Roy Moore's Accuser Count is now up to 9

[Cathoholic]

Jig_Saw:

Now, again, if you want to vote for a child molester because you don’t like his opponent’s stance on abortion, just be honest about it and stop pretending there is serious doubt about Moore’s guilt.

Now, again, if you want to vote for ideas and laws that are supportive of child molestation because you are willing to turn a blind eye away from his opponent’s stance on abortion, just be honest about it and stop pretending there is serious doubt about you being concerned about your lack of support for abusers.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Now, again, if you want to vote for ideas and laws that are supportive of child molestation because you are willing to turn a blind eye away from his opponent’s stance on abortion, just be honest about it and stop pretending there is serious doubt about you being concerned about your lack of support for abusers.

I prefer my pro-life candidates to not twittle around with little kids, but that’s me. But the big picture is that the Republicans have failed miserably on restricting abortion, so I base my vote on what the politicians would actually do, not what they claim they would do.

 

[Cathoholic]

Jig_Saw:

The evidence against Moore is very strong . . .

Voters don’t need Jig_Saw to control for them what their assessment of the evidence is and isn’t.

There IS support for SOME of the points Moore supporters have brought out.

But YOU won’t even acknowledge those points here.

So WHY should I listen to you? Especially when I see you dishonestly attempt to portray good people here as “supporters” of unsavory candidates.

 

[Theo520]

Who’s ‘twittling’ with 1-6 yr old, little kids?
Spit it out
Stop protecting their reputation!

 

[F_Marturana]

Ok. Eight graders is better.

 

[Cathoholic]

Jig_Saw:

I prefer my pro-life candidates to not twittle around with little kids, but that’s me.

I INSIST that my pro-life candidates to not twittle around with little kids too. Including them supporting “twittlers” who support the abortion industry which is the most egregious of the “twittlers”. Including most especially when they OPENLY ADMIT THEY SUPPORT such “twittling” (like Doug Jones openly admits). But that’s just me.

 

[Theo520]

Ok. Eight graders is better.

Ohh, you are talking about teens, not little kids.

Well, let’s get this person up on charges,
so the rule of law does what it was designed to do.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Voters don’t need Jig_Saw to control for them what their assessment of the evidence is and isn’t.

There IS support for SOME of the points Moore supporters have brought out.

But YOU won’t even acknowledge those points here.

So WHY should I listen to you?

I have acknowledged that some have poked a few holes in the testimony of ONE OF THE NINE accusers. I have acknowledged that Moore has denied the accusations, but has LIED about the case.

I don’t care if you listen to me. I just am stating the truth.

 

[Jig_Saw]

I INSIST that my pro-life candidates to not twittle around with little kids too. Including them supporting “twittlers” who support the abortion industry which is the most egregious of the “twittlers”. Including most especially when they OPENLY ADMIT THEY SUPPORT such “twittling” (like Doug Jones openly admits). But that’s just me.

Again, if your vote is based only on abortion, just say so, but you would be voting for a child molester if you vote for Moore.

 

[Cathoholic]

I don’t care if you listen to me. I just am stating the truth.

No jigsaw. You are just stating PART of the truth.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Who’s ‘twittling’ with 1-6 yr old, little kids?

Spit it out

Stop protecting their reputation!

I’m sorry, did I state the age or did you read into it? Pretty much at my age, anyone below the age of 16 is a little kid.

And a 14 year old is usually an 8th grader.

 

[Jig_Saw]

No jigsaw. You are just stating PART of the truth.

And which part of truth am I missing? Tell me, because clearly you have additional information that I don’t know about, but most of what’s been provided has been really problematic.

 

[Cathoholic]

Jig_Saw:

.

Again, if your vote is based only on abortion, just say so, but you would be voting for a child molester if you vote for Moore.

.

Again. Abortion IS a form of child molestation.

And for you Jig_Saw to try to divorce these associations just suggests to me how YOU think about killing innocent children and “giving” abortions to young pregnant girls.

But it doesn’t lend much insight about Roy Moore.

.

Jig_Saw:

you would be voting for a child molester if you vote for Moore.

But I haven’t supported the candidacy of Moore.

I’ve supported Moore getting a fair hearing.

But I HAVE disqualified Doug Jones.

To paraphrase you Jig_Saw but taking facts instead of conjecture into consideration . . .

You would be voting for propogating child molestion if you vote for Doug Jones.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Again. Abortion IS a form of child molestation and for you to try to divorce these associations just suggests to me how YOU think about killing innocent children and “giving” abortions to young pregnant girls.

But it doesn’t lend much insight about Roy Moore.

Yep, well, as I’ve said, Republicans haven’t done much with abortion, but again, if you want to vote for a child molester because of his position on abortion, have at it.

But I haven’t supported the candidacy of Moore.

I’ve supported Moore getting a fair hearing.

But I HAVE disqualified Doug Jones.

He is getting a fair hearing - the facts support the view that he is a child molester.

To paraphrase you Jig_Saw but taking facts instead of conjecture into consideration . . .

You would be voting for propogating child molestion if you vote for Doug Jones.

Since the latter statement was in the quote box, I would say that I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t change my words and presented as a direct quote that I said.

 

[Cathoholic]

Jig_Saw:

Again, if your vote is based only on abortion, just say so, but you would be voting for a child molester if you vote for Moore.

Cathoholic:

To paraphrase you Jig_Saw but taking facts instead of conjecture into consideration . . .

You would be voting for propogating child molestion if you vote for Doug Jones.

Jig_Saw:

Since the latter statement was in the quote box, I would say that I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t change my words and presented as a direct quote that I said.

Fair enough criticism of me Jig_Saw.

I’ll re-phrase it…

To paraphrase you Jig_Saw but taking facts instead of conjecture into consideration . . .

Cathoholic:

You would be voting for propogating child molestion if you vote for Doug Jones.

 

[Jig_Saw]

You would be voting for propogating child molestion if you vote for Doug Jones.

And that’s an interesting point of view that I think very, very few people would agree with. Why don’t you go post it on a few other places and see what kind of response you get, because, by itself, it will make no sense to anyone.

 

[Inisfallen]

Wow. Just, wow.

I’m done debating whether or not the voters of Alabama should elect Roy Moore to the Senate. Obviously, people have widely varying standards when it comes to who is worthy of representing them in the most exclusive club in the world. That’s fine, so be it, I don’t get to vote in Alabama.

But this Breitbart article is, in its own way, a masterpiece. It’s sheer genius. The writer is really, really good at what he does, which is build a towering structure without a foundation, built on guilt by association, even when there is no association, the invocation of that perennial right-wing bogeyman, George Soros, the frequent sprinkling of right-wing buzzwords like “ultra-liberal,” “far-left,” “radical leftist groups financed by Soros,” mysterious “ties” to Soros and others alleged without any substantiation, the “infamous controversial Rev. Al Sharpton” (another favorite right-wing bogeyman), the “progressive agenda,” and on and on in that vein.

It’s a masterpiece.

I almost have to admire it.

I don’t, of course, because it’s pure manure from beginning to end, but I have to admit it’s beautifully done.

 

[Inisfallen]

(It suggests they are concerned about politics over principles. Which is hypocrisy.)

Careful with that statement.

Many, perhaps most, of Roy Moore’s defenders are perfectly willing to admit that they care about politics over principles, in that they’re willing to hold their noses and vote for Moore in order to achieve their political goals.

Are they hypocrites? Or can only liberals and Democrats be hypocrites?

 

[ATraveller]

They should have selected Luther Strange (name). Probably could win additional votes with such a name.

 

[Theo520]

no, not everyone below the age of 16 is the same.
they are not all little kids
Read up on pedophile in the law statutes