Roy Moore's Accuser Count is now up to 9

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoshuaIsLord
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F_Marturana said:
You could write someone decent in. What was wrong with Strange anyway? Wasn’t he a Republican in good standing?
Click to expand...
Roy Moore is part of Steven Bannon’s big strategy to get rid of all those evil institutional Republicans in Congress and replace them with populists, ideologues and other types who will apparently remake America. Moore is the kind of man Steve Bannon wants running America.

Mind you, if Moore is the quality of candidate Bannon is going to produce, I think the final accomplishment will be to see the Democrats take control of the House and Senate in 2018, and Trump’s last two years in office spent in Twitteresque impotence as Congress picks up the pace of revoking the Presidencies many statutory powers.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you’re talking about the yearbook, there has been no exoneration. Handwriting analysis is basically a pseudoscience, so the idea that he has been exonerated because of some faux-journalist’s “analysis” is absurd. And even if it were true, that would only debunk one aspect of one accuser’s story.
 
niceatheist said:
Then I’d say he’d disqualified himself.
Click to expand...
So all it takes is some crazy accusations and a candidate is disqualified?

So, a candidate could pay a foreign spy to create a dossier filled with spurious and CRAZY sounding accusations, and their opponent would automatically be disqualified?

See why it’s important to look at ACTUAL evidence, not just testimony?
niceatheist said:
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.
Click to expand...
Who defines “solid and credible accusations”?

I think it should be the voters, and one of the factors they should consider is the length of time between the alleged action and when the accusations came out, the political expediency of the timing of when the accusations come out, and any evidence that supports their veracity.

In Roy Moore’s case, there is almost 40 years between the alleged action and the accusations. Not good for the veracity of the accusations.

The accusations came out AFTER the primary, the time that it could most hurt the Republican party. Not good for the vveracity of the accusations.

And the only physical evidence presented so far appears to show one of the accusors is being dishonest. Again, not good for the vveracity of the accusations.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Then I’d say he’d disqualified himself.
Click to expand...
So all it takes is some crazy accusations and a candidate is disqualified?
Click to expand...
I said “credible”. Perhaps you should start reading my posts, instead of imagining my responses.
So, a candidate could pay a foreign spy to create a dossier filled with spurious and CRAZY sounding accusations, and their opponent would automatically be disqualified?
Click to expand...
It’s up to the voters to disqualify a candidate.
See why it’s important to look at ACTUAL evidence, not just testimony?
Click to expand...
Again, this isn’t a trial.
niceatheist said:
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.
Click to expand...
Who defines “solid and credible accusations”?
Click to expand...
Multiple women making similar accusations, along with corroborating accounts from other people associated with the person being accused. There comes a point when you have to declare a dozen or more people to be liars or look at the person being accused, that you have to admit the balance of probabilities are that the person has been accurately accused.
I think it should be the voters, and one of the factors they should consider is the length of time between the alleged action and when the accusations came out, the political expediency of the timing of when the accusations come out, and any evidence that supports their veracity.
t good for the veracity of the accusations.

The accusations came out AFTER the primary, the time that it could most hurt the Republican party. Not good for the vveracity of the accusations.

And the only physical evidence presented so far appears to show one of the accusors is being dishonest. Again, not good for the vveracity of the accusations.
Click to expand...
Why? Why does length of time count? Does molesting teenagers become less vile as time passes. As to the evidence, I don’t think it has been debunked, and really, it’s just an interesting aside. We know have accusations that he had to be kept away from cheerleaders.

Just how many people are you willing to call liars to make yourself feel good about supporting a child molester?
 
Stephen_C said:
o 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?
Click to expand...
Never said this, you should try to keep up without trying to insert falsehoods.

If he is a sexual predator then he should be in prison so the populace can be protected from him. The same statement applies to you and I.

If that was unclear, then please read that sentence again.

But nobody KNOWS if he is a sexual predator. 40 year old allegations that came out at the most political expedient timing are questionable. And the only evidence seems to show that one of the accusors is being dishonest.

So, the case isn’t a “sexual predator versus a pro-abortionist” candidate.

And, lastly, you’re softening Doug Jones’ position on abortion. I believe he is openly supports the Democratic party platform of open access to abortion from conception of life to birth.
 
I’m surprised that there is a statute of limitations for these sex crimes.

My state doesn’t have a statute of limitations for sec crimes.
 
Last edited:
Just asking a question. What would be the falsehood? At least we have a baseline. So are you ok with could be a sexual predator?
 
It is interesting thing about the Signature. Moore’s wife made the claim that the Diner never existed.
 
Jig_Saw said:
40.png
Boatswain2PA:
Despite from the attacks from the leftists/“liberals” here…NOBODY knows what actually happened.

A reasonable person would look at the allegations with an initial feeling of disgust…but then ask where these women have been for the past 40 years. Yes, good points have been made about the shame of sexual abuse survivors feel and how infrequently they report said abuse, but before he was a Republican candidate for the Senate there has been NO public allegations, AT ALL!

A reasonable person would also realize that there is a problem with some women making such allegations for personal or political gain. The Duke Lacrosse case comes to mind.

A reasonable person understands that there is no way of actually knowing what happened.

And a reasonable person understands that people are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. There is no reliable proof here, so it is simply he said/she said.

The worst, most hypocritical thing about this whole issue is this: In the past 60 years, if a liberal/leftist Democrat is accused of sexual misconduct, the liberals/leftists protect them at nearly all cost. Anthony Weiner was posed to run for GOVERNOR. Bill Clinton was elected President TWICE. Ted Kennedy was the senior senator from Massachusetts for decades. Hillary Clinton & the Democrat party attacked the accusers mercilessly, while hyping themselves up as the “protectors of women” as they pushed their abortion-laden immorality.
Click to expand...
Thanks for giving us an update on the right wing talking points for the day. You can’t figure out why these accusations didn’t come out given the bull these women are going through now? Seriously?
Click to expand...
Can you point out exactly is spin?
 
What is lost here is the back story to WP’s investigative report. All the T crossing and I doting done before they published.
 
Accuser is willing to testify before the Senate.
Nelson’s lawyer, Gloria Allred, said her client “is willing to testify under oath before the U.S. Senate that there has been no tampering.”

“If such a hearing is held, she is willing to submit the yearbook to an independent examiner to have it tested,” Allred added in an email to NBC News. “Is Roy Moore willing to step down from his race for the Senate seat if we can prove that what appears to be written by him is authentic?”
Click to expand...
Is Moore willing to do the same?
 
niceatheist said:
Then I’d say he’d disqualified himself.

So all it takes is some crazy accusations and a candidate is disqualified?

I said “credible”. Perhaps you should start reading my posts, instead of imagining my responses.
Click to expand...
I’m losing track here, but I believe you replied that “he’d disqualified himself” to my crazy, incredulous, hypothetical situation.
niceatheist said:
It’s up to the voters to disqualify a candidate.
Click to expand...
But you have inferred that allegations should disqualify.

Are you saying that simple allegations would disqualify a candidate in YOUR mind? That’s fine, but it makes me wonder if you voted for Clinton twice. What about the allegations about Hillary selling uranium, or white water, or travelgate, etc etc etc…did you still vote for her after those “allegations”?

My point here is that we need to look at allegations and personally judge their veracity before we vote. I think we can agree on that.
niceatheist said:
Again, this isn’t a trial.
Click to expand...
It’s not a criminal trial, but it’s a political trial with the voters as jurists. Those jurists need to weigh the veracity of the testimony and evidence.
niceatheist said:
Multiple women making similar accusations, along with corroborating accounts from other people associated with the person being accused. There comes a point when you have to declare a dozen or more people to be liars or look at the person being accused, that you have to admit the balance of probabilities are that the person has been accurately accused
Click to expand...
In a way, YES. Multiple women making similar accusations is damning, along with the corroborating accounts. And such accusations CERTAINLY should make us look at the accused.

Yet the other side of the story should also be weighed. If the allegations are true, then the more women assaulted would equate to a greater chance that ONE of them would have come forward in a more reasonable timeframe (see Paula Jones, et al).

Also, multiple women making similar FALSE accusations is also not unheard of, and has launched (ACTUAL) witch-hunts in the past.

Again…I don’t know what happened, and neither do you. The story is disturbing, and once again the voters are faced with a extremely poor choices in candidates.
 
niceatheist said:
Why? Why does length of time count? Does molesting teenagers become less vile as time passes. As to the evidence, I don’t think it has been debunked, and really, it’s just an interesting aside. We know have accusations that he had to be kept away from cheerleaders.

Just how many people are you willing to call liars to make yours
Click to expand...
It would be nice if you would quit inserting such terrible phrases in my writings, because they aren’t there.

Of course molesting teenagers doesn’t become less vile, it’s absolutely ridiculous for you to suggest such and you should stop as such suggestions are beneath you.

Likewise, you’ve proven yourself to be capable of reading, and I’ve REPEATEDLY said here that I would NOT call any of the accusers liars.

And lastly, to suggest I support a child molester, let alone “feeling good about supporting a child molester”, crosses the line of civil discourse.

You are a better debater than this…or at least I thought you were.
 
Jig_Saw said:
Clinton. innocent before proven guilty. Kennedy. No way to know what happened. Old allegations. Attacks from liberals.
Click to expand...
So our cultural basis of innocent before being proven guilty is spin.

A factual statement that nobody here KNOWS what happened, so we are forced to weight the testimony and evidence, is spin.

Factual statement that these allegations are of alleged actions from 40 years ago, is spin.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
So our cultural basis of innocent before being proven guilty is spin.

A factual statement that nobody here KNOWS what happened, so we are forced to weight the testimony and evidence, is spin.

Factual statement that these allegations are of alleged actions from 40 years ago, is spin.
Click to expand...
No, our legal basis is innocent before proven guilty. Our cultural spin is not ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and never has been.

When there are over a dozen accusers, then we know what happened. Or at least, we who are trying to find a miniscule amount of doubt to cling to desperately to justify our vote for a child rapist know what happened.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Why? Why does length of time count? Does molesting teenagers become less vile as time passes. As to the evidence, I don’t think it has been debunked, and really, it’s just an interesting aside. We know have accusations that he had to be kept away from cheerleaders.

Just how many people are you willing to call liars to make yours
Click to expand...
It would be nice if you would quit inserting such terrible phrases in my writings, because they aren’t there.

Of course molesting teenagers doesn’t become less vile, it’s absolutely ridiculous for you to suggest such and you should stop as such suggestions are beneath you.

Likewise, you’ve proven yourself to be capable of reading, and I’ve REPEATEDLY said here that I would NOT call any of the accusers liars.

And lastly, to suggest I support a child molester, let alone “feeling good about supporting a child molester”, crosses the line of civil discourse.

You are a better debater than this…or at least I thought you were.
Click to expand...
If you’re not believing them, then you’re basically asserting that you feel the probability is that they’re lying. We’re right back to the Cosby Defense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top