Roy Moore's Accuser Count is now up to 9

[F_Marturana]

Again, Casey Anthony was found not guilty in the murder of her daughter. Should she run a daycare?

 

[niceatheist]

Redirect Notice

This pastor is off his rocker.

There’s the “Cosby Defense”, which is basically to assert some grand conspiracy of multiple women to destroy a man’s reputation. That’s pretty much what Moore has invoked, and which Trump has at least tacitly invoked. And then there’s this, which to my mind can only be described as morally depraved. This is the kind of vile sexual filth I expect to hear from the likes of Warren Jeffs and that band of sickos, but to hear it from an Evangelical pastor, as if somehow it isn’t just a defense, but somehow a perfectly reasonable, even worthy, pursuit, well I find the very premise repugnant.

And I want to make it clear to every defender of Moore that this will be revisited upon the Republicans if they put up with him out of political expediency. They will have washed away their own self-proclaimed moral high ground completely, and will never be able to invoke the sins of others to somehow make themselves seem more worthy at the ballot box. There is a deep moral rot at the heart of the Republican Party, and if Moore wins, the rest of America will see just what it is the Republican Party really stands for.

 

[niceatheist]

_Abyssinia:

Its interesting that Hillary Clinton said that, because what does she think then of the allegations from Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones against her husband?

At this point, who cares what Hilary thinks? She is not running for office any more. This thread is not about her. It is about Roy Moore. This thread is not even about Trump.

If you really want to know what Hilary thinks, try contacting her and asking her.

If anything Juanita Broaddrick tweet should cause one to consider Moore’s accusers more.

And let’s remember here that a good deal of what killed her bid was rumors and supposition, a heck of lot less than what Moore’s accusers are invoking. You cannot sit here and condemn Bill Clinton, and then declare that people need to look the other way in the case of Moore. There is a rank hypocrisy here, that just a year ago Republicans and their supporters planted their flag on the moral high ground, despite a presidential candidate who bragged about grabbing women’s genitals, and now to see some of those same people split hairs over what multiple women have said Moore did to them, or invoke the Cosby Defense and invoke some conspiracy, or even worse, as we’re seeing, some actually defend his alleged predilection for teenage girls.

 

[_Abyssinia]

At this point, who cares what Hilary thinks? She is not running for office any more. This thread is not about her. It is about Roy Moore. This thread is not even about Trump.

If you really want to know what Hilary thinks, try contacting her and asking her.

If anything Juanita Broaddrick tweet should cause one to consider Moore’s accusers more.

This thread is about Roy Moore but if there is not a police investigation to adjudicate the allegations against him, which isn’t going to happen because the statute of limitations has long since expired in Alabama, people will come to radically different conclusions on his guilt or innocence.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

This thread is about Roy Moore but if there is not a police investigation to adjudicate the allegations against him, which isn’t going to happen because the statute of limitations has long since expired in Alabama, people will come to radically different conclusions on his guilt or innocence.

And that is where we rely our gut instincts when we go to the polls. I can use my gut instincts to evaluate the testimony of the accusers. I can use my gut instincts to evaluate Roy Moore on his past actions.

From another thread concerning the Ten Commandments:

But most people involved in the debate seem to have missed the fact that these three religions divide up the commandments in different ways!

Judaism, unlike Catholicism and Protestantism, considers “I am the L-rd, your G-d” to be the first “commandment.”

Catholicism, unlike Judaism and Protestantism, considers coveting property to be separate from coveting a spouse.

Protestantism, unlike Judaism and Catholicism, considers the prohibition against idolatry to be separate > from the prohibition against worshipping other gods.

No two religions agree on a single list. So whose list should we post?

These may seem like trivial differences to some, but they are serious issues to those of us who take these words seriously. When a government agency chooses one version over another, it implicitly chooses one religion over another, something that the First Amendment prohibits. This is the heart of the controversy.

And that is what Roy Moore did. He implicitly if not explicitly declared “Protestantism” the “State Religion”

http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm#Controversy

Moore broke the rule of law 3 times and got ejected from office twice.

When I go to the poll, I vote will go for Jones instead of Moore. And if Moore wins, then it will be up to the gut instinct of the Senators to decide whether he stays or gets voted out.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Now do I believe that the Senate will vote him out? Even when 16 Reps have tweeted that he should drop out of the race or is unfit to hold a Senate Office? HELL NO.

They are all talk and no action. Having 52 Reps in the Senate supercedes their own personal convictions.

 

[Theo520]

And let’s remember here that a good deal of what killed her bid was rumors and supposition, a heck of lot less than what Moore’s accusers are invoking. You cannot sit here and condemn Bill Clinton, and then declare that people need to look the other way in the case of Moore. There is a rank hypocrisy here, that just a year ago Republicans and their supporters planted their flag on the moral high ground, despite a presidential candidate who bragged about grabbing women’s genitals, and now to see some of those same people split hairs over what multiple women have said Moore did to them, or invoke the Cosby Defense and invoke some conspiracy, or even worse, as we’re seeing, some actually defend his alleged predilection for teenage girls.

With Hillary the ‘rumors’ were explicitly documented in the released emails etc. They were not disputed and there is no evidence they were doctored. Even the Clinton Cash book was explicitly documented.

Nobody is invoking a Cosby defense, just looking at the facts available. Also, it’s not splitting hairs or hypocrisy to expect posters to accurately describe the alleged crimes. Calling them something they are not for emotional appeal is just a blatant partisan move.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

And, there is evidence unless you don’t consider victim’s testimony evidence

Testimony isn’t evidence.

Testimony should be judged differently…based on the believability of the testator. There are many things that comprise the believability of the testator, including previous truthfulness, time lapse, story, and other concomitant evidence.

The only ACTUAL evidence here appears to be a high school yearbook signature that is apparently fraudulent. This certainly diminishes one woman’s believability (unless you’re a leftist hack)

You can’t figure out why these accusations didn’t come out given the bull these women are going through now? Seriously?

Of course I can. Look at what the Clinton’s did to Jennifer Flowers, et al.

However, the more accusations that come out, the less believable they statistically become for me. If only one in 10 women come forward to police with their assault, the more women who were assaulted would equal a greater risk that at least ONE of them would have officially come forward directly after the time (like Jennifer Flowers did).

Again, I don’t know what happened. The story is terrible, but the allegations are full of holes. I certainly wouldn’t call any of the women liars, but I’m not ready to light my torch and sharpen my pitch-fork to lynch Moore either.

That is a legal concept. Juries are bound by that principle, not voters

Voters who have to judge the pro-abortion, big-government opponent on the other ticket as well.

That is for a criminal conviction.

Holding a senate seat is a privilege.

Yes. The senate seat will also likely help determine which party controls the senate, and can confirm constitutionalist judges, etc. I would hope you can understand why some people would vote for Moore, despite the unproven allegations, over a leftist, pro-abortion, big-government Dem.

What he did to the 16 year old in the car could be described as attempted rape.

You forgot the “allegedly”…it’s important.

Well, yeah, that too. I guess some people want to see selfies or something before they will believe it.

Not necessarily. If a woman/girls family makes a timely report the story should hold greater believability than a woman/family who makes a report 40 years later directly after the alleged attacker wins a primary election.

That being said, a selfie is EVIDENCE, which is generally given greater strength than testimony.

 

[F_Marturana]

You keep bringing up Gennifer Flowers. She was Clinton’s mistress.

The Roy Moore defense is the skuziest slime from under a rock as long as he’s a republican should get s vote.

 

[F_Marturana]

They didn’t have cell phones back then for the selfie. They didn’t require selfies to convict Paul Shanley.

Not only does Roy Moore get away with sexual abuse and attempted rape, he gets a senate seat too.

And the victims get no justice.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

You know what I love about the Harvey Weinstein effect?

No one has come out and accused President Obama of Sexual Misconduct YET!

 

[niceatheist]

Nobody is invoking a Cosby defense, just looking at the facts available. Also, it’s not splitting hairs or hypocrisy to expect posters to accurately describe the alleged crimes. Calling them something they are not for emotional appeal is just a blatant partisan move.

A man in his thirties trying to seduce a 14 year old girl is morally depraved, whether you call it pedophilia, pedastery, jail bait, or whatever other technical or slang term you invoke. The volume of accusations, the number of other corroborations from others in the community (they had to keep him away from cheerleaders, for goodness sake) make it clear this is a fundamentally depraved individual, a sexual predator, at least in his youth. When you couple that with his defiance of the Constitution, that lead to his being removed from his position on the State Supreme Court twice, you have a picture of a man who has no business in the Senate at all.

So let’s quit splitting hairs. Roy Moore should not be a US Senator, whether that causes the Republicans more problems getting votes to pass on the floor or not. Surely, at some point, principle overrides expediency, wouldn’t you say?

 

[niceatheist]

You forgot the “allegedly”…it’s important.

And once again, this is an election, not a trial. Voters do not have to invoke reasonable doubt. It is mandated, it isn’t required, and judging a candidate’s character has always been a significant factor in elections.

 

[niceatheist]

Its interesting that Hillary Clinton said that regarding believing the accusers automatically, because what does she think then of the allegations from Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones, regarding Hillary’s husband, President Bill Clinton? Should all three of those accusers against her husband automatically be believed?

Is either Bill or Hillary Clinton running for office. And let’s look at the situation. The post-Weinstein world is a different one than the 1990s, or even a couple of years ago. A year ago Casey Affleck could get away with rumors of sexual assault and still accept awards. Today, if not being outright chased out of Hollywood, he’d certainly not be placed on any pedestal.

So yes, there was hypocrisy in the Democrats looking the other way when rumors swirled around Clinton, but that day is gone. And really, even in those heady days of the 1990s, if you had a candidate where allegations of molesting teenage girls, where he had to be kept out of malls and away from cheerleaders, where it appears to have been known by colleagues, the police and other individuals in the community that he had a “thing” for teenagers as young as 14, that would still have been pretty damaging, if not outright career ending.

So whatever happened with the clintons is done. You can’t just keep bringing it up, because what it looks like you’re really saying is “Oh sure, we have this terrible pervert who liked teenage girls, but what about them Clintons!” If you are judging the Clintons harshly for their conduct, then how is it you cannot look at Moore, who actually was preying on girls as young as 14, and not shake your fists in condemnation? What does that say about how the ol’ moral compass is being applied.

Have the Republicans really rotted so badly that any candidate, no matter how vile the allegations, is still worthy simply because he can provide a vote on the floor?

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

and judging a candidate’s character has always been a significant factor in elections.

And that character has been weighed and measured. That character has been found to be wanton.

 

[Theo520]

why do you have a problem accurately describing his moral depravity?
You seem to intentionally use words with more emotional appeal, but which are not relevant.

 

[niceatheist]

why do you have a problem accurately describing his moral depravity?
You seem to intentionally use words with more emotional appeal, but which are not relevant.

My point is that to quibble over the precise legal nature of that his allegedly misdeeds seems almost a means by which to minimize them.

Sexually interfering with a 14 year old girl should be an outright disqualification, whether or not the statute of limitations have passed, and regardless of what the police or the DA at the time would have charged him with. The fact that he was, at the time, Assistant DA, makes it all the more egregious because he was in a very powerful position to protect himself from any potential charges.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Testimony isn’t evidence.

Testimony should be judged differently…based on the believability of the testator. There are many things that comprise the believability of the testator, including previous truthfulness, time lapse, story, and other concomitant evidence.

The only ACTUAL evidence here appears to be a high school yearbook signature that is apparently fraudulent. This certainly diminishes one woman’s believability (unless you’re a leftist hack)

Testimony is evidence. That’s why we do it in court. You seem to be seeking physical evidence, of which, there is going to be little in this case, as there is in most sexual assault cases.

Of course I can. Look at what the Clinton’s did to Jennifer Flowers, et al.

However, the more accusations that come out, the less believable they statistically become for me. If only one in 10 women come forward to police with their assault, the more women who were assaulted would equal a greater risk that at least ONE of them would have officially come forward directly after the time (like Jennifer Flowers did).

Again, I don’t know what happened. The story is terrible, but the allegations are full of holes. I certainly wouldn’t call any of the women liars, but I’m not ready to light my torch and sharpen my pitch-fork to lynch Moore either.

So, deflect to Clinton and then say the allegations are full of holes because you mentioned one right wing talking point about the yearbook. Got it.

Voters who have to judge the pro-abortion, big-government opponent on the other ticket as well.

Which is what this comes down to. I want to vote for the guy on my team and against the guy on the other team. I don’t care if he is attempted to rape a child.

Yes. The senate seat will also likely help determine which party controls the senate, and can confirm constitutionalist judges, etc. I would hope you can understand why some people would vote for Moore, despite the unproven allegations, over a leftist, pro-abortion, big-government Dem.

Again, child rapist is better than a Democrat. Got it.

Not necessarily. If a woman/girls family makes a timely report the story should hold greater believability than a woman/family who makes a report 40 years later directly after the alleged attacker wins a primary election.

That being said, a selfie is EVIDENCE, which is generally given greater strength than testimony.

Of course, they should have reported it in a timely manner because that would have made it believable to people like you. Give me a break. You would still think they are lying because you want Moore to win. You’ll make up any excuse to dismiss their allegations because you would rather have a child rapist in the Senate instead of a Democrat. You’ve said as much. The idea that any evidence would satisfy you is ridiculous.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

You keep bringing up Gennifer Flowers. She was Clinton’s mistress.

The Roy Moore defense is the skuziest slime from under a rock as long as he’s a republican should get s vote.

Brodderick wasn’t his mistress. He allegedly raped her. Unfortunately it took her 20 years to come forward with those allegations, which makes her less believable to many of us.

Paula Jones was assaulted by him, and she came out with the story three years later. VERY believable.

Kathleen Willey came forward with her story 5 years later. Some problems with her story (of unconsensual groping) has some holes in it as she allegedly bragged to her friend (Tripp?) about her exciting affair with the President.

These stories get a little fuzzy, don’t they. To me, Paula Jones’ allegations were the most believable, and the most vile.

What, EXACTLY, is the “Roy Moore” defense? The the fact that 40 years after the fact, and AFTER he wins a primary election, tons of women come out with ancient allegations, and the only physical evidence is obviously fabricated?

That’s not a bad defense…

Not only does Roy Moore get away with sexual abuse and attempted rape, he gets a senate seat too.

Alleged sexual abuse and alleged attempted rape. The voters will decide whether the senate seat goes to someone with multiple unproven allegations, or to a pro-abortion, leftist, big-government democrat.

No one has come out and accused President Obama of Sexual Misconduct YET!

While I disagree with President Obama on virtually EVERY political point, I think he is a great husband and father. I wish that, instead of focusing on massively growing the influence of the federal government, he had used his prominence to highlight the benefits of good husbands/fathers in our society.

Voters do not have to invoke reasonable doubt. It is mandated, it isn’t required, and judging a candidate’s character has always been a significant factor in elections.

Correct, they don’t HAVE to, but it certainly is inculcated in our culture.

And judging the candidates character goes both ways. Judge Moore has multiple vile allegations made against him, which he denies. And the allegations, while possibly true, are full of holes. Meanwhile he is running on a very Christian campaign, pro-life, pro-family, small government, etc.

And importantly, his opponent is vehemently pro-abortion, big government leftist.

As usual, the voters are stuck between the lesser of two evils.

Have the Republicans really rotted so badly that any candidate, no matter how vile the allegations, is still worthy simply because he can provide a vote on the floor?

Republicans seems to look not at how vile the allegations are, but rather the possible veracity of the allegations.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Jig_Saw:

And, there is evidence unless you don’t consider victim’s testimony evidence

Testimony should be judged differently…based on the believability of the testator. There are many things that comprise the believability of the testator, including previous truthfulness, time lapse, story, and other concomitant evidence.

Don’t forget to add similar testimony from other testifiers.

The only ACTUAL evidence here appears to be a high school yearbook signature that is apparently fraudulent.

It is not so apparent to handwriting experts who say they can draw no conclusions one way or the other.

You can’t figure out why these accusations didn’t come out given the bull these women are going through now? Seriously?

Of course I can. Look at what the Clinton’s did to Jennifer Flowers, et al.

However, the more accusations that come out, the less believable they statistically become for me.

That is ridiculous. I guess John Wilkes Booth must be innocent because so many people saw him at Ford Theater.

Again, I don’t know what happened. The story is terrible, but the allegations are full of holes. I certainly wouldn’t call any of the women liars, but I’m not ready to light my torch and sharpen my pitch-fork to lynch Moore either.

We’re not even talking about criminal prosecution, much less a mob lynching. We are talking about choosing to support such a person to be a U.S. Senator.

That is for a criminal conviction.

Holding a senate seat is a privilege.

Yes. The senate seat will also likely help determine which party controls the senate, and can confirm constitutionalist judges, etc.

The implications of the charges cast doubt on whether Roy Moore is all that committed to the moral principles underlying the Constitution, so you may not get that, even if he is elected.

Well, yeah, that too. I guess some people want to see selfies or something before they will believe it.

Not necessarily. If a woman/girls family makes a timely report the story should hold greater believability than a woman/family who makes a report 40 years later directly after the alleged attacker wins a primary election.

That being said, a selfie is EVIDENCE, which is generally given greater strength than testimony.

Yes, it would be great if such photographic evidence existed. But it is pretty unreasonable to require such evidence before the accusers are believed.