Roy Moore's Accuser Count is now up to 9

[niceatheist]

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.

In other words, you would be willing to hold your nose, vote for a man accused of contemptible acts because he is your ideological soulmate.

You realize, having taken that position, you can never be taken seriously when accusing the Clintons. It’s that simple. It’s rank hypocrisy to give the man who you think somehow represents your political views a free pass, despite multiple accusers, most of which have identified themselves, putting them at risk of civil consequences, along with multiple accounts from others about Moore’s behavior.

If it really comes down to voting for a child molester because you’re pro-life, then I think pro-life doesn’t mean a darned thing. It’s just another tribal tag, valueless, pointless, and bereft of morals of any kind.

 

[niceatheist]

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

Absolute nonsense. Republicans, or at least some of them, are willing to give this man a free pass because they want him to go to the Senate and vote their way. It’s pure political expediency, and the most disgusting kind of hypocrisy.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

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.

No, it’s not. It’s testimony.
There is often PLENTY of physical evidence in sexual assault cases. I believe there is still a blue dress somewhere that forced a President to finally tell the truth.

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.

Right wing talking point? The SINGLE piece of physical evidence, brought forth by the attorney of the accusor, appears to be obviously fraudulent…and you chalk that up to right wing talking point?

Let’s reverse this: If a legitimate handwriting analyst proved that a 40 year old Moore did, indeed, write a suggestive note in a 14 year old’s high school yearbook…then it would go a LONG WAY to convincing me that Moore was a pedophile/sexual predator.

Kinda like the blue dress…it kinda sealed the deal for everyone.

But that doesn’t appear to be the case. It’s like Lewinsky brought out the blue dress, but had someone elses DNA on it. Instead of proving that SOMETHING happened, and therefore that Clinton is a demonstrable liar, it would have proven that Lewinsky was a liar. If an analysis shows Moore signed the suggestive note, then it would prove that he is a DEMONSTRABLE liar. However it appears that it will prove the opposite, that the accuser is a DEMONSTRABLE liar.

But you go on and talk about talking points…I would rather look at the evidence and make a personal decision.

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.

Of course I want to vote for the guy on my team vs the other team. However I don’t want a guy on my team who attempted to rape a child.

So, again, it comes down to the believability of the 40 year old accusations that came out right AFTER the primary election, with the only physical evidence appearing to show malfeasance on the part of the accuser.

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

No, you don’t, and you likely lack the ability to get it.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

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.

Timely reports make the reports more believable to virtually everyone.

I never said I think they are lying. I have said many times that I don’t know what happened. Do I doubt their story? Yes, for reasons that are obvious to reasonable people. Do I have significant reservations about Moore? Oh yeah…he’s not the guy I would have voted for in the primary.

I don’t want a child rapist in the Senate. Likewise, I don’t want to preclude someone from the Senate because of false allegations.

What’s the truth here? Neither of us know, which means we are allowed to make our own “preponderence of the evidence” judgements.

 

[F_Marturana]

At the same time you keep bringing up what pedophilia is when Alabama law doesn’t.

If the victim is under 12 then the crime is considered first degree rape or first degree sexual abuse. Any sexual contact would be a crime.

If the victim in is between 12 and 16 the crime uses the second degree. Any sexual contact between an adult and child that age is a crime. The prosecutor just has to prove sexual contact happened. The coercion has been implied due to the lack of age of consent of the victim.

There is something wrong about a man who looks for young women that young as sex partners.

 

[niceatheist]

Jig_Saw:

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.

Timely reports make the reports more believable to virtually everyone.

I never said I think they are lying. I have said many times that I don’t know what happened. Do I doubt their story? Yes, for reasons that are obvious to reasonable people. Do I have significant reservations about Moore? Oh yeah…he’s not the guy I would have voted for in the primary.

I don’t want a child rapist in the Senate. Likewise, I don’t want to preclude someone from the Senate because of false allegations.

What’s the truth here? Neither of us know, which means we are allowed to make our own “preponderence of the evidence” judgements.

You keep talking like Moore is going on trial. He isn’t. This is an election, not a trial. He has been accused of serious actions, and by multiple women all willing to go public, putting themselves at possible risk of being sued by Moore. You are literally invoking the Cosby Defense, both in trying to minimize the likelihood of the veracity of the accusations, and in tacitly invoking the notion of a conspiracy.

Your attempts to bring in legal definitions of guilt and evidence are, so far as I’m concerned, a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. And really, we already have your defense. Moore, in your view, is pro-life, so it doesn’t matter what he has done to teenage girls in the past. All that counts is that he’ll vote for the right judge. That’s it. That’s your moral high ground.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Absolute nonsense. Republicans, or at least some of them, are willing to give this man a free pass because they want him to go to the Senate and vote their way. It’s pure political expediency, and the most disgusting kind of hypocrisy.

What would you do if Fox news came out with eye-witness reports that Doug Jones (Moore’s pro-abortion opponent) was involved with satanic rituals involving child rape, human sacrifice, and cannibalism.

I think we can all agree that this is about as vile as you could get, right?

Would you still vote for him? If you did, would it be your “pure political expediency, and the most disgusting kind of hypocrisy”?

Or would you look at the report, understand the timing is questionable, that there is absolutely NO physical evidence of such action, and vote for him anyway?

 

[Jig_Saw]

No, it’s not. It’s testimony.

There is often PLENTY of physical evidence in sexual assault cases. I believe there is still a blue dress somewhere that forced a President to finally tell the truth.

So, if Moore had been successful in sexually assaulting these children and they had kept the clothes they were wearing, then that would satisfy you and otherwise, you don’t believe them?

Right wing talking point? The SINGLE piece of physical evidence, brought forth by the attorney of the accusor, appears to be obviously fraudulent…and you chalk that up to right wing talking point?

Let’s reverse this: If a legitimate handwriting analyst proved that a 40 year old Moore did, indeed, write a suggestive note in a 14 year old’s high school yearbook…then it would go a LONG WAY to convincing me that Moore was a pedophile/sexual predator.

Kinda like the blue dress…it kinda sealed the deal for everyone.

But that doesn’t appear to be the case. It’s like Lewinsky brought out the blue dress, but had someone elses DNA on it. Instead of proving that SOMETHING happened, and therefore that Clinton is a demonstrable liar, it would have proven that Lewinsky was a liar. If an analysis shows Moore signed the suggestive note, then it would prove that he is a DEMONSTRABLE liar. However it appears that it will prove the opposite, that the accuser is a DEMONSTRABLE liar.

It appears to fraudulent according to whom? Any real expert would know they can’t determine this based on what they saw on tv, but you have determined it’s a fake. And there is far more than one person making accusations. Are they all false?

But the right wing talking point is to deflect to the Clintons, so good job.

Of course I want to vote for the guy on my team vs the other team. However I don’t want a guy on my team who attempted to rape a child.

So, again, it comes down to the believability of the 40 year old accusations that came out right AFTER the primary election, with the only physical evidence appearing to show malfeasance on the part of the accuser.

Well, you’ve got a guy on your team that attempted to rape a child and that doesn’t really change because you don’t want to believe it.

No, you don’t, and you likely lack the ability to get it.

You said as much. You said “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.”

So, what important is that you don’t like the Democrats and you don’t care if the allegations are possibly true, which means you would vote for a child rapist over a Democrat.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

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?

It is more incidental to the Harvey Weinstein incident.
Time Line
9/26 Moore wins Primary

10/8 Weinstein ousted from his company
10/9 1st HW accuser
10/10 15 HW accusers - Good enough for his wife to leave him

Every other day nearly someone comes out against HW.

Then everyone and their mama comes out of the woodwork making accusations against other Men
Roughly 25 accused including President George Bush Sr(7 accusers)

11/9 1st of 9 accustions comes out. Not exactly after the primary.

Nice spin attempt claiming it was right after the Primary win. But it does not hold water giving the plethora of accused being brought to light and still being brought to light.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Timely reports make the reports more believable to virtually everyone.

I never said I think they are lying. I have said many times that I don’t know what happened. Do I doubt their story? Yes, for reasons that are obvious to reasonable people. Do I have significant reservations about Moore? Oh yeah…he’s not the guy I would have voted for in the primary.

I don’t want a child rapist in the Senate. Likewise, I don’t want to preclude someone from the Senate because of false allegations.

What’s the truth here? Neither of us know, which means we are allowed to make our own “preponderence of the evidence” judgements.

You’ve already said that it’s important to you to not vote for the Democrat even though the allegations against Moore are possibly true, so we get it. I know the truth. I think you do, but many people want to keep up the fake doubt to justify they will vote for a person that attempted to rape a child.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

What would you do if Fox news came out with eye-witness reports that Doug Jones (Moore’s pro-abortion opponent) was involved with satanic rituals involving child rape, human sacrifice, and cannibalism.

No I would not vote for him. That is my honest answer.
I would sit home and not vote because I could not vote for either given that both have committed Sexual Crimes.

What would you do if Fox News came out with the exact report about Roy Moore.

 

[F_Marturana]

You could write someone decent in. What was wrong with Strange anyway? Wasn’t he a Republican in good standing?

 

[Theo520]

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.

It’s not quibbling to call out your gross error in describing the actions.

If a 20 year old dates a 16 yr old or even a 14 year old, it would likely be statutory rape (if it progressed that far). We don’t call it pedophilia BECAUSE IT’S NOT PEDOPHILIA.

If the male is 31 yrs old instead, it increases the creep factor but it doesn’t change the charges. He could be 80 and it wouldn’t miraculously become pedophilia.

 

[F_Marturana]

Fox wouldn’t come out with the same story about Moore. Hannity would run a two hour show about Hillary and her evil ways. Shepard Smith would mentioned it, and then end up on CNN after being on "vacation "

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Absolute nonsense. Republicans, or at least some of them, are willing to give this man a free pass because they want him to go to the Senate and vote their way. It’s pure political expediency, and the most disgusting kind of hypocrisy.

What would you do if Fox news came out with eye-witness reports that Doug Jones (Moore’s pro-abortion opponent) was involved with satanic rituals involving child rape, human sacrifice, and cannibalism.

Then I’d say he’d disqualified himself.

I think we can all agree that this is about as vile as you could get, right?

Would you still vote for him? If you did, would it be your “pure political expediency, and the most disgusting kind of hypocrisy”?

Or would you look at the report, understand the timing is questionable, that there is absolutely NO physical evidence of such action, and vote for him anyway?

If there were solid and credible accusations by multiple witnesses that Doug Jones was involved in child rape, then I could not in good conscience vote for him, regardless of how he might vote in the Senate.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Not unless Strange declares himself a write in candidate, it would be same sitting at home and not voting.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

You keep talking like Moore is going on trial. He isn’t. This is an election, not a trial. He has been accused of serious actions, and by multiple women all willing to go public, putting themselves at possible risk of being sued by Moore. You are literally invoking the Cosby Defense, both in trying to minimize the likelihood of the veracity of the accusations, and in tacitly invoking the notion of a conspiracy.

Your attempts to bring in legal definitions of guilt and evidence are, so far as I’m concerned, a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. And really, we already have your defense. Moore, in your view, is pro-life, so it doesn’t matter what he has done to teenage girls in the past. All that counts is that he’ll vote for the right judge. That’s it. That’s your moral high ground.

He is going on trial…the trial of public opinion.
Yes, hes been accused of vile things. Nobody is disagreeing with that.
But the allegations are full of holes. That doesn’t mean they don’t carry water, but they’re full of holes. Voters need to balance that in their decisions (as they put him on trial in their own conscience).

So you’re saying the “Cosby Defense” is shining light on the flaws of the accusations? Okay, I guess I’m doing that.

I’m not “minimizing the likelihood of the veracity of the accusations”. I’ve said over and over…I don’t know what happened, and neither do you.

The “notion of conspiracy” is certainly there because of the timing of the allegations. If they had come up during the primary (or before) then this wouldn’t be an issue.

Definitions of guilt and evidence are not there to muddy anything, but to shine clarity on the situation.

You (and others) keep saying that Republicans/conservatives don’t care “what he has done to teenage girls in the past”, but that is obviously not true.

I’m a conservative, and I care a great deal. However I’m not ready to light my torch and sharpen my pitchfork over 40 year old unproven allegations where the only physical evidence seems to exonerate the man, and he denies the allegations.

So, the choice is this:

A) A candidate with old, unproven, yet terrible allegations with evidence that seems to exonerate him, but runs a pro-life, anti-establishment, small-government campaign.

B) A candidate who runs a pro-abortion, big government, big-regulation, higher taxes campaign.

This is the voters choice.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

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.

It’s not quibbling to call our your gross error in describing the actions.

If a 20 year old dates a 16 yr old or even a 14 year old, it would likely be statutory rape (if it progressed that far). We don’t call it pedophilia BECAUSE IT’S NOT PEDOPHILIA.

If the male is 31 yrs old instead, it increases the creep factor but it doesn’t change the charges. He could be 80 and it wouldn’t miraculously become pedophilia.

How does a 31 year old man removing the clothes of a 14 year old girl sound to you? Just “creepy”?

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Fox wouldn’t come out with the same story about Moore. Hannity would run a two hour show about Hillary and her evil ways. Shepard Smith would mentioned it, and then end up on CNN after being on "vacation "

So true, So True, so True…

 

[Stephen_C]

So I want to get this straight Boatswain2PA. You would vote for a sexual predator if he is “Pro-Life” over a non sexual predator who might be not? Is that what you are saying?