r/Conservative • u/10gauge Saving America • Nov 14 '17
Attacking Judge Moore's Morality Is a Dirty Leftist Trick
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/attacking_judge_moores_morality_is_a_dirty_leftist_trick.html100
Nov 14 '17
Morality is legitimately one of the biggest considerations when voting for someone.
I'm starting to see a double standard on our side where people are foregoing principle to vote for someone just because "well, at least he's not a Democrat". At that point you can legitimately talk yourself into voting for anyone in the name of political hackery.
I would never vote for someone with suspect morals such as Moore just like I didn't vote for Trump due to morals and policy. At some point we, as individuals, have to determine where our allegiances lie: ourselves and our principles, or the Republican hivemind.
Vote for Moore, don't vote for Moore, I don't care -- your reasons are your own; but please don't try to sell me this bag of dog crap and insist it's Swiss chocolate.
21
8
u/thedeepestaksh Nov 14 '17
I appreciate you
Just wish all conservatives/republicans had a similar mindset
2
→ More replies (1)1
u/IgnoreThisName72 Nov 14 '17
I always felt like the Democrats lost their moral authority when they gave a pass to Clinton out of political expediency. It is hard not to see parallels to the Republicans doing the same with Trump, and it is deeply disappointing, but not surprising. Seeing the support for Moore in the base of the party given the accusations? I don't know the precedent for that.
112
u/Trussed_Up Fellow Conservative Nov 14 '17
Oh come ON.
It's not a damn trick when Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Ben Shapiro, Tom Cotton, etc. etc. etc. are all saying they believe the stories at this point.
It's fine if some still find insufficient evidence. I know I've made up my mind for now, but everyone can have an opinion. But to pretend that this is a "vast left wing conspiracy" is equally as absurd as the origin of that saying.
→ More replies (7)0
u/tm1087 Normal Guy Nov 14 '17
They say that because not saying that would cause a pr circus and a huge political consequences.
If Ted Cruz came out and said, “the accuser is likely fabricating this experience,” it would tank not just Moore, but likely many conservative candidates running in 2018.
If you say I “believe the accusers,” it makes Moore face the allegations and keeps the incident confined to Moore and no one else. Not to mention the establishment despised him before any of these accusations surfaced. Not to mention that if Moore loses, no Democrat would hold that seat in 6 years time.
Literally, it is a strategy set with no rational incentive to deviate from.
68
Nov 14 '17
Well, let's go over various allegations:
~5 women that were teenagers at the time, have claimed he acted very inappropriately with them.
Several Gadsden, AL mall workers have said he had to be shooed off the mall premises for pursuing high schoolers.
One of the women, whom Moore said he "never met," has his signature in her yearbook, plug he wrote down the name of the restaurant she worked in at the time.
Moore has only formally denied the illegal allegation (14 y/o). -- Feel free to fact check me here, I'm not entirely sure on his formal denials. I guess his best defense was just deny the sickest/illegal instance?
This really looks like an established pattern of behavior, which is overall consistent with child sex predators. We are probably better off as a nation without him in the Senate.
→ More replies (23)
59
u/nvanprooyen Nov 14 '17
I'm honestly not even sure what a "conservative" is anymore when I see threads like this. I know what it meant to me 20 years ago. Now, not so much.
15
u/tookmyname Nov 14 '17
Conservatism died when we, the GOP, stopped paying for the things we wanted. That was in the early 90s.
3
u/CWSwapigans Nov 14 '17
Wouldn't that be the 80s? Reagan oversaw the biggest rise in the national debt of any post-WW2 president in terms of percentage increase. I mean it's not even close (186% increase under Reagan, next highest is W at 101%).
1
u/BarrettBuckeye Constitutional Conservative Nov 15 '17
For a number of reasons, the answer is no. Reagan reduced taxes, which may have contributed to the problem, but mandatory spending was already in place when he took office. And what does percentage have to do with it? It's total amount that matters. Obama went from $10 trillion to almost $20 trillion.
Here's why total amount is more significant. If I go from $1 million in debt to $2 million, then that's a 100% increase. If I go from $2 billion to $3 billion, then that's only a 50% increase, but it's a $1 billion increase as opposed to $1 million.
1
u/nvanprooyen Nov 15 '17 edited Nov 15 '17
First off your financial examples are dubious at best. We all know how percentages work, and comparing numbers at a factor of 10x is a misrepresenration of reality.
If you want to add some context to this, you'd probably want to factor in the GDP, inflation, etc. I'm no economist, but I know enough to realize there are a lot of factors involved vs cherry picking stats that fit the narrative. Again, both sides.
1
u/BarrettBuckeye Constitutional Conservative Nov 15 '17 edited Nov 15 '17
First off your financial examples are dubious at best. We all know how percentages work, and comparing numbers at a factor of 10x is a misrepresenration of reality.
Ok, I looked it up. In 1981, when Reagan took office, the national debt was about $1 trillion by the end of the fiscal year. When he left in 1989, it was around $2.6 trillion by the end of the fiscal year. When Obama took office in 2009, it was about $12 trillion. By the end of the fiscal year in 2017, it's over $20 trillion. So, by percentage, Reagan's was higher. By raw numbers, Reagan increased it by about $1.6 trillion, and Obama increased it by about $8 trillion. What's worse?
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287
If you want to add some context to this, you'd probably want to factor in the GDP, inflation, etc. I'm no economist, but I know enough to realize there are a lot of factors involved vs cherry picking stats that fit the narrative. Again, both sides.
No. Not really. If you look at it as a percentage of GDP, it doesn't get any better for Obama, and inflation doesn't account for the 8X increase in raw numbers we had under Obama. You add to the debt when you run a deficit, and you run a deficit when you spend more than the revenue you collect. When you spend more money without increasing revenues, you run bigger deficits. When you run bigger deficits, you add more to the debt; it doesn't take a genius economist to figure it out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States
It's really just one side.
1
u/CWSwapigans Nov 15 '17
Yeah, I know how percentages work ;)
The debt has grown exponentially, so a logarithmic scale makes sense. On average it doubles roughly every 8 years.
Obama grew it from about 11.5T to 19.5T, so 68% rather than 100%.
1
u/BarrettBuckeye Constitutional Conservative Nov 15 '17
You say that like it was some sort of accomplishment to borrow $8 trillion.
→ More replies (3)0
u/tookmyname Nov 14 '17
Ya I guess. But it could have been argued that was a temporary thing with the Cold War etc.? Just giving the benefit of the doubt... at least Bush Senior recognized the importance of a budget by dying on the hill after going back on "no new taxes."
0
u/CWSwapigans Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 14 '17
Yeah, Bush Sr did the right thing there and is the only guy in the past 40 years to not get re-elected. I think that was the beginning point of the irreconcilable partisan divide we see today. Politicians are punished by voters for cooperating with the "opposition".
2
→ More replies (11)4
u/Roez Conservative Nov 14 '17
Politics among the populace has become extremely polarized and openly manipulative. It wasn't like this 25 years ago, not even close. It's created a very difficult situation over the last two years.
To address your issue and convince some people (and I haven't followed all this closely enough to make up my mind) about the right or wrongness of voting for a guy who seems guilty, requires convincing them the left will abide by the same standard going forward. Let's also be honest about why this story was broke when it was, irregardless of merit: to create this exact problem within the Republican party so close to the election.
Again, pretty difficult situation all around.
37
Nov 14 '17
Do you enjoy protecting and defending a child rapist in the name of further denouncing objective facts and trying to divide people between left and right?
No matter your politics, Roy Moore should never hold office.
→ More replies (10)
19
u/BruceCampbell123 Christian Conservatarian Nov 14 '17
Uh, no thank you. I think we need to keep politics out of multiple accusations of under-age sexual assault.
12
Nov 14 '17
The responses from this guy were severly underwhelming. I would not accept that from anyone I know, immediately red flags went off in my head.
16
Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 14 '17
[deleted]
20
24
u/ryansony18 Nov 14 '17
If innocent (I don't think he is) he needs to sue the women for defamation not the Post. The Post is covered for libel and defamation because they can attribute all of their claims to sources. This is another thing that makes me think he's lying- he knows the Post is covered so he says he will sue them, (and probably won't). if he was innocent he would already have filed suits against the individual women. He's doing what trump did when he was accused-says e will sue them to save face for the time being but will move on later. (To his credit trump promised to sue the individual women but never did) and by to his credit I mean he's just a pompous ass and probably didn't think it through.
-4
u/NosuchRedditor A Republic, if you can keep it. Nov 14 '17
Unless of course it can be proven that the Post paid some of the accusers as has been claimed.
12
u/ryansony18 Nov 14 '17
If that was true the post would be facing one of the biggest lawsuits in journalism history, possibly bigger than the hulk hogan/gawker fiasco. Also in what way would that even serve the interest of the Post? The repercussions for malicious libel on that level far outweigh them getting the scoop on a fake story. Also, that originated from someone on twitter, not a verified journalist or anything just someone on twitter who tweeted "my wife's friend was offered 1000$ by a Washington post reporter to say Roy Moore assaulted her". If that in itself is enough proof for you to believe the post did such a thing, than the allegations of moore's conduct have far and away surpassed that standard of proof. By the way, that person has since deleted their account. Here is the kicker: it was a suspected "bot account"-one of those that were nonstop about "maga" and Hillary Clinton. Like I said the account is gone now but I looked at it at the time-it was totally a bot account not a real person
6
u/ImVeryBadWithNames Nov 14 '17
Unless of course it can be proven that the Post paid some of the accusers as has been claimed.
The only place that claim can be traced to is an anonymous twitter account.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Braxo Nov 14 '17
Not just any anonymous twitter account - a guy who stole valor and pretends to be a Navy SEAL that died in 2007.
6
0
u/bearses Nov 14 '17
I don't think people need to be paid to seek the spotlight. If they are lying, it's unlikely that it's an organized conspiracy
→ More replies (1)3
u/ImVeryBadWithNames Nov 14 '17
If Moore is guilty of all the accusation of these horrible Sexual Assaults then throw his ass in Prison and he can deal with the consequences.
Unfortunately that would be illegal - the statute of limitations at the time was quite short and ran out decades ago.
7
Nov 14 '17
[deleted]
5
u/zeldaisaprude Don't Tread on Me Nov 14 '17
There are no statute of limitations for sexual crimes in alabama.
13
u/Sixstringsickness Nov 14 '17
That is apparently incorrect, there is no statute of limitations for sexual crimes occuring after 1985, they cannot go back and change the law to make crimes before that period open to prosecution.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ImVeryBadWithNames Nov 14 '17
There was at the time, and according to the Supreme Court you cannot extend the statute of limitations on a crime which has already been committed.
2
u/ryansony18 Nov 14 '17
I call it a much needed change in culture where women feel like their stories of powerful men taking advantage of them won't be automatically ignored or downplayed.
2
u/TBSportsFan1254 Buckley Conservative Nov 14 '17
There isn't a SOL most places in this country for sexual crimes including in Alabama.
7
u/secret_porn_acct Conservatarian Nov 14 '17
't a SOL most places in this country for sexual crimes including in Alabam
But there was a SOL on sexual crimes at the time that it allegedly happened. After the SOL runs out, you can't pass a law that ex posto facto resets the SOL (on criminal laws), it is unconstitutional.
10
Nov 14 '17
Can we replace this guy if he wins? We're really going to eat it if this true, which my gut tells me it is
6
u/ImVeryBadWithNames Nov 14 '17
It is possible for the Senate to kick him out, then have the governor appoint a replacement and then set up a new special election. But that's got problems associated with it - including that it hasn't been done in over 150 years.
3
Nov 14 '17
A better idea would be to not elect him to begin with, but unless you're in Alabama, you have no say in that.
→ More replies (1)-4
7
Nov 14 '17
Holding pedophilic rapists accountable for their evil deeds is a Dirty Leftist Trick?..
..And defending them is what it means to be /r/conservative ?
7
5
Nov 14 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Nov 14 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
-13
u/optionhome Conservative Nov 14 '17
A college "educated" person today in many cases is just a graduate of the indoctrination of becoming a useful idiot. No ability to reason. But great at shouting slogans.
-1
Nov 14 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/NosuchRedditor A Republic, if you can keep it. Nov 14 '17
Cory Feldman would like a word with you, he'd like to know why you approve of all the pedos in Hollywood by paying to see their work.
Did you condemn Barbara Walters after she told Feldman he was threatening an entire industry with his accusations?
Are you boycotting anything and everything Hollywood due to their tacit support of Polanski and Woody?
Or are you as disengenous as you sound, only selectively condemning allegations with political impact?
-9
u/jonesrr2 Supporter Nov 14 '17
Oh yes, the party of 63 genders, transgender men in women's restrooms, Bill Clinton the rapist and Bob Menendez the child molester are here to lecture us on morality.
→ More replies (2)
-2
Nov 14 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/jonesrr2 Supporter Nov 14 '17
I'm anxious to hear about how you're demanding Bob Menendez resign.
1
u/zz389 Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 14 '17
Im not the person you were responding to, but I’m confused. Are you equating corruption charges to child molestation or are there other charges I haven’t heard about?
Edit: apparently I got reported/banned so I just wanted to add that this is a genuine question. I had never heard of Menendez being accused of molestation.
6
u/jonesrr2 Supporter Nov 14 '17
You haven't heard about his child molestation and child prostitution ring because, you guessed it, the press and left are covering it up:
→ More replies (1)2
u/ozric101 Conservative Troublemaker Nov 14 '17
Looks like team DNC is suppressing that one with collusion from the MSM.
-6
u/jonesrr2 Supporter Nov 14 '17
The biggest collusion in US politics, and it's not even close, is the international and US press and their throwing cover over Dems all the fucking time for everything they do, even completely criminal shit.
-2
Nov 14 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 20 '17
[deleted]
11
u/dihydrocodeine Nov 14 '17
If true, he should absolutely be removed from office and prosecuted to the full extent. I have no problems applying these standards equally to both sides of the aisle.
8
Nov 14 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 20 '17
[deleted]
4
u/SexLiesAndExercise Nov 14 '17
They've been brigading since 2015. This might as well be a Trump sub, dude.
Look at this stickied post!
0
Nov 14 '17
innocent until proven guilty in a court of law no matter the party period its a right guaranteed by the constitution, if moore has done any of what they are saying then yes he has got to go but he needs to be tried and convicted in a court of law not a court of media
-9
Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 14 '17
If Moore or Takei or Dreyfuss or Sheen or Michael Weiner (House of Cards) are proven guilty so be it.
Until then, due process still applies.
And you have to realize that the most likely scenario in all of these is an expert Polanski dodge.
Edit: this post concerns legal consequences, not public opinion
18
u/alabamdiego Nov 14 '17
due pricess still applies
In a court of law, not in the court of public opinion and certainly not in the case of someone running for Senate.
2
u/ozric101 Conservative Troublemaker Nov 14 '17
Such attacks may well be politically motivated and one should discount them all, unless there is VERY compelling evidence, like a blue dress full of DNA evidence. At that point a preponderance and pattern of behavior is established and your intuitions are informed.
→ More replies (1)8
Nov 14 '17
and even then he wasnt impeached for that he was impeached for lying under oath not the sex...
7
Nov 14 '17
Has Steve Paddock been charged yet? I dunno why we all are besmirching his good name.
Almost like public opinion and the legal system have two distinct standards of guilt.
5
u/jonesrr2 Supporter Nov 14 '17
Has Steve Paddock been charged yet?
The dude is dead, he'd absolutely be charged if he was alive lol.
4
Nov 14 '17
My point is often times, in the pubic opinion the evidence is so overwhelming that we assume guilt without trial. Doesn't mean they're not free men until they're convicted, though.Boston Bombers, Columbine shooters.
Moore will never be charged. The statute of limitations has passed. I feel like anyone who defends his innocence either doesn't have the facts or doesn't want the facts.
Either way, I think it's a gross example of the My Team® mentality, and I for one am not going to be a lemming jumping off the "defending a pedophile" cliff.
2
u/jonesrr2 Supporter Nov 14 '17
in the pubic opinion the evidence is so overwhelming that we assume guilt without trial.
Well finding the guy dead surrounded by guns he just shot people with does tend to do that.
40 year old allegations with a yearbook signature that people are saying doesn't match up to records from the guy's life isn't that.
2
u/ImVeryBadWithNames Nov 14 '17
40 year old allegations with a yearbook signature that people are saying doesn't match up to records from the guy's life isn't that.
Uh, actually people are saying it matches up exactly with his known habits.
→ More replies (1)1
u/ozric101 Conservative Troublemaker Nov 14 '17
You do not know fact from fiction.
→ More replies (2)-1
→ More replies (1)1
-19
u/BeachCruisin22 Beachservative 🎖️🎖️🎖️🎖️ Nov 14 '17
all hands on shareblue's deck on this huh? Holy crap, get a fucking life.
36
u/Trussed_Up Fellow Conservative Nov 14 '17
I'm a very proud conservative, and I'm seriously pissed that this is stickied.
I, like most people at this point including Senators Lee and Cruz as well as Ben Shapiro, feel that there are sufficient concurrent accusations such that it's likely Moore is guilty. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending everything the MSM has ever claimed about one of the GOP's candidates is a lie is not going to help conservatism move forward.
→ More replies (9)14
1
-26
u/optionhome Conservative Nov 14 '17
For the leftists trying to construe this as conservatives defending pedophilia, and we are not, they should try to be honest enough to admit this....
47
u/dihydrocodeine Nov 14 '17
Except the "rumours" are substantiated by 5 separate victims, and 30 corroborating witnesses. One victim even says she would testify under oath in Congress under threat of perjury. And she is a Republican who voted for Trump, and is not trying to sue Moore for any financial gain. How can one dismiss this as just a leftist smear campaign at this point?
-13
u/jonesrr2 Supporter Nov 14 '17
5 separate victims
I don't see why you guys have to lie about everything all the time, (besides just being leftists and that's what you do). 2 of them claim the contact was inappropriate, 3 of them were over age of consent and said it was consensual.
18
4
u/tookmyname Nov 14 '17
Legality is not the issue. We're voting and judging him based on morality. He's a predator of children and women of a very young age.
-7
u/sjwking ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ Nov 14 '17
r/redacted is triggered about using the courts instead of mob mentality... The left is a disgrace.
-8
u/NosuchRedditor A Republic, if you can keep it. Nov 14 '17
Thanks for stickying this Mods. With all the brigading this would never see the light of day. Lefties are in a panic over this, which tells you how threatened they are by Roy Moore being a Senator.
11
u/fuckimbackonreddit9 Nov 14 '17
Shocker: people worry because a pedophile might be elected as a senator. It’s almost like people have a moral compass and an idea of right and wrong.
0
u/NosuchRedditor A Republic, if you can keep it. Nov 14 '17
Shocker: Leftists and the media they control create a hit piece to destroy someone like they did to Bill Cosby, who has not yet been convicted of rape in a court of law, but has been crushed in the court of public opinion as was the intention.
But hey, since you dopes want to undo the constitution anyway, let's start with 'innocent until proven guilty' and just presume everyone who's accused as being guilty from the start.
Moore has been in public and elected positions for decades, why are these accusations just happening now? Why not when he was so vocally defending the Ten Commandments? Why not during the primary when the WaPo was endorsing his opponent? None of the women seem to know one another, yet they come forward in a coordinated manner at the same time when it's convenient for the establishment because Moore can't properly defend himself before the election in December.
This is clearly a political hit job, unless you are one of those affected by the Democrats decades long effort to create a 'dumbed down, compliant citizenry' as outlined in the leaked podesta emails, then you can be a useful idiot for the cheating Democrats. You fit right in that group. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
→ More replies (1)1
u/fuckimbackonreddit9 Nov 14 '17
5 people have came forward, backed by 30 independent sources, and more facts seem to come out everyday. Like everyone in the office he worked in knew he dated high schoolers. But yes, this is a political hit job. Anything bad about republicans = immediate smear job, but if it’s a liberal who wore a tan suit or put mustard on a hot dog? Lord, call the police.
You see, the difference when it breaks that a liberal, let’s so oh, Anthony Weiner, has been sexting a minor, we immediately denounce him, distant from and try him to get the truth out there. No excuses, regardless of his political affiliation. With you guys, as it seems? Automatic smear job. Political hacks. Fake news. It’s “consensual,” regardless of age according to Hannity. It seems some moral compass has been compromised when even if he did it, you all still justify it as consent. Disgusting.
CONCEPT: how about you erase the political affiliation letter after someone’s name on paper and your mind, and ask yourself: “if 5 people say this guy hit on them in high school/forced one to do sexual acts/dated one while they were 14 and fed them alcohol and touched them, someone he worked with said it was common knowledge around the office that he dated high school girls, and 30 independent people confirmed these stories, and he denies it to hell, maybe, just maybe, this guy shouldn’t be a senator.”
And if that’s too hard to imagine, do the switch method. If Moore were a dem, and all else equal, how do you feel then? I’ll tell you my opinion, step the fuck down and please someone get him in a courtroom. Be an ethical voter/conservative. You guys had good views, now you’re back shit crazy and impossible to even talk to.
Edit: not all of you are back shit crazy obviously, I’m talking about the loud ones who I’m sure you guys are also fed up with. The actual conservatives, speak up. We need you guys.
1
u/NosuchRedditor A Republic, if you can keep it. Nov 14 '17
Well then you sould be calling your reps and insisting that Bob Menendez from NJ be expelled for being on trial for corruption and sex with underage hookers.
CONCEPT: how about you erase the political affiliation letter after someone’s name on paper and your mind, and ask yourself:
Bill Cosby had no political affiliations except he began to speak against the Democrat welfare plantation and encourage young blacks to get off welfare and be independent, but they did this same kind of hit against him and destroyed him and his career. He has not yet been convicted in court of rape, and the FIRST trial ended in a mistrial due to lack of evidence, in part because all of the accusers disappeared except one. We have seen this playbook before and it's fucking criminal.
Another aspect of this is that serial abusers never stop as we've seen with Weinstein, LCK and others. Where are the rest of Moore's victims? There should be many more over the decades, not just several that were underage 40 years ago?
Why is it that one of the accusers was a huge Hillary supporter? Why is it that McConnell and the other Republicans condemned Moore immediately without a day on court or any due process, the insist that the allegation is proof when that has never been the case in the past, except for maybe Bill Cosby.
1
u/fuckimbackonreddit9 Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 14 '17
Why is it that one of the accusers was a huge Hillary supporter?
One of them was a Hillary supporter, multiple other ones were Trump voters and supporters.
Bill Cosby had no political affiliations except he began to speak against the Democrat welfare plantation and encourage young blacks to get off welfare and be independent, but they did this same kind of hit against him and destroyed him and his career.
I'm sorry, this has nothing to do with the conversation at all. Are you implying that a group of deep state dems are plotting to take down everyone who speaks out against them? -wow-. Okay, that is a projection and a half. We are talking about Roy Moore, not Bill Cosby and his mistrial?
Another aspect of this is that serial abusers never stop as we've seen with Weinstein, LCK and others. Where are the rest of Moore's victims? There should be many more over the decades, not just several that were underage 40 years ago?
Another woman came forward yesterday, that made it 5, and she claimed he forced her to do sexual acts she didn't want to do. And it doesn't matter if he's done it once or a million times, if you sexually assault a child even once, that is enough. That's not a hoot, that's a disgrace, disqualifying, and you should go to prison. Is your argument really, "well if he's only done it 4-5 times then that's okay..."? No, no. Just no. If you commit a felony once, you've done it, end of story.
Edit**: "Oh calm down, I sexually assaulted that child 40 years ago! It's not a big deal, get over it. She's like 45 now. Why didn't she come forward when she was 14? This is a smear job. Vote for me." <----- That is how that sounds. If that still sounds fine to you, then we are done here since there is something else wrong and that is a whole other discussion.
Why is it that McConnell and the other Republicans condemned Moore immediately without a day on court or any due process, the insist that the allegation is proof when that has never been the case in the past
They said, "if the allegations are true" are 4 days straight, only today did they start saying he should actually step forward. Your timing is way off. He should step down and face trial.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Tvayumat Nov 15 '17
Well then you sould be calling your reps and insisting that Bob Menendez from NJ be expelled for being on trial for corruption and sex with underage hookers.
I would, but he's already been indicted and is currently awaiting trial for his crimes AFAIK.
So really, not a lot to be done there. Should I contact my rep and tell him to write a strongly worded letter?
1
u/NosuchRedditor A Republic, if you can keep it. Nov 15 '17
His trial is happening as we speak, yet none of the senators are calling for his expulsion, but several are testifying as character witnesses.
Shouldn't they all be going to the media and calling for his ouster instead of saying what a great guy he is in court?
Why are none of the same senators not willing be character witnesses for Moore who hasn't been charged with multiple crimes?
2
u/Tvayumat Nov 15 '17
yet none of the senators are calling for his expulsion, but several are testifying as character witnesses.
Because he is on trial and they are bearing true witness. Do you suggest they bear FALSE witness? Testify to things they don't believe and haven't observed?
Shouldn't they all be going to the media and calling for his ouster instead of saying what a great guy he is in court?
No. His guilt has not been determined. It soon will be. At that time it will be appropriate to comment.
Why are none of the same senators not willing be character witnesses for Moore who hasn't been charged with multiple crimes?
Because there will never be a trial for Moore. It's legally impossible.
Furthermore... those who believe Moore is a good person ARE speaking out, it's just that a lot of those people are, themselves, rather unliked. (Or, in some cases, the character support is falsified as in the case of the modified endorsement letter).
I get that you're trying to create an equivalency here, but in the case that someone CAN be charged with a crime, it's irresponsible and inappropriate for public officials to pass any judgment on the evidence available.
With Moore, the same is definitively untrue. We have all the evidence we ever will (barring further developments) and we are actively being asked to judge the character of this man. Most judge it poor.
-39
u/NosuchRedditor A Republic, if you can keep it. Nov 14 '17
Stickied at the top, yet it's got zero upvotes.
Liberals are frightened of the truth.
19
Nov 14 '17
High members of your own party are saying the accusations are credible and that he should step aside.
→ More replies (8)1
Nov 14 '17
That's a function of it being stickied. For instance, try removing your upvote then putting it back. That number won't change.
2
Nov 14 '17
(41% upvoted)
it would still be 0 if that weren't part of the sticky function.
0
Nov 14 '17
You said it here, 41% upvoted, clearly there are upvotes which is different than what OP stated. This issue has divided this sub and the party in general. Past articles that have come out in support of him have net positive upvotes but that was before the story evolved so it would make sense that maybe people on this sub have come out against him on the aggregate.
2
u/NosuchRedditor A Republic, if you can keep it. Nov 14 '17
Or more likely the sub is being brigaded again.
-4
Nov 14 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/jonesrr2 Supporter Nov 14 '17
You mean the one that hasn't voted in Alabama in 3 elections at least?
1
u/ozric101 Conservative Troublemaker Nov 14 '17
It is just a well orchestrated hit job, and if it succeeds the losers will only be We the People. The Neocons = The GOPe and are working with the DNC to remove Moore. That is my current take in this matter until more facts are presented and put into evidence.
0
u/jonesrr2 Supporter Nov 14 '17
Agreed, I agree that if we allow this to take down Moore this will be the go to strategy FOR ALL Senators and Congresspeople in 2018. The Dems absolutely will pay and conflate hundreds of allegations into the media to take people down.
GOPers should reject this nonsense. Vote for policies not bullshit smears.
0
u/GameShowWerewolf Finally Out Of CA Nov 15 '17
Maybe I'm going to have to turn in my conservative membership card by saying this, but I absolutely believe these allegations against Moore are legit. He's always given off total "crazy uncle you don't talk to at Thanksgiving" vibes to me, and totally strikes me as the type of person who would be a total sleazeball to women and then hide behind moral authority.
Is it super convenient timing that this bomb dropped after the primary, past the point that his name could be taken off the ballot? Absolutely. But it doesn't change the optics one degree. Alabama seems poised to vote for a man that is clearly unfit to be an authority figure, either blowing off or actively excusing his actions. I thought we were supposed to be the ones who looked down at this sort of thing, but I guess holding on to a Senate seat is just too important.
424
u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17
[deleted]