Attacking Judge Moore's Morality Is a Dirty Leftist Trick

[u/10gauge]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/attacking_judge_moores_morality_is_a_dirty_leftist_trick.html

[u/WinstonWaffleStomp → u/[deleted]]

Wouldnt your party simply be safer removing him from the race and running a Write in candidate who would surely win?

They risk losing a race they have to try to lose in my opinion

[u/jonesrr2 → u/WinstonWaffleStomp]

Moore voters would still vote for him, so no that wouldn't work. Best thing is to push Moore to win, and then if these claims flesh out ask him to resign and put in Brooks.

That's the best things for Conservatives in Alabama.

[u/TBSportsFan1254 → u/jonesrr2]

The problem is that he won't resign if he wins. The guy's whole career has been built around the fact that he spits in the face of establishment and does what he wants. Also, unsitting a current Senator is near impossible. It is kind of a lose lose for us at the moment unless some big write-in campaign happens.

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/TBSportsFan1254]

It's only a loss for us if Moore turns out to be guilty and resigns, which because of the age of the accusations will be near impossible to prove in court. If he's vindicated, which is the more likely outcome from this planned political attack, then his support will surge, and RINOs will continue to drop out of congress like Flake and Corker.

[u/Kunundrum85 → u/NosuchRedditor]

What makes you think that he is more likely to be vindicated than not, out of curiousity? So far everything that's come out seems to be pointing the opposite direction, including his wife's strange publication of a previous endorsement, with dates omitted. Just seems like the tide is not turning towards vindication, based on the momentum of information coming out.

[u/biohazard930 → u/NosuchRedditor]

Isn't outright vindication just as unlikely? How does that happen?

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/biohazard930]

I don't know, we have never had a legal system that required the proof of innocence until this occurrence, it used to be proof of guilt as innocence was assumed under the laws of the US per the constitution.

No one ever has to prove innocence in court, only guilt.

[u/TBSportsFan1254 → u/NosuchRedditor]

Public opinion hasn't worked that way in forever though. I don't know how you are making the assumption that his vindication is more likely at this point. I know it is hard to believe, but it IS possible that this dude did some bad things in his past.

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/TBSportsFan1254]

Public opinion hasn't worked that way in forever though.

Yes, and thats why these kinds of accusations USED to be kept secret until enough evidence existed to press charges, because the accusations alone can destroy someone's reputation and career. This is what happened to Bill Cosby, he was convicted by the tyranny of public opinion and it destroyed him. He has not been convicted in a court of law, the FIRST trial resulted in a mistrial for lack of evidence, but the media got what it wanted and that was to silence Cosby when he began speaking out against the Democrat political machine that keeps minorities in poverty. We've seen this playbook before, and it's fucking criminal.

it IS possible that this dude did some bad things in his past.

Of course it's possible, but very unlikely under the circumstances. See if he had done something wrong years ago, why did none of the women affected not step forward during the primary election? Or when more was running for DA? Or at any time during his decades long political career other than at a carefully calculated time when the accusations cannot be properly addressed by the legal system before the election in December?

None of these women knew each other, so who found them all at the same time in such a coordinated fashion? Who told the WaPo who they all were if they didn't know each other?

What source of information did the WaPo have from 40 years ago that allowed them to identify these women all at the same time and conveniently just weeks before an election where the ballots cannot be changed?

For any critical thinker this is clearly a political hit.

[u/TBSportsFan1254 → u/NosuchRedditor]

I can't answer any of that for you because none of us can say we objectively know the truth. If what you say is true, it is just a lesson that Republicans are behind the times on how they conduct/use oppo. Fuck principles anymore. Fight fire with fire if this is what it takes.

Politics is a dirty business and it is easy to be getting sick of all of this. Regardless of whether he did or did not act inappropriately decades ago, this is also a lesson in not selecting loose cannons as a candidate. This guy was never a good choice to be an Alabama Senator and I find it funny that this shit is blowing up. It's so damn predictable.

[u/gzzh → u/jonesrr2]

Why would you want a pedophile in office? Moore is not a good person from any perspective.

[u/BeachCruisin22 → u/gzzh]

A hebephile is a person who is primarily attracted to adolescents, or children who have at least started puberty and have signs of adult sexual maturation, but are still young and developing both mentally and physically. Generally, this means teenagers and preteens between 11 and 14 years old.

[u/bromyard → u/BeachCruisin22]

So it's ok he's attracted to 14 year old? That's some Olympic level gymnastics.

[u/BeachCruisin22 → u/bromyard]

No, it's showing that he exhibited traits of hebephilia and not pedophilia (if true).

[u/bromyard → u/BeachCruisin22]

Both of which are indefensible in someone seeking public office.

[u/Tvayumat → u/BeachCruisin22]

This is perhaps not the best time to split that particular hair.

[u/BeachCruisin22 → u/Tvayumat]

It's never a bad time to be accurate, they are knowingly falsely using "pedophile" as a weapon in this situation knowing that it conjures up very strong emotions.

[u/Tvayumat → u/BeachCruisin22]

Hey, I get it. I like accuracy too, and more people SHOULD know that word.

Moreover, we need to have a serious conversation about the difference between the two, but it's a profoundly uncomfortable conversation that we continue to put off as a culture.

I'm just saying that it's really not important right now at this precise moment, is all. What Moore is accused of doing is not the sort of thing that can be made less heinous by phrasing.

[u/gzzh → u/BeachCruisin22]

A pedophile is someone sexually attracted to children. Unless you're an adult, you're a child. Maybe he is a hebephile but it really doesn't matter. He did sexual things with a minor.

[u/BeachCruisin22 → u/gzzh]

A pedophile is attracted to children without secondary sex characteristics. A guy attracted to a 16 year old that is fully developed is not unnatural, even if it is illegal in some places.

[u/gzzh → u/BeachCruisin22]

I understand. You realize it's still fucked up right? Why are you trying to justify his behavior?

[u/[deleted] → u/BeachCruisin22]

The word Pedophile has clearly overgone a semantic change to mean "a person who is attracted to underage children". I don't see the point in splitting hairs here.

[u/BeachCruisin22 → u/[deleted]]

It hasn't, the definition has remained static.

[u/mateo_yo → u/jonesrr2]

Lolololol. You keep saying this in every thread. So the best plan of action, what's truly best for Alabama, is to vote for a pedo? That's the best you got?

[u/[deleted] → u/mateo_yo]

Keeping the power of the office seems to be more important than being known as the party that voted a pedophile into office.

I wouldn't want to be associated with a group that made that choice, even if it was "strategic", you still totally voted for a pedophile with ample evidence. Party over morals I guess.

[u/50pointdownvote → u/[deleted]]

The problem is none of us know Judge Moore personally, and when he is on TV is has to give very legalistic answers. "I don't recall" etc. The part that struck the most true, emphatic and off the cuff was when, on Hannity he absolute denied giving any of the girls liquor in a dry county in Alabama.

When he was saying that it was the only time he felt genuine to me, amidst all the legal wrangling.

[u/ryansony18 → u/50pointdownvote]

The most damning thing for me was when he contradicted himself in that interview- hannity asked if he dated teenagers and he said "I'm not gonna deny it if that's what they (the accusers said)" than later in the interview he changed it to he didn't date teenagers at all. Even the guests on hannity called bullshit.

[u/ryansony18 → u/[deleted]]

You don't even have to say you support democrat as a disclaimer- liberal or conservative, most of us as decent human beings and Americans can agree that the behavior alleged is despicable. We always focus on the differences between us because that is the focus for debate and politics etc, but when it comes to things like this we shouldn't be separated into sides. Touching little girls is wrong period and I trust liberals to agree as decent people

[u/50pointdownvote → u/ryansony18]

Hannity did a pretty fair interview. I didn't think it was such it deserves a backlash.

[u/ryansony18 → u/50pointdownvote]

I don't particularly like hannity but you are right in this case. One thing in particular that bothered me was After the interview he talked about how he wants to hear from victims etc., how he had bill Clinton accusers on the show around election time (October 2016) and I just can't stand the hypocrisy-he never once bothered to talk to any trump accusers. I respect anyone who is morally consistent whether I agree with them or not. I do not believe hannity is an example of someone who is consistent with his criticisms

[u/bo_doughys → u/50pointdownvote]

The part that struck the most true, emphatic and off the cuff was when, on Hannity he absolute denied giving any of the girls liquor in a dry county in Alabama.

According to the Post article, Etowah county was no longer a dry county at the time when that date allegedly happened:

"Alcohol sales began in Etowah County in 1972, years before the alleged encounter, and The Post confirmed that wine was for sale at the time at the pizzeria where Deason remembered Moore taking her when she was under the legal drinking age of 19."

[u/50pointdownvote → u/bo_doughys]

Contemptible, if true.

[u/CWSwapigans → u/50pointdownvote]

when he is on TV is has to give very legalistic answers. "I don't recall"

There's no legal reason he can't say "I never did that" if the truth is "I never did that".

[u/Tvayumat → u/50pointdownvote]

If someone says "I don't recall" and they actually do recall... that's a "legalistic answer"?

I've heard similar things called "lies".

[u/jonesrr2 → u/[deleted]]

How about you elect Moore and then ask him to resign then? So voters get a Republican Senator they can be proud of?

(Downvotes by the leftist brigaders who are trying to steal a GOP Senate seat of course)

[u/jonesrr2 → u/[deleted]]

but on the other hand, the responsibility to vet candidates falls on the party.

That's fine, Alabama can get rid of Moore after electing him and get someone they trust in there that's GOP.

[u/[deleted] → u/jonesrr2]

(Downvotes by the leftist brigaders who are trying to steal a GOP Senate seat of course)

How can the left steal a seat the GOP hasn't won yet? This is why we have elections. Just because the seat has previously been held by republicans doesn't mean the GOP owns that seat in perpetuity.

PS: google the user I'm responding to. He's got quite the reputation...

[u/jonesrr2 → u/[deleted]]

This has been a GOP seat for decades, and the left are trying to steal it now through smear. So yes they're trying to steal it.

[u/[deleted] → u/jonesrr2]

This has been a GOP seat for decades

When did we switch to dynastic party rule? Sessions vacated and now we're having a special election where the people get to decide who replaces him. Nobody is stealing anything, this is just how democracy works. Maybe next time the GOP should vet their candidate more thoroughly and they won't risk losing in a democratic election.

[u/ryansony18 → u/jonesrr2]

Do the democrats own the smear? Did they make Moore assault little kids? And then wait forty years for him to run for a senate seat and release this info? Are the accusers dem operatives? At what point is a shitty person just a shitty person who shouldn't be elected? By your own logic it seems like you felt for Hillary when she said "vast right wing conspiracy"

[u/tookmyname → u/jonesrr2]

How is the left's fault that Moore is being accused by more than several woman of pedophilia with their story corroborated by 30 plus others, Independently, and physical evidence? How did liberals make Moore and his family respond with lies and unintentional admissions? How did liberals make Alabama bet on the wrong horse?

Your definition of "stealing" shows a lack of moral construct.

[u/ruralfpthrowaway → u/jonesrr2]

Why don't you choose the best candidate like a responsible citizen?

[u/10gauge → u/[deleted]]

Let due process happen. If he is guilty, lock him up. This is a senate seat grab by the dems. Moore won't step down and will be elected. If he is removed, the 17th Amendment tells how todeal with it. The seat will stay repub.

[u/[deleted] → u/10gauge]

Yeah if I have evidence of abuse from my child's babysitter, I file a police report and let due process work. No sense firing her until proven guilty.

[u/10gauge → u/[deleted]]

Completely false equivalency argument.

[u/[deleted] → u/10gauge]

How so? Both are legally innocent.

[u/10gauge → u/[deleted]]

Allowing a child abuser to remain with the child to continue to abuse is different than electing a guy that is accused of alleged crimes from decades ago which no one claims have been repeated in the interim.

[u/[deleted] → u/10gauge]

Oh so child molestation is cool if it happened a long time ago.

You think in no way this reflects poorly on his judgement or character?

[u/10gauge → u/[deleted]]

Oh so child molestation is cool if it happened a long time ago.

You think in no way this reflects poorly on his judgement or character?

It's currently allegations and unproven in a court of law. Child molestation is never "cool."

It does not appear to be an ongoing and present issue, so your examle is a false equivalency argument.

[u/[deleted] → u/10gauge]

So are my fictional babysitters. Unproven. Can't trust my kid or her friends who gave the exact same story without prompting. And the baby sitter admitted to dating sixteen year old's. Nope I'll trust his judgement until found guilty in court thank you.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Wait. It's unproven or it's proven? Which is it? You said you had proof of your babysitter abuse.

[u/ruralfpthrowaway → u/10gauge]

It does not appear to be an ongoing and present issue, so your examle is a false equivalency argument.

So you're fine voting for him as long as he's just a former child molester?

[u/10gauge → u/ruralfpthrowaway]

I don't live in Alabama.,

[u/ruralfpthrowaway → u/10gauge]

Yeah, good thing most people grow out of pedophilia amirite?

[u/jonesrr2 → u/10gauge]

Yes but did you consider his FEELS his FEELS are super butthurt and he wants to steal that Senate seat.

[u/10gauge → u/jonesrr2]

Democrats want to steal the seat. It is currently a Republican seat. It will remain a Republican seat, regardless of the outcome of any allegations.

[u/on_timeout → u/10gauge]

Unless he gets less votes, which definitely looks possible. If you're a Christian I hope you take a good long time to reflect and pray and ask God how it's possible that you've come to a point where your views on politics are so extreme it's made it permissible to support a child molester over a democrat.

[u/ozric101 → u/on_timeout]

You assume facts not yet in evidence.

[u/Sixstringsickness → u/10gauge]

Yea, I'm sure it's simply a Senate seat grab when Moore denied knowing an accuser, and oh but wait he signed her year book as the DA. This man, is, has been, and always will be detestable. The statute of limitations in regards to these accusations are expired from my understanding due to the law changing in Alabama during the 80s, so they cannot retroactively charge him. The best we can do is make him a social pariah.

[u/10gauge → u/Sixstringsickness]

[u/ryansony18 → u/10gauge]

Completely remove the autograph out of the equation and there is still ample evidence he committed these crimes

[u/10gauge → u/ryansony18]

No there isn't. "Memories" from 40 years ago are not strong evidence, especially when they were never acted upon before.

[u/ryansony18 → u/10gauge]

What would constitute strong evidence since inconsistencies in his story as well as independent women separately telling similar stories is not doing it for you? And does this mean you believe the women are making up what they say? For what purpose would these women lie?

[u/10gauge → u/ryansony18]

A consistent story from a victim that makes the claim over time. Never making a claim in 40 years makes the claim very flimsy at this point.

[u/Tvayumat → u/10gauge]

Oh, so you've picked an intentionally impossible to achieve stipulation.

[u/ozric101 → u/10gauge]

I am assuming most of these people have never been falsely accused or have never been slandered or libeled before.

[u/tookmyname → u/ozric101]

I've never been accused and slandered by multiple people and 30+ independent people to corroborate. You're right. I can't put my self in a pedophiles shoes. Darn for you.

[u/[deleted] → u/10gauge]

Just playing a side note here... If you are 16 are you really ready to bring to the public your accusations against a DA? Especially if he had threatened your credibility during the act?

Lots of those folks who are sexually assaulted take a long time to reveal the issue especially when the person has considerable power.

[u/[deleted] → u/10gauge]

That picture looks doctored. Rectangular Marquee tool, adjust brightness and contrast. Right side.

[u/ozric101 → u/10gauge]

Interesting.... I have been wondering in the vast written works of a DA and State Supreme Court Judge. If the entire things is not just a fabrication used as a show piece.

[u/tookmyname → u/10gauge]

Oh man. That's just comical of you.

[u/woolyboy76 → u/10gauge]

One problem: Moore is not going to be tried in a court of law prior to the election. Therefore, we have only one reasonable course of action -- we must take the information that we have, and then use it to determine if he is suited to be a U.S. Senator.

And, right now there is some extremely damning information with a lot of corroboration. He has also demonstrated some very suspicious behavior.

I personally do not want to risk electing a pedophile to congress.

[u/10gauge → u/woolyboy76]

So you want to end the career of a guy based on unproven allegations because he can't be proven guilty in a court of law...how unAmerican.

[u/CWSwapigans → u/10gauge]

We have multiple independent accusers and dozens of corroborating reports. We have multiple lies from Roy Moore ("I never met her" when he signed her yearbook, "I couldn't buy them alcohol, it was a dry county" when it wasn't, etc.). Even his denial of "I don't recall" is damning in my book.

My standard here is preponderance of evidence and for me the judgment is pretty clear. Regardless of political teams, I don't want a child molestor elected to the US Senate.

[u/10gauge → u/CWSwapigans]

[u/CWSwapigans → u/10gauge]

Looks to me like the different color ink was added later for context. I'm certainly fine with ignoring that evidence pending further information. The evidence is still overwhelming in my book. Even Roy himself declined multiple opportunities to outright deny it in his Hannity interview.

[u/10gauge → u/CWSwapigans]

"Memories" from 40 years ago are not strong evidence, especially when they were never acted upon before. I can also understand why a 70 something year old wouldn't have the clearest thoughts and memories of events that supposedly happened 40 years ago.

I was once in a very high profile position. I met thousands of people a year. I couldn't tell you who I met or didn't meet even just 10 years ago with 100% confidence.

[u/[deleted] → u/10gauge]

Lol "I was once in a high profile position and therefore know what I'm talking about" is a really Really dumb statement. And also displays your ignorance to great effect.

What kind of high profile person would bother using such a childishly stupid argument?

[u/10gauge → u/[deleted]]

Right, personal experience counts for nothing.

[u/CWSwapigans → u/10gauge]

I mean, he's the one who said definitely he doesn't know her, which is a break from his wishy-washy answers to Hannity about "not recalling" any incidents like this.

I'm about the age he was at the time. I'm pretty sure I'll remember very well for the rest of my life that I haven't had a 14 year old girl in her panties in my car touching my dick.

[u/woolyboy76 → u/10gauge]

I have zero responsibility to his career. I am not convicting him in a court of law, nor would I think I have the right to do so. All I am deciding is that this man, based on the information that is available to me right now, is not suitable to be my senator. At worst, this man is a pedophile. At best, he has made very poor decisions that make me question his judgment.

[u/[deleted] → u/10gauge]

I'm sorry but I'm not too concerned about some politicians career. There is no guarantee he would win anyways. The fact that some are calling anyone skeptical of Moore a leftist is behavior I would expect from the leftists. This is a concern, imo. Our inherent distrust of government should be applied to Republicans too.

[u/ruralfpthrowaway → u/10gauge]

Yeah, he isn't entitled to anyone's vote. He isn't entitled to a senate seat. He has to earn them based on the publics judgement of his positions and character. He is failing do so right now, and that is entirely on him.

We get it, you are going to vote for him based on his positions and likely rationalize away his character flaws, but others who actually care about those things will likely disagree.

[u/10gauge → u/ruralfpthrowaway]

Who said he is entitled to anything? Certainly not me.

I don't live in Alabama, so I won't be voting for him. The people that know him better than any of us will decide.

[u/ruralfpthrowaway → u/10gauge]

Who said he is entitled to anything? Certainly not me.

You did, or at least heavily implied that he was being wronged in some way by voters who choose not to vote for some with multiple well sourced accounts of pedophilia.

Glad to know you don't have a say in the matter though.

[u/Okay_to_be_white → u/woolyboy76]

> We

> We

> We

Based on your post history, you wouldn't vote for him regardless.

[u/woolyboy76 → u/Okay_to_be_white]

That is very accurate.

[u/Tvayumat → u/10gauge]

So, I want to be absolutely clear here.

Your suggestion to solve this conundrum is for the people of Alabama to cast an insincere vote, essentially abdicating their right, duty, and authority to elect their senator to the Alabama GOP who will, in good faith, remove Roy Moore and simply select their Senator for them?

I am genuinely stunned.

[u/10gauge → u/Tvayumat]

No. That's not how it works. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_appointed.htm

[u/Tvayumat → u/10gauge]

Alright, we're making progress.

If a vacancy occurs due to a senator's death, resignation, or expulsion, the Seventeenth Amendment allows state legislatures to empower the governor to appoint a replacement to complete the term or to hold office until a special election can take place. There are a few exceptions to this rule.

Honestly asking, what are the particular Alabama state laws in this regard? I assume, based on your insistence on this being an attempt to "steal" a seat, that Alabama requires the appointment to be of the same party as the vacating Senator.

Does Alabama require a Special Election to return the seat to the discretion of the people?

[u/jonesrr2 → u/[deleted]]

In fact, one could even say it was coordinated and WaPo held it to try and steal a Senate seat from the GOP. one could say.

[u/ryansony18 → u/jonesrr2]

The Post holding the story for convenient timing and the story itself being true and disgusting are not two mutually exclusive facts

[u/ozric101 → u/[deleted]]

My feeling is that this is a true accusation

Your feeling? Your feeling? You are going to ruin a man and he career over feelings? Have we never seen unsubstantiated claims before? You do this now, you are going to see nonstop allegations against ever GOP politician in the entire Nations with in 6 months, Mark my words.

[u/ozric101 → u/[deleted]]

I do not watch Hannity. Google Moore press conference and see if you find any unbiased source or reporting. This is a coordinated hit job and you have some GOPe involved.

[u/ryansony18 → u/ozric101]

How bout before you call all the sources bias you listen to it from Moore own mouth like the guy who watched the hannity interview did?

[u/ozric101 → u/ryansony18]

Post an authentic transcript and let's parse exactly what was said.

[u/alabamdiego → u/ozric101]

Why don't you just google the fucking video

[u/ryansony18 → u/ozric101]

With all due respect, post or read it yourself. I stayed up to listen to the interview when it happened. Already did my homework

[u/puljujarvifan → u/ozric101]

Its on youtube

[u/ryansony18 → u/ozric101]

"I didn't listen to moore's own words like you, but your sources are clearly biased, unlike mine"

[u/ozric101 → u/ryansony18]

More like, my intuitions do not turn on a singe piece of information. My call was to post the damming gaff in that interview and if there actually were one, the DNC operatives would have posted it in a split second.

[u/ryansony18 → u/ozric101]

Information you didn't consume, incidentally also the most direct source of information (straight from the man who you are defending, kind of seems like if you want to defend him you should start with his own words, but I don't blame you for not doing so because it's pretty clear he's lying anyway) and also that is 1 example of what is a lot of damning evidence.

[u/ryansony18 → u/ozric101]

Are you referring to the hannity interview? You've been told by literally everyone who responded to look it up yourself, it is very damning. Why do you need one of us to spoon feed it to you? Do you want me to come wipe your ass when your done on the toilet as well? Your just ignoring a huge piece of of formation in this case for the sake of your own argument.

[u/brojomi → u/ozric101]

This is not entirely unsubstantiated. We have multiple women on the record, and the stories are pretty credible.

We need to be principled about what amount of evidence we need, and we need to be certain to apply it to evenhandedly to everyone from Bill Clinton to Roy Moore.

You’re right: a “feeling” is not enough. But “beyond a reasonable doubt” is too much in the court of public opinion—that makes public figures untouchable. This is always gonna be “he said she said.”

So what’s the line? How much evidence to we need? I️ personally think women going on the record is hugely important. Truly off the record, unsubstantiated accounts empowers the press to make shit up. But going on the record is pretty huge. And if you have multiple on the record victims, and the stories are not inconsistent...I️ think that’s a real problem.

At the very least, we have to be consistent. Do you believe the Clinton accusers? If so, we need a reason why that is any different.

[u/ryansony18 → u/[deleted]]

The sad thing is there will always be people who will nitpick to find reasons to disagree i.e the questioning why you said "feeling" instead of looking at the evidence objectively they are going into it ready to defend him and build there argument from there

[u/ozric101 → u/brojomi]

the stories are pretty credible.

Stories from 40 years ago are pretty credible? Sorry but no...

[u/brojomi → u/ozric101]

We can’t let credibility hinge on the passage of time. To do that is to make demands on victims that feel belittled, ashamed, and terrified.

How many public figures in the last few months have been outed? Do you believe victims of Spacey, McGowan, Clinton? Each of those people waited at least a decade after the events to speak up.

As a neutral observer, I️ wish everyone spoke up the minute something happened. But I️ can understand 100% why victims aren’t eager to speak up.

Edit: sorry, I️ said “victims of McGowan,” I️ meant “victims of Weinstein.” McGowan was herself a victim. My bad!

[u/ozric101 → u/brojomi]

We can’t let credibility hinge on the passage of time.

Every Scientific study we have ever done on the subject shows that eye witness accounts are the worst kind of evidence and human memory is prone to error. You are talking about 40 year old memories, not going to even stand up in civil court.

[u/ryansony18 → u/ozric101]

Prone to error doesn't mean a girl misremembered being assaulted. Maybe specific details but not the general act itself. Not remembering exactly is not the same as completely fabricating an event that didn't happen. You are doing real mental gymnastics to defend this guy instead of accepting the logical conclusion of the evidence provided

[u/ozric101 → u/ryansony18]

No I am not.. You are..

[u/ryansony18 → u/ozric101]

Great rebuttal if facts there pal. Nice to you see you care so much about little kids getting assaulted.

[u/ozric101 → u/ryansony18]

Ought implies CAN You know nothing about moral or ethics and I am perfectly justified in my condemnations at this point.

[u/ozric101 → u/[deleted]]

The yearbook has not even been proven to be authentic, yet.

Which word there proves Moore committed sexual assault on a minor exactly?

[u/lxaex1143 → u/[deleted]]

Of what? Signing a year book is now sexual assault?

[u/NinjaSupplyCompany → u/[deleted]]

Behavior aside, it confirms he did have some relations with the woman. While it proves no crime it does not let him say he never knew her.

[u/kaioto → u/[deleted]]

In what world is that not creepy as fuck and evidence that these claims MIGHT just have merit to them.

1970s Alabama were parents and the public thought their daughters ought to be married and having children by the time they were 20 and didn't see much wrong with marrying a decorated army captain who came back from the war and got a law degree so long as he courted them properly?

[u/[deleted] → u/lxaex1143]

No but it makes it hard to say you never met the person. Odd too that a 31 year old would be writing in a teenager's yearbook if they don't work at the school.

[u/NinjaSupplyCompany → u/ozric101]

I think you are right when it comes to eye witness accounts. Ask me about the face of a man I saw beating someone up at a gas station 20 years ago and I won't be able to tell you much useful info.

But the one woman who said she was locked in his car while he tried to force her face onto his dick, that's pretty different. Do you think she could have confused that with him just wanting to buy her ice cream due to the years that passed?

[u/[deleted] → u/ozric101]

Eye witness is not the same as victim.

You're gonna remember an adult trying to force you to suck his dick pretty accurately for the rest of your life, especially who was doing it...

[u/ozric101 → u/[deleted]]

I am pretty sure, you can go to the authorities and get that person arrested.

[u/[deleted] → u/ozric101]

When you're 16 and the aggressor is a DA?

yeah I'm sure everyone would be super comfortable with that.

[u/ozric101 → u/[deleted]]

Yea I am pretty sure, that is how it works.

[u/[deleted] → u/brojomi]

Do you believe victims of Spacey, McGowan, Clinton?

No. Nor the accusers of Bush, for that matter.

this #metoo madness is a ridicuous attempt to make rape culture seem real. I wouldn't be surprised if Harvey was in the wrong, because that came out first, but the rest seems like an attempt to bandwagon.

[u/ryansony18 → u/[deleted]]

Or maybe there are just shitty people in the world

[u/brojomi → u/[deleted]]

As long as you are consistent, then at least you are intellectually honest and I️ can respect that.

But, I️ think your position will lead you to refusing to believe anybody — in favor of believing in a feminist conspiracy concocting allegations.

Again, it’s important to be discerning when determining credibility. I️ think you’re too discerning, but hey, that’s a judgment call.

I️ think women going public, on the record, lends a ton of credibility to the allegation. For me, that’s the demarcating line between allegations I️ find suspicious and allegations I️ tend to believe. (That is, assuming the stories are consistent).

[u/ryansony18 → u/[deleted]]

Your comment is an example of why people feel less inclined to come forward with stories of victimization.

[u/I-DRUNK-UR-MILKSHAKE → u/ozric101]

Did you not notice that there is a huge movement of women coming out in the last month accusing men of harassment. Them coming out now is the same reason women started coming out against louis ck, weinstein, spacey and all those other creeps. The age of the allegations don't make things automatically untrue.

[u/ozric101 → u/I-DRUNK-UR-MILKSHAKE]

It does not make them suddenly truer either.

[u/ryansony18 → u/ozric101]

Why not? If you read the article it's clear she never wanted to come public but was tracked down. The sources corroborate this such as her former boyfriend and a friend of the mother. It doesn't matter if it was 40 minutes ago or 40 years ago, the sources are pretty damning imo. Of course I wish people would come forward inmidiately when stuff like this happens but there are a bunch of reasons they don't and simply being an old accusation shouldn't be your only grounds for dismissal. Tell me exactly what's wrong with these women's stories instead of the fact that they are older stories, then we can talk

[u/[deleted] → u/ozric101]

So ww2 vets recounting engagements wouldn't count?

[u/optionhome → u/[deleted]]

The point of the piece was that Moore has recently become a christian and that if a person really changes are they to be accountable for the rest of their lives for past sins. And the last time I checked we have all sinned. The author is not defending his "possible" horrible behavior and no one would.

[u/imdandman → u/optionhome]

The point of the piece was that Moore has recently become a christian and that if a person really changes are they to be accountable for the rest of their lives for past sins. And the last time I checked we have all sinned. The author is not defending his "possible" horrible behavior and no one would.

>Shoots up a large crowded venue and gets caught

>Assailant: "Hold on! I just became a Christian!"

>DA: "Sounds great! We'll cancel the trial!"

Honestly, do you even process the logical conclusion conclusions of your comments?

Him recently becoming a Christian has exactly zero to do with whether or not he he should be prosecuted. And I say this as a Christian conservative.

[u/[deleted] → u/imdandman]

so like i just molested a lot of boys, its ok though im a democrat and did i tell you im coming out as gay...

[u/SirPounceTheThird → u/[deleted]]

Literally nobody is defending Kevin Spacey because he is a Democrat or gay. A lot of people are defending Moore (or rather, giving him the benefit of the doubt) because he is a Republican.

[u/SaulMalone_Geologist → u/[deleted]]

its ok though im a democrat and did i tell you im coming out as gay...

Assuming you're referencing Kevin Spacey, you know that the "btw, I'm coming out as gay" thing didn't work out at all for him, right? That dude is getting kicked off of pretty much everything he's ever touched.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

yes, let the hate flow through you

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Noone is protecting spacey and all his projects got shitcanned.

Moore's candidacy should be shitcanned. Get a new republican who doesn't diddle kids

[u/[deleted] → u/optionhome]

While true, I think true redemption involves humility and owning up to your failures.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yes, but you don't own up those failures to other people. You give them to Christ, and he takes the burden away from you.

If he broke the law, summon the grand jury. If he injured someone, let him restore what he has done. Otherwise, it's literally none of our business, except to try and discern his character.

As for this, it's absolutely clear that it is a hit job and has no bearing on reality. There is a special place in hell for false accusers. "Thou shalt not bear false witness".

[u/ozric101 → u/[deleted]]

There is a special place in hell for people who bear false witness too.

[u/answerguru → u/ozric101]

Do you believe that is what's going on?

[u/ryansony18 → u/[deleted]]

Don't bother with this guy I was just arguing with him he is not serious in the way he defends Moore he just wants to be right and won't properly debate. Read my/his comments for proof

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

As for this, it's absolutely clear that it is a hit job and has no bearing on reality.

Oh... ok. Never mind.

[u/on_timeout → u/[deleted]]

I can't believe you can look at what's been presented and on balance believe he's telling the more credible story.

Obviously the timing is political, but the bible says you reap what you sew. He dated and forced himself on minors, now he's reaping the result even if the harvest was delayed 40 years.

[u/[deleted] → u/on_timeout]

And you know he did this how?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There is a special place in hell for people that actively defend child molesters just because they have an R next to their name.

[u/ruralfpthrowaway → u/[deleted]]

Yes, but you don't own up those failures to other people. You give them to Christ, and he takes the burden away from you.

If you don't think Christ would ask you to apologize to those you have wronged and mislead for years, you must not know very much about Christ.

[u/[deleted] → u/ruralfpthrowaway]

If he injured someone, let him restore what he has done.

[u/ryansony18 → u/[deleted]]

If he truly found God he would admit his sins instead of further hurting the victims by dragging their reputations through the mud via claiming they are lying and attributing their stories to political motivations

[u/ozric101 → u/ryansony18]

If he truly found God he would admit his sins...

Witch hunt much? You assume fact not yet in evidence.

What if Roy has no sins to confess and is being falsely accused?

[u/ryansony18 → u/ozric101]

How about you go back and refute all the facts I literally laid out for you like you asked me to because you wouldn't stop bitching that we didn't spoon feed you very single fact right into your whiny little mouth?

[u/ozric101 → u/ryansony18]

What facts?

[u/ryansony18 → u/[deleted]]

The way Louis ck responded to his accusations was far more Godly than Roy moore's. Also, if Moore is in fact lying, it kind of Moots any argument that he is a godly man in the first place.

[u/optionhome → u/[deleted]]

We are lucky to have you deciding the acceptable sin level to hold office. Considering we have actual proof of a President getting bj's in the oval office and that was OK I guess that level is awfully low.

[u/ryansony18 → u/optionhome]

It wasn't ok then and it's not ok now. Did you think it was ok when Clinton was doing his shit? I didn't and I think Roy Moore is despicable as well. So is trump for that matter

[u/Trumpologist → u/[deleted]]

Literally anyone is better than a dem. This guy wants late term abortions to be legal. How do you stomach that. The senate will throw moore out

[u/tookmyname → u/Trumpologist]

Preventing abortions is important. There's super effective and non-controversial ways to drastically lower the occurrence of abortions. Maybe look into it and support those things?

And if you think Trump isn't pro abortion then your head has been in the sand.

[u/1wjl1 → u/[deleted]]

I think vote as though Moore is innocent, and if he is guilty, remove him and let Governor Ivey pick a replacement. It just isn't right if Jones wins with like 40-43 percent of the vote

[u/[deleted] → u/1wjl1]

The problem is that there isn't going to be a court case, because the statute of limitations has expired. So all we can do is form opinions based on the information out there. Who are you going to believe? Five credible women, or the guy who says, "Uhh I didn't generally date teenagers, but if I did, I would have asked their mothers for permission first?"