to defend their actions on their merits, and the more appealing this becomes, enabling more rot. It's not a coincidence the Soviets were notorious for it. And unfortunately I expect it'll get worse before it gets better. Despite being much more prevalent on the right you still see it everywhere, and if both sides ever fully embrace it then nothing's off the table.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 21, 2017, 09:38:12 AM
Quote
Basically the more rot a powerful group has, the harder it becomes to defend their actions on their merits, and the more appealing this becomes, enabling more rot. It's not a coincidence the Soviets were notorious for it. And unfortunately I expect it'll get worse before it gets better. Despite being much more prevalent on the right you still see it everywhere, and if both sides ever fully embrace it then nothing's off the table.


You say this, but what about when Bugs Bunny who was clearly a racist who repeatedly sexually harassed complete strangers he was attracted to, total creep, so sad! What about when he ran for mayor in 1951 against a family first conservative candidate, liberals turned out in droves to vote for him. Where was their precious higher moral ground then?

The whole thing is on this documentary Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't want you to see, 'Ballot Box Bunny'. They won't even host it on youtube but you can see it here on DailyMotion (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x52zmr0).
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 21, 2017, 09:53:40 AM
I am a woman. 
I am also an ex Democrat and an ex. Republican.  My point of view is that he is innocent until proven guilty, and no privileges of citizenship should be taken from him unless and until he is shown to be guilty of something.  His state constituents know him better than an outsider and will decide, through the vote, whether or not he should represent them.  If a case goes against him after the election, consequences will be named at that time.

(I want to add that as a woman I have experienced how most men can be quite low minded at times, usually under the masque of “humor” or “art” .and sometimes misguidedly even thinking of it as “complimentary.”  Those who don’t actually act or speak badly, do not speak against, either.)

So, I guess what I want to say is as long as you are being judgmental, who wants to throw the first stome?  Maybe the time has come when we no longer believe in the judicial system?
Is it judgmental to believe that it is wrong/disgusting/pathetic that the Governor of Alabama says that she believes the women's allegations but she is still going to vote for Moore?
i don’t know.  Was it wrong for those who believed that Ted Kennedy may have been criminally responsible for Maryjoe Konepke’s drowning death and coverup but voted for him anyway because he was a Democrat and a Kennedy and shared their political view?
First, let me answer your question directly as a a liberal Democrat:  take the "may" out of it and yes indeed it was wrong for people who believed that Ted Kennedy was criminally responsible for Ms. Konepke's death and cover up to vote for him.

Second, why does it seem like so many people on the right cannot reply or answer a question without deflection and whataboutism?

Because a lot of the questions aren’t questions, they’re political talking points.  Rather than answer a slanted question, some people prefer to point out hypocrisy and lack of principle (or, in the words of today’s left, “whataboutism”).

It is a 100% fair question / rheotorical device to inquire why somebody is outraged now but was fine with similar behavior previously, when the only thing that changed was the political party of the wrongdoer.

Roy Moore seems like a piece of garbage. However, it is completely valid to respond to criticism of Republicans standing by their candidate by pointing out examples of Dems doing similar things. Neither side has the moral high ground.
It is unconscionable for the Governor to say that she believes Mr. Moore's accusers and is still going to vote for him.  If she were a Democrat it would still be unconscionable.  Avoiding an inconvenient truth due to party affiliation is wrong and weak regardless of the party.  We (both Democrats and Republicans) cannot continue to merely deflect and accept poor behavior by saying "but he/she did...".  If we do we will continue to be represented by people like Moore, Anthony Weiner, Ralph Shortey and Eric Massa.

So why, when somebody points out that BOTH parties have sexual predators, are they accused of “whataboutism”?

I don’t want Moore in office. But, I don’t want Franken in Office, either.
If someone were to point out that both parties have sexual predators that would be absolutely fine and legitimate.  That is not what happened here.  Avoiding an admission that Moore is likely a sexual predator and deflecting to something from 1969 is what makes it whataboutism.

I suppose my objection isn’t with you, but rather how the term was used by others immediately proceeding your post. There’s plenty of room for “whataboutism” on this subject, because plenty of our government officials are dirtbags.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you on this.  As someone who is a (very small time) elected official and has in recent years become more politically active/aware that is very disheartening.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 21, 2017, 10:04:49 AM
The whole thing is on this documentary Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't want you to see, 'Ballot Box Bunny'. They won't even host it on youtube but you can see it here on DailyMotion (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x52zmr0).

Please don't leak the final report of Trump's voter fraud commission, they worked really hard on it  ;)


More on topic, here's a real quote from an actual Alabama pastor named Earl Wise:

“How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

Don't you just hate it when you set out to drop some truth bombs about how high school girls just love fantasizing over 35 year old men that look like Roy Moore and accidentally let it slip that you're totally into 14-year-olds too?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 21, 2017, 10:23:58 AM
More on topic, here's a real quote from an actual Alabama pastor named Earl Wise:

“How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

Don't you just hate it when you set out to drop some truth bombs about how high school girls just love fantasizing over 35 year old men that look like Roy Moore and accidentally let it slip that you're totally into 14-year-olds too?

WOW. Just man. Alabama sucks. Roll Tide. Roll tide detergent everywhere. Gross.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on November 21, 2017, 10:40:02 AM
(https://i.redditmedia.com/PhDvvOEktGtw08Pwu78m7zX71Tt2j8iEK_G2V7mBaTE.jpg?w=1024&s=674450aeb5627aa1f27fd42dde2d4225)
TP.  laughed so hard my coffee almost came out my nose!
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on November 21, 2017, 10:45:56 AM
More on topic, here's a real quote from an actual Alabama pastor named Earl Wise:

“How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

Don't you just hate it when you set out to drop some truth bombs about how high school girls just love fantasizing over 35 year old men that look like Roy Moore and accidentally let it slip that you're totally into 14-year-olds too?

WOW. Just man. Alabama sucks. Roll Tide. Roll tide detergent everywhere. Gross.
it's mind-boggling some of the people news outlets have gotten quotes from in Alabama concerning this issue.  I can't fathom how there's grown adults in this country that excuse Moore's behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable.

wonder if Earl's allowed within 500 feet of a school after that comment?  smh
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 21, 2017, 11:25:22 AM
More on topic, here's a real quote from an actual Alabama pastor named Earl Wise:

“How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

Don't you just hate it when you set out to drop some truth bombs about how high school girls just love fantasizing over 35 year old men that look like Roy Moore and accidentally let it slip that you're totally into 14-year-olds too?

WOW. Just man. Alabama sucks. Roll Tide. Roll tide detergent everywhere. Gross.
it's mind-boggling some of the people news outlets have gotten quotes from in Alabama concerning this issue.  I can't fathom how there's grown adults in this country that excuse Moore's behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable.

wonder if Earl's allowed within 500 feet of a school after that comment?  smh

I agree.

But, Bill Clinton is an actual, violent rapist. His wife actively helped suppress that story, as well as the stories of other women Clinton harassed and abused.

Didn't most Democrats excuse that behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable?  I mean, this is Gloria Freakin’ Steinem saying that even if all the accusations from Paula Jones and Katherine Willey were true, it’s no big deal:

http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/edequity98/0561.html

Bob Packwood, Clarence Thomas, John Conyers, Al Franken, Mark Foley, and many others.  For way too long, both Washington and Hollywood have been a boys will be boys, power and control culture. Offenders belong in prison, not in office.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 21, 2017, 12:04:25 PM
More on topic, here's a real quote from an actual Alabama pastor named Earl Wise:

“How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

Don't you just hate it when you set out to drop some truth bombs about how high school girls just love fantasizing over 35 year old men that look like Roy Moore and accidentally let it slip that you're totally into 14-year-olds too?

WOW. Just man. Alabama sucks. Roll Tide. Roll tide detergent everywhere. Gross.

I mean I kinda agree but I think it's a mistake to assume this is an Alabama problem as opposed to a "gross dudes justifying drooling over underage girls while also blaming them for it" problem.

Much like racial animosity this kind of attitude is still present everywhere, we've just papered over it by stigmatizing saying it aloud. We're seeing that stigma getting peeled away in a lot of areas and who's really onboard with it is steadily becoming clearer.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on November 21, 2017, 12:11:45 PM
More on topic, here's a real quote from an actual Alabama pastor named Earl Wise:

“How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

Don't you just hate it when you set out to drop some truth bombs about how high school girls just love fantasizing over 35 year old men that look like Roy Moore and accidentally let it slip that you're totally into 14-year-olds too?

WOW. Just man. Alabama sucks. Roll Tide. Roll tide detergent everywhere. Gross.
it's mind-boggling some of the people news outlets have gotten quotes from in Alabama concerning this issue.  I can't fathom how there's grown adults in this country that excuse Moore's behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable.

wonder if Earl's allowed within 500 feet of a school after that comment?  smh

I agree.

But, Bill Clinton is an actual, violent rapist. His wife actively helped suppress that story, as well as the stories of other women Clinton harassed and abused.

Didn't most Democrats excuse that behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable?  I mean, this is Gloria Freakin’ Steinem saying that even if all the accusations from Paula Jones and Katherine Willey were true, it’s no big deal:

http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/edequity98/0561.html

Bob Packwood, Clarence Thomas, John Conyers, Al Franken, Mark Foley, and many others.  For way too long, both Washington and Hollywood have been a boys will be boys, power and control culture. Offenders belong in prison, not in office.
there were certainly those who excused Clinton's behavior back then.  I wasn't one of them. 

completely agree that those in power who commit these acts should be removed from power or kept out of office when/if the allegations against them are proven --> doesn't even have to be a court of law for criminal charges but a preponderance of evidence showing moral/ethical issues that would lead to either removal from office or preclusion for running (or at the very least, voters having enough self-respect and common decency not to vote for these people).

I noticed that you left Trump off the list -- someone by his own words has committed acts worse than some of those you listed.  you've gone on record as voting for him to get your pet cause supported while ignoring all the sexual harassment/predatory behavior he was known to commit.  how is that different? 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 21, 2017, 12:18:56 PM
More on topic, here's a real quote from an actual Alabama pastor named Earl Wise:

“How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

Don't you just hate it when you set out to drop some truth bombs about how high school girls just love fantasizing over 35 year old men that look like Roy Moore and accidentally let it slip that you're totally into 14-year-olds too?

WOW. Just man. Alabama sucks. Roll Tide. Roll tide detergent everywhere. Gross.
it's mind-boggling some of the people news outlets have gotten quotes from in Alabama concerning this issue.  I can't fathom how there's grown adults in this country that excuse Moore's behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable.

wonder if Earl's allowed within 500 feet of a school after that comment?  smh

I agree.

But, Bill Clinton is an actual, violent rapist. His wife actively helped suppress that story, as well as the stories of other women Clinton harassed and abused.

Didn't most Democrats excuse that behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable?  I mean, this is Gloria Freakin’ Steinem saying that even if all the accusations from Paula Jones and Katherine Willey were true, it’s no big deal:

http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/edequity98/0561.html

Bob Packwood, Clarence Thomas, John Conyers, Al Franken, Mark Foley, and many others.  For way too long, both Washington and Hollywood have been a boys will be boys, power and control culture. Offenders belong in prison, not in office.
there were certainly those who excused Clinton's behavior back then.  I wasn't one of them. 

completely agree that those in power who commit these acts should be removed from power or kept out of office when/if the allegations against them are proven --> doesn't even have to be a court of law for criminal charges but a preponderance of evidence showing moral/ethical issues that would lead to either removal from office or preclusion for running (or at the very least, voters having enough self-respect and common decency not to vote for these people).

I noticed that you left Trump off the list -- someone by his own words has committed acts worse than some of those you listed.  you've gone on record as voting for him to get your pet cause supported while ignoring all the sexual harassment/predatory behavior he was known to commit.  how is that different?

Lesser of two evils. I thought he was the worst candidate in the GOP field, but he made it through.  If Hillary wasn’t a corrupt monster with no soul, I might not have voted for Trump.  Also, for better or for worse, you can’t trust anything said about Trump, including stuff out of his own mouth. Unlike the others, some of the allegations against Trump have been coordinated and demonstrably untrue.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 21, 2017, 01:01:13 PM
More on topic, here's a real quote from an actual Alabama pastor named Earl Wise:

“How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

Don't you just hate it when you set out to drop some truth bombs about how high school girls just love fantasizing over 35 year old men that look like Roy Moore and accidentally let it slip that you're totally into 14-year-olds too?

WOW. Just man. Alabama sucks. Roll Tide. Roll tide detergent everywhere. Gross.
it's mind-boggling some of the people news outlets have gotten quotes from in Alabama concerning this issue.  I can't fathom how there's grown adults in this country that excuse Moore's behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable.

wonder if Earl's allowed within 500 feet of a school after that comment?  smh

I agree.

But, Bill Clinton is an actual, violent rapist. His wife actively helped suppress that story, as well as the stories of other women Clinton harassed and abused.

Didn't most Democrats excuse that behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable?  I mean, this is Gloria Freakin’ Steinem saying that even if all the accusations from Paula Jones and Katherine Willey were true, it’s no big deal:

http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/edequity98/0561.html

Bob Packwood, Clarence Thomas, John Conyers, Al Franken, Mark Foley, and many others.  For way too long, both Washington and Hollywood have been a boys will be boys, power and control culture. Offenders belong in prison, not in office.
there were certainly those who excused Clinton's behavior back then.  I wasn't one of them. 

completely agree that those in power who commit these acts should be removed from power or kept out of office when/if the allegations against them are proven --> doesn't even have to be a court of law for criminal charges but a preponderance of evidence showing moral/ethical issues that would lead to either removal from office or preclusion for running (or at the very least, voters having enough self-respect and common decency not to vote for these people).

I noticed that you left Trump off the list -- someone by his own words has committed acts worse than some of those you listed.  you've gone on record as voting for him to get your pet cause supported while ignoring all the sexual harassment/predatory behavior he was known to commit.  how is that different?

Lesser of two evils. I thought he was the worst candidate in the GOP field, but he made it through.  If Hillary wasn’t a corrupt monster with no soul, I might not have voted for Trump.  Also, for better or for worse, you can’t trust anything said about Trump, including stuff out of his own mouth. Unlike the others, some of the allegations against Trump have been coordinated and demonstrably untrue.
Serious question and not trying to be argumentative:  what allegations against President Trump have been coordinated and demonstrably untrue? 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on November 21, 2017, 01:16:46 PM
More on topic, here's a real quote from an actual Alabama pastor named Earl Wise:

“How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

Don't you just hate it when you set out to drop some truth bombs about how high school girls just love fantasizing over 35 year old men that look like Roy Moore and accidentally let it slip that you're totally into 14-year-olds too?

WOW. Just man. Alabama sucks. Roll Tide. Roll tide detergent everywhere. Gross.
it's mind-boggling some of the people news outlets have gotten quotes from in Alabama concerning this issue.  I can't fathom how there's grown adults in this country that excuse Moore's behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable.

wonder if Earl's allowed within 500 feet of a school after that comment?  smh

I agree.

But, Bill Clinton is an actual, violent rapist. His wife actively helped suppress that story, as well as the stories of other women Clinton harassed and abused.

Didn't most Democrats excuse that behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable?  I mean, this is Gloria Freakin’ Steinem saying that even if all the accusations from Paula Jones and Katherine Willey were true, it’s no big deal:

http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/edequity98/0561.html

Bob Packwood, Clarence Thomas, John Conyers, Al Franken, Mark Foley, and many others.  For way too long, both Washington and Hollywood have been a boys will be boys, power and control culture. Offenders belong in prison, not in office.
there were certainly those who excused Clinton's behavior back then.  I wasn't one of them. 

completely agree that those in power who commit these acts should be removed from power or kept out of office when/if the allegations against them are proven --> doesn't even have to be a court of law for criminal charges but a preponderance of evidence showing moral/ethical issues that would lead to either removal from office or preclusion for running (or at the very least, voters having enough self-respect and common decency not to vote for these people).

I noticed that you left Trump off the list -- someone by his own words has committed acts worse than some of those you listed.  you've gone on record as voting for him to get your pet cause supported while ignoring all the sexual harassment/predatory behavior he was known to commit.  how is that different?

Lesser of two evils. I thought he was the worst candidate in the GOP field, but he made it through.  If Hillary wasn’t a corrupt monster with no soul, I might not have voted for Trump.  Also, for better or for worse, you can’t trust anything said about Trump, including stuff out of his own mouth. Unlike the others, some of the allegations against Trump have been coordinated and demonstrably untrue.
Serious question and not trying to be argumentative:  what allegations against President Trump have been coordinated and demonstrably untrue? 
yeah, I'd love to hear this. 

Also, I only take his bragging of self-aggrandizement with a grain of salt (well, enough salt that the salt flats in Utah look like nothing) but his bragging/admittance of boorish/harrassing behavior I take as a likely understatement.  Grabbing women by the p*****.  I think he's really tried/done that.  The intentional walking in on beauty contestants in states of undress.  that's a known thing.  The comment about dating a 10 year old in 10 years was on record and not exactly something that would be much of   a stretch for him to try.

that's not nearly all the things he's stated or much less what he's been accused of.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 21, 2017, 01:19:37 PM
More on topic, here's a real quote from an actual Alabama pastor named Earl Wise:

“How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

Don't you just hate it when you set out to drop some truth bombs about how high school girls just love fantasizing over 35 year old men that look like Roy Moore and accidentally let it slip that you're totally into 14-year-olds too?

WOW. Just man. Alabama sucks. Roll Tide. Roll tide detergent everywhere. Gross.
it's mind-boggling some of the people news outlets have gotten quotes from in Alabama concerning this issue.  I can't fathom how there's grown adults in this country that excuse Moore's behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable.

wonder if Earl's allowed within 500 feet of a school after that comment?  smh

I agree.

But, Bill Clinton is an actual, violent rapist. His wife actively helped suppress that story, as well as the stories of other women Clinton harassed and abused.

Didn't most Democrats excuse that behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable?  I mean, this is Gloria Freakin’ Steinem saying that even if all the accusations from Paula Jones and Katherine Willey were true, it’s no big deal:

http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/edequity98/0561.html

Bob Packwood, Clarence Thomas, John Conyers, Al Franken, Mark Foley, and many others.  For way too long, both Washington and Hollywood have been a boys will be boys, power and control culture. Offenders belong in prison, not in office.
there were certainly those who excused Clinton's behavior back then.  I wasn't one of them. 

completely agree that those in power who commit these acts should be removed from power or kept out of office when/if the allegations against them are proven --> doesn't even have to be a court of law for criminal charges but a preponderance of evidence showing moral/ethical issues that would lead to either removal from office or preclusion for running (or at the very least, voters having enough self-respect and common decency not to vote for these people).

I noticed that you left Trump off the list -- someone by his own words has committed acts worse than some of those you listed.  you've gone on record as voting for him to get your pet cause supported while ignoring all the sexual harassment/predatory behavior he was known to commit.  how is that different?

Lesser of two evils. I thought he was the worst candidate in the GOP field, but he made it through.  If Hillary wasn’t a corrupt monster with no soul, I might not have voted for Trump.  Also, for better or for worse, you can’t trust anything said about Trump, including stuff out of his own mouth. Unlike the others, some of the allegations against Trump have been coordinated and demonstrably untrue.
Serious question and not trying to be argumentative:  what allegations against President Trump have been coordinated and demonstrably untrue?

The dossier.

The rape lawsuit was also pretty thin, but we’ll never know how that would have held up in court because the case was withdrawn.

Ivana says allegations attributed to her were untrue, and “lawyer’s words”.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Vermont Green on November 21, 2017, 01:40:06 PM

I agree.

But, Bill Clinton is an actual, violent rapist. His wife actively helped suppress that story, as well as the stories of other women Clinton harassed and abused.

Didn't most Democrats excuse that behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable?  I mean, this is Gloria Freakin’ Steinem saying that even if all the accusations from Paula Jones and Katherine Willey were true, it’s no big deal:

http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/edequity98/0561.html

Bob Packwood, Clarence Thomas, John Conyers, Al Franken, Mark Foley, and many others.  For way too long, both Washington and Hollywood have been a boys will be boys, power and control culture. Offenders belong in prison, not in office.

Not singling out Roy but he just tends to make his points very clearly.  Clinton was investigated by a special council (or whatever the Ken Starr investigation was officially called) that started out looking at financial allegations (Whitewater) but after finding nothing prosecutable, moved on the the other stuff and finally landing on the Monica affair.  Then Congress held impeachment hearings twice.  It is not like Clinton got off easy.

I don't want to see Moore in the US Senate and it has nothing to do with his sexually chasing children when he was in his 30's (which I believe).  I also believe that he should suffer consequences for those actions.  Any conservative (such as the Alabama governor) who comes out and says you should still vote for him, really is in a very bad place too.

I just don't get the point in raising the what about...  Either you feel it is still good that Moore gets elected or you don't.  Same with Bill Clinton, either you voted for him or you didn't (I did not).  I am not religious but what little I do know is that you are not supposed to judge or throw stones.  No human is perfect and certainly not any politician but voting means judging so we have to judge.  If you judge that Roy Moore is the kind of guy you want representing your state in the Senate, then vote for Roy but don't try to justify that vote by saying well liberals voted for Bill Clinton.  You need to own that you are voting for a likely criminal child molester who believes gays should be put in jail, and on and on...
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on November 21, 2017, 01:42:59 PM
More on topic, here's a real quote from an actual Alabama pastor named Earl Wise:

“How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

Don't you just hate it when you set out to drop some truth bombs about how high school girls just love fantasizing over 35 year old men that look like Roy Moore and accidentally let it slip that you're totally into 14-year-olds too?

WOW. Just man. Alabama sucks. Roll Tide. Roll tide detergent everywhere. Gross.
it's mind-boggling some of the people news outlets have gotten quotes from in Alabama concerning this issue.  I can't fathom how there's grown adults in this country that excuse Moore's behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable.

wonder if Earl's allowed within 500 feet of a school after that comment?  smh

I agree.

But, Bill Clinton is an actual, violent rapist. His wife actively helped suppress that story, as well as the stories of other women Clinton harassed and abused.

Didn't most Democrats excuse that behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable?  I mean, this is Gloria Freakin’ Steinem saying that even if all the accusations from Paula Jones and Katherine Willey were true, it’s no big deal:

http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/edequity98/0561.html

Bob Packwood, Clarence Thomas, John Conyers, Al Franken, Mark Foley, and many others.  For way too long, both Washington and Hollywood have been a boys will be boys, power and control culture. Offenders belong in prison, not in office.
there were certainly those who excused Clinton's behavior back then.  I wasn't one of them. 

completely agree that those in power who commit these acts should be removed from power or kept out of office when/if the allegations against them are proven --> doesn't even have to be a court of law for criminal charges but a preponderance of evidence showing moral/ethical issues that would lead to either removal from office or preclusion for running (or at the very least, voters having enough self-respect and common decency not to vote for these people).

I noticed that you left Trump off the list -- someone by his own words has committed acts worse than some of those you listed.  you've gone on record as voting for him to get your pet cause supported while ignoring all the sexual harassment/predatory behavior he was known to commit.  how is that different?

Lesser of two evils. I thought he was the worst candidate in the GOP field, but he made it through.  If Hillary wasn’t a corrupt monster with no soul, I might not have voted for Trump.  Also, for better or for worse, you can’t trust anything said about Trump, including stuff out of his own mouth. Unlike the others, some of the allegations against Trump have been coordinated and demonstrably untrue.
Serious question and not trying to be argumentative:  what allegations against President Trump have been coordinated and demonstrably untrue?

The dossier.

The rape lawsuit was also pretty thin, but we’ll never know how that would have held up in court because the case was withdrawn.

Ivana says allegations attributed to her were untrue, and “lawyer’s words”.
That's pretty thin for "some of the allegations" and none of those are examples of where he specifically stated/admitted to reprehensible/unethical/harrassing/immoral (to everyone but him and apparently a number of politicians and other people in power) behavior.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 21, 2017, 02:03:09 PM
I just don't get the point in raising the what about...  Either you feel it is still good that Moore gets elected or you don't.  Same with Bill Clinton, either you voted for him or you didn't (I did not).  I am not religious but what little I do know is that you are not supposed to judge or throw stones.  No human is perfect and certainly not any politician but voting means judging so we have to judge.  If you judge that Roy Moore is the kind of guy you want representing your state in the Senate, then vote for Roy but don't try to justify that vote by saying well liberals voted for Bill Clinton.  You need to own that you are voting for a likely criminal child molester who believes gays should be put in jail, and on and on...

Agree about the whataboutism.

If you hit your wife, did you make a defensible choice because your neighbor did too?

If you knowingly put a guy in national office who has in the past showed a repeated behavior of using his power to prey on young women, including sexually assaulting them, is your choice somehow made better because Bill Clinton got elected?

The morality there is absurd. Just own it. For those in Alabama or those nationally who would excuse it, just say, I want to elect a probable pedophile because I care more about tax cuts and Supreme Court seats than I do about putting good people in office. Just own it.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 21, 2017, 02:14:13 PM
More on topic, here's a real quote from an actual Alabama pastor named Earl Wise:

“How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line. Plus there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

Don't you just hate it when you set out to drop some truth bombs about how high school girls just love fantasizing over 35 year old men that look like Roy Moore and accidentally let it slip that you're totally into 14-year-olds too?

WOW. Just man. Alabama sucks. Roll Tide. Roll tide detergent everywhere. Gross.
it's mind-boggling some of the people news outlets have gotten quotes from in Alabama concerning this issue.  I can't fathom how there's grown adults in this country that excuse Moore's behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable.

wonder if Earl's allowed within 500 feet of a school after that comment?  smh

I agree.

But, Bill Clinton is an actual, violent rapist. His wife actively helped suppress that story, as well as the stories of other women Clinton harassed and abused.

Didn't most Democrats excuse that behavior by any excuse they deem personally acceptable?  I mean, this is Gloria Freakin’ Steinem saying that even if all the accusations from Paula Jones and Katherine Willey were true, it’s no big deal:

http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/edequity98/0561.html

Bob Packwood, Clarence Thomas, John Conyers, Al Franken, Mark Foley, and many others.  For way too long, both Washington and Hollywood have been a boys will be boys, power and control culture. Offenders belong in prison, not in office.
there were certainly those who excused Clinton's behavior back then.  I wasn't one of them. 

completely agree that those in power who commit these acts should be removed from power or kept out of office when/if the allegations against them are proven --> doesn't even have to be a court of law for criminal charges but a preponderance of evidence showing moral/ethical issues that would lead to either removal from office or preclusion for running (or at the very least, voters having enough self-respect and common decency not to vote for these people).

I noticed that you left Trump off the list -- someone by his own words has committed acts worse than some of those you listed.  you've gone on record as voting for him to get your pet cause supported while ignoring all the sexual harassment/predatory behavior he was known to commit.  how is that different?

Lesser of two evils. I thought he was the worst candidate in the GOP field, but he made it through.  If Hillary wasn’t a corrupt monster with no soul, I might not have voted for Trump.  Also, for better or for worse, you can’t trust anything said about Trump, including stuff out of his own mouth. Unlike the others, some of the allegations against Trump have been coordinated and demonstrably untrue.
Serious question and not trying to be argumentative:  what allegations against President Trump have been coordinated and demonstrably untrue?

The dossier.

The rape lawsuit was also pretty thin, but we’ll never know how that would have held up in court because the case was withdrawn.

Ivana says allegations attributed to her were untrue, and “lawyer’s words”.
Do we know any of those are "demonstrably untrue"?  The dossier could be untrue, partly true or true...I have not seen compelling proof either way.  Coordinated I will give you but isn't all opposition research coordinated? 

Ivana walked back statements to a certain extent but I believe in a deposition claimed she was raped and has since said she felt violated.  Regarding the deposition President Trump's lawyer said about Ivana "“she felt raped emotionally… She was not referring to it [as] a criminal matter, and not in its literal sense, though there’s many literal senses to the word.” 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: wdleehi on November 21, 2017, 02:34:30 PM
Good news, we never have to decide whether or not to vote for Bill Clinton ever again.  And he is no longer the top campaigner for Democrats. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Moranis on November 21, 2017, 02:38:43 PM
The problem Republicans in Alabama have, is if Moore drops out, they will almost certainly lose the election to Jones.  Now maybe Jones beats Moore anyway and it is moot point, but if Moore wins, he can always resign or be removed and then a second election can be held where a better Republican candidate can be nominated and win.  Republicans can't lose this seat or they might lose the Senate in 2018 and that is why you see some of the "support" you are seeing.   Most of the 2018 Senate races are in democratic areas, so an unexpected party swing from a very strong traditional Republican base, could affect a great deal for the party as a whole.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 21, 2017, 02:42:45 PM
Good news, we never have to decide whether or not to vote for Bill Clinton ever again.  And he is no longer the top campaigner for Democrats.

I'm still writing Ted Kennedy in every year in every election and no one can stop me.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 21, 2017, 03:20:23 PM
The problem Republicans in Alabama have, is if Moore drops out, they will almost certainly lose the election to Jones.  Now maybe Jones beats Moore anyway and it is moot point, but if Moore wins, he can always resign or be removed and then a second election can be held where a better Republican candidate can be nominated and win.  Republicans can't lose this seat or they might lose the Senate in 2018 and that is why you see some of the "support" you are seeing.   Most of the 2018 Senate races are in democratic areas, so an unexpected party swing from a very strong traditional Republican base, could affect a great deal for the party as a whole.

This is the most disgusting of the rationalizations, and it reminds me of Mitch McConnell's ridiculous theft of Merrick Garland's SC seat. The Alabama Gov has put the kibosh on some of the more outlandish maneuvers R's have to keep the seat (like having Luther Strange resign now, forcing a new special election), leaving only a write-in campaign or electing Moore and then removing him from office and replacing him.

It is a big seat. It would be a big win for Dems. How much do Alabama R's want to prevent that? How dirty is the national party going to get to assure the outcome they want?

Also under reported angle: If somehow Moore wins and then is ousted, where does that leave the Bannon-wing? Bannon has maintained his innocence as of the last time I checked. I wonder if that means that he'll declare double-secret war against establishment republicans.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on November 21, 2017, 04:08:40 PM
I am just amazed that not only a pedophile will possibly be elected to that seat but a person who has such extreme views against gays, Islams, Mexicans, etc. Some of his stances are just outlandish for the 1990's America, never mind 2017 America. This is just a reprehensible individual and yet, he could be a US Senator. That boggles my mind. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised given who this country elected as President.

I just get the feeling that 100 years from now historians worldwide will point to this time as the beginning of the end of the greatness of the American empire.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 21, 2017, 04:09:55 PM
Great news, after the Press Secretary claimed the official WH position was for "the voters of Alabama to decide", the President of the United States has decided to contradict that and openly endorse the accused serial child predator, on the grounds that Moore denies it and "we don't need a liberal person in there, a Democrat". Also oddly managed to work in that most of the accusers voted for him, presumably because the conversation had veered away from himself for upwards of 10 seconds.

In fairness, Trump also denied the harassment/assault claims against Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, and himself, and history has certainly borne those out.  ::)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on November 21, 2017, 04:13:03 PM
Great news, after the Press Secretary claimed the official WH position was for "the voters of Alabama to decide", the President of the United States has decided to contradict that and openly endorse the accused serial child predator, on the grounds that Moore denies it and "we don't need a liberal person in there, a Democrat". Also oddly managed to work in that most of the accusers voted for him, presumably because the conversation had veered away from himself for upwards of 10 seconds.

In fairness, Trump also denied the harassment/assault claims against Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, and himself, and history has certainly borne those out.  ::)
This is so ridiculous as to be sadly funny given his tweets against Al Franken.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on November 21, 2017, 04:35:05 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/361421-trump-on-alabama-race-we-dont-need-a-democrat-in-the-seat (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/361421-trump-on-alabama-race-we-dont-need-a-democrat-in-the-seat)

you guys beat me to it.  our hypocritical lying self absorbed president thinks Roy Moore is worth endorsing.  the 2018 elections are going to get even more interesting.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: KGs Knee on November 21, 2017, 08:19:24 PM
I just don't get the point in raising the what about...  Either you feel it is still good that Moore gets elected or you don't.  Same with Bill Clinton, either you voted for him or you didn't (I did not).  I am not religious but what little I do know is that you are not supposed to judge or throw stones.  No human is perfect and certainly not any politician but voting means judging so we have to judge.  If you judge that Roy Moore is the kind of guy you want representing your state in the Senate, then vote for Roy but don't try to justify that vote by saying well liberals voted for Bill Clinton.  You need to own that you are voting for a likely criminal child molester who believes gays should be put in jail, and on and on...

Agree about the whataboutism.

If you hit your wife, did you make a defensible choice because your neighbor did too?

If you knowingly put a guy in national office who has in the past showed a repeated behavior of using his power to prey on young women, including sexually assaulting them, is your choice somehow made better because Bill Clinton got elected?

The morality there is absurd. Just own it. For those in Alabama or those nationally who would excuse it, just say, I want to elect a probable pedophile because I care more about tax cuts and Supreme Court seats than I do about putting good people in office. Just own it.

It's more like if I hit my wife, and your brother hit his wife, yet you only chastised me for it.

People are absolutely right to bring it up and ask the question, "why?".
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on November 21, 2017, 08:22:08 PM
The problem Republicans in Alabama have, is if Moore drops out, they will almost certainly lose the election to Jones.  Now maybe Jones beats Moore anyway and it is moot point, but if Moore wins, he can always resign or be removed and then a second election can be held where a better Republican candidate can be nominated and win.  Republicans can't lose this seat or they might lose the Senate in 2018 and that is why you see some of the "support" you are seeing.   Most of the 2018 Senate races are in democratic areas, so an unexpected party swing from a very strong traditional Republican base, could affect a great deal for the party as a whole.
I don't see Moore walking away from a Senate seat.  the senate would have to go through the process of removing him which I'd be surprised if they did.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on November 21, 2017, 08:28:08 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/361421-trump-on-alabama-race-we-dont-need-a-democrat-in-the-seat (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/361421-trump-on-alabama-race-we-dont-need-a-democrat-in-the-seat)

you guys beat me to it.  our hypocritical lying self absorbed president thinks Roy Moore is worth endorsing.  the 2018 elections are going to get even more interesting.
I doubt it unless you find yet another round of re-elected incumbents to be interesting.  if more the 2 senate seats change hands I'd be stunned.  I also suspect less than 10 House seats will switch from R to D representatives.   the politics of this country is becoming more entrenched every day it seems.  the electorate see the politicians from other areas of the country as the issue while remaining supportive of their own -- hence the high re-election rates for incumbents.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 21, 2017, 08:42:23 PM
I just don't get the point in raising the what about...  Either you feel it is still good that Moore gets elected or you don't.  Same with Bill Clinton, either you voted for him or you didn't (I did not).  I am not religious but what little I do know is that you are not supposed to judge or throw stones.  No human is perfect and certainly not any politician but voting means judging so we have to judge.  If you judge that Roy Moore is the kind of guy you want representing your state in the Senate, then vote for Roy but don't try to justify that vote by saying well liberals voted for Bill Clinton.  You need to own that you are voting for a likely criminal child molester who believes gays should be put in jail, and on and on...

Agree about the whataboutism.

If you hit your wife, did you make a defensible choice because your neighbor did too?

If you knowingly put a guy in national office who has in the past showed a repeated behavior of using his power to prey on young women, including sexually assaulting them, is your choice somehow made better because Bill Clinton got elected?

The morality there is absurd. Just own it. For those in Alabama or those nationally who would excuse it, just say, I want to elect a probable pedophile because I care more about tax cuts and Supreme Court seats than I do about putting good people in office. Just own it.

It's more like if I hit my wife, and your brother hit his wife, yet you only chastised me for it.

People are absolutely right to bring it up and ask the question, "why?".

So you're basically highlighting my argument.

You're skipping over the fact that (someone in this metaphor) did something extremely wrong and disqualifying, and fastforwarding to, 'but how come Bill Clinton...'

**NOTE: I'm assuming through context you're referring to Clinton as the 'what about..' guy in that metaphor.**

And that's serving a pedophile's interests just fine. So instead of talking about how Roy Moore used his position as a DA to molest 2 young girls, we're talking about how Bill Clinton...something something..

ANd I mean...Bill Clinton was not reelected after Monica Lewinsky. His moment of 'multiple allegations' didn't occur until '98.

ANd even by starting that discourse...we're dancing to Roy Moore, Donald Trump, and Steve Bannon's tune, because we stopped talking about Moore so we could talk about Brietbart's boogieman, the Clintons.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 21, 2017, 08:50:15 PM
Quote
we're talking about how Bill Clinton...something something

Something something? That’s how you describe forcible, violent rape? That’s disgusting.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: KGs Knee on November 21, 2017, 08:51:24 PM
I just don't get the point in raising the what about...  Either you feel it is still good that Moore gets elected or you don't.  Same with Bill Clinton, either you voted for him or you didn't (I did not).  I am not religious but what little I do know is that you are not supposed to judge or throw stones.  No human is perfect and certainly not any politician but voting means judging so we have to judge.  If you judge that Roy Moore is the kind of guy you want representing your state in the Senate, then vote for Roy but don't try to justify that vote by saying well liberals voted for Bill Clinton.  You need to own that you are voting for a likely criminal child molester who believes gays should be put in jail, and on and on...

Agree about the whataboutism.

If you hit your wife, did you make a defensible choice because your neighbor did too?

If you knowingly put a guy in national office who has in the past showed a repeated behavior of using his power to prey on young women, including sexually assaulting them, is your choice somehow made better because Bill Clinton got elected?

The morality there is absurd. Just own it. For those in Alabama or those nationally who would excuse it, just say, I want to elect a probable pedophile because I care more about tax cuts and Supreme Court seats than I do about putting good people in office. Just own it.

It's more like if I hit my wife, and your brother hit his wife, yet you only chastised me for it.

People are absolutely right to bring it up and ask the question, "why?".

So you're basically highlighting my argument.

You're skipping over the fact that (someone in this metaphor) did something extremely wrong and disqualifying, and fastforwarding to, 'but how come Bill Clinton...'

**NOTE: I'm assuming through context you're referring to Clinton as the 'what about..' guy in that metaphor.**

And that's serving a pedophile's interests just fine. So instead of talking about how Roy Moore used his position as a DA to molest 2 young girls, we're talking about how Bill Clinton...something something..

ANd I mean...Bill Clinton was not reelected after Monica Lewinsky. His moment of 'multiple allegations' didn't occur until '98.

ANd even by starting that discourse...we're dancing to Roy Moore, Donald Trump, and Steve Bannon's tune, because we stopped talking about Moore so we could talk about Brietbart's boogieman, the Clintons.

So are you telling me you don't think it's fair to ask why a person ignored one person's behavior yet that same person is now chastising someone else for the exact same behavior they previously ignored?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: KGs Knee on November 21, 2017, 08:57:49 PM
Quote
we're talking about how Bill Clinton...something something

Something something? That’s how you describe forcible, violent rape? That’s disgusting.

I seriously doubt that is what IP meant there, and I'm pretty sure you know this.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 21, 2017, 09:06:37 PM
Quote
we're talking about how Bill Clinton...something something

Something something? That’s how you describe forcible, violent rape? That’s disgusting.

I seriously doubt that is what IP meant there, and I'm pretty sure you know this.

No, I don’t know this. The dismissive “something something” is meant to communicate that something isn’t even worth addressing. That “something something” includes credible accounts of forcible rape. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=something+something&amp=true

It’s flippant, callous, and disgusting. It’s an example of somebody who is so blinded by politics that they “something something” rape and the coordinated cover up of that rape.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: KGs Knee on November 21, 2017, 09:13:57 PM
Quote
we're talking about how Bill Clinton...something something

Something something? That’s how you describe forcible, violent rape? That’s disgusting.

I seriously doubt that is what IP meant there, and I'm pretty sure you know this.

No, I don’t know this. The dismissive “something something” is meant to communicate that something isn’t even worth addressing. That “something something” includes credible accounts of forcible rape. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=something+something&amp=true

It’s flippant, callous, and disgusting. It’s an example of somebody who is so blinded by politics that they “something something” rape and the coordinated cover up of that rape.

Well, I disagree, but I guess I'll just let IP speak for himself.  I'm certainly not looking to stir up any trouble here.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on November 21, 2017, 09:26:14 PM
So should we just say 'ok sure, lets just let people like Roy Moore run our country' because Bill Clinton might or might not have done something 20 years ago?  We should just ignore all of the women that came forward (regarded as credible by literally everyone) about Roy Moore, because someone else might have committed a crime.  That is such bs. 

As far as I know, this thread is about Roy Moore.  If people want to re-examine Bill Clinton, why don't they start a thread about that.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: More Banners on November 21, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote
we're talking about how Bill Clinton...something something

Something something? That’s how you describe forcible, violent rape? That’s disgusting.

I seriously doubt that is what IP meant there, and I'm pretty sure you know this.

No, I don’t know this. The dismissive “something something” is meant to communicate that something isn’t even worth addressing. That “something something” includes credible accounts of forcible rape. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=something+something&amp=true

It’s flippant, callous, and disgusting. It’s an example of somebody who is so blinded by politics that they “something something” rape and the coordinated cover up of that rape.

Well, I disagree, but I guess I'll just let IP speak for himself.  I'm certainly not looking to stir up any trouble here.

And here y'all have gone off away from discussing the present issue at hand regarding a current prospective senator,  said distraction being the precise aim of those who would deflect negative attention, this proving the original point...or something something.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 21, 2017, 09:33:49 PM
Quote
we're talking about how Bill Clinton...something something

Something something? That’s how you describe forcible, violent rape? That’s disgusting.

I seriously doubt that is what IP meant there, and I'm pretty sure you know this.

Thanks, I appreciated this. I wasn’t trying to minimalize Clinton’s allegations, Inwas actually alluding to the fact that there are about a million allegations regarding his conduct now. I’m not condoning Clinton’s actions and honestly I think way differently about him now than I did even just a few months ago. But I obviously never voted for him.

And that’s also where I think the whataboutism making Clinton or Franken or whomever as analogs to Moore to highlight hypocrisy fall short logically. Nobody voted for Franken post allegations. Clinton’s worst allegations didn’t surface until after Lewinsky. Moore is running for election NOW. Why is anyone talking about anything else if there not looking to rationalize voting for him, or giving others moral space to vote for him?

Honestly the closest analog to Moore I can think of recently is Trump. We knew about the allegations during the election, and lots of people still voted for him on some tenuous equivocating so they could get tax cuts and a Supreme Court seat.

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: D Dub on November 21, 2017, 09:37:17 PM
Roy gets them to bite on crossover dribble every time. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: KGs Knee on November 21, 2017, 09:37:38 PM
So should we just say 'ok sure, lets just let people like Roy Moore run our country' because Bill Clinton might or might not have done something 20 years ago?  We should just ignore all of the women that came forward (regarded as credible by literally everyone) about Roy Moore, because someone else might have committed a crime.  That is such bs. 

As far as I know, this thread is about Roy Moore.  If people want to re-examine Bill Clinton, why don't they start a thread about that.

I could be wrong, but I do not think there is one single person here who has said any such thing.

The only thing I have seen is people ask why it is okay to ignore this behavior when one side does it, but not the other.  IMO, it's an entirely valid and important question we have a responsibility to ask.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 21, 2017, 09:38:51 PM
So should we just say 'ok sure, lets just let people like Roy Moore run our country' because Bill Clinton might or might not have done something 20 years ago?  We should just ignore all of the women that came forward (regarded as credible by literally everyone) about Roy Moore, because someone else might have committed a crime.  That is such bs. 

As far as I know, this thread is about Roy Moore.  If people want to re-examine Bill Clinton, why don't they start a thread about that.

There are three separate but related issues:

1. Roy Moore and whether people should vote for him;

2. Suggestions that Republicans are uniquely willing to overlook Moore’s behavior;

3.  Whether it’s okay to put blinders on because the ends justify the means.

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on November 21, 2017, 09:56:15 PM
So should we just say 'ok sure, lets just let people like Roy Moore run our country' because Bill Clinton might or might not have done something 20 years ago?  We should just ignore all of the women that came forward (regarded as credible by literally everyone) about Roy Moore, because someone else might have committed a crime.  That is such bs. 

As far as I know, this thread is about Roy Moore.  If people want to re-examine Bill Clinton, why don't they start a thread about that.

I could be wrong, but I do not think there is one single person here who has said any such thing.

The only thing I have seen is people ask why it is okay to ignore this behavior when one side does it, but not the other.  IMO, it's an entirely valid and important question we have a responsibility to ask.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I didn't me 'we' as in Celticsblog, I meant it in our country in general. Some Moore supporters have seemingly said that exact thing in trying to distract from the issue at hand.  If we are going to bring up Clinton from 20 years ago, why aren't we bringing up Nixon, or any other past criminal behavior that isn't at all relevant to the Roy Moore situation.
As far as I am concerned it doesn't have any bearing on this issue.

On one hand, I can't believe that we have a sitting president that has given his endorsement to someone that, even if it is too late to have criminal charges brought against him, has such a huge amount of evidence against him as basically a predator.  At the same time, it makes sense that Trump would endorse him because his behavior mirrors Moore's pretty closely.  Trump's reaction to the allegations against him seemed very similar, deny deny deny - blame the media - threaten to bring charges against the women.

It will be a ****ed up day if Alabama actually elects this guy and our sitting president helped him get elected.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on November 21, 2017, 10:00:21 PM
So should we just say 'ok sure, lets just let people like Roy Moore run our country' because Bill Clinton might or might not have done something 20 years ago?  We should just ignore all of the women that came forward (regarded as credible by literally everyone) about Roy Moore, because someone else might have committed a crime.  That is such bs. 

As far as I know, this thread is about Roy Moore.  If people want to re-examine Bill Clinton, why don't they start a thread about that.

There are three separate but related issues:

1. Roy Moore and whether people should vote for him;

2. Suggestions that Republicans are uniquely willing to overlook Moore’s behavior;

3.  Whether it’s okay to put blinders on because the ends justify the means.
Sadly, for all our opinions regarding these 3 issues, it will be the ultra conservative, Evangelical Christian, somewhat questionably racist voting block in Alabama that will decide whether he will represent them. I have no faith in those people to make the right decision and not elect Moore.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 21, 2017, 10:07:17 PM
So should we just say 'ok sure, lets just let people like Roy Moore run our country' because Bill Clinton might or might not have done something 20 years ago?  We should just ignore all of the women that came forward (regarded as credible by literally everyone) about Roy Moore, because someone else might have committed a crime.  That is such bs. 

As far as I know, this thread is about Roy Moore.  If people want to re-examine Bill Clinton, why don't they start a thread about that.

There are three separate but related issues:

1. Roy Moore and whether people should vote for him;

2. Suggestions that Republicans are uniquely willing to overlook Moore’s behavior;

3.  Whether it’s okay to put blinders on because the ends justify the means.
Sadly, for all our opinions regarding these 3 issues, it will be the ultra conservative, Evangelical Christian, somewhat questionably racist voting block in Alabama that will decide whether he will represent them. I have no faith in those people to make the right decision and not elect Moore.

I agree. I don’t expect them to repudiate Moore or his actions.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on November 21, 2017, 10:08:27 PM
So should we just say 'ok sure, lets just let people like Roy Moore run our country' because Bill Clinton might or might not have done something 20 years ago?  We should just ignore all of the women that came forward (regarded as credible by literally everyone) about Roy Moore, because someone else might have committed a crime.  That is such bs. 

As far as I know, this thread is about Roy Moore.  If people want to re-examine Bill Clinton, why don't they start a thread about that.

I could be wrong, but I do not think there is one single person here who has said any such thing.

The only thing I have seen is people ask why it is okay to ignore this behavior when one side does it, but not the other.  IMO, it's an entirely valid and important question we have a responsibility to ask.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I didn't me 'we' as in Celticsblog, I meant it in our country in general. Some Moore supporters have seemingly said that exact thing in trying to distract from the issue at hand.  If we are going to bring up Clinton from 20 years ago, why aren't we bringing up Nixon, or any other past criminal behavior that isn't at all relevant to the Roy Moore situation.
As far as I am concerned it doesn't have any bearing on this issue.

On one hand, I can't believe that we have a sitting president that has given his endorsement to someone that, even if it is too late to have criminal charges brought against him, has such a huge amount of evidence against him as basically a predator.  At the same time, it makes sense that Trump would endorse him because his behavior mirrors Moore's pretty closely.  Trump's reaction to the allegations against him seemed very similar, deny deny deny - blame the media - threaten to bring charges against the women.

It will be a ****ed up day if Alabama actually elects this guy and our sitting president helped him get elected.
the cherry on that poop sundae is listening to Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying the difference between Moore and Franken is that Franken admitted guilt whereas Moore has said he's innocent so that makes Moore a candidate people should vote for and Franken someone that should be removed from the Senate.

the hypocrisy in this administration is past disgusting.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on November 21, 2017, 10:11:43 PM
So should we just say 'ok sure, lets just let people like Roy Moore run our country' because Bill Clinton might or might not have done something 20 years ago?  We should just ignore all of the women that came forward (regarded as credible by literally everyone) about Roy Moore, because someone else might have committed a crime.  That is such bs. 

As far as I know, this thread is about Roy Moore.  If people want to re-examine Bill Clinton, why don't they start a thread about that.

There are three separate but related issues:

1. Roy Moore and whether people should vote for him;

2. Suggestions that Republicans are uniquely willing to overlook Moore’s behavior;

3.  Whether it’s okay to put blinders on because the ends justify the means.
Sadly, for all our opinions regarding these 3 issues, it will be the ultra conservative, Evangelical Christian, somewhat questionably racist voting block in Alabama that will decide whether he will represent them. I have no faith in those people to make the right decision and not elect Moore.

I agree. I don’t expect them to repudiate Moore or his actions.
that's a hypocritical bunch right there if they vote for Moore who talks the "christian" talk but certainly hasn't walked that walk.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 21, 2017, 10:14:57 PM
If the Republicans held something like 60+ senate seats insted of just 52 I expect that President Trump, the governor of Alabama et al would be singing a different tune and would be condemning Moore.  It is a lot easier for politicians to pretend to have ethics and morals when they have firm control of congress. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Beat LA on November 21, 2017, 10:45:18 PM
ANd even by starting that discourse...we're dancing to Roy Moore, Donald Trump, and Steve Bannon's tune, because we stopped talking about Moore so we could talk about Brietbart's boogieman, the Clintons.

Yeah, I mean you can basically sum up this "administration" by the first 21/22 seconds of Cigaro by System of a Down -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwYjuZ6e_Q

and, of course,

(https://media.giphy.com/media/h4WF3kBCJhGzm/source.gif)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on November 21, 2017, 11:00:40 PM
ANd even by starting that discourse...we're dancing to Roy Moore, Donald Trump, and Steve Bannon's tune, because we stopped talking about Moore so we could talk about Brietbart's boogieman, the Clintons.

Yeah, I mean you can basically sum up this "administration" by the first 21/22 seconds of Cigaro by System of a Down -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwYjuZ6e_Q

and, of course,

(https://media.giphy.com/media/h4WF3kBCJhGzm/source.gif)

"You’ve fallen victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is Never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this – Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!"

Being Sicilian that is my favorite scene from a movie ever. Good to see that there probably won't be a lot of Italian-Americans voting Roy Moore into office.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Beat LA on November 21, 2017, 11:05:39 PM
ANd even by starting that discourse...we're dancing to Roy Moore, Donald Trump, and Steve Bannon's tune, because we stopped talking about Moore so we could talk about Brietbart's boogieman, the Clintons.

Yeah, I mean you can basically sum up this "administration" by the first 21/22 seconds of Cigaro by System of a Down -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwYjuZ6e_Q

and, of course,

(https://media.giphy.com/media/h4WF3kBCJhGzm/source.gif)

"You’ve fallen victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is Never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this – Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!"

Being Sicilian that is my favorite scene from a movie ever. Good to see that there probably won't be a lot of Italian-Americans voting Roy Moore into office.

(https://i.imgur.com/m5PRoaU.png?fb)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on November 21, 2017, 11:08:07 PM
ANd even by starting that discourse...we're dancing to Roy Moore, Donald Trump, and Steve Bannon's tune, because we stopped talking about Moore so we could talk about Brietbart's boogieman, the Clintons.

Yeah, I mean you can basically sum up this "administration" by the first 21/22 seconds of Cigaro by System of a Down -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwYjuZ6e_Q

and, of course,

(https://media.giphy.com/media/h4WF3kBCJhGzm/source.gif)

"You’ve fallen victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is Never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this – Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!"

Being Sicilian that is my favorite scene from a movie ever. Good to see that there probably won't be a lot of Italian-Americans voting Roy Moore into office.

(https://i.imgur.com/m5PRoaU.png?fb)
That deserved 5 TPs
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 28, 2017, 12:20:12 AM
So this is crazy: Washington Post busted a woman trying to feed them a false story of having a sexual relationship with Roy Moore, getting pregnant and having an abortion when she was 15 and he was 45. The woman turned out to work for James O'Keefe's group. They caught her because she had a GoFundMe page about the job  ;D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?)


To recap, a conservative activist group (legally a tax-free charity) paid a woman to falsely claim to have been raped and impregnated by a candidate for Senate, in order to discredit women who are actually accusing him of molestation. Classy.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 28, 2017, 09:15:39 AM
So this is crazy: Washington Post busted a woman trying to feed them a false story of having a sexual relationship with Roy Moore, getting pregnant and having an abortion when she was 15 and he was 45. The woman turned out to work for James O'Keefe's group. They caught her because she had a GoFundMe page about the job  ;D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?)


To recap, a conservative activist group (legally a tax-free charity) paid a woman to falsely claim to have been raped and impregnated by a candidate for Senate, in order to discredit women who are actually accusing him of molestation. Classy.

In one act the conservative activist group of known scumbags (no need to give them free press) attempted to 1) Discredit the integrity of one of America's most respected journalistic outlets, 2) Discredit women who have put their privacy, their past, and their reputations on teh line to protest truly wrong actions by a person who is running for public office.

Disgusting.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: GratefulCs on November 28, 2017, 09:31:11 AM
So this is crazy: Washington Post busted a woman trying to feed them a false story of having a sexual relationship with Roy Moore, getting pregnant and having an abortion when she was 15 and he was 45. The woman turned out to work for James O'Keefe's group. They caught her because she had a GoFundMe page about the job  ;D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?)


To recap, a conservative activist group (legally a tax-free charity) paid a woman to falsely claim to have been raped and impregnated by a candidate for Senate, in order to discredit women who are actually accusing him of molestation. Classy.
project veritas is so slimey
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 28, 2017, 10:20:46 AM
So this is crazy: Washington Post busted a woman trying to feed them a false story of having a sexual relationship with Roy Moore, getting pregnant and having an abortion when she was 15 and he was 45. The woman turned out to work for James O'Keefe's group. They caught her because she had a GoFundMe page about the job  ;D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?)


To recap, a conservative activist group (legally a tax-free charity) paid a woman to falsely claim to have been raped and impregnated by a candidate for Senate, in order to discredit women who are actually accusing him of molestation. Classy.

In one act the conservative activist group of known scumbags (no need to give them free press) attempted to 1) Discredit the integrity of one of America's most respected journalistic outlets, 2) Discredit women who have put their privacy, their past, and their reputations on teh line to protest truly wrong actions by a person who is running for public office.

Disgusting.

Fun side note: the Post's original Moore article was published November 9.

Phony accuser contacted them November 10.

On the 11th, Moore said, “There are investigations going on. In the next few days, there will be revelations about the motivations and the content of this article.”  He knew. So dirty and sleazy.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 28, 2017, 10:58:19 AM
Fun side note: the Post's original Moore article was published November 9.

Phony accuser contacted them November 10.

On the 11th, Moore said, “There are investigations going on. In the next few days, there will be revelations about the motivations and the content of this article.”  He knew. So dirty and sleazy.

That's uh...that's...man..just wow. THat's incompetence mixed with hubris mixed with outright TV villainy. Heck  of a cocktail.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Vermont Green on November 28, 2017, 12:02:05 PM
Fun side note: the Post's original Moore article was published November 9.

Phony accuser contacted them November 10.

On the 11th, Moore said, “There are investigations going on. In the next few days, there will be revelations about the motivations and the content of this article.”  He knew. So dirty and sleazy.

That's uh...that's...man..just wow. THat's incompetence mixed with hubris mixed with outright TV villainy. Heck  of a cocktail.

I wonder if he made donations to Project Veritas like Trump did (or someone on his behalf). 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: trickybilly on November 28, 2017, 12:11:16 PM
Can we go back to the day of Trump's inauguration (myself included), when many people had high hopes for Trump - that he would turn the corner and become an inspiring leader?

It's just so depressing, scary, and worrisome now. Especially for people living in authoritarian regimes in other countries: any semblance of the development of a free press, any nourishment of the institutions of a stable democracy have already been set back decades..

I'm finding it hard just to watch some harmless golf on TV...
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: mmmmm on November 28, 2017, 12:59:46 PM
So this is crazy: Washington Post busted a woman trying to feed them a false story of having a sexual relationship with Roy Moore, getting pregnant and having an abortion when she was 15 and he was 45. The woman turned out to work for James O'Keefe's group. They caught her because she had a GoFundMe page about the job  ;D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?)


To recap, a conservative activist group (legally a tax-free charity) paid a woman to falsely claim to have been raped and impregnated by a candidate for Senate, in order to discredit women who are actually accusing him of molestation. Classy.

Hmm... I suspect that technically this action falls under some criminal fraud statute.  If the FBI were to investigate and pursue charges and Project Veritas is found guilty of funding an illegal activity, shouldn't that get their 503C revoked?   I would suspect the IRS has at least swung their Sauron-like gaze in their direction over this.

The the new tax reform law will probably just make whatever Project verists is doing 'legal' anyway ...
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: mef730 on November 28, 2017, 01:13:15 PM
So this is crazy: Washington Post busted a woman trying to feed them a false story of having a sexual relationship with Roy Moore, getting pregnant and having an abortion when she was 15 and he was 45. The woman turned out to work for James O'Keefe's group. They caught her because she had a GoFundMe page about the job  ;D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?)


To recap, a conservative activist group (legally a tax-free charity) paid a woman to falsely claim to have been raped and impregnated by a candidate for Senate, in order to discredit women who are actually accusing him of molestation. Classy.

In one act the conservative activist group of known scumbags (no need to give them free press) attempted to 1) Discredit the integrity of one of America's most respected journalistic outlets, 2) Discredit women who have put their privacy, their past, and their reputations on teh line to protest truly wrong actions by a person who is running for public office.

Disgusting.

Fun side note: the Post's original Moore article was published November 9.

Phony accuser contacted them November 10.

On the 11th, Moore said, “There are investigations going on. In the next few days, there will be revelations about the motivations and the content of this article.”  He knew. So dirty and sleazy.

The guy is beyond a caricature. I don't even know how to describe him. He was horrible before this whole chain of scandals started. Is despicable worse than horrible? If so, then he's despicable.

Fortunately, all of the information is coming out before the election and everyone knows how slimy he is. Furthermore, his opponent is not only highly qualified and prosecuted Klansmen. Given everything that we know, it's highly likely that Moore's margin of victory will only be single digits.

Mike
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on November 28, 2017, 01:30:41 PM
So this is crazy: Washington Post busted a woman trying to feed them a false story of having a sexual relationship with Roy Moore, getting pregnant and having an abortion when she was 15 and he was 45. The woman turned out to work for James O'Keefe's group. They caught her because she had a GoFundMe page about the job  ;D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?)


To recap, a conservative activist group (legally a tax-free charity) paid a woman to falsely claim to have been raped and impregnated by a candidate for Senate, in order to discredit women who are actually accusing him of molestation. Classy.
Putin would be so proud.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Moranis on November 28, 2017, 01:51:28 PM
Can we go back to the day of Trump's inauguration (myself included), when many people had high hopes for Trump - that he would turn the corner and become an inspiring leader?

It's just so depressing, scary, and worrisome now. Especially for people living in authoritarian regimes in other countries: any semblance of the development of a free press, any nourishment of the institutions of a stable democracy have already been set back decades..

I'm finding it hard just to watch some harmless golf on TV...
did people really have high hopes for Trump turning the corner and becoming an inspiring leader?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on November 28, 2017, 02:02:42 PM
Can we go back to the day of Trump's inauguration (myself included), when many people had high hopes for Trump - that he would turn the corner and become an inspiring leader?

It's just so depressing, scary, and worrisome now. Especially for people living in authoritarian regimes in other countries: any semblance of the development of a free press, any nourishment of the institutions of a stable democracy have already been set back decades..

I'm finding it hard just to watch some harmless golf on TV...
did people really have high hopes for Trump turning the corner and becoming an inspiring leader?
People who had high hopes were most likely Democrats. Everyone else just cared about putting the right guy on SCOTUS, and not affecting their own bottom line.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: saltlover on November 28, 2017, 02:40:53 PM
So this is crazy: Washington Post busted a woman trying to feed them a false story of having a sexual relationship with Roy Moore, getting pregnant and having an abortion when she was 15 and he was 45. The woman turned out to work for James O'Keefe's group. They caught her because she had a GoFundMe page about the job  ;D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?)


To recap, a conservative activist group (legally a tax-free charity) paid a woman to falsely claim to have been raped and impregnated by a candidate for Senate, in order to discredit women who are actually accusing him of molestation. Classy.

Hmm... I suspect that technically this action falls under some criminal fraud statute.  If the FBI were to investigate and pursue charges and Project Veritas is found guilty of funding an illegal activity, shouldn't that get their 503C revoked?   I would suspect the IRS has at least swung their Sauron-like gaze in their direction over this.

The the new tax reform law will probably just make whatever Project verists is doing 'legal' anyway ...

TEGE (the division that oversees tax-exempt organizations) has been gutted thanks to Lois Lerner (and really even before that). Most of their lawyers left, they haven’t had any new hires in five years, and those that couldn’t find a job elsewhere had most of their work taken away from them.  When it comes to tax-exempt entities, the ring has been thrown into Mt. Doom.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: mmmmm on November 28, 2017, 05:06:35 PM
So this is crazy: Washington Post busted a woman trying to feed them a false story of having a sexual relationship with Roy Moore, getting pregnant and having an abortion when she was 15 and he was 45. The woman turned out to work for James O'Keefe's group. They caught her because she had a GoFundMe page about the job  ;D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?)


To recap, a conservative activist group (legally a tax-free charity) paid a woman to falsely claim to have been raped and impregnated by a candidate for Senate, in order to discredit women who are actually accusing him of molestation. Classy.

Hmm... I suspect that technically this action falls under some criminal fraud statute.  If the FBI were to investigate and pursue charges and Project Veritas is found guilty of funding an illegal activity, shouldn't that get their 503C revoked?   I would suspect the IRS has at least swung their Sauron-like gaze in their direction over this.

The the new tax reform law will probably just make whatever Project verists is doing 'legal' anyway ...

TEGE (the division that oversees tax-exempt organizations) has been gutted thanks to Lois Lerner (and really even before that). Most of their lawyers left, they haven’t had any new hires in five years, and those that couldn’t find a job elsewhere had most of their work taken away from them.  When it comes to tax-exempt entities, the ring has been thrown into Mt. Doom.

Fair point.

A sad, discouraging point.  But fair.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 28, 2017, 05:52:09 PM
Quote
To recap, a conservative activist group (legally a tax-free charity) paid a woman to falsely claim to have been raped and impregnated by a candidate for Senate, in order to discredit women who are actually accusing him of molestation. Classy.

At least a lot of the GOP turned on Moore, yet this has not happened yet to Franken or Conyers,   I think that was a bad choice all three of these guys should not be allowed into Government or removed from it if they are serving.

The sting issue is deplorable but so is Nancy Pelosi defending Conyers and Bill Clinton.   Clear double standard.   Give them due process, of course, but why did he use tax players dollars to pay off the accuser.   Is that the action of an innocent.

I think both parties have failed us.   Independent here, I don't care for the GOP or Dems.   I knew though, that Trump could win when many said he could not.   I called the election by  9:00 pm election night.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Ilikesports17 on November 28, 2017, 06:12:39 PM
Can we go back to the day of Trump's inauguration (myself included), when many people had high hopes for Trump - that he would turn the corner and become an inspiring leader?

It's just so depressing, scary, and worrisome now. Especially for people living in authoritarian regimes in other countries: any semblance of the development of a free press, any nourishment of the institutions of a stable democracy have already been set back decades..

I'm finding it hard just to watch some harmless golf on TV...
did people really have high hopes for Trump turning the corner and becoming an inspiring leader?
People who had high hopes were most likely Democrats. Everyone else just cared about putting the right guy on SCOTUS, and not affecting their own bottom line.
Yup.

As someone who voted for him, I completely expected him to continue to be a total ass.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on November 28, 2017, 06:55:35 PM
Quote
To recap, a conservative activist group (legally a tax-free charity) paid a woman to falsely claim to have been raped and impregnated by a candidate for Senate, in order to discredit women who are actually accusing him of molestation. Classy.

At least a lot of the GOP turned on Moore, yet this has not happened yet to Franken or Conyers,   I think that was a bad choice all three of these guys should not be allowed into Government or removed from it if they are serving.

The sting issue is deplorable but so is Nancy Pelosi defending Conyers and Bill Clinton.   Clear double standard.   Give them due process, of course, but why did he use tax players dollars to pay off the accuser.   Is that the action of an innocent.

I think both parties have failed us.   Independent here, I don't care for the GOP or Dems.   I knew though, that Trump could win when many said he could not.   I called the election by  9:00 pm election night.

Democrats have indeed turned on Franken.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/16/unacceptable-democrats-turn-on-franken-over-groping-allegations.html

Calling for an ethics investigation isn't enough (some Dems have done so).  Some have gone further to condemn Franken's behavior.

As a person who typically votes on the Dem side but whose politics are mostly moderate, I think Conyers and Franken should resign.  I think the R (can't recall his name) who was accused of sending naked pictures should not resign (at least from what I know of the issue) as I think this was not about harassment but involved consenting adults in a non-power based relationship.   I think Bill Clinton should have resigned.  And I think Roy Moore should drop out.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: mmmmm on November 28, 2017, 06:55:38 PM
Quote
To recap, a conservative activist group (legally a tax-free charity) paid a woman to falsely claim to have been raped and impregnated by a candidate for Senate, in order to discredit women who are actually accusing him of molestation. Classy.

At least a lot of the GOP turned on Moore, yet this has not happened yet to Franken or Conyers,   I think that was a bad choice all three of these guys should not be allowed into Government or removed from it if they are serving.

The sting issue is deplorable but so is Nancy Pelosi defending Conyers and Bill Clinton.   Clear double standard.   Give them due process, of course, but why did he use tax players dollars to pay off the accuser.   Is that the action of an innocent.

I think both parties have failed us.   Independent here, I don't care for the GOP or Dems.   I knew though, that Trump could win when many said he could not.   I called the election by  9:00 pm election night.

This is just more whutaboutism, though.

Further, there is a clear distinction between after-the-vote discovery that, hey, Fanken behaved like a disgusting perverse jerk and the before-the-vote discovery that Roy Moore is a child sex predator who very likely committed a serious crime.

Beware of false equivalencies.

I will grant that some of what Clinton is being accused of starts to rise to similar levels as Moore and I find that disgusting and troubling, but the information there is simply less well formed as the Moore allegations so I think folks are simply being more cautious.   Plus the fact that Clinton simply isn't a candidate for any office makes it less immediately important to resolve.

No one on this thread is defending Franken or Conyers or Clinton.  Even Pelosi backed away and threw Conyers under the bus in follow-up.   But none of those people are up for election. 

Roy Moore is up for election to the Senate at an extremely critical time, when one Senate vote swings tremendous power and could impact the lives of everyone in this country for decades.   So the decision to put such a man in that office needs to be vetted now and with particular scrutiny.

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 28, 2017, 07:06:57 PM
I have said this before and will say it again, it is unconscionable that anyone would believe Mr. Moore's accusers and still vote for him as the Alabama Governor has said she will do.  As disgusting as it is though, with just a 52-48 edge in the senate voting for someone who you believe to be a sexual predator simply to protect your party is to be expected from many.  It is a very sad commentary on our priorities.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 28, 2017, 07:08:50 PM
I have said this before and will say it again, it is unconscionable that anyone would believe Mr. Moore's accusers and still vote for him as the Alabama Governor has said she will do.  As disgusting as it is though, with just a 52-48 edge in the senate voting for someone who you believe to be a sexual predator simply to protect your party is to be expected from many.  It is a very sad commentary on our priorities.

This is accurate.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: More Banners on November 28, 2017, 07:09:55 PM
I have said this before and will say it again, it is unconscionable that anyone would believe Mr. Moore's accusers and still vote for him as the Alabama Governor has said she will do.  As disgusting as it is though, with just a 52-48 edge in the senate voting for someone who you believe to be a sexual predator simply to protect your party is to be expected from many.  It is a very sad commentary on our priorities.

This is accurate.

Can't argue.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 28, 2017, 07:42:10 PM
I have said this before and will say it again, it is unconscionable that anyone would believe Mr. Moore's accusers and still vote for him as the Alabama Governor has said she will do.  As disgusting as it is though, with just a 52-48 edge in the senate voting for someone who you believe to be a sexual predator simply to protect your party is to be expected from many.  It is a very sad commentary on our priorities.

I can’t blame anyone who votes that way. It’s extremely sad, but neither side has integrity in terms of demanding better from their elected officials. Heck, we have a sitting Senator being tried for bribery charges, and nobody seems to care much.  I bet he gets re-elected if he runs.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 28, 2017, 07:49:31 PM
I have said this before and will say it again, it is unconscionable that anyone would believe Mr. Moore's accusers and still vote for him as the Alabama Governor has said she will do.  As disgusting as it is though, with just a 52-48 edge in the senate voting for someone who you believe to be a sexual predator simply to protect your party is to be expected from many.  It is a very sad commentary on our priorities.

I can’t blame anyone who votes that way. It’s extremely sad, but neither side has integrity in terms of demanding better from their elected officials. Heck, we have a sitting Senator being tried for bribery charges, and nobody seems to care much.  I bet he gets re-elected if he runs.
I blame everyone who votes that way.  You are right that "neither side has integrity in terms of demanding better from their elected officials" but if we never start demanding better we will never have better.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on November 28, 2017, 08:37:12 PM
(https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/roy-moore-poll--768x477.jpg)

Moore apparently has regained a 5-point lead.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on November 28, 2017, 08:53:22 PM
(https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/roy-moore-poll--768x477.jpg)

Moore apparently has regained a 5-point lead.
Proof that once again that what happens in Alabama.....stays messed up.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on November 29, 2017, 10:04:57 AM
Open Letter from one of Moore's accusers, Leigh Corfman, who has stated Roy Moore sexually assaulted her when he was 32 and she was 14:

Quote
Mr. Moore,

When the Washington Post approached me about what you did to me as a child, I told them what happened, just as I had told family and friends years before. I stand by every word.

You responded by denying the truth. You told the world that you didn't even know me. Others in recent days have had the decency to acknowledge their hurtful actions and apologize for similar behavior, but not you.

So I gave an interview on television so that people could judge for themselves whether I was telling the truth.

You sent out your spokesmen to call me a liar. Day after day.

Finally, last night, you did the dirty work yourself. You called me malicious, and you questioned my motivation in going public.

I explained my motivation on the Today show. I said that this is not political for me, this is personal. As a 14-year old, I did not deserve to have you, a 32-year old, prey on me. I sat quietly for too long, out of concern for my family. No more.

I am not getting paid for speaking up. I am not getting rewarded from your political opponents. What I am getting is stronger by refusing to blame myself and speaking the truth out loud.

The initial barrage of attacks against me voiced by your campaign spokespersons and others seemed petty so I did not respond.

But when you personally denounced me last night and called me slanderous names, I decided that I am done being silent. What you did to me when I was 14-years old should be revolting to every person of good morals. But now you are attacking my honesty and integrity. Where does your immorality end?

I demand that you stop calling me a liar and attacking my character. Your smears and false denials, and those of others who repeat and embellish them, are defamatory and damaging to me and my family.

I am telling the truth, and you should have the decency to admit it and apologize.

Leigh Corfman

And for context, here's a Breitbart editor saying somehow Ringo Starr singing a song makes it okay for a 30 year old to date a 16 year old  (http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/27/politics/cnns-anchor-clashes-with-breitbart-editor-over-defense-of-roy-moore-cnntv/index.html)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 04, 2017, 02:29:21 PM
Trump endorses Roy Moore.  We are truly into bizarro future world.  The sitting president of the US just endorsed a candidate accused of child molesting.  Mitch McConnell is now in full backtrack mode saying 'let the people of alabama decide'.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/trump-moore-endorsement-twitter/index.html

Trump "go get 'em Roy"

birds of a feather.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 04, 2017, 03:18:31 PM
Trump endorses Roy Moore.  We are truly into bizarro future world.  The sitting president of the US just endorsed a candidate accused of child molester.  Mitch McConnell is now in full backtrack mode saying 'let the people of alabama decide'.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/trump-moore-endorsement-twitter/index.html

Trump "go get 'em Roy"

birds of a feather.

It's the Presidential election all over again - Republicans and R-leaning independents have had a full month to rationalize why voting for a sex offender with loads of non-sexual baggage on top is actually fine and maybe even a good thing, and boy have they ever. And the R leadership is following suit.

The biggest difference is that unlike Hillary there've been relatively few rationalizations of why Doug Jones was worse. It's pure tribal will to power stuff.

We've elected plenty of sexual predators and worse over the centuries, of course. But generally voters haven't had this kind of information prior to installing them. What's scary is that now national-level politicians and strategists are realizing their voter base is so radicalized that this sort of stuff coming out publicly mid-campaign is no longer disqualifying, and may even be an asset if they can spin it as an attack by political enemies, or even just something that upsets them. There's no bottom to this once the ball gets rolling; we could easily wind up with Duterte-types who brag about literally murdering people holding high office.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 04, 2017, 03:49:33 PM
What I wonder is if Republican members of Congress can support Moore despite the sexual allegations, will they then turn around and do everything they can to get Conyers and Franken ousted. My guess is they will and that their base in Alabama who votes for Moore would be right behind them to get rid of Conyers and Franken.

Frankly none of them, nor the President, should be representing Amrricans after what they have done. But this country has its head so far up its ass that red and blue is more important than red, white and blue.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 04, 2017, 03:56:58 PM
I don't usually read opinion pieces, especially those written by career opinion columnists, but this is a good one about Moore, written by a professor of religion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/roy-moore-is-a-fraud/2017/11/17/45c0edfe-caf9-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.f3c898a93614 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/roy-moore-is-a-fraud/2017/11/17/45c0edfe-caf9-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.f3c898a93614)

Also, with the sexual misconduct allegations dominating the headlines, it's easy to forget about his undisclosed financial benefits from his "charity" to the tune of $180,000.

This dude is just bad news all around.  I don't expect Doug Jones to win given how deep red Alabama is.  But I can't help but be disgusted that this race is even close despite what we know about Moore.  Doug Jones is well-qualified.  Moore is not.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 04, 2017, 04:10:58 PM
Open Letter from one of Moore's accusers, Leigh Corfman, who has stated Roy Moore sexually assaulted her when he was 32 and she was 14:

Quote
Mr. Moore,

When the Washington Post approached me about what you did to me as a child, I told them what happened, just as I had told family and friends years before. I stand by every word.

You responded by denying the truth. You told the world that you didn't even know me. Others in recent days have had the decency to acknowledge their hurtful actions and apologize for similar behavior, but not you.

So I gave an interview on television so that people could judge for themselves whether I was telling the truth.

You sent out your spokesmen to call me a liar. Day after day.

Finally, last night, you did the dirty work yourself. You called me malicious, and you questioned my motivation in going public.

I explained my motivation on the Today show. I said that this is not political for me, this is personal. As a 14-year old, I did not deserve to have you, a 32-year old, prey on me. I sat quietly for too long, out of concern for my family. No more.

I am not getting paid for speaking up. I am not getting rewarded from your political opponents. What I am getting is stronger by refusing to blame myself and speaking the truth out loud.

The initial barrage of attacks against me voiced by your campaign spokespersons and others seemed petty so I did not respond.

But when you personally denounced me last night and called me slanderous names, I decided that I am done being silent. What you did to me when I was 14-years old should be revolting to every person of good morals. But now you are attacking my honesty and integrity. Where does your immorality end?

I demand that you stop calling me a liar and attacking my character. Your smears and false denials, and those of others who repeat and embellish them, are defamatory and damaging to me and my family.

I am telling the truth, and you should have the decency to admit it and apologize.

Leigh Corfman

And for context, here's a Breitbart editor saying somehow Ringo Starr singing a song makes it okay for a 30 year old to date a 16 year old  (http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/27/politics/cnns-anchor-clashes-with-breitbart-editor-over-defense-of-roy-moore-cnntv/index.html)

One of the most astounding things about Leigh Corfman is that she said that she voted for Trump.  IIRC about 20 women came forward accusing Trump of sexual misconduct before election day.  So she votes for Trump despite (allegedly) being victim of sexual abuse herself, but only when Moore is on the verge of winning a Senate seat she comes forward with her story?

Does not compute.  I don't care how red your politics are, that's just absurd.  If she was OK with voting for Trump, she can't be upset if Alabama women end up supporting Moore.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 04, 2017, 04:11:06 PM
Also, with the sexual misconduct allegations dominating the headlines, it's easy to forget about his undisclosed financial benefits from his "charity" to the tune of $180,000.

It's actually $180k a year over 6 years. So over a million. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/05/senate-leadership-fund/did-roy-moore-take-1-million-charity-he-ran/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/05/senate-leadership-fund/did-roy-moore-take-1-million-charity-he-ran/)

That's the thing, much like Trump he's crooked as hell even ignoring the sex stuff.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 04, 2017, 04:14:33 PM
Also, with the sexual misconduct allegations dominating the headlines, it's easy to forget about his undisclosed financial benefits from his "charity" to the tune of $180,000.

It's actually $180k a year over 6 years. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/05/senate-leadership-fund/did-roy-moore-take-1-million-charity-he-ran/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/05/senate-leadership-fund/did-roy-moore-take-1-million-charity-he-ran/)

That's the thing, much like Trump he's crooked as hell even ignoring the sex stuff.

I stand corrected.  While it's really the concept behind the misconduct that is supposed to matter, the sheer monetary gain is hard to ignore.  Crooked as hell is right.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Moranis on December 04, 2017, 04:30:01 PM
What I wonder is if Republican members of Congress can support Moore despite the sexual allegations, will they then turn around and do everything they can to get Conyers and Franken ousted. My guess is they will and that their base in Alabama who votes for Moore would be right behind them to get rid of Conyers and Franken.

Frankly none of them, nor the President, should be representing Amrricans after what they have done. But this country has its head so far up its ass that red and blue is more important than red, white and blue.
I think McConnell's current stance is the one that Congress should take with all of these issues.  If the citizens of the state elect someone knowing fully the issue, then why should Congress do anything.  The People have spoken.  that is what democracy is. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 04, 2017, 04:37:26 PM
What I wonder is if Republican members of Congress can support Moore despite the sexual allegations, will they then turn around and do everything they can to get Conyers and Franken ousted. My guess is they will and that their base in Alabama who votes for Moore would be right behind them to get rid of Conyers and Franken.

Frankly none of them, nor the President, should be representing Amrricans after what they have done. But this country has its head so far up its ass that red and blue is more important than red, white and blue.
I think McConnell's current stance is the one that Congress should take with all of these issues.  If the citizens of the state elect someone knowing fully the issue, then why should Congress do anything.  The People have spoken.  that is what democracy is.
My problem with McConnell is that by stating it is up to the people of Alabama he is implicitly giving Moore his endorsement. Yes, the people of Alabama will decide and McConnell knows that. He didn't have to come forward and say it.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 04, 2017, 04:42:38 PM
Trump endorses Roy Moore.  We are truly into bizarro future world. 

Also, today is the 1-year anniversary of a DC pizza parlor getting shot up based on insane conspiracy theories, heavily promoted by prominent online Trump supporters, that Clinton-related emails were using pizza as a code for child molestation. Zero accusations, zero actual evidence, primary basis a joke "code sheet" from 4Chan. Today many of the same people are claiming a conspiracy against Roy Moore. Hellworld.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Vermont Green on December 04, 2017, 04:43:04 PM
I don't usually read opinion pieces, especially those written by career opinion columnists, but this is a good one about Moore, written by a professor of religion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/roy-moore-is-a-fraud/2017/11/17/45c0edfe-caf9-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.f3c898a93614 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/roy-moore-is-a-fraud/2017/11/17/45c0edfe-caf9-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.f3c898a93614)

Also, with the sexual misconduct allegations dominating the headlines, it's easy to forget about his undisclosed financial benefits from his "charity" to the tune of $180,000.

This dude is just bad news all around.  I don't expect Doug Jones to win given how deep red Alabama is.  But I can't help but be disgusted that this race is even close despite what we know about Moore.  Doug Jones is well-qualified.  Moore is not.


This is my favorite.  I was not previously aware of his position on this but it certainly fits his political agenda.

Quote
One of his arguments was that the founders were aware of no religion other than Christianity, and therefore, the First Amendment gave only Christians the right to free exercise.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 04, 2017, 04:51:33 PM
This is my favorite.  I was not previously aware of his position on this but it certainly fits his political agenda.

Quote
One of his arguments was that the founders were aware of no religion other than Christianity, and therefore, the First Amendment gave only Christians the right to free exercise.

Haha holy cow, add "painfully dumb" to the list. "Thomas Jefferson had no idea Judaism was a thing, case closed!"
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 04, 2017, 04:59:28 PM
What I wonder is if Republican members of Congress can support Moore despite the sexual allegations, will they then turn around and do everything they can to get Conyers and Franken ousted. My guess is they will and that their base in Alabama who votes for Moore would be right behind them to get rid of Conyers and Franken.

Frankly none of them, nor the President, should be representing Amrricans after what they have done. But this country has its head so far up its ass that red and blue is more important than red, white and blue.
I think McConnell's current stance is the one that Congress should take with all of these issues.  If the citizens of the state elect someone knowing fully the issue, then why should Congress do anything.  The People have spoken.  that is what democracy is.

No one said anything about people from Alabama not having their say.  They get to elect whomever they want to.  If they elect Moore, it is up to them.  As misguided as that seems.

My problem is with the president and the republican leader of the senate actively assisting an accused child molester to get elected.  McConnell has completely caved to Trump and Moore.  He went from saying that he believed the women and that Moore should step aside, to now completely abandoning that. 

Our congress is so flipping corrupt now that they are afraid to make a stand for even the most basic issues because of partisanship. 

Trump is afraid that with another Dem in office and the forthcoming 2018 election that he may have serious impeachment trouble to deal with.  I guess McConnell is so spineless that he is more worried about Trump / Moore / ultra right wingers hurting his re-election in 2020, 3 years away.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 04, 2017, 05:06:48 PM
Quote
Trump is afraid that with another Dem in office and the forthcoming 2018 election that he may have serious impeachment trouble to deal with.  I guess McConnell is so spineless that he is more worried about Trump / Moore / ultra right wingers hurting his re-election in 2020, 3 years away.

It’s about legislation / Supreme Court Justices more than impeachment. Impeachment takes a 2/3 super-majority if the Senate I think.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 04, 2017, 05:23:32 PM
Romney the voice of reason.

https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186 (https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 04, 2017, 05:29:18 PM
Romney the voice of reason.

https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186 (https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186)

Future Senator from Utah, hopefully.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 04, 2017, 05:39:12 PM
Romney the voice of reason.

https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186 (https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186)

Future Senator from Utah, hopefully.

Politics is a crazy thing with Trump actively trying to block Romney and keep Orin
"Trump doesn't have a racist bone in his body" Hatch.

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on December 04, 2017, 06:28:24 PM
Romney the voice of reason.

https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186 (https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186)

Future Senator from Utah, hopefully.

One of my biggest errors in judgement was not supporting Mitt Romney for president.   I think Obama was, all things considered, an OK POTUS, but in retrospect Romney was by far the more ready and competent candidate.  If Romney had been elected in 2008, we would definitely not be in the same circumstances we are in today with an embarrassment as POTUS.   

Romney in the US Senate from Utah sounds good.   He'll support some things I don't want, but I think (hope) he'll take the statesman mantle from John McCain and be a voice of reason -- perhaps a unifier.  Not sure, but I would hope.   

As is true with many US Senators, I think Orin Hatch should have hung it up about 15 years ago.     
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 04, 2017, 06:39:07 PM
Hehe, Libs and rino republicans love Romney now, even though he was trying to get a job from Trump after his election...

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-583e5b41/turbine/chi-romney-trump-wre0044934497-20161129/2048/2048x1152)

Pretty pathetic

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 04, 2017, 06:39:29 PM
Romney the voice of reason.

https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186 (https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186)

Future Senator from Utah, hopefully.
after the 180 he did coming out against Obamacare when it's a copy of Romneycare -- lost my vote and any credibility he had.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 04, 2017, 06:59:23 PM
Romney the voice of reason.

https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186 (https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186)

Future Senator from Utah, hopefully.

One of my biggest errors in judgement was not supporting Mitt Romney for president.   I think Obama was, all things considered, an OK POTUS, but in retrospect Romney was by far the more ready and competent candidate.  If Romney had been elected in 2008, we would definitely not be in the same circumstances we are in today with an embarrassment as POTUS.   

Romney in the US Senate from Utah sounds good.   He'll support some things I don't want, but I think (hope) he'll take the statesman mantle from John McCain and be a voice of reason -- perhaps a unifier.  Not sure, but I would hope.   

As is true with many US Senators, I think Orin Hatch should have hung it up about 15 years ago.   

Yeah, I think Mitt cares about the direction of the country and is an honorable guy, at least compared to most pols. He’d have the credibility to lead.

I’d like to think that the days of bipartisan deal-making aren’t dead.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: GratefulCs on December 04, 2017, 07:12:35 PM
Hehe, Libs and rino republicans love Romney now, even though he was trying to get a job from Trump after his election...

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-583e5b41/turbine/chi-romney-trump-wre0044934497-20161129/2048/2048x1152)

Pretty pathetic
ya


THAT'S the pathetic thing here
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 04, 2017, 07:19:14 PM
Hehe, Libs and rino republicans love Romney now, even though he was trying to get a job from Trump after his election...

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-583e5b41/turbine/chi-romney-trump-wre0044934497-20161129/2048/2048x1152)

Pretty pathetic
ya


THAT'S the pathetic thing here

Oh also 40 year old allegations brought up 30 days before the election.

Kinda like the ones brought against Trump 30 days before a presidential election. Then dropped immediately after.

Where's Gloria with her yearbook signature? You can test how old the ink in the signature is, but she wont have it tested, I wonder why?

Hmmm, weird....
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: GratefulCs on December 04, 2017, 07:34:08 PM
Hehe, Libs and rino republicans love Romney now, even though he was trying to get a job from Trump after his election...

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-583e5b41/turbine/chi-romney-trump-wre0044934497-20161129/2048/2048x1152)

Pretty pathetic
ya


THAT'S the pathetic thing here

Oh also 40 year old allegations brought up 30 days before the election.

Kinda like the ones brought against Trump 30 days before a presidential election. Then dropped immediately after.

Where's Gloria with her yearbook signature? You can test how old the ink in the signature is, but she wont have it tested, I wonder why?

Hmmm, weird....
i guess the weinstein accusations aren't legit since they didn't happen yesterday  ;)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 04, 2017, 07:35:43 PM
Hehe, Libs and rino republicans love Romney now, even though he was trying to get a job from Trump after his election...

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-583e5b41/turbine/chi-romney-trump-wre0044934497-20161129/2048/2048x1152)

Pretty pathetic
ya


THAT'S the pathetic thing here

Oh also 40 year old allegations brought up 30 days before the election.

Kinda like the ones brought against Trump 30 days before a presidential election. Then dropped immediately after.

Where's Gloria with her yearbook signature? You can test how old the ink in the signature is, but she wont have it tested, I wonder why?

Hmmm, weird....
i guess the weinstein accusations aren't legit since they didn't happen yesterday  ;)

There's actual audio proof in that case, and a settlement with Rose McGowan
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: GratefulCs on December 04, 2017, 07:55:37 PM
Hehe, Libs and rino republicans love Romney now, even though he was trying to get a job from Trump after his election...

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-583e5b41/turbine/chi-romney-trump-wre0044934497-20161129/2048/2048x1152)

Pretty pathetic
ya


THAT'S the pathetic thing here

Oh also 40 year old allegations brought up 30 days before the election.

Kinda like the ones brought against Trump 30 days before a presidential election. Then dropped immediately after.

Where's Gloria with her yearbook signature? You can test how old the ink in the signature is, but she wont have it tested, I wonder why?

Hmmm, weird....
i guess the weinstein accusations aren't legit since they didn't happen yesterday  ;)

There's actual audio proof in that case, and a settlement with Rose McGowan
so just to clarify: you think roy moore is innocent?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 04, 2017, 08:01:52 PM
Hehe, Libs and rino republicans love Romney now, even though he was trying to get a job from Trump after his election...

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-583e5b41/turbine/chi-romney-trump-wre0044934497-20161129/2048/2048x1152)

Pretty pathetic
ya


THAT'S the pathetic thing here

Oh also 40 year old allegations brought up 30 days before the election.

Kinda like the ones brought against Trump 30 days before a presidential election. Then dropped immediately after.

Where's Gloria with her yearbook signature? You can test how old the ink in the signature is, but she wont have it tested, I wonder why?

Hmmm, weird....
i guess the weinstein accusations aren't legit since they didn't happen yesterday  ;)

There's actual audio proof in that case, and a settlement with Rose McGowan
so just to clarify: you think roy moore is innocent?

I'm not playing your reindeer games

There is no proof against the man. Bring me tangible evidence that these year book signings are real.

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: GratefulCs on December 04, 2017, 08:07:29 PM
Hehe, Libs and rino republicans love Romney now, even though he was trying to get a job from Trump after his election...

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-583e5b41/turbine/chi-romney-trump-wre0044934497-20161129/2048/2048x1152)

Pretty pathetic
ya


THAT'S the pathetic thing here

Oh also 40 year old allegations brought up 30 days before the election.

Kinda like the ones brought against Trump 30 days before a presidential election. Then dropped immediately after.

Where's Gloria with her yearbook signature? You can test how old the ink in the signature is, but she wont have it tested, I wonder why?

Hmmm, weird....
i guess the weinstein accusations aren't legit since they didn't happen yesterday  ;)

There's actual audio proof in that case, and a settlement with Rose McGowan
so just to clarify: you think roy moore is innocent?

I'm not playing your reindeer games

There is no proof against the man. Bring me tangible evidence that these year book signings are real.
tis the season ;)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: GratefulCs on December 04, 2017, 08:16:45 PM
Hehe, Libs and rino republicans love Romney now, even though he was trying to get a job from Trump after his election...

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-583e5b41/turbine/chi-romney-trump-wre0044934497-20161129/2048/2048x1152)

Pretty pathetic
ya


THAT'S the pathetic thing here

Oh also 40 year old allegations brought up 30 days before the election.

Kinda like the ones brought against Trump 30 days before a presidential election. Then dropped immediately after.

Where's Gloria with her yearbook signature? You can test how old the ink in the signature is, but she wont have it tested, I wonder why?

Hmmm, weird....
i guess the weinstein accusations aren't legit since they didn't happen yesterday  ;)

There's actual audio proof in that case, and a settlement with Rose McGowan
so just to clarify: you think roy moore is innocent?

I'm not playing your reindeer games

There is no proof against the man. Bring me tangible evidence that these year book signings are real.
also, if that was forged, then they paid someone TOP DOLLAR for that forgery


it's spot on
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Cman on December 04, 2017, 08:22:34 PM
Romney the voice of reason.

https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186 (https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/937799838082781186)

Future Senator from Utah, hopefully.

One of my biggest errors in judgement was not supporting Mitt Romney for president.   I think Obama was, all things considered, an OK POTUS, but in retrospect Romney was by far the more ready and competent candidate.  If Romney had been elected in 2008, we would definitely not be in the same circumstances we are in today with an embarrassment as POTUS.   

Romney in the US Senate from Utah sounds good.   He'll support some things I don't want, but I think (hope) he'll take the statesman mantle from John McCain and be a voice of reason -- perhaps a unifier.  Not sure, but I would hope.   

As is true with many US Senators, I think Orin Hatch should have hung it up about 15 years ago.   

Yeah, I think Mitt cares about the direction of the country and is an honorable guy, at least compared to most pols. He’d have the credibility to lead.

I’d like to think that the days of bipartisan deal-making aren’t dead.

For the mods: Romney-Utah may need to branch into its own thread.

Note, there was bipartisan support AGAINST the GOP tax reform :)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on December 04, 2017, 08:53:02 PM
Hehe, Libs and rino republicans love Romney now, even though he was trying to get a job from Trump after his election...

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-583e5b41/turbine/chi-romney-trump-wre0044934497-20161129/2048/2048x1152)

Pretty pathetic

Not crazy about your labeling and cynicism (I wouldn't describe me as a Lib or a RINO).  Pretty uncalled for and doesn't lead to productive dialogue.

I think it's commendable when people learn from mistakes and take some accountability.  I suspect that you value the same.   A little open-mindedness is good from all sides -- and might actually be necessary if the national dialogue is to improve.  You aren't smarter or better informed than anyone here -- nor is anyone smarter or better informed than you.   

On your other point:
I understand that you need proof before you make a judgment about the veracity of a claim.  I have no problem with that.  The accusers seem credible to me, but you are correct that the yearbook could be falsified.  I tend not to buy things like that -- like a falsified birth certificate -- but I'm relying on my own world view which is sometimes admittedly naïve.  I know sometimes things like this are forged -- just don't think so in this case.  Could be wrong.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 05, 2017, 09:04:28 AM
Oh also 40 year old allegations brought up 30 days before the election.

Kinda like the ones brought against Trump 30 days before a presidential election. Then dropped immediately after.

I know this is what they're feeding you guys but no one has recanted, there's at least one ongoing lawsuit, 2-3 more accusers have done interviews this week, another pageant contestant's come forward about Trump's self-admitted habit of walking in on underage girls changing. Of course, that just proves they're only doing it for attention/money, right?

I guess the weinstein accusations aren't legit since they didn't happen yesterday  ;)

There's actual audio proof in that case

I have some bad news for you about the President on this one. 

GratefulCs makes a good point though - literally every wave of accusations against prominent men includes things that happened decades ago. It's one of the most common threads, along with powerful men being the perpetrators and partisans smearing accusers in the political cases.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 05, 2017, 09:08:48 AM
In Moore news, one of the women alleging an underaged relationship found a high school scrapbook with a handwritten note from Moore in it and other recollections of their relationship:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evidence-of-relationship-with-roy-moore-when-she-was-17/2017/12/04/0c3d1cde-d903-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evidence-of-relationship-with-roy-moore-when-she-was-17/2017/12/04/0c3d1cde-d903-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?)

Some notes:

- She's not alleging a crime as she was a ripe old 17 when they dated, after a 34-year-old Moore spoke to her high school civics class.
- The signature in her scrapbook matches the one in the criminal accuser's yearbook
- Moore has denied ever knowing her and called her a liar and part of an LGBT + Democrat conspiracy.
- The money quote: "when she saw it, she said, she thought to herself, “That’s the age I was when I dated Roy Moore, because my braces were off""  :-\
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 05, 2017, 09:32:49 AM
Quote
- Moore has denied ever knowing her and called her a liar and part of an LGBT + Democrat conspiracy.

Maybe he meant the Biblical “know”. :-/

But yeah, it’s bizarre. Weeks ago he said he knew her and her family, suggesting they had been friends.

The lying and smearing in this instance bothers me more than that he was in a legal, consensual relationship with this particular woman 40 years ago. That’s separate and apart from the allegations of illegal and/or nonconsensual conduct.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 05, 2017, 10:04:59 AM
Oh yeah, and the RNC will resume funding Moore's campaign, citing the President's now open support of a probable child molester.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/roy-moore-donald-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/roy-moore-donald-trump.html)

This is especially notable as they spent much of the last couple of months publicly pressuring Democrats to return donations received from Franken and Weinstein, with quite a bit of success. As usual the politically savvy position is also the morally bankrupt one.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: TomHeinsohn on December 05, 2017, 10:49:14 AM
Your Republican party, ladies
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 05, 2017, 11:04:49 AM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on December 05, 2017, 12:18:33 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Vermont Green on December 05, 2017, 12:35:01 PM
1. Moore is going to get elected.  Senators are now backtracking and saying the people of Alabama should decide. 

2.  This will continue until the election is over and some of these Senators face reelections of their own. 

3.  Then they will all backtrack again and kick Moore out and run as far from him as they can. 

4.  The Gov. of Alabama will appoint a nice republican and the GOP will keep their seat and claim of self righteousness (and Trump keeps his impeachment proof majority at least for one more year).   

5.  Moore will go back to promoting that the constitution only applies to heterosexual Christians.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: TomHeinsohn on December 05, 2017, 12:36:05 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)
This is perfectly acceptable in a world where a man can sexually assault 16 women and still become POTUS
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 05, 2017, 12:36:46 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 05, 2017, 12:39:19 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)
This is perfectly acceptable in a world where a man can sexually assault 16 women and still become POTUS

Except Trump was never charged with anything, or settled any of these cases. The exact opposite of Bubba and Weinstein....
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: TomHeinsohn on December 05, 2017, 12:51:20 PM
You know for a fact Trump never settled a sexual harassment case?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 05, 2017, 12:53:13 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)
This is perfectly acceptable in a world where a man can sexually assault 16 women and still become POTUS

Except Trump was never charged with anything, or settled any of these cases. The exact opposite of Bubba and Weinstein....

You wouldn't know if he'd settled due to NDAs; it took decades to find out about Weinstein's settlements.

More importantly, he bragged about his love of assaulting women while wearing a lapel mic. And his love of walking in on 15-17 year old girls changing at his beauty pageants in an interview. Both of which were confirmed by multiple victims.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on December 05, 2017, 12:57:04 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 05, 2017, 01:03:42 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.



Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Cman on December 05, 2017, 01:48:11 PM

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

In terms of timing, don't neglect the number of allegations that have come out in the past month against powerful men, including Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Louis CK, Conyers, and others. It's called #MeToo.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 05, 2017, 02:00:39 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.
Like what for instance?  what 'proof' would satisfy you?
- eyewitness?  --> like an ADA would prey on young girls where there'd be witnesses.
- photos?  --> well before the age of cellphones and the girls weren't carrying polaroid instamatics.
- fingerprints?  --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' fingerprints on his car, clothes or person?
- DNA? --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' DNA on his car, clothes or person?
- police reports? --> as several have stated, as the ADA, who are the cops likely to believe, him (a prime member of the good ol' boys club) or the girls

I doubt any of those things could be produced at this time.  However, there is a volume of complaints.  very similar MO used to harass women/girls.  the warning of him at the mall adds credibility to the accusers, not Moore.

so with no 'proof' offered up, is it your position that Moore's not the scumbag he's being portrayed to be? 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on December 05, 2017, 02:22:19 PM
Imagine you have a 14 year old daughter and she comes home from school and says "Hey there was a Senate Page contest at school and I won!  I got paired with Sen. Roy Moore!  All you have to do is sign this waiver he gave me." Would any Republicans honestly be okay with that?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 05, 2017, 02:43:09 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.
Like what for instance?  what 'proof' would satisfy you?
- eyewitness?  --> like an ADA would prey on young girls where there'd be witnesses.
- photos?  --> well before the age of cellphones and the girls weren't carrying polaroid instamatics.
- fingerprints?  --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' fingerprints on his car, clothes or person?
- DNA? --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' DNA on his car, clothes or person?
- police reports? --> as several have stated, as the ADA, who are the cops likely to believe, him (a prime member of the good ol' boys club) or the girls

I doubt any of those things could be produced at this time.  However, there is a volume of complaints.  very similar MO used to harass women/girls.  the warning of him at the mall adds credibility to the accusers, not Moore.

so with no 'proof' offered up, is it your position that Moore's not the scumbag he's being portrayed to be?

My position is dems and rino's are 2 sides of the same coin, and have almost completely sold this country out.

Duopoly

Trump is draining the swamp

McCabe and Mueller are next ;)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: heyvik on December 05, 2017, 02:53:32 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.
Like what for instance?  what 'proof' would satisfy you?
- eyewitness?  --> like an ADA would prey on young girls where there'd be witnesses.
- photos?  --> well before the age of cellphones and the girls weren't carrying polaroid instamatics.
- fingerprints?  --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' fingerprints on his car, clothes or person?
- DNA? --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' DNA on his car, clothes or person?
- police reports? --> as several have stated, as the ADA, who are the cops likely to believe, him (a prime member of the good ol' boys club) or the girls

I doubt any of those things could be produced at this time.  However, there is a volume of complaints.  very similar MO used to harass women/girls.  the warning of him at the mall adds credibility to the accusers, not Moore.

so with no 'proof' offered up, is it your position that Moore's not the scumbag he's being portrayed to be?

My position is dems and rino's are 2 sides of the same coin, and have almost completely sold this country out.

Duopoly

Trump is draining the swamp

McCabe and Mueller are next ;)

again....not answering direct questions and deflecting. SLAM you did a wonderful job of laying out options and none were answered just deflected.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on December 05, 2017, 03:04:39 PM

My position is dems and rino's are 2 sides of the same coin, and have almost completely sold this country out.

Duopoly

Trump is draining the swamp

McCabe and Mueller are next ;)

What is Trump doing that is draining the swamp?  He has appointed lobbyists to everything and is taking all of the money in MA and moving it to the rich.  All of these policies have been tried in slightly less extreme manners by Republicans before - it's not "new" - and it failed.  Jobs are declining, our place in the world is declining, the stock market is starting to fall and our President is under investigation from his own Justice Department and GOP controlled House and Senate probes.

This tax plan was tried in Kansas and it failed.  It was tried by W. Bush and it failed.  Cutting tax revenue leads to recessions every time it has been tried.  It just gives money to a handful of rich people who are running constant propaganda to get the conservative voter base to support it.  Next they're going to cut net neutrality and make the internet cost more for slower service to give money to handful of Republican donors.

The plans themselves are all incredibly unpopular but are reliant on dishonest propaganda.  I mean look at stuff like this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-pew/over-half-of-public-comments-to-fcc-on-net-neutrality-appear-fake-study-idUSKBN1DT297
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 05, 2017, 03:05:49 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.
Like what for instance?  what 'proof' would satisfy you?
- eyewitness?  --> like an ADA would prey on young girls where there'd be witnesses.
- photos?  --> well before the age of cellphones and the girls weren't carrying polaroid instamatics.
- fingerprints?  --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' fingerprints on his car, clothes or person?
- DNA? --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' DNA on his car, clothes or person?
- police reports? --> as several have stated, as the ADA, who are the cops likely to believe, him (a prime member of the good ol' boys club) or the girls

I doubt any of those things could be produced at this time.  However, there is a volume of complaints.  very similar MO used to harass women/girls.  the warning of him at the mall adds credibility to the accusers, not Moore.

so with no 'proof' offered up, is it your position that Moore's not the scumbag he's being portrayed to be?

My position is dems and rino's are 2 sides of the same coin, and have almost completely sold this country out.

Duopoly

Trump is draining the swamp

McCabe and Mueller are next ;)

again....not answering direct questions and deflecting. SLAM you did a wonderful job of laying out options and none were answered just deflected.

You are asking silly questions, if there is no actual evidence,  and everything is a hypothetical a month before an election, why would I automatically believe it?

Allred won't have the ink in a yearbook tested for age, by the way Moore was the judge in that womans divorce case. Sorry not buying into the hype.




Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 05, 2017, 03:10:07 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.
Like what for instance?  what 'proof' would satisfy you?
- eyewitness?  --> like an ADA would prey on young girls where there'd be witnesses.
- photos?  --> well before the age of cellphones and the girls weren't carrying polaroid instamatics.
- fingerprints?  --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' fingerprints on his car, clothes or person?
- DNA? --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' DNA on his car, clothes or person?
- police reports? --> as several have stated, as the ADA, who are the cops likely to believe, him (a prime member of the good ol' boys club) or the girls

I doubt any of those things could be produced at this time.  However, there is a volume of complaints.  very similar MO used to harass women/girls.  the warning of him at the mall adds credibility to the accusers, not Moore.

so with no 'proof' offered up, is it your position that Moore's not the scumbag he's being portrayed to be?

My position is dems and rino's are 2 sides of the same coin, and have almost completely sold this country out.

Duopoly

Trump is draining the swamp

McCabe and Mueller are next ;)

again....not answering direct questions and deflecting. SLAM you did a wonderful job of laying out options and none were answered just deflected.

You are asking silly questions, if there is no actual evidence,  and everything is a hypothetical a month before an election, why would I automatically believe it?

Allred won't have the ink in a yearbook tested for age, by the way Moore was the judge in that womans divorce case. Sorry not buying into the hype.
in typical Trump fashion, you didn't answer my question but deflected it to an unrelated speaking point.

again I ask --> what would constitute "proof" for you?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 05, 2017, 03:15:26 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.
Like what for instance?  what 'proof' would satisfy you?
- eyewitness?  --> like an ADA would prey on young girls where there'd be witnesses.
- photos?  --> well before the age of cellphones and the girls weren't carrying polaroid instamatics.
- fingerprints?  --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' fingerprints on his car, clothes or person?
- DNA? --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' DNA on his car, clothes or person?
- police reports? --> as several have stated, as the ADA, who are the cops likely to believe, him (a prime member of the good ol' boys club) or the girls

I doubt any of those things could be produced at this time.  However, there is a volume of complaints.  very similar MO used to harass women/girls.  the warning of him at the mall adds credibility to the accusers, not Moore.

so with no 'proof' offered up, is it your position that Moore's not the scumbag he's being portrayed to be?

My position is dems and rino's are 2 sides of the same coin, and have almost completely sold this country out.

Duopoly

Trump is draining the swamp

McCabe and Mueller are next ;)

again....not answering direct questions and deflecting. SLAM you did a wonderful job of laying out options and none were answered just deflected.

You are asking silly questions, if there is no actual evidence,  and everything is a hypothetical a month before an election, why would I automatically believe it?

Allred won't have the ink in a yearbook tested for age, by the way Moore was the judge in that womans divorce case. Sorry not buying into the hype.
in typical Trump fashion, you didn't answer my question but deflected it to an unrelated speaking point.

again I ask --> what would constitute "proof" for you?

The ink age/handwriting in the yearbook?

What would be your proof that this isn't a political hit job?

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 05, 2017, 03:20:47 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.
Like what for instance?  what 'proof' would satisfy you?
- eyewitness?  --> like an ADA would prey on young girls where there'd be witnesses.
- photos?  --> well before the age of cellphones and the girls weren't carrying polaroid instamatics.
- fingerprints?  --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' fingerprints on his car, clothes or person?
- DNA? --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' DNA on his car, clothes or person?
- police reports? --> as several have stated, as the ADA, who are the cops likely to believe, him (a prime member of the good ol' boys club) or the girls

I doubt any of those things could be produced at this time.  However, there is a volume of complaints.  very similar MO used to harass women/girls.  the warning of him at the mall adds credibility to the accusers, not Moore.

so with no 'proof' offered up, is it your position that Moore's not the scumbag he's being portrayed to be?

My position is dems and rino's are 2 sides of the same coin, and have almost completely sold this country out.

Duopoly

Trump is draining the swamp

McCabe and Mueller are next ;)

again....not answering direct questions and deflecting. SLAM you did a wonderful job of laying out options and none were answered just deflected.

You are asking silly questions, if there is no actual evidence,  and everything is a hypothetical a month before an election, why would I automatically believe it?

Allred won't have the ink in a yearbook tested for age, by the way Moore was the judge in that womans divorce case. Sorry not buying into the hype.
in typical Trump fashion, you didn't answer my question but deflected it to an unrelated speaking point.

again I ask --> what would constitute "proof" for you?

The ink age/handwriting in the yearbook?

What would be your proof that this isn't a political hit job?

Let’s assume that one is a forgery.

Does that invalidate all of the other acccusers?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on December 05, 2017, 03:26:57 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.
Like what for instance?  what 'proof' would satisfy you?
- eyewitness?  --> like an ADA would prey on young girls where there'd be witnesses.
- photos?  --> well before the age of cellphones and the girls weren't carrying polaroid instamatics.
- fingerprints?  --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' fingerprints on his car, clothes or person?
- DNA? --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' DNA on his car, clothes or person?
- police reports? --> as several have stated, as the ADA, who are the cops likely to believe, him (a prime member of the good ol' boys club) or the girls

I doubt any of those things could be produced at this time.  However, there is a volume of complaints.  very similar MO used to harass women/girls.  the warning of him at the mall adds credibility to the accusers, not Moore.

so with no 'proof' offered up, is it your position that Moore's not the scumbag he's being portrayed to be?

My position is dems and rino's are 2 sides of the same coin, and have almost completely sold this country out.

Duopoly

Trump is draining the swamp

McCabe and Mueller are next ;)

again....not answering direct questions and deflecting. SLAM you did a wonderful job of laying out options and none were answered just deflected.

You are asking silly questions, if there is no actual evidence,  and everything is a hypothetical a month before an election, why would I automatically believe it?

Allred won't have the ink in a yearbook tested for age, by the way Moore was the judge in that womans divorce case. Sorry not buying into the hype.
in typical Trump fashion, you didn't answer my question but deflected it to an unrelated speaking point.

again I ask --> what would constitute "proof" for you?

The ink age/handwriting in the yearbook?

What would be your proof that this isn't a political hit job?



The number of accusers coupled with

the independently verified facts that corroborate their stories coupled with

their stories pointing towards a clear predatory behavior with commonalities between them

You're talking about a conspiracy that has well over a hundred people (reporters, sources, accusers) in it, all acting in concert with a major newspaper crafting such a strong narrative that Moore cannot actually defend it, he merely denies it and attacks the individuals with whatever personal ammo he can.

Dismissing it as a political hit job is basically saying, "I'm choosing the less rational choice because I don't accept the evidence on the basis that I don't trust anyone involved here"

You're not dismissing it because you have verifiable witnesses and evidence to the contrary. You're dismissing it because you just want to.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 05, 2017, 03:33:23 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.
Like what for instance?  what 'proof' would satisfy you?
- eyewitness?  --> like an ADA would prey on young girls where there'd be witnesses.
- photos?  --> well before the age of cellphones and the girls weren't carrying polaroid instamatics.
- fingerprints?  --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' fingerprints on his car, clothes or person?
- DNA? --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' DNA on his car, clothes or person?
- police reports? --> as several have stated, as the ADA, who are the cops likely to believe, him (a prime member of the good ol' boys club) or the girls

I doubt any of those things could be produced at this time.  However, there is a volume of complaints.  very similar MO used to harass women/girls.  the warning of him at the mall adds credibility to the accusers, not Moore.

so with no 'proof' offered up, is it your position that Moore's not the scumbag he's being portrayed to be?

My position is dems and rino's are 2 sides of the same coin, and have almost completely sold this country out.

Duopoly

Trump is draining the swamp

McCabe and Mueller are next ;)

again....not answering direct questions and deflecting. SLAM you did a wonderful job of laying out options and none were answered just deflected.

You are asking silly questions, if there is no actual evidence,  and everything is a hypothetical a month before an election, why would I automatically believe it?

Allred won't have the ink in a yearbook tested for age, by the way Moore was the judge in that womans divorce case. Sorry not buying into the hype.
in typical Trump fashion, you didn't answer my question but deflected it to an unrelated speaking point.

again I ask --> what would constitute "proof" for you?

The ink age/handwriting in the yearbook?

What would be your proof that this isn't a political hit job?

Let’s assume that one is a forgery.

Does that invalidate all of the other acccusers?


There is no way to answer that question.  If there is no evidence of anything, how could I possibly say a man is a pedophile?

Look at the duke lacrosse case

All but one of the others that came out would have been over the age of consent.

I personally find it creepy if a 30 yr old is hanging around with 16-17 yr old girls, but in Alabama is not a crime.

This is so clearly a political maneuver in a hugely important election.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Vermont Green on December 05, 2017, 03:50:56 PM
Supporters of Roy Moore I guess are in two camps at this point.
I am not sure which is worse.  Trump has implied that since Roy Moore has denied the allegations, he believes him but also goes on to basically say you should vote for him no matter what because the Democrat will allow Alabama to become an immigrant state with no guns or Christians (OK, I am exaggerating some but not a whole lot).  Really what Trump is pushing for is as many non-impeachment votes as he can get.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey made a statement that she believes the women but plans to vote for Moore.  She has since gone totally radio silent so I am not really sure why she would take that position.  I guess she can't really explain it.  Somehow, this seems worse.  She seems like a thoughtful woman (unlike Trump who is just a goof) and still is going to vote for him believing these allegations.  How does she explain this to her daughter?  I wonder if one of the victims was her daughter if she would feel differently.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: TomHeinsohn on December 05, 2017, 03:54:17 PM
Ahem.. Ladies, your Republican party. I need say nothing else. Some groups speak sufficiently for themselves.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 05, 2017, 04:02:48 PM
Ahem.. Ladies, your Republican party. I need say nothing else. Some groups speak sufficiently for themselves.

Not a republican....

How's Linda Sarsour working as a spokesperson for the left?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 05, 2017, 04:17:34 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.
Like what for instance?  what 'proof' would satisfy you?
- eyewitness?  --> like an ADA would prey on young girls where there'd be witnesses.
- photos?  --> well before the age of cellphones and the girls weren't carrying polaroid instamatics.
- fingerprints?  --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' fingerprints on his car, clothes or person?
- DNA? --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' DNA on his car, clothes or person?
- police reports? --> as several have stated, as the ADA, who are the cops likely to believe, him (a prime member of the good ol' boys club) or the girls

I doubt any of those things could be produced at this time.  However, there is a volume of complaints.  very similar MO used to harass women/girls.  the warning of him at the mall adds credibility to the accusers, not Moore.

so with no 'proof' offered up, is it your position that Moore's not the scumbag he's being portrayed to be?

My position is dems and rino's are 2 sides of the same coin, and have almost completely sold this country out.

Duopoly

Trump is draining the swamp

McCabe and Mueller are next ;)

again....not answering direct questions and deflecting. SLAM you did a wonderful job of laying out options and none were answered just deflected.

You are asking silly questions, if there is no actual evidence,  and everything is a hypothetical a month before an election, why would I automatically believe it?

Allred won't have the ink in a yearbook tested for age, by the way Moore was the judge in that womans divorce case. Sorry not buying into the hype.
in typical Trump fashion, you didn't answer my question but deflected it to an unrelated speaking point.

again I ask --> what would constitute "proof" for you?

The ink age/handwriting in the yearbook?

What would be your proof that this isn't a political hit job?

Let’s assume that one is a forgery.

Does that invalidate all of the other acccusers?

There is no way to answer that question.  If there is no evidence of anything, how could I possibly say a man is a pedophile?

Personal testimony is absolutely evidence - the form given the most weight by juries - and I guarantee Roy Moore has put people away based on it. On top of that the yearbook signature matches the one on a note a different woman produced yesterday.


Quote
Look at the duke lacrosse case

One accuser, no corroboration, compelling alibis. Vs 9 accusers, independently reporting similar patterns of behavior, something like 50 corroborators from family and friends to law enforcement to Moore's co-workers at the time, and a suspect with a long history of lies and unethical behavior (lying about $1 million+ in secret payments from his "charity", getting removed from the bench TWICE for violating his oath of office).


Quote
This is so clearly a political maneuver in a hugely important election.

You have far less evidence of this - which would require dozens and dozens of locals and dozens more out-of-staters to all be fabricating stories in tandem - than you do that one man is/was into underaged girls, and is unethical and a liar.

He can't even keep his story straight about whether he knew any of these women or not. They've tried to claim the restaurant he allegedly assaulted a woman at didn't even exist at the time, which was a lie. They've claimed the yearbook signature was in two different inks, which was an obvious Photoshop and a lie. They posted a "letter of support" from local pastors written before the accusations and claimed it was from afterward, which was a lie. They claimed they would immediately sue, which, just when Trump did the same, was a lie. They claimed the 14-year-old was actually 17 at the time, which was an especially absurd and easily disproven lie. They claimed WaPo was paying off women based solely on a Tweet from an obvious hoax account that's since been deleted. A RW group, likely with Moore's knowledge, sent a fake accuser to sting the Washington Post, but they easily spotted the false accusation and acted ethically despite her attempts to goad them into damaging statements. And I'm probably leaving some things out.

Like IP said, this isn't an evenhanded assessment of the evidence, because that points heavily in one direction. This is you not wanting to believe it, just like with Trump, and everything else is just a rationalization to get there.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on December 05, 2017, 04:36:47 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.
Like what for instance?  what 'proof' would satisfy you?
- eyewitness?  --> like an ADA would prey on young girls where there'd be witnesses.
- photos?  --> well before the age of cellphones and the girls weren't carrying polaroid instamatics.
- fingerprints?  --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' fingerprints on his car, clothes or person?
- DNA? --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' DNA on his car, clothes or person?
- police reports? --> as several have stated, as the ADA, who are the cops likely to believe, him (a prime member of the good ol' boys club) or the girls

I doubt any of those things could be produced at this time.  However, there is a volume of complaints.  very similar MO used to harass women/girls.  the warning of him at the mall adds credibility to the accusers, not Moore.

so with no 'proof' offered up, is it your position that Moore's not the scumbag he's being portrayed to be?

My position is dems and rino's are 2 sides of the same coin, and have almost completely sold this country out.

Duopoly

Trump is draining the swamp

McCabe and Mueller are next ;)

again....not answering direct questions and deflecting. SLAM you did a wonderful job of laying out options and none were answered just deflected.

You are asking silly questions, if there is no actual evidence,  and everything is a hypothetical a month before an election, why would I automatically believe it?

Allred won't have the ink in a yearbook tested for age, by the way Moore was the judge in that womans divorce case. Sorry not buying into the hype.
in typical Trump fashion, you didn't answer my question but deflected it to an unrelated speaking point.

again I ask --> what would constitute "proof" for you?

The ink age/handwriting in the yearbook?

What would be your proof that this isn't a political hit job?

Let’s assume that one is a forgery.

Does that invalidate all of the other acccusers?


There is no way to answer that question.  If there is no evidence of anything, how could I possibly say a man is a pedophile?

Look at the duke lacrosse case

All but one of the others that came out would have been over the age of consent.

I personally find it creepy if a 30 yr old is hanging around with 16-17 yr old girls, but in Alabama is not a crime.

This is so clearly a political maneuver in a hugely important election.
A political manuver by predominantly Trump voting Republican accusers??
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 05, 2017, 04:46:31 PM
Your Republican party, ladies
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_46/2228926/171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg)

He's not up for reelection, he's invited an ethics investigation and he's issued multiple apologies. The incidences he's being accused of are wildly different than the situation surrounding Moore. And I'm not defending his actions here, I'm not saying he should stay in office. I'm saying he's got very little in common with pedophile Roy Moore and the republican party's support of said pedophile for pure political reasons.

Pedophile Roy Moore?

So I guess that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore?

So anyone can make an accusation and it must be immediately believed, even with no tangible evidence presented?

I will gladly call for him to step down if anyone can provide real evidence, kinda like the picture of Franken groping .

Make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. This isn't just 'anyone' making accusations, these are sourced accusations that have been independently corroborated by multiple sources which establish a pattern of predatory behavior. The idea that this is just a couple of women talking is laughable if you've seen the actual stories.

I think it shows a particular lack of empathy or I guess humanity to just write these (15? 16?) women off with everything they have in favor of the authenticity of their accusations. Hiding behind 'innocent until proven guilty' is ridiculous here.

And I wonder what kind of courage any of us would have as a 14 year old girl in a culture where rape and sexual harassment claims against authority figures are disregarded as baseless attempts to slander otherwise respectable men, when the guy who assaulted and preyed upon you is an Assistant District Attorney who had no problem involving that power dynamic with his victims.

These women are putting themselves through a fresh new round of hell and harassment to speak up about Roy Moore. They deserve better than the callous politics they're reduced to.

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

Like I said , if anyone has actual proof I will gladly call for him to step down.
Like what for instance?  what 'proof' would satisfy you?
- eyewitness?  --> like an ADA would prey on young girls where there'd be witnesses.
- photos?  --> well before the age of cellphones and the girls weren't carrying polaroid instamatics.
- fingerprints?  --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' fingerprints on his car, clothes or person?
- DNA? --> on what - the girls' anatomy or clothing?  the girls' DNA on his car, clothes or person?
- police reports? --> as several have stated, as the ADA, who are the cops likely to believe, him (a prime member of the good ol' boys club) or the girls

I doubt any of those things could be produced at this time.  However, there is a volume of complaints.  very similar MO used to harass women/girls.  the warning of him at the mall adds credibility to the accusers, not Moore.

so with no 'proof' offered up, is it your position that Moore's not the scumbag he's being portrayed to be?

My position is dems and rino's are 2 sides of the same coin, and have almost completely sold this country out.

Duopoly

Trump is draining the swamp

McCabe and Mueller are next ;)

again....not answering direct questions and deflecting. SLAM you did a wonderful job of laying out options and none were answered just deflected.

You are asking silly questions, if there is no actual evidence,  and everything is a hypothetical a month before an election, why would I automatically believe it?

Allred won't have the ink in a yearbook tested for age, by the way Moore was the judge in that womans divorce case. Sorry not buying into the hype.
in typical Trump fashion, you didn't answer my question but deflected it to an unrelated speaking point.

again I ask --> what would constitute "proof" for you?

The ink age/handwriting in the yearbook?

What would be your proof that this isn't a political hit job?

Let’s assume that one is a forgery.

Does that invalidate all of the other acccusers?


There is no way to answer that question.  If there is no evidence of anything, how could I possibly say a man is a pedophile?

Look at the duke lacrosse case

All but one of the others that came out would have been over the age of consent.

I personally find it creepy if a 30 yr old is hanging around with 16-17 yr old girls, but in Alabama is not a crime.

This is so clearly a political maneuver in a hugely important election.
A political manuver by predominantly Trump voting Republican accusers??

One thing that is private everywhere: how you voted. The contents of ballots are always secret.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/metabrown/2015/12/28/voter-data-whats-public-whats-private/#2603321b1591
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 05, 2017, 04:50:36 PM


One thing that is private everywhere: how you voted. The contents of ballots are always secret.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/metabrown/2015/12/28/voter-data-whats-public-whats-private/#2603321b1591
Stay on subject. This has nothing to do with Roy Moore
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 05, 2017, 05:10:57 PM


One thing that is private everywhere: how you voted. The contents of ballots are always secret.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/metabrown/2015/12/28/voter-data-whats-public-whats-private/#2603321b1591
Stay on subject. This has nothing to do with Roy Moore

So you just delete posts saying I am actually addressing Roy Moore.

That's not cool nickagenta.

You know I said nothing off topic, and I just proved it in the last post you deleted.....

Am I next on the banned list, like Greenback who just got banned?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 05, 2017, 05:16:29 PM


One thing that is private everywhere: how you voted. The contents of ballots are always secret.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/metabrown/2015/12/28/voter-data-whats-public-whats-private/#2603321b1591
Stay on subject. This has nothing to do with Roy Moore

So you just delete posts saying I am actually addressing Roy Moore.

That's not cool nickagenta.

You know I said nothing off topic, and I just proved it in the last post you deleted.....

Am I next on the banned list?

nick is a moderator. His directions aren’t to be challenged or ignored.  Either send him a PM or post in the Comments and Remarks thread.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on December 05, 2017, 05:19:53 PM

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

In terms of timing, don't neglect the number of allegations that have come out in the past month against powerful men, including Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Louis CK, Conyers, and others. It's called #MeToo.

RondoHondo -- let's be clear, you're not being "skeptical".  I would guess that most of us understand skepticism and practice it ourselves from time to time -- especially when skepticism fits our favored political narrative.  You aren't being skeptical -- you are deciding to blanketly dismiss the claims of the women and completely believe Roy Moore.  This isn't based on healthy skepticism, it's based purely on hardened mindset.  You aren't considering the claims and assessing the volume of support for the claims (dozens of corroborating witnesses or, as you might refer to them, "conspirators"), you are just deciding that disbelieving them and believing Moore fits your pre-determined mindset.  This doesn't promote conversation or reflect any deliberative consideration of the information at hand.   Skepticism would be to suggest that you have some doubt about the veracity of the claims based on the timing. 

So... I'll provide a rationale to provide some sense to the timing of the revalations.  How about this: Roy Moore has never before been in the position of potentially becoming 1 of the 100 or so most powerful political figures in the country.  Perhaps if I were holding onto something that was embarrassing and terrifying for me to reveal it would take really high stakes for me to step forward.   Perhaps seeing the person who mistreated you as a 14 year old about to attain a position of tremendous power would provide the impetus to be willing to face him directly and publicly.  Franken should resign, Bill Clinton should have resigned (or been removed), Moore shouldn't be allowed to sniff the floor of the Senate.

Thank goodness women are feeling empowered to expose this behavior.    Of course not all accusers tell the truth -- but when mutliple women tell the same story (do you believe Cosby's accusers -- or are you skeptical?), and stories are corroborated by contemporaneous testimony, I'd say credibility rises -- but ONLY if you are willing to listen.



Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: heyvik on December 06, 2017, 09:28:21 AM

Moore has been in the public eye for decades and ran for many positions, yet these 40 yr old allegations are brought out a month before an election, with Gloria Allred leading the charge.

Colour me skeptical......

In terms of timing, don't neglect the number of allegations that have come out in the past month against powerful men, including Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Louis CK, Conyers, and others. It's called #MeToo.

RondoHondo -- let's be clear, you're not being "skeptical".  I would guess that most of us understand skepticism and practice it ourselves from time to time -- especially when skepticism fits our favored political narrative.  You aren't being skeptical -- you are deciding to blanketly dismiss the claims of the women and completely believe Roy Moore.  This isn't based on healthy skepticism, it's based purely on hardened mindset.  You aren't considering the claims and assessing the volume of support for the claims (dozens of corroborating witnesses or, as you might refer to them, "conspirators"), you are just deciding that disbelieving them and believing Moore fits your pre-determined mindset.  This doesn't promote conversation or reflect any deliberative consideration of the information at hand.   Skepticism would be to suggest that you have some doubt about the veracity of the claims based on the timing. 

So... I'll provide a rationale to provide some sense to the timing of the revalations.  How about this: Roy Moore has never before been in the position of potentially becoming 1 of the 100 or so most powerful political figures in the country.  Perhaps if I were holding onto something that was embarrassing and terrifying for me to reveal it would take really high stakes for me to step forward.   Perhaps seeing the person who mistreated you as a 14 year old about to attain a position of tremendous power would provide the impetus to be willing to face him directly and publicly.  Franken should resign, Bill Clinton should have resigned (or been removed), Moore shouldn't be allowed to sniff the floor of the Senate.

Thank goodness women are feeling empowered to expose this behavior.    Of course not all accusers tell the truth -- but when mutliple women tell the same story (do you believe Cosby's accusers -- or are you skeptical?), and stories are corroborated by contemporaneous testimony, I'd say credibility rises -- but ONLY if you are willing to listen.

Thank you Neurotic Guy! You summed up what I was thinking VERY succinctly.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 06, 2017, 09:50:17 AM
RNC sends $170,000 to support Roy Moore's candidacy. Meanwhile, his campaign is calling his accusers "criminals". Very normal, good stuff here.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Donoghus on December 06, 2017, 10:06:25 AM
RNC sends $170,000 to support Roy Moore's candidacy. Meanwhile, his campaign is calling his accusers "criminals". Very normal, good stuff here.

His spokeswoman Janet Porter is a real piece of work.  Anybody who hasn't seen that CNN interview really needs to check it out.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on December 06, 2017, 11:38:16 AM
RNC sends $170,000 to support Roy Moore's candidacy. Meanwhile, his campaign is calling his accusers "criminals". Very normal, good stuff here.

His spokeswoman Janet Porter is a real piece of work.  Anybody who hasn't seen that CNN interview really needs to check it out.

I just watched that interview and it made me want to gouge my eyes out. Reprehensible.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 06, 2017, 01:06:16 PM
I think that was a joke of an interview, both by interviewer and interviewee.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: spikelovetheCelts on December 06, 2017, 01:21:25 PM
Supporters of Roy Moore I guess are in two camps at this point.
  • You believe the allegations but are voting for him anyway.
  • You don't believe the allegations are true (you fully believe Roy Moore)
I am not sure which is worse.  Trump has implied that since Roy Moore has denied the allegations, he believes him but also goes on to basically say you should vote for him no matter what because the Democrat will allow Alabama to become an immigrant state with no guns or Christians (OK, I am exaggerating some but not a whole lot).  Really what Trump is pushing for is as many non-impeachment votes as he can get.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey made a statement that she believes the women but plans to vote for Moore.  She has since gone totally radio silent so I am not really sure why she would take that position.  I guess she can't really explain it.  Somehow, this seems worse.  She seems like a thoughtful woman (unlike Trump who is just a goof) and still is going to vote for him believing these allegations.  How does she explain this to her daughter?  I wonder if one of the victims was her daughter if she would feel differently.
Trump's choice was Luther Strange to begin with in Alabama. There is enough doubt for the accusers on Moore's story; I think a jury would see that if it went to trial and he would be found not guilty.  The Media could have came out with this during the primary and waited till it was a 2 horse race to bring the evidence forward. The media is clearly democrat bias.
Moore is going to win now because of the media's hunt on him. When the media brought out all the "fake" trump victims it helped Trump in the long run. Did he do it. In my heart I say yes and it would be a hard vote for a conservative to make. Alabama is the one with the choice and we had similar choice with HRC and Trump. Sad we have choices like this to chose from in an election. God help us all. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: jambr380 on December 06, 2017, 01:34:06 PM
Supporters of Roy Moore I guess are in two camps at this point.
  • You believe the allegations but are voting for him anyway.
  • You don't believe the allegations are true (you fully believe Roy Moore)
I am not sure which is worse.  Trump has implied that since Roy Moore has denied the allegations, he believes him but also goes on to basically say you should vote for him no matter what because the Democrat will allow Alabama to become an immigrant state with no guns or Christians (OK, I am exaggerating some but not a whole lot).  Really what Trump is pushing for is as many non-impeachment votes as he can get.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey made a statement that she believes the women but plans to vote for Moore.  She has since gone totally radio silent so I am not really sure why she would take that position.  I guess she can't really explain it.  Somehow, this seems worse.  She seems like a thoughtful woman (unlike Trump who is just a goof) and still is going to vote for him believing these allegations.  How does she explain this to her daughter?  I wonder if one of the victims was her daughter if she would feel differently.
Trump's choice was Luther Strange to begin with in Alabama. There is enough doubt for the accusers on Moore's story; I think a jury would see that if it went to trial and he would be found not guilty.  The Media could have came out with this during the primary and waited till it was a 2 horse race to bring the evidence forward. The media is clearly democrat bias.
Moore is going to win now because of the media's hunt on him. When the media brought out all the "fake" trump victims it helped Trump in the long run. Did he do it. In my heart I say yes and it would be a hard vote for a conservative to make. Alabama is the one with the choice and we had similar choice with HRC and Trump. Sad we have choices like this to chose from in an election. God help us all.

Anybody who isn't Roy Moore is a better choice for Senator, just like anybody who isn't Donald Trump is a better choice for president. Why people still put Hillary and Trump in the same basket, I will never know. They are not even remotely 'equally bad.'

Seriously Alabama, you have a chance to actually not be the 2nd biggest laughing stock in the country (always and forever, Mississippi), do what is right...just once.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 06, 2017, 01:36:38 PM
Supporters of Roy Moore I guess are in two camps at this point.
  • You believe the allegations but are voting for him anyway.
  • You don't believe the allegations are true (you fully believe Roy Moore)
I am not sure which is worse.  Trump has implied that since Roy Moore has denied the allegations, he believes him but also goes on to basically say you should vote for him no matter what because the Democrat will allow Alabama to become an immigrant state with no guns or Christians (OK, I am exaggerating some but not a whole lot).  Really what Trump is pushing for is as many non-impeachment votes as he can get.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey made a statement that she believes the women but plans to vote for Moore.  She has since gone totally radio silent so I am not really sure why she would take that position.  I guess she can't really explain it.  Somehow, this seems worse.  She seems like a thoughtful woman (unlike Trump who is just a goof) and still is going to vote for him believing these allegations.  How does she explain this to her daughter?  I wonder if one of the victims was her daughter if she would feel differently.
Trump's choice was Luther Strange to begin with in Alabama. There is enough doubt for the accusers on Moore's story; I think a jury would see that if it went to trial and he would be found not guilty.  The Media could have came out with this during the primary and waited till it was a 2 horse race to bring the evidence forward. The media is clearly democrat bias.

You have evidence that WaPo knew about this story during the primaries and deliberately sat on it? What is it? Because they and the accusers have stated the timeline is very different.

Quote
Moore is going to win now because of the media's hunt on him. When the media brought out all the "fake" trump victims it helped Trump in the long run. Did he do it. In my heart I say yes and it would be a hard vote for a conservative to make. Alabama is the one with the choice and we had similar choice with HRC and Trump. Sad we have choices like this to chose from in an election. God help us all.


Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: spikelovetheCelts on December 06, 2017, 01:51:01 PM
Supporters of Roy Moore I guess are in two camps at this point.
  • You believe the allegations but are voting for him anyway.
  • You don't believe the allegations are true (you fully believe Roy Moore)
I am not sure which is worse.  Trump has implied that since Roy Moore has denied the allegations, he believes him but also goes on to basically say you should vote for him no matter what because the Democrat will allow Alabama to become an immigrant state with no guns or Christians (OK, I am exaggerating some but not a whole lot).  Really what Trump is pushing for is as many non-impeachment votes as he can get.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey made a statement that she believes the women but plans to vote for Moore.  She has since gone totally radio silent so I am not really sure why she would take that position.  I guess she can't really explain it.  Somehow, this seems worse.  She seems like a thoughtful woman (unlike Trump who is just a goof) and still is going to vote for him believing these allegations.  How does she explain this to her daughter?  I wonder if one of the victims was her daughter if she would feel differently.
Trump's choice was Luther Strange to begin with in Alabama. There is enough doubt for the accusers on Moore's story; I think a jury would see that if it went to trial and he would be found not guilty.  The Media could have came out with this during the primary and waited till it was a 2 horse race to bring the evidence forward. The media is clearly democrat bias.

You have evidence that WaPo knew about this story during the primaries and deliberately sat on it? What is it? Because they and the accusers have stated the timeline is very different.

Quote
Moore is going to win now because of the media's hunt on him. When the media brought out all the "fake" trump victims it helped Trump in the long run. Did he do it. In my heart I say yes and it would be a hard vote for a conservative to make. Alabama is the one with the choice and we had similar choice with HRC and Trump. Sad we have choices like this to chose from in an election. God help us all.


Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?
How many reasons do you need I will give you 1,788 from yesterday if you like?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: spikelovetheCelts on December 06, 2017, 01:58:31 PM
Supporters of Roy Moore I guess are in two camps at this point.
  • You believe the allegations but are voting for him anyway.
  • You don't believe the allegations are true (you fully believe Roy Moore)
I am not sure which is worse.  Trump has implied that since Roy Moore has denied the allegations, he believes him but also goes on to basically say you should vote for him no matter what because the Democrat will allow Alabama to become an immigrant state with no guns or Christians (OK, I am exaggerating some but not a whole lot).  Really what Trump is pushing for is as many non-impeachment votes as he can get.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey made a statement that she believes the women but plans to vote for Moore.  She has since gone totally radio silent so I am not really sure why she would take that position.  I guess she can't really explain it.  Somehow, this seems worse.  She seems like a thoughtful woman (unlike Trump who is just a goof) and still is going to vote for him believing these allegations.  How does she explain this to her daughter?  I wonder if one of the victims was her daughter if she would feel differently.
Trump's choice was Luther Strange to begin with in Alabama. There is enough doubt for the accusers on Moore's story; I think a jury would see that if it went to trial and he would be found not guilty.  The Media could have came out with this during the primary and waited till it was a 2 horse race to bring the evidence forward. The media is clearly democrat bias.
Moore is going to win now because of the media's hunt on him. When the media brought out all the "fake" trump victims it helped Trump in the long run. Did he do it. In my heart I say yes and it would be a hard vote for a conservative to make. Alabama is the one with the choice and we had similar choice with HRC and Trump. Sad we have choices like this to chose from in an election. God help us all.

Anybody who isn't Roy Moore is a better choice for Senator, just like anybody who isn't Donald Trump is a better choice for president. Why people still put Hillary and Trump in the same basket, I will never know. They are not even remotely 'equally bad.'

Seriously Alabama, you have a chance to actually not be the 2nd biggest laughing stock in the country (always and forever, Mississippi), do what is right...just once.
That is correct Hillary is the most corrupt politician in history, way worse than DJT.  She has silenced people. If you don't believe that you are special kind of ignorant. Yes, I voted for Trump over her. It was hard but we need to end the dynasties of stupidity. Same reason I did not vote for Jeb and the reason Bernie was loved. Change was need from the status quo. Love you Vermont and i have you bookmarked but The Clinton and Bush train has left the building.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: heyvik on December 06, 2017, 02:02:26 PM
Supporters of Roy Moore I guess are in two camps at this point.
  • You believe the allegations but are voting for him anyway.
  • You don't believe the allegations are true (you fully believe Roy Moore)
I am not sure which is worse.  Trump has implied that since Roy Moore has denied the allegations, he believes him but also goes on to basically say you should vote for him no matter what because the Democrat will allow Alabama to become an immigrant state with no guns or Christians (OK, I am exaggerating some but not a whole lot).  Really what Trump is pushing for is as many non-impeachment votes as he can get.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey made a statement that she believes the women but plans to vote for Moore.  She has since gone totally radio silent so I am not really sure why she would take that position.  I guess she can't really explain it.  Somehow, this seems worse.  She seems like a thoughtful woman (unlike Trump who is just a goof) and still is going to vote for him believing these allegations.  How does she explain this to her daughter?  I wonder if one of the victims was her daughter if she would feel differently.
Trump's choice was Luther Strange to begin with in Alabama. There is enough doubt for the accusers on Moore's story; I think a jury would see that if it went to trial and he would be found not guilty.  The Media could have came out with this during the primary and waited till it was a 2 horse race to bring the evidence forward. The media is clearly democrat bias.

You have evidence that WaPo knew about this story during the primaries and deliberately sat on it? What is it? Because they and the accusers have stated the timeline is very different.

Quote
Moore is going to win now because of the media's hunt on him. When the media brought out all the "fake" trump victims it helped Trump in the long run. Did he do it. In my heart I say yes and it would be a hard vote for a conservative to make. Alabama is the one with the choice and we had similar choice with HRC and Trump. Sad we have choices like this to chose from in an election. God help us all.


Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?
How many reasons do you need I will give you 1,788 from yesterday if you like?
....Spike...what are those reasons? Am I missing something? Please go into detail about the reasons that you know about.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 06, 2017, 02:02:39 PM
Supporters of Roy Moore I guess are in two camps at this point.
  • You believe the allegations but are voting for him anyway.
  • You don't believe the allegations are true (you fully believe Roy Moore)
I am not sure which is worse.  Trump has implied that since Roy Moore has denied the allegations, he believes him but also goes on to basically say you should vote for him no matter what because the Democrat will allow Alabama to become an immigrant state with no guns or Christians (OK, I am exaggerating some but not a whole lot).  Really what Trump is pushing for is as many non-impeachment votes as he can get.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey made a statement that she believes the women but plans to vote for Moore.  She has since gone totally radio silent so I am not really sure why she would take that position.  I guess she can't really explain it.  Somehow, this seems worse.  She seems like a thoughtful woman (unlike Trump who is just a goof) and still is going to vote for him believing these allegations.  How does she explain this to her daughter?  I wonder if one of the victims was her daughter if she would feel differently.
Trump's choice was Luther Strange to begin with in Alabama. There is enough doubt for the accusers on Moore's story; I think a jury would see that if it went to trial and he would be found not guilty.  The Media could have came out with this during the primary and waited till it was a 2 horse race to bring the evidence forward. The media is clearly democrat bias.

You have evidence that WaPo knew about this story during the primaries and deliberately sat on it? What is it? Because they and the accusers have stated the timeline is very different.

Quote
Moore is going to win now because of the media's hunt on him. When the media brought out all the "fake" trump victims it helped Trump in the long run. Did he do it. In my heart I say yes and it would be a hard vote for a conservative to make. Alabama is the one with the choice and we had similar choice with HRC and Trump. Sad we have choices like this to chose from in an election. God help us all.


Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?
How many reasons do you need I will give you 1,788 from yesterday if you like?

More than the zero here would be good. Also the evidence that WaPo had this story months ago and deliberately sat on it.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 06, 2017, 02:06:46 PM
Quote
Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?

Because he won’t vote the way that the majority of Alabama voters want their Senator to vote.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Fan from VT on December 06, 2017, 02:08:26 PM
Supporters of Roy Moore I guess are in two camps at this point.
  • You believe the allegations but are voting for him anyway.
  • You don't believe the allegations are true (you fully believe Roy Moore)
I am not sure which is worse.  Trump has implied that since Roy Moore has denied the allegations, he believes him but also goes on to basically say you should vote for him no matter what because the Democrat will allow Alabama to become an immigrant state with no guns or Christians (OK, I am exaggerating some but not a whole lot).  Really what Trump is pushing for is as many non-impeachment votes as he can get.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey made a statement that she believes the women but plans to vote for Moore.  She has since gone totally radio silent so I am not really sure why she would take that position.  I guess she can't really explain it.  Somehow, this seems worse.  She seems like a thoughtful woman (unlike Trump who is just a goof) and still is going to vote for him believing these allegations.  How does she explain this to her daughter?  I wonder if one of the victims was her daughter if she would feel differently.
Trump's choice was Luther Strange to begin with in Alabama. There is enough doubt for the accusers on Moore's story; I think a jury would see that if it went to trial and he would be found not guilty.  The Media could have came out with this during the primary and waited till it was a 2 horse race to bring the evidence forward. The media is clearly democrat bias.

You have evidence that WaPo knew about this story during the primaries and deliberately sat on it? What is it? Because they and the accusers have stated the timeline is very different.

Quote
Moore is going to win now because of the media's hunt on him. When the media brought out all the "fake" trump victims it helped Trump in the long run. Did he do it. In my heart I say yes and it would be a hard vote for a conservative to make. Alabama is the one with the choice and we had similar choice with HRC and Trump. Sad we have choices like this to chose from in an election. God help us all.


Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?
How many reasons do you need I will give you 1,788 from yesterday if you like?

He might vote against corporate give-outs.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on December 06, 2017, 02:30:13 PM
Quote
Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?

Because he won’t vote the way that the majority of Alabama voters want their Senator to vote.
In that case we have had a lot of bad choices elected to office.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 06, 2017, 03:18:25 PM
Quote
Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?

Because he won’t vote the way that the majority of Alabama voters want their Senator to vote.
In that case why oust Conyers and Franken? Aren't they voting the way their constituents want?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 06, 2017, 03:22:05 PM
Quote
Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?

Because he won’t vote the way that the majority of Alabama voters want their Senator to vote.
In that case we have had a lot of bad choices elected to office.

Definitely. I think very few people out there believe their reps consistently vote the way they want them to, and most of them probably have much bigger investment portfolios than you or I.

More importantly I was looking for a reason why Jones would be an objectively bad choice in a vacuum, but instead got a rationalization for partisanship trumping all other considerations up to and including the abuse of children or worse. Which is the root of this whole mess to begin with.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on December 06, 2017, 03:32:58 PM
Quote
Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?

Because he won’t vote the way that the majority of Alabama voters want their Senator to vote.
In that case we have had a lot of bad choices elected to office.

Definitely. I think very few people out there believe their reps consistently vote the way they want them to, and most of them probably have much bigger investment portfolios than you or I.

More importantly I was looking for a reason why Jones would be an objectively bad choice in a vacuum, but instead got a rationalization for partisanship trumping all other considerations up to and including the abuse of children or worse. Which is the root of this whole mess to begin with.

This is the 'I don't like Trump but..' rationalization further laid bare for the blatant partisan party-first justification it was; mainly it now lacks the 'I don't like Trump but I hate Hillary..' element...Doug Jones is from what I know (which is admittedly a lot less on Jones than Clinton) a fantastic candidate if you care about things like integrity, morals, competency...
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Erik on December 06, 2017, 03:44:40 PM
It's really none of anyone's business outside of his constituents. That's how representative democracy works. Until he is charged and convicted of a crime, he has every right to run and get votes and win or lose. Just because your morals conflict with his or his constituents doesn't mean you have any real say in the matter.

Having said that, obviously the guy is disgusting. It's a tough situation for Alabama voters. Do they vote for someone who is against their morals or do they vote for someone who is against their morals?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Vermont Green on December 06, 2017, 03:44:42 PM
Quote
Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?

Because he won’t vote the way that the majority of Alabama voters want their Senator to vote.

Based on what I have seen/read, the majority of Alabama Moore supporters are thoroughly convinced that any democrat will vote to take their guns away, allow immigrants to come into the country unchecked, and the big one is that un-born baby thing.  I don't think this is an accurate characterization of the democratic party but try to tell that to some of these folks in Alabama.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 06, 2017, 04:32:31 PM
Quote
Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?

Because he won’t vote the way that the majority of Alabama voters want their Senator to vote.
In that case why oust Conyers and Franken? Aren't they voting the way their constituents want?

Dems are doing it because their replacements *will* vote the way their constituents — and more importantly, Democrat party elders — want them to.

If Franken was being replaced by a Republican, don’t most of us know that he’d still be under an “ethics investigation “?

Me personally, I hope Moore loses. The GOP would still have a majority, and it might even get them to start working with Blue Dog Democrats like Joe Manchin again. But, partisanship is king. What’s wrong with the opponents in Deep Red or Deep Blue states? The letter after their name.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: saltlover on December 06, 2017, 04:47:26 PM
Quote
Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?

Because he won’t vote the way that the majority of Alabama voters want their Senator to vote.
In that case why oust Conyers and Franken? Aren't they voting the way their constituents want?

Dems are doing it because their replacements *will* vote the way their constituents — and more importantly, Democrat party elders — want them to.

If Franken was being replaced by a Republican, don’t most of us know that he’d still be under an “ethics investigation “?

As I’ve stated earlier, Franken’s seat is anything but a guarantee.  Clinton won the state by 1.5 points, which was less than her national margin. The governor is a Democrat, but the legislature is Republican.  The other Senate seat is also on the ballot next year, and Republicans have already been fundraising to take over that seat.  It might help to preserve Klobuchar, but will make the Franken seat even more competitive, as Republican candidates will have been running for the seat longer than whomever is appointed or comes always with the Dem nomination.  Minnesota is a blueish-tinted purple — it’s not a bedrock of lefty voters who will turn out for the candidate with the D next to his or her name regardless.  In other words, it’s not a Democratic version of Alabama.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: spikelovetheCelts on December 06, 2017, 05:20:23 PM
Supporters of Roy Moore I guess are in two camps at this point.
  • You believe the allegations but are voting for him anyway.
  • You don't believe the allegations are true (you fully believe Roy Moore)
I am not sure which is worse.  Trump has implied that since Roy Moore has denied the allegations, he believes him but also goes on to basically say you should vote for him no matter what because the Democrat will allow Alabama to become an immigrant state with no guns or Christians (OK, I am exaggerating some but not a whole lot).  Really what Trump is pushing for is as many non-impeachment votes as he can get.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey made a statement that she believes the women but plans to vote for Moore.  She has since gone totally radio silent so I am not really sure why she would take that position.  I guess she can't really explain it.  Somehow, this seems worse.  She seems like a thoughtful woman (unlike Trump who is just a goof) and still is going to vote for him believing these allegations.  How does she explain this to her daughter?  I wonder if one of the victims was her daughter if she would feel differently.
Trump's choice was Luther Strange to begin with in Alabama. There is enough doubt for the accusers on Moore's story; I think a jury would see that if it went to trial and he would be found not guilty.  The Media could have came out with this during the primary and waited till it was a 2 horse race to bring the evidence forward. The media is clearly democrat bias.

You have evidence that WaPo knew about this story during the primaries and deliberately sat on it? What is it? Because they and the accusers have stated the timeline is very different.

Quote
Moore is going to win now because of the media's hunt on him. When the media brought out all the "fake" trump victims it helped Trump in the long run. Did he do it. In my heart I say yes and it would be a hard vote for a conservative to make. Alabama is the one with the choice and we had similar choice with HRC and Trump. Sad we have choices like this to chose from in an election. God help us all.


Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?
How many reasons do you need I will give you 1,788 from yesterday if you like?
....Spike...what are those reasons? Am I missing something? Please go into detail about the reasons that you know about.
That is the number of babies aborted every day in the US in 2014. Alabama is at least 35 percent pro-life.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: spikelovetheCelts on December 06, 2017, 05:22:44 PM
Quote
Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?

Because he won’t vote the way that the majority of Alabama voters want their Senator to vote.
In that case why oust Conyers and Franken? Aren't they voting the way their constituents want?
Conyers resigned and Franken is being asked to resigned. Moore has not been elected yet.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 06, 2017, 05:25:39 PM
Quote
Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?

Because he won’t vote the way that the majority of Alabama voters want their Senator to vote.
In that case why oust Conyers and Franken? Aren't they voting the way their constituents want?
Conyers resigned and Franken is being asked to resigned. Moore has not been elected yet.
And if he is elected? Should he immediately resign given there is as much proof against him as there is against Conyers and Franken?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Donoghus on December 06, 2017, 05:28:02 PM
Supporters of Roy Moore I guess are in two camps at this point.
  • You believe the allegations but are voting for him anyway.
  • You don't believe the allegations are true (you fully believe Roy Moore)
I am not sure which is worse.  Trump has implied that since Roy Moore has denied the allegations, he believes him but also goes on to basically say you should vote for him no matter what because the Democrat will allow Alabama to become an immigrant state with no guns or Christians (OK, I am exaggerating some but not a whole lot).  Really what Trump is pushing for is as many non-impeachment votes as he can get.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey made a statement that she believes the women but plans to vote for Moore.  She has since gone totally radio silent so I am not really sure why she would take that position.  I guess she can't really explain it.  Somehow, this seems worse.  She seems like a thoughtful woman (unlike Trump who is just a goof) and still is going to vote for him believing these allegations.  How does she explain this to her daughter?  I wonder if one of the victims was her daughter if she would feel differently.
Trump's choice was Luther Strange to begin with in Alabama. There is enough doubt for the accusers on Moore's story; I think a jury would see that if it went to trial and he would be found not guilty.  The Media could have came out with this during the primary and waited till it was a 2 horse race to bring the evidence forward. The media is clearly democrat bias.

You have evidence that WaPo knew about this story during the primaries and deliberately sat on it? What is it? Because they and the accusers have stated the timeline is very different.

Quote
Moore is going to win now because of the media's hunt on him. When the media brought out all the "fake" trump victims it helped Trump in the long run. Did he do it. In my heart I say yes and it would be a hard vote for a conservative to make. Alabama is the one with the choice and we had similar choice with HRC and Trump. Sad we have choices like this to chose from in an election. God help us all.


Why is Doug Jones a bad choice?
How many reasons do you need I will give you 1,788 from yesterday if you like?
....Spike...what are those reasons? Am I missing something? Please go into detail about the reasons that you know about.
That is the number of babies aborted every day in the US in 2014. Alabama is at least 35 percent pro-life.

And that's the last we're gonna touch on that subject.  A CB no-no.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Rosco917 on December 06, 2017, 06:00:54 PM
When are some of you going to realize it's a game. It's all a game... a game in a league that has two teams...the Democrats "onta" the Republicans. 

Just like in all sports leagues, it's about making money. ie fundraising.

Billions and billions of dollars to spend, to bribe, and influence others for the benefit of the "team" leaders.

Haven't you ever noticed that if the left says it's green, and right automatically says it's brown. Name one thing that they both agree on, other than they both think their team is best.

The participants in this league want you to root for one side or another so that they have control of huge sums of donated money.

Both sides don't care about us, they care about their team...their team brings in the money so they can overindulge, cheat, lie, and continue to take in...the funds.

When Richard Nixon was forced to resign, both sides learned a very valuable lesson. Both sides learned when any single party is held responsible for any wrongdoing... FUNDRAISING SUFFERS IN GENERAL on BOTH sides!

And that's exactly what they both don't want.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: More Banners on December 06, 2017, 07:19:19 PM
Wicked irony that the evangelical Christian vote probably goes hard for the alleged pervert.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Celtics4ever on December 06, 2017, 07:26:36 PM
I think the Dems took a long time to condemn Franken and Conyers.   A lot of people came out and condemned Moore on the GOP side long before the Dems did Franken and Conyers.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/11/11/republicans_scramble_to_stop_moore_as_candidate_denies_sexual_misconduct_135519.html

Nov.11 is when a lot of them did.   Pres. Trump of course was not one of those but who really expects Trump to the right thing at this point.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on December 07, 2017, 05:18:15 PM
This is hilariously brutal:

A Second Chance: This Amazing Organization Helps Disgraced Pedophiles Rebuild Their Lives By Getting Them Elected To Political Office
http://www.clickhole.com/article/second-chance-amazing-organization-helps-disgraced-7104?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing#1,
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: saltlover on December 07, 2017, 06:03:38 PM
Putting this here, because we don’t need a thread for every political development considering this is CelticsBlog.

Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a Conservative Republican, appears to be resigning effective immediately.  Reasons are currently unclear, but given the abruptness of the announcement and the current climate, my gut says it’s related to issues discussed in this thread.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizonas-trent-franks-expected-resign (https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizonas-trent-franks-expected-resign)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 07, 2017, 07:15:02 PM
Putting this here, because we don’t need a thread for every political development considering this is CelticsBlog.

Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a Conservative Republican, appears to be resigning effective immediately.  Reasons are currently unclear, but given the abruptness of the announcement and the current climate, my gut says it’s related to issues discussed in this thread.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizonas-trent-franks-expected-resign (https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizonas-trent-franks-expected-resign)
Thought this interesting from the article:

Quote
Ohio Rep. Steve Stivers, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, said Franks “did the right thing in stepping aside.”

“Congress should be held to the highest ethical standard,” he said. “This is a safe Republican seat, and we have no doubt it will stay in our column.”

So Republicans are going to hold themselves to the highest standard as long as there is no chance of losing the seat to a Democrat
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 07, 2017, 07:25:23 PM
Putting this here, because we don’t need a thread for every political development considering this is CelticsBlog.

Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a Conservative Republican, appears to be resigning effective immediately.  Reasons are currently unclear, but given the abruptness of the announcement and the current climate, my gut says it’s related to issues discussed in this thread.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizonas-trent-franks-expected-resign (https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizonas-trent-franks-expected-resign)
Thought this interesting from the article:

Quote
Ohio Rep. Steve Stivers, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, said Franks “did the right thing in stepping aside.”

“Congress should be held to the highest ethical standard,” he said. “This is a safe Republican seat, and we have no doubt it will stay in our column.”

So Republicans are going to hold themselves to the highest standard as long as there is no chance of losing the seat to a Democrat

Yep.  I'm surprised they admitted this, but all of these forced resignations, etc., are just for political points.

What about Bob Menendez?  What about Duckie Jammies?  Chaka Fattah?  Ted Stevens? Greg Gianforte?  What about the string of politicians who have served out their terms while being corrupt, cheating on taxes, etc.?

The Parties don't care about ethics, they care about power.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 07, 2017, 07:54:07 PM
Putting this here, because we don’t need a thread for every political development considering this is CelticsBlog.

Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a Conservative Republican, appears to be resigning effective immediately.  Reasons are currently unclear, but given the abruptness of the announcement and the current climate, my gut says it’s related to issues discussed in this thread.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizonas-trent-franks-expected-resign (https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizonas-trent-franks-expected-resign)
Thought this interesting from the article:

Quote
Ohio Rep. Steve Stivers, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, said Franks “did the right thing in stepping aside.”

“Congress should be held to the highest ethical standard,” he said. “This is a safe Republican seat, and we have no doubt it will stay in our column.”

So Republicans are going to hold themselves to the highest standard as long as there is no chance of losing the seat to a Democrat

Yep.  I'm surprised they admitted this, but all of these forced resignations, etc., are just for political points.

What about Bob Menendez?  What about Duckie Jammies?  Chaka Fattah?  Ted Stevens? Greg Gianforte?  What about the string of politicians who have served out their terms while being corrupt, cheating on taxes, etc.?

The Parties don't care about ethics, they care about power.
Its all disgusting.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 07, 2017, 08:51:21 PM
Putting this here, because we don’t need a thread for every political development considering this is CelticsBlog.

Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a Conservative Republican, appears to be resigning effective immediately.  Reasons are currently unclear, but given the abruptness of the announcement and the current climate, my gut says it’s related to issues discussed in this thread.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizonas-trent-franks-expected-resign (https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizonas-trent-franks-expected-resign)
Thought this interesting from the article:

Quote
Ohio Rep. Steve Stivers, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, said Franks “did the right thing in stepping aside.”

“Congress should be held to the highest ethical standard,” he said. “This is a safe Republican seat, and we have no doubt it will stay in our column.”

So Republicans are going to hold themselves to the highest standard as long as there is no chance of losing the seat to a Democrat

Yep.  I'm surprised they admitted this, but all of these forced resignations, etc., are just for political points.

What about Bob Menendez?  What about Duckie Jammies?  Chaka Fattah?  Ted Stevens? Greg Gianforte?  What about the string of politicians who have served out their terms while being corrupt, cheating on taxes, etc.?

The Parties don't care about ethics, they care about power.
sadly the truest statement that can be said about the politicians in this country
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: saltlover on December 07, 2017, 08:54:12 PM
Putting this here, because we don’t need a thread for every political development considering this is CelticsBlog.

Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a Conservative Republican, appears to be resigning effective immediately.  Reasons are currently unclear, but given the abruptness of the announcement and the current climate, my gut says it’s related to issues discussed in this thread.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizonas-trent-franks-expected-resign (https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizonas-trent-franks-expected-resign)
Thought this interesting from the article:

Quote
Ohio Rep. Steve Stivers, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, said Franks “did the right thing in stepping aside.”

“Congress should be held to the highest ethical standard,” he said. “This is a safe Republican seat, and we have no doubt it will stay in our column.”

So Republicans are going to hold themselves to the highest standard as long as there is no chance of losing the seat to a Democrat

Yep.  I'm surprised they admitted this, but all of these forced resignations, etc., are just for political points.

What about Bob Menendez?  What about Duckie Jammies?  Chaka Fattah?  Ted Stevens? Greg Gianforte?  What about the string of politicians who have served out their terms while being corrupt, cheating on taxes, etc.?

The Parties don't care about ethics, they care about power.

What I do think would be helpful, at least for Senate ethics, is for more states to emulate Hawaii’s vacancy laws.  The governor has to choose the replacement Senator from three choices submitted by the party.  This keeps the Senate composition from changing in the event that the governor is of a different party, and also from the governor playing politics or worse with the appointment pick (a la Blagoiovich). 

House seats are different, since vacancies are required to be filled via election, and there’s a somewhat reasonable argument to be made that since terms are shorter the voters should decide for all but the worst offenses.  I don’t subscribe to that myself, but I find it defensible.  Chaka Fattah had allegations come up against him in 2014, but he was still re-elected. Rangel was re-elected multiple times despite being censured by the House.  Special elections cost taxpayers money, and short of a conviction there’s nothing preventing some of these folks from running again even if they were removed from their seat.  Mark Sanford was an embarrassment as South Carolina governor.  Now he’s my mother’s rep.  She’s a politically aware Dem, and even she didn’t remember it was the same guy until I told her.  We can blame parties, but voters, many of us included, are responsible too.

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Fan from VT on December 08, 2017, 11:50:14 AM
Quote
At a campaign event earlier this year, an audience member asked Moore for his opinion on when the last time America was "great." Moore responded: "I think it was great at the time when families were united—even though we had slavery—they cared for one another…Our families were strong, our country had a direction."

This man is still endorsed and funded by the RNC.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 08, 2017, 11:58:10 AM
Quote
At a campaign event earlier this year, an audience member asked Moore for his opinion on when the last time America was "great." Moore responded: "I think it was great at the time when families were united—even though we had slavery—they cared for one another…Our families were strong, our country had a direction."

This man is still endorsed and funded by the RNC.

Said it to a black man too. Here's another gem from an interview with the Guardian:

Quote
The interviewer noted that Ronald Reagan once said that the Soviet Union was the focus of evil in the modern world.

“You could say that very well about America, couldn’t you?” Moore replied.

“Do you think?” the interviewer replied.

“Well, we promote a lot of bad things,” Moore said. Asked for an example, Moore replied, “Like same-sex marriage.” It was Moore’s refusal to uphold the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage that led to his second ouster from Alabama’s court.

When the interviewer noted that Putin makes the same argument, Moore didn’t blink.

“Maybe Putin is right,” Moore replied. “Maybe he’s more akin to me than I know.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/12/08/roy-moore-america-was-great-in-era-of-slavery-is-now-focus-of-evil-in-the-world/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.53404f5fb98f (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/12/08/roy-moore-america-was-great-in-era-of-slavery-is-now-focus-of-evil-in-the-world/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.53404f5fb98f)

Moore has also blamed America's actions, again related to gay people, for 9/11. Remember when Jeremiah Wright said similar things, just citing America's racial history as the reason why, and was pilloried for years? And he wasn't even a candidate, just linked to one. Man times have changed. Reminds me of Trump claiming America is just as bad as Putin.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: mmmmm on December 08, 2017, 12:05:32 PM
More examples of what defines the character of Roy Moore:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/12/08/roy-moore-america-was-great-in-era-of-slavery-is-now-focus-of-evil-in-the-world/?utm_term=.1a1f8b1b7de6

On how the teaching of the theory of natural selection causes gang violence:

Quote
“We have kids driving by, shooting each other, that they don’t even know each other,” Moore said. “They’re acting like animals because we’ve taught them they come from animals. They’re treating their fellow men with prejudice because we taught them they come from animals.”

On what made America great in the past:
Quote
In September, Moore held a rally in Florence, Ala. One of the members of the audience, an African American, asked Moore when he thought America was last great.

“I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another,” Moore replied, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Our families were strong, our country had a direction.”


So ... America was last great ... back when natives from Africa were kidnapped, sold and kept as slaves?

MAGA == Bring back slavery?

And here he is reaching out to the 'rainbow coalition':
Quote
“Now we have blacks and whites fighting, reds and yellows fighting, Democrats and Republicans fighting, men and women fighting,” he continued. “What’s going to unite us? What’s going to bring us back together? A president? A Congress? No. It’s going to be God.”

He later defended the use of “reds and yellows” by saying that he was quoting a religious song.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: spikelovetheCelts on December 08, 2017, 12:27:32 PM
We have a lie on Yearbook proved today. He will now win for sure.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on December 08, 2017, 12:42:53 PM
We have a lie on Yearbook proved today. He will now win for sure.

Washington Post's reporting all holds up and the signature is real, but this now lets them get away with child molestation.  What a massive **** up.  Gloria Allred is such a troll
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on December 08, 2017, 01:08:54 PM
Quote
At a campaign event earlier this year, an audience member asked Moore for his opinion on when the last time America was "great." Moore responded: "I think it was great at the time when families were united—even though we had slavery—they cared for one another…Our families were strong, our country had a direction."

This man is still endorsed and funded by the RNC.
What does that even mean?!
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 08, 2017, 01:21:54 PM
We have a lie on Yearbook proved today. He will now win for sure.

Washington Post's reporting all holds up and the signature is real, but this now lets them get away with child molestation.  What a massive **** up.  Gloria Allred is such a troll

Man it was stupid not to state the date and place were added on. They need to have the signature analyzed at this point. They're claiming they have and will have a press conference today but I'll wait and see.

One of the perverse things about the conspiratorial cynicism we see a lot of is that any issue with any piece of reporting or evidence is used to undermine all of it. It leads to having more evidence being worse than less, tangible evidence and personal testimony worse than speculation and innuendo. The Washington Post had nothing to do with this woman's story but it'll be swiftly conflated and used to attack their reporting regardless, and not just in this story.


Quote
At a campaign event earlier this year, an audience member asked Moore for his opinion on when the last time America was "great." Moore responded: "I think it was great at the time when families were united—even though we had slavery—they cared for one another…Our families were strong, our country had a direction."

This man is still endorsed and funded by the RNC.
What does that even mean?!

Cousin marriage.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: mmmmm on December 11, 2017, 10:16:45 AM
We have a lie on Yearbook proved today. He will now win for sure.

Washington Post's reporting all holds up and the signature is real, but this now lets them get away with child molestation.  What a massive **** up.  Gloria Allred is such a troll

Man it was stupid not to state the date and place were added on. They need to have the signature analyzed at this point. They're claiming they have and will have a press conference today but I'll wait and see.
Quote
So Moore's actual signature has been confirmed by a handwriting expert.  And Fox pulled down their attack accusing the woman of 'forging' his signature.  But of course, Moore himself and several web sites and conservative media sources are still going to run with the accusation all the way to the end, regardless of facts.
One of the perverse things about the conspiratorial cynicism we see a lot of is that any issue with any piece of reporting or evidence is used to undermine all of it. It leads to having more evidence being worse than less, tangible evidence and personal testimony worse than speculation and innuendo. The Washington Post had nothing to do with this woman's story but it'll be swiftly conflated and used to attack their reporting regardless, and not just in this story.


I learned this lesson a long time ago watching the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Very early on in the hearings it became painfully obvious that the man was simply NOT qualified to become a Supreme Court Justice just based on his lack of credentials.  And he's proven to be nothing but an echo chamber during his whole tenure.

But once the accusations of sexual harassment of Anita Hill came out, the whole thing morphed into a referendum on her credibility and whether what she said about him could be taken as 110% gospel evidence of his bad character and of course that was just a river trying to go uphill against the boys-will-be-boys mentality at the time.   

And so, just because he couldn't be 110% proven to be a lecherous pig, he was confirmed for life as a Supreme Court Justice...  !!!!

It was madness.  The guy should never have even been nominated and wasn't qualified EVEN WITHOUT considering the sexual harassment charges!!!

And the same thing holds true with Moore.   Even if you refuse to believe the charges that all these different women have brought against him or even if you want to somehow twist it in your mind that the events really were not so bad, the fact is, the guy has about a zillion _other_ red flags on his resume' that should make him an automatic rejection for any high political office!   He's an unapologetic racist, misogynist  and homophobe with an extensive catalogue of statements and actions on his own part that should have rendered him to the scrap heap.

But I fear this is rapidly turning into a case of, if they can't pin _every_ thing on him, he not only gets off scott free, but indeed, gets rewarded with one of the highest seats of political office in the world.

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 11, 2017, 11:04:19 AM
We have a lie on Yearbook proved today. He will now win for sure.

Washington Post's reporting all holds up and the signature is real, but this now lets them get away with child molestation.  What a massive **** up.  Gloria Allred is such a troll

Man it was stupid not to state the date and place were added on. They need to have the signature analyzed at this point. They're claiming they have and will have a press conference today but I'll wait and see.
Quote
So Moore's actual signature has been confirmed by a handwriting expert.  And Fox pulled down their attack accusing the woman of 'forging' his signature.  But of course, Moore himself and several web sites and conservative media sources are still going to run with the accusation all the way to the end, regardless of facts.
One of the perverse things about the conspiratorial cynicism we see a lot of is that any issue with any piece of reporting or evidence is used to undermine all of it. It leads to having more evidence being worse than less, tangible evidence and personal testimony worse than speculation and innuendo. The Washington Post had nothing to do with this woman's story but it'll be swiftly conflated and used to attack their reporting regardless, and not just in this story.


I learned this lesson a long time ago watching the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Very early on in the hearings it became painfully obvious that the man was simply NOT qualified to become a Supreme Court Justice just based on his lack of credentials.  And he's proven to be nothing but an echo chamber during his whole tenure.

But once the accusations of sexual harassment of Anita Hill came out, the whole thing morphed into a referendum on her credibility and whether what she said about him could be taken as 110% gospel evidence of his bad character and of course that was just a river trying to go uphill against the boys-will-be-boys mentality at the time.   

And so, just because he couldn't be 110% proven to be a lecherous pig, he was confirmed for life as a Supreme Court Justice...  !!!!

It was madness.  The guy should never have even been nominated and wasn't qualified EVEN WITHOUT considering the sexual harassment charges!!!

And the same thing holds true with Moore.   Even if you refuse to believe the charges that all these different women have brought against him or even if you want to somehow twist it in your mind that the events really were not so bad, the fact is, the guy has about a zillion _other_ red flags on his resume' that should make him an automatic rejection for any high political office!   He's an unapologetic racist, misogynist  and homophobe with an extensive catalogue of statements and actions on his own part that should have rendered him to the scrap heap.

But I fear this is rapidly turning into a case of, if they can't pin _every_ thing on him, he not only gets off scott free, but indeed, gets rewarded with one of the highest seats of political office in the world.

I agree on Moore.  I disagree on Thomas, though. He’s hardly been an echo chamber. If anything, he’s more of a textualist than any other member of the Court. He got his position due to identity politics (despite an impressive resume), but he has been, at the very least, adequate as a Justice.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: danglertx on December 11, 2017, 11:28:34 AM
Quote

I learned this lesson a long time ago watching the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Very early on in the hearings it became painfully obvious that the man was simply NOT qualified to become a Supreme Court Justice just based on his lack of credentials.  And he's proven to be nothing but an echo chamber during his whole tenure.



When people make statements like this, I always wonder what they have accomplished in their lives to pass judgment on the qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice.  My brother would always call Bush dumb and I'd say, "he has two masters degrees from Harvard and I think Yale, you barely passed high school."  He was a fighter pilot and by all accounts a good one.  They don't like dumb people be fighter pilots.  But I guess his high school diploma and one semester of college before dropping out gives him the insight into the world the rest of us are missing.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: mmmmm on December 11, 2017, 12:46:21 PM
Quote

I learned this lesson a long time ago watching the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Very early on in the hearings it became painfully obvious that the man was simply NOT qualified to become a Supreme Court Justice just based on his lack of credentials.  And he's proven to be nothing but an echo chamber during his whole tenure.



When people make statements like this, I always wonder what they have accomplished in their lives to pass judgment on the qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice.  My brother would always call Bush dumb and I'd say, "he has two masters degrees from Harvard and I think Yale, you barely passed high school."  He was a fighter pilot and by all accounts a good one.  They don't like dumb people be fighter pilots.  But I guess his high school diploma and one semester of college before dropping out gives him the insight into the world the rest of us are missing.

My credentials aren't relevant.  This is the internet and for all you know I have the loftiest most unassailable of achievements on my CV.   Attacking me isn't relevant.   What is relevant to my point is the qualifications (or lack of)  of these men being given positions of extremely high power in our government being side-stepped because of the moving goal-posts of other issues.

Thomas went over 5 full years at one point without ever posing a single question to counsel in SC hearings.    He has written by far the fewest majority opinions.   His pen has been as quiet as his voice.  He has not ever really shown the ability to influence other's to come to his opinions.  Roy sees him as a 'textualist' but that begs the question of arguing over original intent.   For all practical purposes, he has served as an echo chamber for the strict conservative, constructionist vote. 

Even going back to his initial nomination, plenty of people questioned whether Thomas had the jurisprudential background for the job.  Thomas had barely served less than a year and a half on the D.C. Circuit when he was named to take Marshall's seat.     But because of (a) identity politics, as Roy points out and (b) the circus that erupted over the Anita Hill allegations, the Senate never really took to the task of actually reviewing his qualifications.   They instead let his narrow escape from the scandal serve as the referendum over his nomination.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 11, 2017, 09:11:03 PM
(https://media-al-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w680/media.al.com/news_impact/photo/roy-moore-young-interviewjpg-eebf160ee51bfa7b.jpg)

Quote
A pro-Trump super PAC arranged for a 12-year-old girl to interview Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R) as he faces mounting allegations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls.

The America First Project brought Millie March, a girl whose interviews during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) went viral, to Alabama to interview Moore.

“We decided that we were going to bring Millie to Alabama, after everything that’s happened in this Alabama Senate race up until this point,” America First Project’s Jennifer Lawrence said in the video, adding that the group wanted "to show there is a wide range of people who support Roy Moore."

Somebody thought this was a good idea?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: GratefulCs on December 11, 2017, 09:33:43 PM
(https://media-al-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w680/media.al.com/news_impact/photo/roy-moore-young-interviewjpg-eebf160ee51bfa7b.jpg)

Quote
A pro-Trump super PAC arranged for a 12-year-old girl to interview Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R) as he faces mounting allegations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls.

The America First Project brought Millie March, a girl whose interviews during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) went viral, to Alabama to interview Moore.

“We decided that we were going to bring Millie to Alabama, after everything that’s happened in this Alabama Senate race up until this point,” America First Project’s Jennifer Lawrence said in the video, adding that the group wanted "to show there is a wide range of people who support Roy Moore."

Somebody thought this was a good idea?
just gross
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 11, 2017, 09:36:54 PM
(https://media-al-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w680/media.al.com/news_impact/photo/roy-moore-young-interviewjpg-eebf160ee51bfa7b.jpg)

Quote
A pro-Trump super PAC arranged for a 12-year-old girl to interview Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R) as he faces mounting allegations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls.

The America First Project brought Millie March, a girl whose interviews during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) went viral, to Alabama to interview Moore.

“We decided that we were going to bring Millie to Alabama, after everything that’s happened in this Alabama Senate race up until this point,” America First Project’s Jennifer Lawrence said in the video, adding that the group wanted "to show there is a wide range of people who support Roy Moore."

Somebody thought this was a good idea?
like putting a pack of cigarettes in front of a "former" smoker  ;)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on December 11, 2017, 10:00:36 PM
(https://media-al-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w680/media.al.com/news_impact/photo/roy-moore-young-interviewjpg-eebf160ee51bfa7b.jpg)

Quote
A pro-Trump super PAC arranged for a 12-year-old girl to interview Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R) as he faces mounting allegations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls.

The America First Project brought Millie March, a girl whose interviews during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) went viral, to Alabama to interview Moore.

“We decided that we were going to bring Millie to Alabama, after everything that’s happened in this Alabama Senate race up until this point,” America First Project’s Jennifer Lawrence said in the video, adding that the group wanted "to show there is a wide range of people who support Roy Moore."

Somebody thought this was a good idea?
like putting a pack of cigarettes in front of a "former" smoker  ;)

It's easy to be cynical about this.  I really am interested in knowing the train of thought that led to the decision of using a 12 yo girl to interview him -- especially as he's basically been in hiding for much of the past week.   

Is it really possible that they thought it would provide positive optics to place him next to a young girl without molesting her?  I find it hard to believe that this was their thinking, and yet I can't come up with anything else to support this decision.  It's really too strange to believe.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 11, 2017, 10:05:56 PM
(https://media-al-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w680/media.al.com/news_impact/photo/roy-moore-young-interviewjpg-eebf160ee51bfa7b.jpg)

Quote
A pro-Trump super PAC arranged for a 12-year-old girl to interview Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R) as he faces mounting allegations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls.

The America First Project brought Millie March, a girl whose interviews during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) went viral, to Alabama to interview Moore.

“We decided that we were going to bring Millie to Alabama, after everything that’s happened in this Alabama Senate race up until this point,” America First Project’s Jennifer Lawrence said in the video, adding that the group wanted "to show there is a wide range of people who support Roy Moore."

Somebody thought this was a good idea?
like putting a pack of cigarettes in front of a "former" smoker  ;)

It's easy to be cynical about this.  I really am interested in knowing the train of thought that led to the decision of using a 12 yo girl to interview him -- especially as he's basically been in hiding for much of the past week.   

Is it really possible that they thought it would provide positive optics to place him next to a young girl without molesting her?  I find it hard to believe that this was their thinking, and yet I can't come up with anything else to support this decision.  It's really too strange to believe.
that or they figure an interview conducted at the intellectual level of a 12-year old is about what a voter in Alabama can understand?   :-\
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 11, 2017, 10:08:27 PM
(https://media-al-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w680/media.al.com/news_impact/photo/roy-moore-young-interviewjpg-eebf160ee51bfa7b.jpg)

Quote
A pro-Trump super PAC arranged for a 12-year-old girl to interview Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R) as he faces mounting allegations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls.

The America First Project brought Millie March, a girl whose interviews during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) went viral, to Alabama to interview Moore.

“We decided that we were going to bring Millie to Alabama, after everything that’s happened in this Alabama Senate race up until this point,” America First Project’s Jennifer Lawrence said in the video, adding that the group wanted "to show there is a wide range of people who support Roy Moore."

Somebody thought this was a good idea?

Her parents, I guess? 

I can see it now - when she comes of age, she'll be repulsed by the thought of being in the same room as the toxic wastedump that is Roy Moore.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: CelticD on December 11, 2017, 10:08:46 PM
(https://media-al-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w680/media.al.com/news_impact/photo/roy-moore-young-interviewjpg-eebf160ee51bfa7b.jpg)

Quote
A pro-Trump super PAC arranged for a 12-year-old girl to interview Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R) as he faces mounting allegations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls.

The America First Project brought Millie March, a girl whose interviews during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) went viral, to Alabama to interview Moore.

“We decided that we were going to bring Millie to Alabama, after everything that’s happened in this Alabama Senate race up until this point,” America First Project’s Jennifer Lawrence said in the video, adding that the group wanted "to show there is a wide range of people who support Roy Moore."

Somebody thought this was a good idea?

LOL. "Look guys! I'm not aroused!"
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: jambr380 on December 11, 2017, 10:24:44 PM
(https://media-al-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w680/media.al.com/news_impact/photo/roy-moore-young-interviewjpg-eebf160ee51bfa7b.jpg)

Quote
A pro-Trump super PAC arranged for a 12-year-old girl to interview Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R) as he faces mounting allegations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls.

The America First Project brought Millie March, a girl whose interviews during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) went viral, to Alabama to interview Moore.

“We decided that we were going to bring Millie to Alabama, after everything that’s happened in this Alabama Senate race up until this point,” America First Project’s Jennifer Lawrence said in the video, adding that the group wanted "to show there is a wide range of people who support Roy Moore."

Somebody thought this was a good idea?

LOL. "Look guys! I'm not aroused!"

I don't know man, look where is hands are positioned. Perhaps he is trying to hide what's going on under the pants.

I don't know how many more times I can be in disbelief about Roy Moore and Alabama voters. I am becoming numb to that particular emotion.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 11, 2017, 10:28:05 PM
(https://media-al-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w680/media.al.com/news_impact/photo/roy-moore-young-interviewjpg-eebf160ee51bfa7b.jpg)

Quote
A pro-Trump super PAC arranged for a 12-year-old girl to interview Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R) as he faces mounting allegations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls.

The America First Project brought Millie March, a girl whose interviews during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) went viral, to Alabama to interview Moore.

“We decided that we were going to bring Millie to Alabama, after everything that’s happened in this Alabama Senate race up until this point,” America First Project’s Jennifer Lawrence said in the video, adding that the group wanted "to show there is a wide range of people who support Roy Moore."

Somebody thought this was a good idea?
Why do I get this optic of a fat, unshaven blonde guy wearing overalls, chewing tobacco, saying "See, he ain't never been aroused by none lil' girls, yall. We need Roy Moore helping Mr. Trump".
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 09:30:09 AM
Moore's closing arguments include:

- I can do an interview with a 12-year-old girl without assaulting her!

- Here's a character testimonial that I didn't have sex with underage Vietnamese prostitutes even though I totally could have!

- If we're so anti-Semitic, then why is our attorney a Jew?


If you're wondering if any of these are made up, please refer to the current year.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: heyvik on December 12, 2017, 09:34:05 AM
Moore's closing arguments include:

- I can do an interview with a 12-year-old girl without assaulting her!

- Here's a character testimonial that I didn't have sex with underage Vietnamese prostitutes even though I totally could have!

- If we're so anti-Semitic, then why is our attorney a Jew?

Did he really say that?

If you're wondering if any of these are made up, please refer to the current year.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 09:39:03 AM
Moore's closing arguments include:

- I can do an interview with a 12-year-old girl without assaulting her!

- Here's a character testimonial that I didn't have sex with underage Vietnamese prostitutes even though I totally could have!

- If we're so anti-Semitic, then why is our attorney a Jew?



If you're wondering if any of these are made up, please refer to the current year.

Did he really say that?

His wife did, last night.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/kayla-moore-roy-rally-alabama-senate/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/kayla-moore-roy-rally-alabama-senate/index.html)

Some of their best friends, dontcha know.


Meanwhile polls range from Moore +9 to Jones +10 (from Fox of all places), with most showing Moore up by 4-5. *extremely lazy pundit voice* folks it's gonna all come down to turnout.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on December 12, 2017, 09:58:03 AM
Meanwhile polls range from Moore +9 to Jones +10 (from Fox of all places), with most showing Moore up by 4-5. *extremely lazy pundit voice* folks it's gonna all come down to turnout.

I feel like this post is the equivalent of that salty taste in your mouth before you throw up. Like, you're pretty certain you're gonna throw up, probably, almost certainly. But maybe you're not. You're gonna wait another ten seconds before heading to the bathroom just to ma------sorry. Yeah, it got everywhere. Sorry.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 12, 2017, 10:01:52 AM
should add a poll to guess the winner and margin of victory.

I'm going with Moore by 12%.  The Fox report claiming Jones is ahead will be seen by Moore supporters and get them out in droves to support him. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Vermont Green on December 12, 2017, 10:05:24 AM
Roy Moore is going to win, I just feel it.  Remember, he is filling Jeff Sessions' seat.  Who would have thought that you would get an even more polarizing senator.

Here is the conversation Trump will have with him. 

Great job Roy, glad you won but you know, we really need you to get booted from the Senate to provide cover for me for the, you know, wink wink, that fake news about all those women accusing me.  The good Gov. of Alabama will appoint another totally partisan right wing reliable vote so we will be fine.  But don't worry, I am going to appoint you to a federal judgeship or maybe the head of a civil rights commission that I am going to form. We will take care of you.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on December 12, 2017, 10:10:09 AM
should add a poll to guess the winner and margin of victory.

I'm going with Moore by 12%.  The Fox report claiming Jones is ahead will be seen by Moore supporters and get them out in droves to support him. 

I'm going 51-49 Doug Jones, Alabama's soul saved by black voters.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: heyvik on December 12, 2017, 10:17:09 AM
should add a poll to guess the winner and margin of victory.

I'm going with Moore by 12%.  The Fox report claiming Jones is ahead will be seen by Moore supporters and get them out in droves to support him.

so lemme get this straight - FOX news is reporting that Jones is ahead??? If he wins, then will DJT consider it FAKE NEWS???

On a more serious point, I COMPLETELY get their strategy. Keep publicizing that Jones is ahead, so that more of the (R) base will go out and vote for Moore - just to make sure that the (D) doesn't win.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Donoghus on December 12, 2017, 10:22:19 AM
I have very little faith that Moore doesn't get elected tonight.  :P
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on December 12, 2017, 10:23:21 AM
should add a poll to guess the winner and margin of victory.

I'm going with Moore by 12%.  The Fox report claiming Jones is ahead will be seen by Moore supporters and get them out in droves to support him.

so lemme get this straight - FOX news is reporting that Jones is ahead??? If he wins, then will DJT consider it FAKE NEWS???

On a more serious point, I COMPLETELY get their strategy. Keep publicizing that Jones is ahead, so that more of the (R) base will go out and vote for Moore - just to make sure that the (D) doesn't win.

Same thing Bill Simmons does when the C's are in the playoffs.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 10:26:31 AM
Meanwhile polls range from Moore +9 to Jones +10 (from Fox of all places), with most showing Moore up by 4-5. *extremely lazy pundit voice* folks it's gonna all come down to turnout.

I feel like this post is the equivalent of that salty taste in your mouth before you throw up. Like, you're pretty certain you're gonna throw up, probably, almost certainly. But maybe you're not. You're gonna wait another ten seconds before heading to the bathroom just to ma------sorry. Yeah, it got everywhere. Sorry.

I've figured Moore would win all along, so it's not really the same for me. Credible accusations of child molestation just upped Jones' chances from like 1-2% to about 20%. Wouldn't be shocking if Jones won but would be surprising.

From a moral perspective it's clearly appalling but comedically it'd be the gift that keeps on giving. Just imagine it: Moore giving speeches on the Senate floor blaming terrorism on the gays, making inappropriate comments to a page and forcing R pundits to be like, "ACTUALLY, telling a 16 year old she has childbearing hips isn't a crime". Years of this stuff.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondofan1255 on December 12, 2017, 10:30:54 AM
should add a poll to guess the winner and margin of victory.

I'm going with Moore by 12%.  The Fox report claiming Jones is ahead will be seen by Moore supporters and get them out in droves to support him.

Yesterday, I guessed Moore by 12% too.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 10:37:32 AM
should add a poll to guess the winner and margin of victory.

I'm going with Moore by 12%.  The Fox report claiming Jones is ahead will be seen by Moore supporters and get them out in droves to support him.

so lemme get this straight - FOX news is reporting that Jones is ahead??? If he wins, then will DJT consider it FAKE NEWS???

On a more serious point, I COMPLETELY get their strategy. Keep publicizing that Jones is ahead, so that more of the (R) base will go out and vote for Moore - just to make sure that the (D) doesn't win.

Fox like everyone else doesn't run their own polls, they commission professional outlets to do it. Their polls aren't significantly more or less biased than other major polls. Except when they use Rasmussen, which has a consistent R lean, but even that's not too dramatic.

I'm really not a fan of the idea that professional polls are being doctored to push some underlying narrative. Though as Nate Silver points out, a lot of outfits would've just not published a poll that's such an outlier (there's one recent poll where they're tied, every other one has Moore up by at least a few pts). Especially with special elections being notoriously hard
 to accurately model. But I prefer all the data come out no matter how people choose to use them.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on December 12, 2017, 10:39:54 AM
should add a poll to guess the winner and margin of victory.

I'm going with Moore by 12%.  The Fox report claiming Jones is ahead will be seen by Moore supporters and get them out in droves to support him.

so lemme get this straight - FOX news is reporting that Jones is ahead??? If he wins, then will DJT consider it FAKE NEWS???

On a more serious point, I COMPLETELY get their strategy. Keep publicizing that Jones is ahead, so that more of the (R) base will go out and vote for Moore - just to make sure that the (D) doesn't win.

Fox like everyone else doesn't run their own polls, they commission professional outlets to do it. Their polls aren't significantly more or less biased than other major polls. Except when they use Rasmussen, which has a consistent R lean, but even that's not too dramatic.

I'm really not a fan of the idea that professional polls are being doctored to push some underlying narrative. Though as Nate Silver points out, a lot of outfits would've just not published a poll that's such an outlier (there's one recent poll where they're tied, every other one has Moore up by at least a few pts). But I prefer all the data come out no matter how people choose to use them.
You don't need to doctor it per se. Just stratifying/weighing differently can give a vastly different result. Publishing a survey calibrated to show the worst possible outcome for a candidate is somewhat legitimate, and noone is going to read the fine print anyhow.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: jambr380 on December 12, 2017, 10:42:29 AM
Roy Moore is going to win, I just feel it.  Remember, he is filling Jeff Sessions' seat.  Who would have thought that you would get an even more polarizing senator.

Here is the conversation Trump will have with him. 

Great job Roy, glad you won but you know, we really need you to get booted from the Senate to provide cover for me for the, you know, wink wink, that fake news about all those women accusing me.  The good Gov. of Alabama will appoint another totally partisan right wing reliable vote so we will be fine.  But don't worry, I am going to appoint you to a federal judgeship or maybe the head of a civil rights commission that I am going to form. We will take care of you.

Yeah, 'worst case' scenario for the Rs is pushing Moore to resign and appointing a more 'appropriate' R senator in his place. I am sure this is how many people justified voting for Trump, knowing that Pence, not Killary, would take his place...that and getting a conservative Supreme Court justice at any cost. Party over politics!

We can all cross our fingers and hope Alabama does the right thing, but that seems like quite a bit to ask for.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on December 12, 2017, 10:42:52 AM
Roy Moode was a deplorable candidate BEFORE the very believable assault accusations.  It is hard to fathom someone like him would be elected just because of party affiliation but it is likely to happen and it disgusts me.

I have a few friends from Alabama and they often complain about how Alabama is perceived around the country.  If they elect Roy Moode they are only reinforcing those perceptions.

Come on Alabama, here is your chance to get it right.  You are better than and deserve better than Roy Moode...
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: jackpercussion on December 12, 2017, 10:47:39 AM
He'll be elected and then forced to resign.  This has been the plan all along.  Not saying it is right; it's just business.

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on December 12, 2017, 10:55:49 AM
Meanwhile polls range from Moore +9 to Jones +10 (from Fox of all places), with most showing Moore up by 4-5. *extremely lazy pundit voice* folks it's gonna all come down to turnout.

I feel like this post is the equivalent of that salty taste in your mouth before you throw up. Like, you're pretty certain you're gonna throw up, probably, almost certainly. But maybe you're not. You're gonna wait another ten seconds before heading to the bathroom just to ma------sorry. Yeah, it got everywhere. Sorry.

I've figured Moore would win all along, so it's not really the same for me. Credible accusations of child molestation just upped Jones' chances from like 1-2% to about 20%. Wouldn't be shocking if Jones won but would be surprising.

From a moral perspective it's clearly appalling but comedically it'd be the gift that keeps on giving. Just imagine it: Moore giving speeches on the Senate floor blaming terrorism on the gays, making inappropriate comments to a page and forcing R pundits to be like, "ACTUALLY, telling a 16 year old she has childbearing hips isn't a crime". Years of this stuff.

Every single response I have to this post isn't allowed on this forum. And they were all jokes.


Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 12, 2017, 11:19:16 AM
Roy Moore is going to win, I just feel it.  Remember, he is filling Jeff Sessions' seat.  Who would have thought that you would get an even more polarizing senator.

Here is the conversation Trump will have with him. 

Great job Roy, glad you won but you know, we really need you to get booted from the Senate to provide cover for me for the, you know, wink wink, that fake news about all those women accusing me.  The good Gov. of Alabama will appoint another totally partisan right wing reliable vote so we will be fine.  But don't worry, I am going to appoint you to a federal judgeship or maybe the head of a civil rights commission that I am going to form to fill Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat on the Supreme Court. We will take care of you.
fixed it for you.  you know that's what Trump's really thinking and offering    :P
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: D Dub on December 12, 2017, 07:44:42 PM
No longer do you get to play the moral high ground / religious right card if you republicans double down and elect a Moore on the heels of electing Trump. 

That is some seriously hollow ground.

Pro tip:
if you own a home better cash out now ahead of the collapse.  It’s tradition didn’t ya know.
Now that the 1% has their tax break, expect them to pull out of the market & horde half the nations money over the next 18 months. 

Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Ilikesports17 on December 12, 2017, 07:53:16 PM
No longer do you get to play the moral high ground / religious right card if you republicans double down and elect a Moore on the heels of electing Trump. 

That is some seriously hollow ground.

Pro tip:
if you own a home better cash out now ahead of the collapse.  It’s tradition didn’t ya know.
Now that the 1% has their tax break, expect them to pull out of the market & horde half the nations money over the next 18 months.
You can easily vote for Moore and maintain whatever moral standing you had before simply by believing the accusations are bogus. I think you can leverage the doctored year book into a reasonable belief that Moore is innocent.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: D Dub on December 12, 2017, 07:54:12 PM
No longer do you get to play the moral high ground / religious right card if you republicans double down and elect a Moore on the heels of electing Trump. 

That is some seriously hollow ground.

Pro tip:
if you own a home better cash out now ahead of the collapse.  It’s tradition didn’t ya know.
Now that the 1% has their tax break, expect them to pull out of the market & horde half the nations money over the next 18 months.
I havent really noticed Republicans playing that card...

Either way, you can easily vote for Moore and maintain whatever moral standing you had before simply by believing the accusations are bogus. I think you can leverage the doctored year book into a reasonable belief that Moore is innocent.
It’s bliss isn’t it?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 08:12:57 PM
Polls are closed in Alabama, and while votes are trickling in, it looks like the race could be called right now.

The overwhelming winner?





(https://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0001/467/MI0001467866.jpg?partner=allrovi.com)

You guessed it, Frank Stallone.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: D Dub on December 12, 2017, 08:13:22 PM
Fast forward to 9 min mark for comedy gold
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=5294R0nqA7I

But yeah hold tight to that moral high ground...
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 08:17:55 PM
Ooh, I like this one better:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ41i_WXUAQMmW7.jpg)

Please clap.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Ilikesports17 on December 12, 2017, 08:26:23 PM
No longer do you get to play the moral high ground / religious right card if you republicans double down and elect a Moore on the heels of electing Trump. 

That is some seriously hollow ground.

Pro tip:
if you own a home better cash out now ahead of the collapse.  It’s tradition didn’t ya know.
Now that the 1% has their tax break, expect them to pull out of the market & horde half the nations money over the next 18 months.
I havent really noticed Republicans playing that card...

Either way, you can easily vote for Moore and maintain whatever moral standing you had before simply by believing the accusations are bogus. I think you can leverage the doctored year book into a reasonable belief that Moore is innocent.
It’s bliss isn’t it?
yeah. I personally dont know enough about the Moore scandal to make a hard judgement on it, but the evidence seems to be mounting that Moore at the absolute least was a really really creepy dude.

That said, the allegations are from a long time ago, and when evidence was provided it was later proven to be doctored. I think its highly unlikely that all these accusers are just pulling it out of their ass, but if Moore is your guy and you are trying to find a way to morally justify voting for him, I think there is enough of a grey area that you can accomplish that without too too much mental gymnastics.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 12, 2017, 09:07:45 PM
Fast forward to 9 min mark for comedy gold
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=5294R0nqA7I

But yeah hold tight to that moral high ground...
Absolutely hilarious and yet sad because I am guessing most Alabama voters feel like everything he said was 100% gospel truth.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 12, 2017, 09:17:39 PM
Looks like it's going to be close.  I am not expecting a Jones win.

It's a lose-lose for Republicans, but I'm seriously wondering if a Moore victory would actually be worse.  Sure, you have a slightly larger margin in the Senate, but the controversy that would follow Moore everywhere would really cause a lot of independents, I think, to sour on the Republicans and subsequently hurt them in the 2018 midterms.  Trump and Moore would become the face of the party, especially with the biased media portraying them as such (I say this as NY Times subscriber, which I feel has been worth every cent).
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 12, 2017, 09:20:24 PM
NY Times is saying 75% probability that Jones wins.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/alabama-senate-special-election-roy-moore-doug-jones?action=click&module=TopStories&pgtype=Homepage
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on December 12, 2017, 09:20:51 PM
Fast forward to 9 min mark for comedy gold
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=5294R0nqA7I

But yeah hold tight to that moral high ground...

TP, thank you for that.

We truly are barreling towards Idiocracy at frightening speed.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 12, 2017, 09:29:19 PM
NYT: Now 90% Jones
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 12, 2017, 09:29:56 PM
NY Times is saying 75% probability that Jones wins.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/alabama-senate-special-election-roy-moore-doug-jones?action=click&module=TopStories&pgtype=Homepage

Wow.  Now 90% chance.  Looks like most of the remaining votes are in Birmingham, Montgomery, and Mobile.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 09:30:26 PM
Fast forward to 9 min mark for comedy gold
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=5294R0nqA7I

But yeah hold tight to that moral high ground...

Everyone's focusing on the slackjawed response to learning there's no requirement to swear in on a Bible but note that it's being used as a justification for Moore's bigoted and wildly unconstitutional position that Muslims should not be allowed to hold office, and he also reiterates that Moore believes homosexual behavior should be illegal. Until recently Moore had stated it could be given the death penalty. Win or lose, this guy will get tens of thousands of votes.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: esel1000 on December 12, 2017, 09:34:27 PM
NYT: Now 90% Jones

This would be some victory. I think I was 1 last time a Democrat won a Senate seat in Alabama (almost 27 now).
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Ilikesports17 on December 12, 2017, 09:35:31 PM
NYT: Now 90% Jones

This would be some victory. I think I was 1 last time a Democrat won a Senate seat in Alabama (almost 27 now).
Im almost surprised it was that recent.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Ilikesports17 on December 12, 2017, 09:36:23 PM
Fast forward to 9 min mark for comedy gold
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=5294R0nqA7I

But yeah hold tight to that moral high ground...

Everyone's focusing on the slackjawed response to learning there's no requirement to swear in on a Bible but note that it's being used as a justification for Moore's bigoted and wildly unconstitutional position that Muslims should not be allowed to hold office, and he also reiterates that Moore believes homosexual behavior should be illegal. Until recently Moore had stated it could be given the death penalty. Win or lose, this guy will get tens of thousands of votes.
yeah thought it was way more egregious to believe a Muslim shouldnt be able to hold office than it was to not know the details of the swearing in process.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 12, 2017, 09:37:30 PM
NYT: Now 90% Jones
don't count the chickens before they hatch.  get the votes counted first and celebrate (or mourn) afterwards
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 09:39:06 PM
NY Times is saying 75% probability that Jones wins.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/alabama-senate-special-election-roy-moore-doug-jones?action=click&module=TopStories&pgtype=Homepage

Wow.  Now 90% chance.  Looks like most of the remaining votes are in Birmingham, Montgomery, and Mobile.

Now it's 66. From what I've read wild swings are to be expected in this kind of election in a very polarized state.

Really hard to model special elections because there's far less data on typical turnout.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 12, 2017, 09:39:56 PM
NYT: Now 90% Jones
don't count the chickens before they hatch.  get the votes counted first and celebrate (or mourn) afterwards

Yeah, projections mean little, but they’re all we’ve got.

When is this seat up again? Is it 2020?

Republicans are probably better off if they lose this.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 12, 2017, 09:42:01 PM
NYT: Now 90% Jones
don't count the chickens before they hatch.  get the votes counted first and celebrate (or mourn) afterwards

True.  That 95% chance for Clinton to win by the NYT won't soon be forgotten.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Ilikesports17 on December 12, 2017, 09:44:26 PM
NYT: Now 90% Jones
don't count the chickens before they hatch.  get the votes counted first and celebrate (or mourn) afterwards

True.  That 95% chance for Clinton to win by the NYT won't soon be forgotten.
wasnt that before the election tho?

day-off stuff, especially once the polls close are usually pretty spot on.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 12, 2017, 09:45:37 PM
NYT: Now 90% Jones
don't count the chickens before they hatch.  get the votes counted first and celebrate (or mourn) afterwards

True.  That 95% chance for Clinton to win by the NYT won't soon be forgotten.
wasnt that before the election tho?

day-off stuff, especially once the polls close are usually pretty spot on.

Yeah it was.  But 95% is a pretty darn confident estimate.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Ilikesports17 on December 12, 2017, 09:50:27 PM
NYT: Now 90% Jones
don't count the chickens before they hatch.  get the votes counted first and celebrate (or mourn) afterwards

True.  That 95% chance for Clinton to win by the NYT won't soon be forgotten.
wasnt that before the election tho?

day-off stuff, especially once the polls close are usually pretty spot on.

Yeah it was.  But 95% is a pretty darn confident estimate.
thats true. I guess 95% is 95%.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on December 12, 2017, 09:50:40 PM
Fast forward to 9 min mark for comedy gold
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=5294R0nqA7I

But yeah hold tight to that moral high ground...

Everyone's focusing on the slackjawed response to learning there's no requirement to swear in on a Bible but note that it's being used as a justification for Moore's bigoted and wildly unconstitutional position that Muslims should not be allowed to hold office, and he also reiterates that Moore believes homosexual behavior should be illegal. Until recently Moore had stated it could be given the death penalty. Win or lose, this guy will get tens of thousands of votes.

You're surprised? Roy Moore cares about the Constitution about as much as Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell care about the national deficit - these talking points are just distraction from the fact that they and their billionaire friends are stuffing their pockets, bleeding the country dry. It should be obvious, but the rubes fall for it, just like the poor white farmhands did during the Civil War. At some point you just need to sit back and have a chuckle at the absurdity of it all.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Phantom255x on December 12, 2017, 09:53:14 PM
Mobile, Birmingham, and Montgomery are key now for Doug Jones. Close race.  :o
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 09:54:17 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Phantom255x on December 12, 2017, 09:57:00 PM
Mobile, Birmingham, and Montgomery are key now for Doug Jones. Close race.  :o

It's swinging to Jones now!

Moore's lead down to 1% and dropping.

It's going to be super close at the end.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on December 12, 2017, 10:00:13 PM
NYT: Now 90% Jones
don't count the chickens before they hatch.  get the votes counted first and celebrate (or mourn) afterwards

True.  That 95% chance for Clinton to win by the NYT won't soon be forgotten.
wasnt that before the election tho?

day-off stuff, especially once the polls close are usually pretty spot on.

Yeah it was.  But 95% is a pretty darn confident estimate.
thats true. I guess 95% is 95%.

Did anyone really think he was going to win though? Maybe the odds were too high but I think on some human level no-one dreamed it could actually happen (aside from Putin  ;)), even people who liked him. Not surprised if their models followed suit with this bias.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: DefenseWinsChamps on December 12, 2017, 10:00:58 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 10:05:22 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP for your perspective. I'm assuming you're not Alabamian either so the dynamic may be different in your community. 81-17 is a very big margin but that's still thousands who aren't voting for Moore. Just found the massive divergence very striking.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on December 12, 2017, 10:05:39 PM
I can't accept that a Moore win would play out well for the democrats.  Alabama cannot, should not elect Roy Moore -- not only because of the allegations, but because of the reprehensible anti-American stances he has held throughout his life.   There is no "moral victory" to have this guy in the Senate.  I don't need Bannon to be empowered or Trump to be boosted by the election of Moore.

Watching John King's analysis, it's definitely looking like there are enough votes remaining to be counted for Jones to make up the current deficit and win this race. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 10:06:52 PM
Mobile, Birmingham, and Montgomery are key now for Doug Jones. Close race.  :o

It's swinging to Jones now!

Moore's lead down to 1% and dropping.

It's going to be super close at the end.

I think if Jones passes him it'll basically be over. Almost all the outstanding votes are in D-leaning areas.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Phantom255x on December 12, 2017, 10:07:54 PM
Mobile, Birmingham, and Montgomery are key now for Doug Jones. Close race.  :o

It's swinging to Jones now!

Moore's lead down to 1% and dropping.

It's going to be super close at the end.

I think if Jones passes him it'll basically be over. Almost all the outstanding votes are in D-leaning areas.

You're right, and it's now only a 0.5% margin.

Moore currently up 49.5% to Jones' 49.0% according to NYT.

UPDATE: NYT says Jones now has a 78% chance of winning.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: tazzmaniac on December 12, 2017, 10:09:57 PM
As an Alabamian, I'm going to be very surprised but tickled pink if Moore doesn't win. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: DefenseWinsChamps on December 12, 2017, 10:11:07 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP for your perspective. I'm assuming you're not Alabamian either so the dynamic may be different in your community. 81-17 is a very big margin but that's still thousands who aren't voting for Moore. Just found the massive divergence very striking.

I'm an Iowan, which means I'm not a "Bible-belt" Christian. The truth is, based on my understanding of Christian teaching, many who claim to be Christians from the "Bible-belt" are not, even if they identify as one.

Obviously that is a very broad statement. Some may be even though they are confused. Others may be but are hypocrites. Still, just so you understand there are differing perspectives among evangelicals that line up with good moral teaching.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: esel1000 on December 12, 2017, 10:13:04 PM
Mobile, Birmingham, and Montgomery are key now for Doug Jones. Close race.  :o

It's swinging to Jones now!

Moore's lead down to 1% and dropping.

It's going to be super close at the end.

I think if Jones passes him it'll basically be over. Almost all the outstanding votes are in D-leaning areas.

You're right, and it's now only a 0.5% margin.

Moore currently up 49.5% to Jones' 49.0% according to NYT.

UPDATE: NYT says Jones now has a 78% chance of winning.

Most of the outstanding vote is projected Jones. It’s going to be close.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on December 12, 2017, 10:14:47 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP

That is good to hear. I grew up in a strong Christian household so I understand, though I am no longer religious. Everyone has their beliefs, and while I might not agree with those beliefs I respect people who are consistent. On the flipside I also find it disturbing that some jettison those beliefs apparently for the sake of pure power. If ideology bends to fit the circumstances then it becomes Orwellian doublethink. Once it becomes habitual, doublethink can be used to justify literally anything.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Phantom255x on December 12, 2017, 10:15:34 PM
TIED. 49.2% both.

NY Times projects 84% Jones will win.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 12, 2017, 10:16:47 PM
NYT website shows a dead tie right now
Moore 527,231
Jones. 527,098

That is close!
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Roy H. on December 12, 2017, 10:17:54 PM
Jones is now ahead in raw vote. Time to call this thing.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 12, 2017, 10:18:06 PM
It's pretty fun watching these live results.

Jones took the lead.  Looks like he's going to win it.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 10:18:33 PM
Current mood:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/876839047037149185/Yg3PpVWg_400x400.jpg)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 12, 2017, 10:18:54 PM
So what are the odds that Roy Moore contests the election if loses a super close race?  Does the fake voter fraud claims from Trump rub off on him?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: DefenseWinsChamps on December 12, 2017, 10:21:12 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP

That is good to hear. I grew up in a strong Christian household so I understand, though I am no longer religious. Everyone has their beliefs, and while I might not agree with those beliefs I respect people who are consistent. On the flipside I also find it disturbing that some jettison those beliefs apparently for the sake of pure power. If ideology bends to fit the circumstances then it becomes Orwellian doublethink. Once it becomes habitual, doublethink can be used to justify literally anything.

One of the things that sickens me most about the evangelical republican segment of America is that it seems they are willing to compromise or bend their beliefs for power, or in their words the "greater good."

Truth is that you see this from any ideology at times, and both sides of the aisle, but there are pretty clear teachings by Jesus on some of these things that are are ignored.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: esel1000 on December 12, 2017, 10:22:16 PM
It's pretty fun watching these live results.

Jones took the lead.  Looks like he's going to win it.

I’m having a great time watching this! I don’t want to get ahead of myself but we’re close to seeing justice served!
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Phantom255x on December 12, 2017, 10:22:47 PM
It's ironic seeing Roy Moore's camp using CNN and the "failing" NY Times to check these results  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: matteo on December 12, 2017, 10:23:25 PM
fox calls it for Jones
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Phantom255x on December 12, 2017, 10:23:42 PM
Pretty much over. Jones up by 0.8%, still lots of votes left for him, and NY Times giving him >95% chance to win it.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 12, 2017, 10:24:05 PM
It's pretty fun watching these live results.

Jones took the lead.  Looks like he's going to win it.

I’m having a great time watching this! I don’t want to get ahead of myself but we’re close to seeing justice served!

I watched the Northam/Gillespie and Handel/Ossof ones too.  And of course the POTUS one in 2016.

Some Republicans are actually probably breathing sighs of relief.  Moore is just toxic to the max.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: esel1000 on December 12, 2017, 10:24:18 PM
fox calls it for Jones

That is so sweet
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 12, 2017, 10:24:53 PM
Jones now up by over 10,000 votes with 11% still to be counted but almost all in blue counties.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Phantom255x on December 12, 2017, 10:24:53 PM
Looks like it's Jones!!!  ;D
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: DefenseWinsChamps on December 12, 2017, 10:25:23 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP for your perspective. I'm assuming you're not Alabamian either so the dynamic may be different in your community. 81-17 is a very big margin but that's still thousands who aren't voting for Moore. Just found the massive divergence very striking.


Just to add another thought, because Christian reputation matters to me ...

There is a growing movement, sometimes called the "gospel-centered" movement, and sometimes called YRR (young restless and reformed) that is tired of republican Christianity. We are more devoted to Christ and his teachings and less to maintaining political power. And these last few elections have sickened those in that movement (myself included).

At this point, many of those in the movement are not influential enough because of their youth, but I think in coming years there will be a better representation of Christianity in America and in politics. At least I hope so.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on December 12, 2017, 10:25:33 PM
Jones with buzzer beater!  Nice going Alabama!
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: jambr380 on December 12, 2017, 10:25:58 PM
So what are the odds that Roy Moore contests the election if loses a super close race?  Does the fake voter fraud claims from Trump rub off on him?

I'm thinking this might not be all that close given the votes still to come in.

Assuming this holds up, a big congratulations to the residents of Alabama for showing up and doing the right thing! I know it comes as a big surprise to most of us, but a pleasant one at that.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on December 12, 2017, 10:26:16 PM
It's important for America that Moore lose this race.

I was in Canada for a couple weeks on vacation, just got back. People were making fun of America like I've never seen before, anywhere. Not hate per se, just mockery.

Our reputation has taken a major beating since the last election. Charles Barkley said the other day that Alabama is a laughingstock and needs to resuscitate its image; America needs to do the the same if we're going to continue to prosper and be a world leader.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 12, 2017, 10:29:47 PM
So what are the odds that Roy Moore contests the election if loses a super close race?  Does the fake voter fraud claims from Trump rub off on him?

I'm thinking this might not be all that close given the votes still to come in.

Assuming this holds up, a big congratulations to the residents of Alabama for showing up and doing the right thing! I know it comes as a big surprise to most of us, but a pleasant one at that.

I am so happy Jones is winning this too.  If the final vote total gets a lot wider I agree it will be hard to maintain the crackpot voter fraud claims.   Roy Moore doesn't have a good handle on the truth so nothing would surprise me.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 12, 2017, 10:30:40 PM
Jones will hold the seat until Jan 2021.  At which time I fully expect it to flip back red.

I still can't help but think that a Moore victory would have been worse for Republicans especially in the short term.  I wonder what Moore's camp will blame.  Rigged election?  WaPo's "fake news"?

One thing's for sure, if I'm a Republican, I'm pretty nervous about the 2018 midterms.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 12, 2017, 10:30:40 PM
CNN just projected Doug Jones will win. 

Good for Alabama. 

Sets the standard for the rest of the US in electing horrible people to office. 

People of MA could learn a thing or two (Warren/Kennedy)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 12, 2017, 10:31:56 PM
Jones will hold the seat until Jan 2021.  At which time I fully expect it to flip back red.

I still can't help but think that a Moore victory would have been worse for Republicans especially in the short term.  I wonder what Moore's camp will blame.  Rigged election?  WaPo's "fake news"?

One thing's for sure, if I'm a Republican, I'm pretty nervous about the 2018 midterms.

Yeah I would be really concerned if I was Trump right now about 2018.  For lots of reasons.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: esel1000 on December 12, 2017, 10:32:50 PM
Sweet justice was served!
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Phantom255x on December 12, 2017, 10:33:58 PM
ROLL TIDE!!!  ;D

Doug Jones for the win!
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on December 12, 2017, 10:37:47 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP

That is good to hear. I grew up in a strong Christian household so I understand, though I am no longer religious. Everyone has their beliefs, and while I might not agree with those beliefs I respect people who are consistent. On the flipside I also find it disturbing that some jettison those beliefs apparently for the sake of pure power. If ideology bends to fit the circumstances then it becomes Orwellian doublethink. Once it becomes habitual, doublethink can be used to justify literally anything.

One of the things that sickens me most about the evangelical republican segment of America is that it seems they are willing to compromise or bend their beliefs for power, or in their words the "greater good."

Truth is that you see this from any ideology at times, and both sides of the aisle, but there are pretty clear teachings by Jesus on some of these things that are are ignored.
Yep.

No doubt the Democrats made a major mistake supporting Bill Clinton for all those years. IMO that hypocrisy was a contributing factor to Trump's victory after the Access Hollywood tape and the following accusations came to light.

Hopefully we can all learn something from all this mess.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: CelticD on December 12, 2017, 10:44:16 PM
Alabama surprised me tonight.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: footey on December 12, 2017, 10:46:35 PM
Thank God.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 12, 2017, 10:47:35 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP

That is good to hear. I grew up in a strong Christian household so I understand, though I am no longer religious. Everyone has their beliefs, and while I might not agree with those beliefs I respect people who are consistent. On the flipside I also find it disturbing that some jettison those beliefs apparently for the sake of pure power. If ideology bends to fit the circumstances then it becomes Orwellian doublethink. Once it becomes habitual, doublethink can be used to justify literally anything.

One of the things that sickens me most about the evangelical republican segment of America is that it seems they are willing to compromise or bend their beliefs for power, or in their words the "greater good."

Truth is that you see this from any ideology at times, and both sides of the aisle, but there are pretty clear teachings by Jesus on some of these things that are are ignored.
Yep.

No doubt the Democrats made a major mistake supporting Bill Clinton for all those years. IMO that hypocrisy was a contributing factor to Trump's victory after the Access Hollywood tape and the following accusations came to light.

Hopefully we can all learn something from all this mess.

If Trump runs for re-election in 2020, his mistake of supporting Moore will probably be used against him.  He gambled on this one and lost in more ways than one.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: DefenseWinsChamps on December 12, 2017, 10:50:12 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP

That is good to hear. I grew up in a strong Christian household so I understand, though I am no longer religious. Everyone has their beliefs, and while I might not agree with those beliefs I respect people who are consistent. On the flipside I also find it disturbing that some jettison those beliefs apparently for the sake of pure power. If ideology bends to fit the circumstances then it becomes Orwellian doublethink. Once it becomes habitual, doublethink can be used to justify literally anything.

One of the things that sickens me most about the evangelical republican segment of America is that it seems they are willing to compromise or bend their beliefs for power, or in their words the "greater good."

Truth is that you see this from any ideology at times, and both sides of the aisle, but there are pretty clear teachings by Jesus on some of these things that are are ignored.
Yep.

No doubt the Democrats made a major mistake supporting Bill Clinton for all those years. IMO that hypocrisy was a contributing factor to Trump's victory after the Access Hollywood tape and the following accusations came to light.

Hopefully we can all learn something from all this mess.

If Trump runs for re-election in 2020, his mistake of supporting Moore will probably be used against him.  He gambled on this one and lost in more ways than one.

I hope this is true, but I don't think it will be. I think this served to strengthen his base, whether Moore won or not. The base will rally around a martyr complex and might be even more supportive of Trump if this comes up in the next election.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: trickybilly on December 12, 2017, 10:50:20 PM
Jones with buzzer beater!  Nice going Alabama!

2016 Nets overtime loss type feeling...
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 12, 2017, 10:53:40 PM
Thank God.

Exactly.  Tp
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on December 12, 2017, 10:54:41 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP

That is good to hear. I grew up in a strong Christian household so I understand, though I am no longer religious. Everyone has their beliefs, and while I might not agree with those beliefs I respect people who are consistent. On the flipside I also find it disturbing that some jettison those beliefs apparently for the sake of pure power. If ideology bends to fit the circumstances then it becomes Orwellian doublethink. Once it becomes habitual, doublethink can be used to justify literally anything.

One of the things that sickens me most about the evangelical republican segment of America is that it seems they are willing to compromise or bend their beliefs for power, or in their words the "greater good."

Truth is that you see this from any ideology at times, and both sides of the aisle, but there are pretty clear teachings by Jesus on some of these things that are are ignored.
Yep.

No doubt the Democrats made a major mistake supporting Bill Clinton for all those years. IMO that hypocrisy was a contributing factor to Trump's victory after the Access Hollywood tape and the following accusations came to light.

Hopefully we can all learn something from all this mess.

If Trump runs for re-election in 2020, his mistake of supporting Moore will probably be used against him.  He gambled on this one and lost in more ways than one.

Yeah, that's a good point, he will alienate a lot of moderates with this one. Overall he just seems really desperate. And he's not one who seems to play the "long game."

Which is sort of the larger problem with him overall, even with a GOP House and Senate behind him he acts like a desperate man with zero leverage. It is a bad look, hopefully he does not make a massive mistake in an effort to project strength.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on December 12, 2017, 10:55:18 PM
Thank God.

Exactly.  Tp

This is a good day for America.

TP's for all!!!!
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: SCeltic34 on December 12, 2017, 10:59:14 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP

That is good to hear. I grew up in a strong Christian household so I understand, though I am no longer religious. Everyone has their beliefs, and while I might not agree with those beliefs I respect people who are consistent. On the flipside I also find it disturbing that some jettison those beliefs apparently for the sake of pure power. If ideology bends to fit the circumstances then it becomes Orwellian doublethink. Once it becomes habitual, doublethink can be used to justify literally anything.

One of the things that sickens me most about the evangelical republican segment of America is that it seems they are willing to compromise or bend their beliefs for power, or in their words the "greater good."

Truth is that you see this from any ideology at times, and both sides of the aisle, but there are pretty clear teachings by Jesus on some of these things that are are ignored.
Yep.

No doubt the Democrats made a major mistake supporting Bill Clinton for all those years. IMO that hypocrisy was a contributing factor to Trump's victory after the Access Hollywood tape and the following accusations came to light.

Hopefully we can all learn something from all this mess.

If Trump runs for re-election in 2020, his mistake of supporting Moore will probably be used against him.  He gambled on this one and lost in more ways than one.

I hope this is true, but I don't think it will be. I think this served to strengthen his base, whether Moore won or not. The base will rally around a martyr complex and might be even more supportive of Trump if this comes up in the next election.

His core supporters will never leave, but if the data are to be believed, it looks like his support is eroding among independents and moderate Republicans.  I guess we'll see.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: More Banners on December 12, 2017, 10:59:53 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP for your perspective. I'm assuming you're not Alabamian either so the dynamic may be different in your community. 81-17 is a very big margin but that's still thousands who aren't voting for Moore. Just found the massive divergence very striking.


Just to add another thought, because Christian reputation matters to me ...

There is a growing movement, sometimes called the "gospel-centered" movement, and sometimes called YRR (young restless and reformed) that is tired of republican Christianity. We are more devoted to Christ and his teachings and less to maintaining political power. And these last few elections have sickened those in that movement (myself included).

At this point, many of those in the movement are not influential enough because of their youth, but I think in coming years there will be a better representation of Christianity in America and in politics. At least I hope so.

Once upon a time... there once was a religious left as well. Ironically, it was personal ethicosexual issues often that robbed them of their moral authority and, with it, their political charm.

But I'm all for bringing back the religious left. And I'm not even religious.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 12, 2017, 10:59:56 PM
So how soon should we expect the enraged Trump tweet storm?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 12, 2017, 11:00:40 PM
thrilled to have my pessimism of Alabama voters/culture proven wrong.  Alabama did the right thing.  still closer than it should have been to show a true rebuke of Moore and what he stands for but I'll take a Jones win.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 12, 2017, 11:01:04 PM
So how soon should we expect the enraged Trump tweet storm?
doesn't he have his potty break at 3:00 AM?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 11:04:16 PM
Some kudos to Senator Cory Gardner, chair of the National Republican Senate Committee, who withdrew support from Moore after the WaPo story broke, refused to resume support and kept speaking out against him even after the RNC came crawling back, and has already congratulated Jones and tried to recruit him to switch parties.  :D

I probably disagree with him on 1000 other things but it's nice to see something like a stand on principle from high officeholders.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 12, 2017, 11:06:55 PM
It is extremely interesting how many write in votes there were.  22,000+
which is more than the margin of victory.  Probably safe to say that most of those are republicans who couldn't stomach Moore.  Gotta hand it to those people as well.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on December 12, 2017, 11:08:28 PM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP for your perspective. I'm assuming you're not Alabamian either so the dynamic may be different in your community. 81-17 is a very big margin but that's still thousands who aren't voting for Moore. Just found the massive divergence very striking.


Just to add another thought, because Christian reputation matters to me ...

There is a growing movement, sometimes called the "gospel-centered" movement, and sometimes called YRR (young restless and reformed) that is tired of republican Christianity. We are more devoted to Christ and his teachings and less to maintaining political power. And these last few elections have sickened those in that movement (myself included).

At this point, many of those in the movement are not influential enough because of their youth, but I think in coming years there will be a better representation of Christianity in America and in politics. At least I hope so.

Once upon a time... there once was a religious left as well. Ironically, it was personal ethicosexual issues often that robbed them of their moral authority and, with it, their political charm.

But I'm all for bringing back the religious left. And I'm not even religious.

Big business had a lot to do with it as well, they spent a lot of money promoting capitalism and demonizing socialism in the churches.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-america-invented-religious-right-conservative-roosevelt-princeton-117030

Jesus was pretty much a socialist, and seemed to generally dislike wealth and greed. I know people will argue he never directly called for government to care for the poor, and they say he only wanted individuals to do it.

But considering how often Christian ideals seem to intertwine with politics, it is odd that these teachings are not enforced via government the way many others are (e.g, opposition to gay marriage).

IMO it makes sense Christians would have liberal economic leanings.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2017, 11:13:12 PM
Meanwhile polls range from Moore +9 to Jones +10 (from Fox of all places), with most showing Moore up by 4-5. *extremely lazy pundit voice* folks it's gonna all come down to turnout.

Well, the Monmouth poll that showed a tie was the most accurate, but despite the margin being way off Fox's was the only December poll that had the winner.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: CelticD on December 12, 2017, 11:16:38 PM
Sounds like some of the biggest difference makers were black people (of course), white women, and white college-educated voters (makes sense).
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on December 12, 2017, 11:17:57 PM
So how soon should we expect the enraged Trump tweet storm?
doesn't he have his potty break at 3:00 AM?

He's probably on the phone with Vlad, crying his eyes out.

 :police:
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 12, 2017, 11:21:34 PM
Sounds like some of the biggest difference makers were black people (of course), white women, and white college-educated voters (makes sense).

Yeah it sounds like there was a big get out the vote / grass roots effort which made a difference.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on December 12, 2017, 11:36:51 PM
#metoo 1, Roy Moore 0

(*note:  I cannot in good faith claim this gem as an original*)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 12, 2017, 11:37:25 PM
So what are the odds that Roy Moore contests the election if loses a super close race?  Does the fake voter fraud claims from Trump rub off on him?

I'm thinking this might not be all that close given the votes still to come in.

Assuming this holds up, a big congratulations to the residents of Alabama for showing up and doing the right thing! I know it comes as a big surprise to most of us, but a pleasant one at that.

and now Moore isn't conceding and is saying he wants a recount...
Almost on cue
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: tazzmaniac on December 12, 2017, 11:49:24 PM
So what are the odds that Roy Moore contests the election if loses a super close race?  Does the fake voter fraud claims from Trump rub off on him?

I'm thinking this might not be all that close given the votes still to come in.

Assuming this holds up, a big congratulations to the residents of Alabama for showing up and doing the right thing! I know it comes as a big surprise to most of us, but a pleasant one at that.

and now Moore isn't conceding and is saying he wants a recount...
Almost on cue
It isn't within the 0.5% to trigger an automatic recount so Moore would have to pay for the recount. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondohondo on December 12, 2017, 11:54:00 PM
Jones got less votes than Hillary

Moore got about 600k less votes than session in 2014 and Trump in 2016

Only won by 21k votes

Oh by the way the supreme court of Alabama tried to get rid of preserving electronic vote for a recount writhin the past 24 hours.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/12/alabama-digital-records-vote-roy-moore/

This is not over, something fishy going on....



Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 13, 2017, 12:01:14 AM
Jones got less votes than Hillary

Moore got about 600k less votes than session in 2014 and Trump in 2016

Only won by 21k votes

Oh by the way the supreme court of Alabama tried to get rid of preserving electronic vote for a recount writhin the past 24 hours.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/12/alabama-digital-records-vote-roy-moore/

This is not over, something fishy going on....

Turnout's much lower in non-Presidential elections than Presidential elections, and special elections are lower than that.

And Jeff Sessions got a lot more votes in 2014 because Jeff Sessions ran unopposed in 2014 and got 97% of the vote. Seems relevant.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 13, 2017, 12:03:41 AM
So what are the odds that Roy Moore contests the election if loses a super close race?  Does the fake voter fraud claims from Trump rub off on him?

I'm thinking this might not be all that close given the votes still to come in.

Assuming this holds up, a big congratulations to the residents of Alabama for showing up and doing the right thing! I know it comes as a big surprise to most of us, but a pleasant one at that.

and now Moore isn't conceding and is saying he wants a recount...
Almost on cue
It isn't within the 0.5% to trigger an automatic recount so Moore would have to pay for the recount.

I completely realize that.  He is definitely going to have to pay.  I guess my point was previously that he wouldn't accept the election results and that appears to be what is happening.  No conceding the election...very Trump like in the approach.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 13, 2017, 12:06:13 AM
Jones got less votes than Hillary

Moore got about 600k less votes than session in 2014 and Trump in 2016

Only won by 21k votes

Oh by the way the supreme court of Alabama tried to get rid of preserving electronic vote for a recount writhin the past 24 hours.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/12/alabama-digital-records-vote-roy-moore/

This is not over, something fishy going on....

I don't see how any of what you said actually applies to this election.  21k votes / 1.5% is way more than the threshold for automatic recount, and Moore is just extending the drama for no reason.

If he wants a recount he is going to have to pay for it and it will pretty much be a waste of time and resources.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 13, 2017, 12:09:55 AM
Not sure if I am more happy that the voters of Alabama did the right thing and voted in Doug Jones or saddened that over a half million Alabama voters actually voted for a man that was twice kicked off of the state supreme court for not following the directives of the court, that has stated that homosexuality should be outlawed and the death penalty possibly used for punishment, that only Christians can be elected to public office because they have to swear on a bible and had multiple credible accussations of him being a sexual predator of children. 81% of those people were Evangelical Christians, over 90% of those people were white, and I haven't seen a socioeconomic breakdown yet but I am guessing a staggering number of those people were poor.

Happy that enough good people in Alabama came to thier senses and rejected this vile human being that is Roy Moore.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 13, 2017, 12:10:58 AM
It sounds like the Alabama GOP doesn't want to support the recount

"Alabama state GOP isn't backing a recount effort. "While we are deeply disappointed in the extremely close U.S. Senate election results, with our candidate Judge Roy Moore, we respect the voting process given to us by our Founding Fathers," Chairman Terry Lathan says."
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: KGs Knee on December 13, 2017, 01:37:23 AM
I want to think that this will mean something positive, but I'm highly skeptical.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: trickybilly on December 13, 2017, 01:49:54 AM
Jones got less votes than Hillary

Moore got about 600k less votes than session in 2014 and Trump in 2016

Only won by 21k votes

Oh by the way the supreme court of Alabama tried to get rid of preserving electronic vote for a recount writhin the past 24 hours.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/12/alabama-digital-records-vote-roy-moore/

This is not over, something fishy going on....

I don't see how any of what you said actually applies to this election.  21k votes / 1.5% is way more than the threshold for automatic recount, and Moore is just extending the drama for no reason.

If he wants a recount he is going to have to pay for it and it will pretty much be a waste of time and resources.

The State supreme court ruling is definitely strange, Hondo. 8 judges in agreement  after 30 minutes of argument. No practical reason I can think of not to hold onto the paper printouts, at least until an ordered recount was finalised.

Hope the plaintiffs take it to scotus.

Hopefully they also listen to argument about the rampant gerrymandering undertaken in most states which disenfranchises poorer people.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Ilikesports17 on December 13, 2017, 02:00:04 AM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/940795587733151744

Quote
Congratulations to Doug Jones on a hard fought victory. The write-in votes played a very big factor, but a win is a win. The people of Alabama are great, and the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time. It never ends!

Strangely measured response from POTUS
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Celtics4ever on December 13, 2017, 05:31:11 AM
Quote
Not sure if I am more happy that the voters of Alabama did the right thing and voted in Doug Jones or saddened that over a half million Alabama voters actually voted for

I feel the same.  But one thing in politics our choices in candidates has gone kaput in many cases.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 13, 2017, 06:13:25 AM
Quote
Not sure if I am more happy that the voters of Alabama did the right thing and voted in Doug Jones or saddened that over a half million Alabama voters actually voted for

I feel the same.  But one thing in politics our choices in candidates has gone kaput in many cases.

The people of MA voted for a murderer from 1962-2009
They voted for somebody who exploited the suffering of a race of people to further her own career in 2014
They elected a congressman who was caught up in a family offshore gambling ring who said when he won, “Our win tonight says two things, First, that we are fed up with the gridlock in Washington. And second, that voters want to keep this seat blue.”

In politics it’s hard to vote for the better candidate if they are on the other side of the aisle from where you normally typically align
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 13, 2017, 07:27:00 AM
Saw a great meme. It showed Roy Moore showing up to vote a top his horse and the saying "I now understand the old adage go eff yourself and the horse you rode in on". Gave me a good laugh.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: 2short on December 13, 2017, 08:11:45 AM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/940795587733151744

Quote
Congratulations to Doug Jones on a hard fought victory. The write-in votes played a very big factor, but a win is a win. The people of Alabama are great, and the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time. It never ends!

Strangely measured response from POTUS
Possibly the most presidential response he's given....
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: jambr380 on December 13, 2017, 08:43:40 AM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/940795587733151744

Quote
Congratulations to Doug Jones on a hard fought victory. The write-in votes played a very big factor, but a win is a win. The people of Alabama are great, and the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time. It never ends!

Strangely measured response from POTUS

I personally like how he calls the period of time for the Rs to have another shot at the seat, "very short," when it is in actuality the exact same amount of time the Ds will have another shot at Trump's seat.

I also like how he calls write-ins a "big factor" when in fact Jones won by about the same amount of votes total in write-ins (meaning every vote would have essentially had to be a R refusing to vote for Moore).
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: DefenseWinsChamps on December 13, 2017, 08:55:39 AM
This is from exit polls and not actual votes but holy cow:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5CYd4VQAAXJHo.jpg)

It's white evangelicals vs everyone else. And they're all-in for the child molesting bigot with major ethics issues.

Yeah, I'm a white evangelical, and I find Moore's actions deplorable.

Just so you know it's not all white evangelicals. Some of us have a moral compass governed by what God teaches.

Look up what Ed Stetzer has said on the topic. He has been a voice of reason in evangelical circles about this issue.

TP for your perspective. I'm assuming you're not Alabamian either so the dynamic may be different in your community. 81-17 is a very big margin but that's still thousands who aren't voting for Moore. Just found the massive divergence very striking.


Just to add another thought, because Christian reputation matters to me ...

There is a growing movement, sometimes called the "gospel-centered" movement, and sometimes called YRR (young restless and reformed) that is tired of republican Christianity. We are more devoted to Christ and his teachings and less to maintaining political power. And these last few elections have sickened those in that movement (myself included).

At this point, many of those in the movement are not influential enough because of their youth, but I think in coming years there will be a better representation of Christianity in America and in politics. At least I hope so.

Once upon a time... there once was a religious left as well. Ironically, it was personal ethicosexual issues often that robbed them of their moral authority and, with it, their political charm.

But I'm all for bringing back the religious left. And I'm not even religious.

Big business had a lot to do with it as well, they spent a lot of money promoting capitalism and demonizing socialism in the churches.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-america-invented-religious-right-conservative-roosevelt-princeton-117030

Jesus was pretty much a socialist, and seemed to generally dislike wealth and greed. I know people will argue he never directly called for government to care for the poor, and they say he only wanted individuals to do it.

But considering how often Christian ideals seem to intertwine with politics, it is odd that these teachings are not enforced via government the way many others are (e.g, opposition to gay marriage).

IMO it makes sense Christians would have liberal economic leanings.

I won't argue for this view, because a Celtics forum isn't the place for it, but you pretty much summed me up.

The problem is that most Christians view the social issues (abortion, etc.) as much bigger moral issues to address. Even if we have liberal economic leanings, those leanings become secondary to the social issues.

So some of us feel like there is a poor representation of us in government, but we are unfortunately largely in the minority.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 13, 2017, 08:58:07 AM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/940795587733151744

Quote
Congratulations to Doug Jones on a hard fought victory. The write-in votes played a very big factor, but a win is a win. The people of Alabama are great, and the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time. It never ends!

Strangely measured response from POTUS

It's probably written by Scavino, his social media guy. One of the many deceptive things about the admin is that Trump doesn't write all his tweets but unlike most politicians there's no designation of which are which.

Something similar happened after the Iowa caucuses where the first message was conciliatory and reasonable and then he spent several days claiming the caucuses were rigged and stolen by Ted Cruz.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Vermont Green on December 13, 2017, 08:59:34 AM
What on earth is Trump saying???  This seems kind of like saying I was right before I was wrong which proves I was right all along.  The Truth is that Trump relates more to Moore and wanted him to win but probably got talked into endorsing Strange by the GOP establishment.  Now that Moore has lost, this somehow makes Trump right?  I think if the candidate was Strange, he wins easily in traditional Alabama fashion so no Pres. Trump, you were not right, you were wrong twice.  You tried to endorse Strange and he lost.  Then you endorsed Moore and he lost.


Trump endorses Strange:

Quote
"Luther Strange has been shooting up in the Alabama polls since my endorsement. Finish the job-vote today for "Big Luther"

As it becomes clear Strange will lose to Moore:

Quote
Even before Strange's loss on Tuesday, Trump expressed misgivings about getting behind the candidate, who he deemed too "low energy." Trump fretted the endorsement made him appear weak, cowed by an establishment that he'd openly rebuffed during his own campaign.

After Moore Loses:

Quote
The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election. I was right! Roy worked hard but the deck was stacked against him!
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 13, 2017, 09:27:37 AM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: tazzmaniac on December 13, 2017, 09:42:23 AM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)
Not at all unusual.  Democratic vote is concentrated in the cities across the U.S. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 13, 2017, 09:50:34 AM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)
Not at all unusual.  Democratic vote is concentrated in the cities across the U.S.

It is, but there's more than one city in Alabama. Those shapes look natural to you?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: jambr380 on December 13, 2017, 10:01:58 AM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)

Impressive how they were able to fit parts of Montgomery and Birmingham into the same district (but not too much of either since they needed to keep close the requisite population).

In Orlando, the district just to my north, formerly had in it parts of Jacksonville, Gainesville, and Orlando. To make things worse, my district which is across the street from Universal Studios and down the street from Disney World is still somehow Republican despite being very liberal.

The people who create these districts really are incredible at what they do.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Donoghus on December 13, 2017, 10:10:05 AM
Genuinely amazed that AL elected Jones.  Didn't think they had it in them.  Good for them. 

Saw an age demographic voting breakdown which was fairly interesting.  You can imagine which way it swayed, the older the age got.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kraidstar on December 13, 2017, 10:23:58 AM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)
Not at all unusual.  Democratic vote is concentrated in the cities across the U.S.

It is, but there's more than one city in Alabama. Those shapes look natural to you?

No they do not. And this is why the Supreme Court needs to actually do their jobs and intervene more often in these situations.

It took me literally less than five seconds to see what they are doing here.

This is some Jim Crow-level crookedness here. This combined with voter ID laws and inadequate polling stations/booths in blue areas reinforces the notion that the South hasn't really changed. 150 years later the white party is still hell-bent on denying blacks a fair vote.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Fan from VT on December 13, 2017, 10:33:07 AM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)
Not at all unusual.  Democratic vote is concentrated in the cities across the U.S.

It is, but there's more than one city in Alabama. Those shapes look natural to you?

No they do not. And this is why the Supreme Court needs to actually do their jobs and intervene more often in these situations.

It took me literally less than five seconds to see what they are doing here.

This is some Jim Crow-level crookedness here. This combined with voter ID laws and inadequate polling stations/booths in blue areas reinforces the notion that the South hasn't really changed. 150 years later the white party is still hell-bent on denying blacks a fair vote.

Yeah, I love that in America in 2017 you can get away with the sequence of gutting the voting rights act by calling it obsolete, require voter IDs, then try to just shut down a bunch of DMVs in areas of high black population. Not fishy at all!
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 13, 2017, 10:55:02 AM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)
Not at all unusual.  Democratic vote is concentrated in the cities across the U.S.

It is, but there's more than one city in Alabama. Those shapes look natural to you?

No they do not. And this is why the Supreme Court needs to actually do their jobs and intervene more often in these situations.

It took me literally less than five seconds to see what they are doing here.

This is some Jim Crow-level crookedness here. This combined with voter ID laws and inadequate polling stations/booths in blue areas reinforces the notion that the South hasn't really changed. 150 years later the white party is still hell-bent on denying blacks a fair vote.

Yeah, I love that in America in 2017 you can get away with the sequence of gutting the voting rights act by calling it obsolete, require voter IDs, then try to just shut down a bunch of DMVs in areas of high black population. Not fishy at all!

In my former home of North Carolina, Republican legislators literally asked for a survey of voting methods, registration, and ID used by each race, then eliminated the 6 or so most disproportionately used by black voters. It's not subtle.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on December 13, 2017, 11:05:32 AM
Someone should tell Steve Bannon that a brown leather jacket with a black shirt is not great optics, except perhaps among some very narrow strata of his party's electorate...

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12501/production/_99190057_043411415-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on December 13, 2017, 12:04:53 PM
Someone should tell Steve Bannon that a brown leather jacket with a black shirt is not great optics, except perhaps among some very narrow strata of his party's electorate...

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12501/production/_99190057_043411415-1.jpg)

Firefly fans? (http://www.browncoats.com/)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: GratefulCs on December 13, 2017, 12:10:48 PM
Someone should tell Steve Bannon that a brown leather jacket with a black shirt is not great optics, except perhaps among some very narrow strata of his party's electorate...

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12501/production/_99190057_043411415-1.jpg)
"he's just a regular guy! look at how disheveled he is!"
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chilidawg on December 13, 2017, 12:37:05 PM
Someone should tell Steve Bannon that a brown leather jacket with a black shirt is not great optics, except perhaps among some very narrow strata of his party's electorate...

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12501/production/_99190057_043411415-1.jpg)

Nothing about Steve Bannon is good optics.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on December 13, 2017, 12:43:18 PM
Nothing about Steve Bannon is good optics.
You've got a point there...
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on December 13, 2017, 12:44:09 PM
Firefly fans? (http://www.browncoats.com/)
I was thinking more along the lines of Hans Landa fans...

(https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/cbbddcc4d9.jpg)
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 13, 2017, 12:57:14 PM
Someone should tell Steve Bannon that a brown leather jacket with a black shirt is not great optics, except perhaps among some very narrow strata of his party's electorate...

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12501/production/_99190057_043411415-1.jpg)
Hey, I gave that guy a dollar in the parking lot!  I thought he was homeless
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: nickagneta on December 13, 2017, 12:59:32 PM
Someone should tell Steve Bannon that a brown leather jacket with a black shirt is not great optics, except perhaps among some very narrow strata of his party's electorate...

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12501/production/_99190057_043411415-1.jpg)
Hey, I gave that guy a dollar in the parking lot!  I thought he was homeless
Its so good that we can joke about this picture. Can you imagine what we would be saying about it if Roy Moore won.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: mmmmm on December 13, 2017, 05:52:37 PM
Jones got less votes than Hillary

Moore got about 600k less votes than session in 2014 and Trump in 2016

Only won by 21k votes

Oh by the way the supreme court of Alabama tried to get rid of preserving electronic vote for a recount writhin the past 24 hours.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/12/alabama-digital-records-vote-roy-moore/

This is not over, something fishy going on....

I don't see how any of what you said actually applies to this election.  21k votes / 1.5% is way more than the threshold for automatic recount, and Moore is just extending the drama for no reason.

If he wants a recount he is going to have to pay for it and it will pretty much be a waste of time and resources.

The State supreme court ruling is definitely strange, Hondo. 8 judges in agreement  after 30 minutes of argument. No practical reason I can think of not to hold onto the paper printouts, at least until an ordered recount was finalised.

Hope the plaintiffs take it to scotus.

The ruling in this case wasn't about paper printouts.  It was about how long precincts were required to hold on to the digital (electronic) data in the readers.   The group behind the case is advocating for requiring officials to hold on to the digital data because they maintain that that data would make analyzing to detect hacking of the machines easier.   They contend the particular machines used are vulnerable.   On the other side, state and local election officials don't want to be forced to have to retain them if they don't have the money and logistical support to do so.  Also, and this is probably the most important reason, in some cases, the machines may need to be repurposed for local municipal elections before the year is out and that would be impossible if they were not able to purge the data in them.   In order to retain the data, it would have to be backed up somewhere.   The latter implies resources and costs that are not allocated/budgeted.

This AL State SC ruling (really a 'stay' of a lower court ruling) doesn't mean that the officials of any districts actively _will_ purge the digital records quickly.  The ruling just doesn't force them to wait six months.   It's possible they will be retained for quite some time in most machines.

The stay by the SC also doesn't decide the actual merit of the underlying case.  The actual case will continue to be heard.   It could still end up in favor of the plaintiffs which would force the retention of the digital data in future elections (which would force the legislature and governor to provide the necessary resources to implement).  Or not.   Or maybe the final ruling is some other redress.  Hard to say.

The paper ballots are a completely separate thing and are already required to be retained for a year in AL, I believe.   The plaintiffs contend though, that re-scanning all the paper ballots is an expensive operation and thus not viable for detecting a compromise of the the digital readers.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: tarheelsxxiii on December 13, 2017, 06:20:56 PM
Tough year for Bama.  This story was almost as bad as the Crimson Tide not winning the SEC.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: rondofan1255 on December 13, 2017, 06:26:25 PM
Tough year for Bama.  This story was almost as bad as the Crimson Tide not winning the SEC.

Bentley resigned too.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Cman on December 13, 2017, 08:02:16 PM
Someone should tell Steve Bannon that a brown leather jacket with a black shirt is not great optics, except perhaps among some very narrow strata of his party's electorate...

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12501/production/_99190057_043411415-1.jpg)

Forget Steve Bannon. The moment the National GOP threw its support behind Moore, they were all in. The GOP would be looking so much better if they had repudiated Moore. But they didn't. Now they need to live with it, not try to throw Bannon under the bus.


It took me literally less than five seconds to see what they are doing here.

This is some Jim Crow-level crookedness here. This combined with voter ID laws and inadequate polling stations/booths in blue areas reinforces the notion that the South hasn't really changed. 150 years later the white party is still hell-bent on denying blacks a fair vote.

There's nothing specific to Alabama here. Gerrymandering exists in pretty much every state. It sucks, though, and I agree that more needs to be done about it.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: indeedproceed on December 13, 2017, 08:52:19 PM
There's nothing specific to Alabama here. Gerrymandering exists in pretty much every state. It sucks, though, and I agree that more needs to be done about it.

Alabama is one of the top 10 worst gerrymandered states in the union, so they aren't exactly run of the mill, though gerrymandering is prevelant as you state.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: tazzmaniac on December 13, 2017, 08:59:28 PM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)
Not at all unusual.  Democratic vote is concentrated in the cities across the U.S.

It is, but there's more than one city in Alabama. Those shapes look natural to you?
Have you looked at the Massachusetts congressional districts?  How are those natural shapes? 


 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: tazzmaniac on December 13, 2017, 09:59:11 PM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)
Not at all unusual.  Democratic vote is concentrated in the cities across the U.S.

It is, but there's more than one city in Alabama. Those shapes look natural to you?

No they do not. And this is why the Supreme Court needs to actually do their jobs and intervene more often in these situations.

It took me literally less than five seconds to see what they are doing here.

This is some Jim Crow-level crookedness here. This combined with voter ID laws and inadequate polling stations/booths in blue areas reinforces the notion that the South hasn't really changed. 150 years later the white party is still hell-bent on denying blacks a fair vote.
Typical northern nonsense.  Blacks voted yesterday in proportion or slightly above their overall population of the state.  What do you know about Alabama or its voter ID law?  Here's a link listing all the different forms of acceptable ID:  http://sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/photo-voter-id/valid-ids.  If you don't have any of the other valid IDs you can get a free voter photo id.  Quite reasonable. 

How do you explain the long voting lines in minority precincts in the rest of the country (Ohio, South Florida, Arizona, ...)?  The fact is elections are done on limited budgets across the country.  Look how long it took California to complete and certify its vote after the Presidential election. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: JohnBoy65 on December 13, 2017, 10:07:39 PM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)
Not at all unusual.  Democratic vote is concentrated in the cities across the U.S.

It is, but there's more than one city in Alabama. Those shapes look natural to you?

No they do not. And this is why the Supreme Court needs to actually do their jobs and intervene more often in these situations.

It took me literally less than five seconds to see what they are doing here.

This is some Jim Crow-level crookedness here. This combined with voter ID laws and inadequate polling stations/booths in blue areas reinforces the notion that the South hasn't really changed. 150 years later the white party is still hell-bent on denying blacks a fair vote.
Typical northern nonsense.  Blacks voted yesterday in proportion or slightly above their overall population of the state.  What do you know about Alabama or its voter ID law?  Here's a link listing all the different forms of acceptable ID:  http://sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/photo-voter-id/valid-ids.  If you don't have any of the other valid IDs you can get a free voter photo id.  Quite reasonable. 

How do you explain the long voting lines in minority precincts in the rest of the country (Ohio, South Florida, Arizona, ...)?  The fact is elections are done on limited budgets across the country.  Look how long it took California to complete and certify its vote after the Presidential election.

Except there's plenty of other voter suppression going on. Alabama police head to  Minority polling stations check rotors for outstanding warrants that deters people from going to vote.  I also read that places to get a free ID were closed yesterday. Free IDs are great, when you can get them.

Edit: only in counties with 75% minority or more were the offices closed

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/alabama-drivers-licenses-voter-id
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Celtics4ever on December 14, 2017, 07:34:10 AM
Quote
In politics it’s hard to vote for the better candidate if they are on the other side of the aisle from where you normally typically align

Not for me, I do not belong to either party and I think the party system has done more harm that good.   I vote for who I think is best for my country, state or county.   I have voted for Dems and for GOP and independents.

To me there is no aisle, so I don't have that problem.   
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: esel1000 on December 14, 2017, 07:56:06 AM
Quote
In politics it’s hard to vote for the better candidate if they are on the other side of the aisle from where you normally typically align

Not for me, I do not belong to either party and I think the party system has done more harm that good.   I vote for who I think is best for my country, state or county.   I have voted for Dems and for GOP and independents.

To me there is no aisle, so I don't have that problem.   

The issue with the party system is that it’s gone beyond politics. It’s a lifestyle for a lot of people. Poor Alabamians living in rural areas would rather elect a pedofile than a Democrat, because the pedofile isn’t a Democrat. To them, it’s not about the issues. To them, Democrats represent the establishment, which they believe has failed them. Trump won on this mindset.

 Unfortunately, voters like yourself are few and far between. In a perfect world, the majority people would actually educate themselves on the issue and vote for the candidate that best exemplifies their best interests.

Instead, the party is the only defining criteria. It’s a culture. The GOP can literally sign a tax bill with immense implications for poor and working class individuals and these people will continually vote them in.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: hpantazo on December 14, 2017, 08:04:12 AM
Quote
In politics it’s hard to vote for the better candidate if they are on the other side of the aisle from where you normally typically align

Not for me, I do not belong to either party and I think the party system has done more harm that good.   I vote for who I think is best for my country, state or county.   I have voted for Dems and for GOP and independents.

To me there is no aisle, so I don't have that problem.   

The issue with the party system is that it’s gone beyond politics. It’s a lifestyle for a lot of people. Poor Alabamians living in rural areas would rather elect a pedofile than a Democrat, because the pedofile isn’t a Democrat. To them, it’s not about the issues. To them, Democrats represent the establishment, which they believe has failed them. Trump won on this mindset.

 Unfortunately, voters like yourself are few and far between. In a perfect world, the majority people would actually educate themselves on the issue and vote for the candidate that best exemplifies their best interests.

Instead, the party is the only defining criteria. It’s a culture. The GOP can literally sign a tax bill with immense implications for poor and working class individuals and these people will continually vote them in.

The democrats did fail them. Now the republicans are outright robbing them.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 14, 2017, 10:02:54 AM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)
Not at all unusual.  Democratic vote is concentrated in the cities across the U.S.

It is, but there's more than one city in Alabama. Those shapes look natural to you?
Have you looked at the Massachusetts congressional districts?  How are those natural shapes? 


I'm confused what your point is here. First you seem to suggest it's not gerrymandering, now it is gerrymandering but look over there? Is it just defensiveness about the South? I've spent most of my adult life in the South, and I've never lived in Massachusetts. Can you be a little clearer about what you're getting at?

In the interest of doing the same, I find gerrymandering appalling and think that while regulating it is much easier said than done, it needs to be reined in. Everywhere.

Here's Alabama's county-level results for comparison:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/2017_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Alabama_results_map_by_county.svg/139px-2017_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Alabama_results_map_by_county.svg.png)

If that next to the Congressional District map doesn't strike you as an absurdly rigged framework, I don't know what to tell you. I didn't think it was a very controversial idea.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Moranis on December 14, 2017, 10:07:46 AM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)
Not at all unusual.  Democratic vote is concentrated in the cities across the U.S.

It is, but there's more than one city in Alabama. Those shapes look natural to you?
Have you looked at the Massachusetts congressional districts?  How are those natural shapes? 


I'm confused what your point is here. First you seem to suggest it's not gerrymandering, now it is gerrymandering but look over there? Is it just defensiveness about the South? I've spent most of my adult life in the South, and I've never lived in Massachusetts. Can you be a little clearer about what you're getting at?

In the interest of doing the same, I find gerrymandering appalling and think that while regulating it is much easier said than done, it needs to be reined in. Everywhere.

Here's Alabama's county-level results for comparison:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/2017_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Alabama_results_map_by_county.svg/139px-2017_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Alabama_results_map_by_county.svg.png)

If that next to the Congressional District map doesn't strike you as an absurdly rigged framework, I don't know what to tell you. I didn't think it was a very controversial idea.
It is bad, but Alabama has multiple counties that have less than 10,000 people.  It is hard to get some sort of even representation.  That said, it could be a lot better.  Here are some suggested district lines in Alabama that make more sense.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/148305/large/Alabama_1VRA_State_View.png?1434245381

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.JiOGFjXBjL4rziWh049eLgC9Es&pid=Api

http://images.dailykos.com/images/274316/original/Alabama_Non-Partisan_Map_2_VRA_2016-7-13_Plurality_White_State_View.png?1468624045
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Fan from VT on December 14, 2017, 11:34:53 AM
Wow, Alabama is so aggressively gerrymandered that despite winning the state Jones only won 1 of 7 congressional districts:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ6vLhBW0AI1n3v.png)
Not at all unusual.  Democratic vote is concentrated in the cities across the U.S.

It is, but there's more than one city in Alabama. Those shapes look natural to you?
Have you looked at the Massachusetts congressional districts?  How are those natural shapes? 


I'm confused what your point is here. First you seem to suggest it's not gerrymandering, now it is gerrymandering but look over there? Is it just defensiveness about the South? I've spent most of my adult life in the South, and I've never lived in Massachusetts. Can you be a little clearer about what you're getting at?

In the interest of doing the same, I find gerrymandering appalling and think that while regulating it is much easier said than done, it needs to be reined in. Everywhere.

Here's Alabama's county-level results for comparison:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/2017_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Alabama_results_map_by_county.svg/139px-2017_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Alabama_results_map_by_county.svg.png)

If that next to the Congressional District map doesn't strike you as an absurdly rigged framework, I don't know what to tell you. I didn't think it was a very controversial idea.
It is bad, but Alabama has multiple counties that have less than 10,000 people.  It is hard to get some sort of even representation.  That said, it could be a lot better.  Here are some suggested district lines in Alabama that make more sense.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/148305/large/Alabama_1VRA_State_View.png?1434245381

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.JiOGFjXBjL4rziWh049eLgC9Es&pid=Api

http://images.dailykos.com/images/274316/original/Alabama_Non-Partisan_Map_2_VRA_2016-7-13_Plurality_White_State_View.png?1468624045

https://rantt.com/the-top-10-most-gerrymandered-states-in-america-bd962843ba1f

I thought that article was interesting because it had a few alternate maps. Of the top 10, 1 favored dems, 9 favored repubs.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on December 14, 2017, 01:01:30 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42346121

Keep diggin', Roy. What a thoroughly disgusting individual.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: blink on December 14, 2017, 01:26:57 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42346121

Keep diggin', Roy. What a thoroughly disgusting individual.

his 15 minutes of being INfamous is over, but he doesn't seem to want to accept it.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 14, 2017, 02:14:57 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42346121

Keep diggin', Roy. What a thoroughly disgusting individual.

his 15 minutes of being INfamous is over, but he doesn't seem to want to accept it.
not necessarily.  don't be surprised if Trump looks to find him a federal nomination.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: More Banners on December 14, 2017, 04:53:14 PM
The Onion reports Moore is retiring from politics to spend more time with someone's children.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on December 14, 2017, 05:43:39 PM
What I found so odd about Mr. Moore is that he (and his wife) waited until MONDAY NIGHT to give - in a speech - the composition of their friendship  / association circle.

"We have a Jew Attorney"

"We have Black friends" etc, etc, etc....

He'd have a better shot at ME believing him if he DEMONSTRATED this affinity for others rather than feeling the NEED to grandstand about it the night prior to election...

And he believed that "Families were better off during the days of Active Slavery in the US of A....."

So, to break this down....white families were better off having slaves to do their work? To keep the pressure off of them?

I want to believe that he failed horribly to explain himself here. I believe his IS a man of God....

Does he REALLY believe that the United States (as a WHOLE) was better off back then?

If he does he needs to ask God for some serious direction right now. Be humble about it.

in any event the voters spoke Tuesday Night - as they /we will speak well into the 2018's.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 14, 2017, 06:50:03 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42346121

Keep diggin', Roy. What a thoroughly disgusting individual.

his 15 minutes of being INfamous is over, but he doesn't seem to want to accept it.
not necessarily.  don't be surprised if Trump looks to find him a federal nomination.

Why would he do that, trump opposed Moore in the primary
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: Neurotic Guy on December 14, 2017, 07:05:37 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42346121

Keep diggin', Roy. What a thoroughly disgusting individual.

his 15 minutes of being INfamous is over, but he doesn't seem to want to accept it.
not necessarily.  don't be surprised if Trump looks to find him a federal nomination.

Why would he do that, trump opposed Moore in the primary

It may sound crazy for me to say this knowing that Trump has hired Steve Bannon, appointed Ben Carson Sec of HUD, appointed Scott Pruitt head EPA, Flynn as NSA....   BUT, I don't see any possibility whatsoever that Trump will appoint Moore to anything. 
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chicagoceltic on December 14, 2017, 07:22:51 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42346121

Keep diggin', Roy. What a thoroughly disgusting individual.

his 15 minutes of being INfamous is over, but he doesn't seem to want to accept it.
not necessarily.  don't be surprised if Trump looks to find him a federal nomination.
I would love it if Trump nominated him for a federal judgeship just for the utter crapshow we would have for a little bit.  It would be highly entertaining especially to see Moore act indignant when he is not approved by congress.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: slamtheking on December 14, 2017, 08:27:10 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42346121

Keep diggin', Roy. What a thoroughly disgusting individual.

his 15 minutes of being INfamous is over, but he doesn't seem to want to accept it.
not necessarily.  don't be surprised if Trump looks to find him a federal nomination.

Why would he do that, trump opposed Moore in the primary

It may sound crazy for me to say this knowing that Trump has hired Steve Bannon, appointed Ben Carson Sec of HUD, appointed Scott Pruitt head EPA, Flynn as NSA....   BUT, I don't see any possibility whatsoever that Trump will appoint Moore to anything. 
I wasn't being serious. 

I'm 99% sure Trump's done with him but I've found that just when I can't believe he can't say or do anything dumber or more tone-deaf to the public, he takes that next step in to new territory.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: chilidawg on December 14, 2017, 10:55:02 PM
The Onion reports Moore is retiring from politics to spend more time with someone's children.

Wham!  That's good.
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on December 15, 2017, 05:56:26 PM
So why are Trump and Bannon asking Moore to concede?
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 22, 2017, 02:01:23 PM
I know it's yesterday's news but this is just vile - Breitbart's editor-in-chief states that he found accusations against Moore credible but defended him and smeared the accusers for political reasons, both to win the election and to avoid Trump being held accountable for his own assault accusations:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/media/breitbart-alex-marlow-roy-moore/index.html? (http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/media/breitbart-alex-marlow-roy-moore/index.html?)

It's especially fun if you connect the last two dots that he isn't spelling out - if he believes Moore had credible accusations, and Moore's allegations are analogous to Trump's, then...
Title: Re: Roy Moore
Post by: kozlodoev on December 22, 2017, 02:06:45 PM
I know it's yesterday's news but this is just vile - Breitbart's editor-in-chief states that he found accusations against Moore credible but defended him and smeared the accusers for political reasons, both to win the election and to avoid Trump being held accountable for his own assault accusations:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/media/breitbart-alex-marlow-roy-moore/index.html? (http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/media/breitbart-alex-marlow-roy-moore/index.html?)

It's especially fun if you connect the last two dots that he isn't spelling out - if he believes Moore had credible accusations, and Moore's allegations are analogous to Trump's, then...
Look, if you vote against these people and instead elect a Democrat, you're clearly cannot be independent. The tribe is forming ranks, it seems.