Roy Moore's Accuser Count is now up to 9

[niceatheist]

Boatswain2PA:

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.

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.

Let’s just say that the court of public opinion is more a civil court, where you have a balance of probabilities argument. Where you have multiple women accusing someone of similar behavior, where they are willing to make the accusations openly without the relative safety of anonymity, where you have other accounts that corroborate the accounts of the victims, at least so far as the types of behaviors, then the balance of probabilities shifts towards the individual being accurately accused.

This is precisely how the Bill Cosby accusations went down. It’s a similar situation; you have victims who kept silence out of fear or simply because they wanted to move past it, you had what seems to have been a sort of general knowledge among Cosby’s peers that he had a predilection for these sorts of behaviors, but Cosby’s wealth and relative power and stature within his peer group made it all but impossible for any accusation to really stick, or for the rumors to even be taken seriously. In the end, the dam broke, and once one woman came forward, more women came forward, and not just anonymous accusers, but people willing to put a face to their accusations. So, even if Cosby does end up being exonerated in court, or another mistrial occurs and prosecutors decide that it isn’t worth pursuing, I still feel completely justified in saying that Bill Cosby drugged and raped women.

And the same goes for Moore. The number of accusers, the fact that they are not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity, that there are other accounts that Moore’s predilections were not only known, but had to be dealt with to keep highschool girls safe, that makes me feel absolutely confident in saying Roy Moore molested teenage girls.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Jig_Saw:

Clinton. innocent before proven guilty. Kennedy. No way to know what happened. Old allegations. Attacks from liberals.

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.

Fact don’t to matter, it’s all personal opinion.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Fact don’t to matter, it’s all personal opinion.

Do you want to edit it because it doesn’t make sense?

 

[Theo520]

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

It sounds as illegal as a 21 yr old doing the same thing.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Let’s just say that the court of public opinion is more a civil court, where you have a balance of probabilities argument. …that makes me feel absolutely confident in saying Roy Moore molested teenage girls.

Agree with everything you said.

Especially the last point, where you are FEEL absolutely confident in saying Roy Moore molested teenage girls.

I think we can agree the situation is a mess, and Roy Moore was a poor candidate from the beginning. Because of this, unfortunately, we will likely have another leftist pro-abortionist senator.

 

[qui_est_ce]

qui_est_ce:

Fact don’t to matter, it’s all personal opinion.

Do you want to edit it because it doesn’t make sense?

I was taught to refute arguments point by point, based on logic, not “basically everything” and “right-wing spin.”

 

[Jig_Saw]

I was taught to refute arguments point by point, based on logic, not “basically everything” and “right-wing spin.”

Look up Gish Gallop. Go off topic, overemphasize a small point as if conceding this point takes away from the overwhelming evidence from the other 12 people, talk about Clinton and you think that it’s worth arguing point by point?

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

niceatheist:

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

It sounds as illegal as a 21 yr old doing the same thing.

both illegal, tack on 10 years, it tacks on the pervert factor, creep factor, nasty factor, “You come around my daughter, You are dead” factor.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

A reasonable person would take note of the fact that the stories were in circulation. but did not capture public attention until they were stories were investigated by the press checked for corroboration and put together as a body of information showing a pattern of behavior. One person saying something would not have been noticed years ago. Maybe with the internet and bot amplification it might happen now. But the reason that this hadn’t become a story in the past is failry obvious: no one cared then. Now they do.

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.

Fair enough. Paula Jones also comes to mind.
But a reasonable person would ask: who has sought fame attention in this case? who has sought fame? who has sought money?

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.

A reasonable person understands the difference between standards of guilt or innocence in a criminal proceeding versus the responsibility of a voting citizen to make the best judgement in an election with the facts at hand.

 

[dvdjs]

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. … Bill Clinton was elected President TWICE. … Hillary Clinton …attacked the accusers mercilessly, while hyping themselves up as the “protectors of women” as they pushed their abortion-laden immorality.

Actually the worst things might be the failure of many on the right to hold up standards, thereby showing its own rank hypocrisy.

Mole likely thought is their remarkable inability to hold themselves to the truth.

When Bill was first elected we knew that he had an affair with Gennifer Flowers. There was lots of gossip but no names and no accusations. Certainly no adjudication of any kind. When he ran the second time we knew of Paula Jones’s accusation. But no adjudication - eventually after the case was dismissed and re-instated - it was settled without any elocution of guilt or any apology. Just $800k. There was one financially and politically ( who knew Jones before Brock?) tainted accusation of something like harassment. There was no substantive charge of rape - aggravated or statutory.

As to the idea that HRC attacked Bill’s accusers mercilessly, there is nothing behind it other than the foaming at the mouth of those who repeat it so often the the gullible believe it to be true.

 

[niceatheist]

Theo520:

niceatheist:

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

It sounds as illegal as a 21 yr old doing the same thing.

both illegal, tack on 10 years, it tacks on the pervert factor, creep factor, nasty factor, “You come around my daughter, You are dead” factor.

This whole argument, the whole “well if he was 21” thing just seems to me to be a way to try to minimize Moore’s conduct, as if there is no difference between a 21 year old hooking up with, say, a 17 year old, and a 31 year old man hooking up with a 17 year old. It really is another way of arguing “Hey, it’s no big deal, really, y’know, because the victims weren’t 12 years old.”

 

[ProVobis]

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.

So in what category would you put this?

25 years after Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas has another accuser - Vox

 

[Boatswain2PA]

As to the idea that HRC attacked Bill’s accusers mercilessly, there is nothing behind it other than the foaming at the mouth of those who repeat it so often the the gullible believe it to be true.

I enjoy proving you wrong…although you seem to lack the capacity to understand it.

Hillary calling Gennifer Flowers “Trailer Trash” :

Hillary calling all of her husband’s women “Bimbo’s” :

According to Broaddick, Hillary threatened her into staying silent at a party…

There are many examples of Hillary attacking Bill’s concubines, including the video evidence shown before.

Actually the worst things might be the failure of many on the right to hold up standards, thereby showing its own rank hypocrisy.

Really? Most of the Republican party is calling on Moore to drop out of the race. While certainly imperfect, the Republican party does a much better job of castigating those who fail to live up to their standards than the Dems do.

Again, there is no leaders in the Republican party who can live up to the sexual abuse history of Clinton, Ted Kennedy, et al.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Boatswain2PA:

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.

So in what category would you put this?

25 years after Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas has another accuser - Vox

Boorish. The article is unclear whether the accusor worked for/under Thomas (or if it did, I missed it) which would have made it worse.

I’ve done boorish things as well, and certainly wouldn’t want every mistake I have ever made to be placed under national scrutiny (which would happen if I ran for office as a R).

But the boorish category is much lower than forcible RAPE which Clinton is accused of, MURDER which Ted Kennedy is accused of, and sexting with a teenager which Wiener is convicted of.

Or of the sexual assault that Roy Moore is accused of.

 

[Theo520]

This whole argument, the whole “well if he was 21” thing just seems to me to be a way to try to minimize Moore’s conduct, as if there is no difference between a 21 year old hooking up with, say, a 17 year old, and a 31 year old man hooking up with a 17 year old. It really is another way of arguing “Hey, it’s no big deal, really, y’know, because the victims weren’t 12 years old.”

17 is not 14, stop playing games with the numbers.
Any adult male targeting a 14 yr old is breaking the same law.
You are the one that is minimizing the crime when you apply it to a 21 yr old, you shouldn’t

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Really? Most of the Republican party is calling on Moore to drop out of the race. While certainly imperfect, the Republican party does a much better job of castigating those who fail to live up to their standards than the Dems do.

I guess you missed the part where many Democrats are calling on Al Franken to resign. See, the Dems police their ranks too.

 

[dvdjs]

Hillary calling Gennifer Flowers “Trailer Trash” :

Hillary calling all of her husband’s women “Bimbo’s” :

According to Broaddick, Hillary threatened her into staying silent at a party…

Thanks for the links. It takes a little time to get through the first one, but it, like the second, it does not support what you have claimed in general (“merciless attacks”), nor what you said in particular. The second one is something of a joke. “It has been reported that she …” And yes, Broaddrick, after changing her story, claimed that she felt threatened when Hillary thanked her for her work for the Bill. How merciless to thank someone.

The reality is that this story of “merciless attacks” is all story with very little to nothing in the way of foundation. Your linking to some of the stories does not do a thing to build a foundation of fact. Especially since the putative mercilessness is not so apparent.

It was interesting, though, re-visit the Flowers case. I was wrong to say that voters knew about that affair when they voted for Clinton. In fact it was not have been known until Clinton’s book in 2004, where he confirmed it, by recounting his testimony in 1998 in which he revealed that hat he had had an encounter with Flowers. Before that, all that we really knew was that someone who had denied the reports before had take money from “Star” for a report in which she changed her prior story.

Flowers sued for defamation for her treatment by the Clinton team. Originally the suit did not include HRC, later it was changed to include her. Summary judgment dismissing the case was given by a US district court and affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

 

[dvdjs]

Really? Most of the Republican party is calling on Moore to drop out of the race.

I said “many”, not “most”, and not “all”.
Where is the party leader on this issue?

 

[lmachine]

But nobody KNOWS if he is a sexual predator.

Moore and his victims do.

 

[lmachine]

Is Moore willing to do the same?

He was asked and didn’t answer.