Roy Moore: allegations of sexual misconduct with minors

[RazingCain]

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/56827...rses-roy-moore



You either have moral standards or you don't. If a seat in the senate is worth someone like Moore to you, then you deserve the moral corruption that comes with him. Like I said a few posts ago, the GOP is fucking lost.

Here here! Was just about to post this. I wonder what my very religious family will do....probably keep voting Republican.

[Grapemask]

It's bad but we just might not be able to do anything then.

Some times evil people get away with evil shit, but if he's fired now and shamed and replaced with no trial, just based on accusations it leads us into a dangerous world. Likewise we can't just chose who is or isn't guilty based on who we like or agree with. "There's no smoke without fire" doesn't really add up when so much money and power is involved.

Imagine we're in the next election cycle and Bernie Sanders is the democractic nominee. 2 Months before the election, 6 guys come forward to say he touched them up when they were 11-12. (Politics has enough money, power and corruption that this isn't implausible). WTF do we do now? Statue of limitations are over, we can't prove Bernie guilty or innocent either way... If "Social action is not beheld to legal standard" do we just assume they're true too, get rid of him, get a new candidate and fuck over the whole election?

We do what we do whenever anyone else fucks up, because the democratic party historically isn't the party of hypocrisy and handwaving: we'd say Bernie Sanders is a pedo freak and he'd subsequently lose the election in a landslide.

As per your earlier points, in the same vein, we can name a dozen other people who technically didn't do anything illegal, but what they did was still grossly inappropriate and we got rid of them. In recent memory, remember Anthony Weiner? His sexting thing wasn't illegal at all (the first one, not the thing that came out years later about the kids). It was just morally disgusting. He was universally reviled and forced out by his own party, even though they knew his seat would end up going to a Republican. So no, "gosh, he was an old man diddling some kids, but technically it was still legal" is not a justification, it is backsliding to the lowest common denominator to support partisan hackery. And that's completely ignoring the many reports of kid-diddlings that were illegal.

Stop being a partisan fucking hack. The GOP should be buried. This party is no longer defensible in any way.

[Lenonis]

No it's not. It's called the LAW.

first this is an election not a trial. Second Moore isn't hired yet.

What this is akin to is having someone interview for a job and during their background check you find piles and piles of evidence of, at a minimum, immoral behavior and possibly illegal behavior. But the candidate has no criminal background.

You are arguing he should be hired anyway. Because.... Reasons.

It's ridiculous. Stop defending the indefensible. There is no reason Moore should be elected.

[Dacien]

"Poppy, we need to make it clear there's a group of non-accusers."

Apparently, if there is a single citizen who has not accused Moore that is enough to clear him and fit for office.

I love the way Ben Shapiro put it:

"It’s not enough to simply own Moore. [Republicans] have to manufacture a good, clean Moore, and then stand by that caricature. It’s nonsense, it’s shameful, and it’s immoral."

[NYC17]

It's bad but we just might not be able to do anything then.

Some times evil people get away with evil shit, but if he's fired now and shamed and replaced with no trial, just based on accusations it leads us into a dangerous world. Likewise we can't just chose who is or isn't guilty based on who we like or agree with. "There's no smoke without fire" doesn't really add up when so much money and power is involved.

Imagine we're in the next election cycle and Bernie Sanders is the democractic nominee. 2 Months before the election, 6 guys come forward to say he touched them up when they were 11-12. (Politics has enough money, power and corruption that this isn't implausible). WTF do we do now? Statue of limitations are over, we can't prove Bernie guilty or innocent either way... If "Social action is not beheld to legal standard" do we just assume they're true too, get rid of him, get a new candidate and fuck over the whole election?

Look at you, handwaving an actual situation with a hypothetical one, which you hilariously think is somehow equal, interesting, and not at all pathetically disingenuous, because you mentioned Bernie Sanders. Such a big boy bloviator, all growed up. But to answer such a pathetic question, if those boys had the credibility, contemporaneous corroboration, and empirical evidence that Moore's accusers do, then yes he would have to be removed.

To reiterate, this was an absurd attempt at hypothetical whataboutism.

[downnola]

"Poppy, we need to make it clear there's a group of non-accusers."

Apparently, if there is a single citizen who has not accused Moore that is enough to clear him and fit for office.

I'm more pissed off that the host didn't stop that woman mid sentence and rip her to pieces.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/938039599686934528

Where is Christopher Hitchens when you need him, holy shit.

[NYC17]

I'm more pissed off that the host didn't stop that woman mid sentence and rip her to pieces.

Then she'd be the story instead of what despicable people Moore and his team are.

[downnola]

Then she'd be the story instead of what despicable people Moore and his team are.

Worth it imo. Although, I think the story would still be about how despicable Moore and his team is.

[mvaliz]

Here here! Was just about to post this. I wonder what my very religious family will do....probably keep voting Republican.

They will do what I've noticed many religious people do with Trump - they will write it off with a shrug saying "It's all part of God's plan, and God won't betray us."

This is the point where I throw basic dialogue out the window and instead opt to speak to them in their language. I remind them that God's plan is fallible, because their religion speaks of Lucifer - one who walks amongst humans to sow discontent and hate in an effort to overthrow God's plan. It's those humans fallibility towards Satan that makes "gods plan" capable of failure, and it was humans who put Trump into office - not God.

Usually they try to change the subject VERY quickly when I end with that.

[Breccia]

"It's all part of God's plan, and God won't betray us."

Sometimes, my friends and family ask why I'm an Agnostic. From now on, Roy Moore will be my go-to answer.

If there's an organized religion which doesn't just allow child rapists, but endorses them, I don't want to be part of that religion. I'm perfectly fine Doing Unto Others and dropping stuff off at my local food bank without accepting child rape.

[downnola]

They will do what I've noticed many religious people do with Trump - they will write it off with a shrug saying "It's all part of God's plan, and God won't betray us."

This is the point where I throw basic dialogue out the window and instead opt to speak to them in their language. I remind them that God's plan is fallible, because their religion speaks of Lucifer - one who walks amongst humans to sow discontent and hate in an effort to overthrow God's plan. It's those humans fallibility towards Satan that makes "gods plan" capable of failure, and it was humans who put Trump into office - not God.

Usually they try to change the subject VERY quickly when I end with that.

This is the perfect response too, because there isn't anything righteous about Trump whatsoever. There isn't an ounce of humility, empathy, selflessness, or personal responsibility in that man's body. He has the personality of an archetypal antagonist in the bible. He's basically the real life version of Cain that hasn't killed his brother yet.

[mvaliz]

This is the perfect response too, because there isn't anything righteous about Trump whatsoever. There isn't an ounce of humility, empathy, selflessness, or personal responsibility in that man's body. He has the personality of an archetypal antagonist in the bible. He's basically the real life version of Cain that hasn't killed his brother yet.

This is also something I say when I get fed up with when they keep responding "It's all part of Gods plan, and he works in mysterious ways" when they say they don't like Trump, but had to "vote" that way anyways. I remind them that it was THEIR choice to put Trump in there, and they're now taking God's name and throwing him under the bus for THEIR choice and THEIR vote. I remind them that THEY created this mess, and seeing it's now a horrible mess, they're selfishly expecting God to fix whatever they did instead of taking responsibility for it.

And that's when I ask them if they can think of how much God must hate it when his name is thrown under the bus as a scapegoat for their mistakes. >_<

[DarkTZeratul]

This is the perfect response too, because there isn't anything righteous about Trump whatsoever. There isn't an ounce of humility, empathy, selflessness, or personal responsibility in that man's body. He has the personality of an archetypal antagonist in the bible. He's basically the real life version of Cain that hasn't killed his brother yet.

This is probably the perfect illustration of that:

(from http://www.dumbingofage.com/tag/antichrist/ because credit is important)

[downnola]

This is probably the perfect illustration of that:

(from http://www.dumbingofage.com/tag/antichrist/ because credit is important)

One could even argue that he's already created hell on earth. Ever been to Atlantic City?

[Thekri]

Moore Spokesperson on CNN. One of the most uncomfortable and cringe worthy interviews I have ever seen, She twice tells the pregnant CNN anchor Poppy Harlow that Doug Jones wants to kill her unborn child. Understandably Harlow doesn't take that very well.

Seriously, even if the molestation charges are completely fake (Which they obviously aren't), could we can this guy just for being a complete creep? There are a few thousand other reasons not to elect him of course.

[Stormspellz]

For republicans politics isn't about governing the nation, politics is a sport, and as long as their team "wins" nothing else matters. Bonus points for pissing off the other "team" as well.

[Casterbridge]

For republicans politics isn't about governing the nation, politics is a sport, and as long as their team "wins" nothing else matters. Bonus points for pissing off the other "team" as well.

It's almost bizarre at this point. It's like you say a sport, but when the republican team 'scores' they also get to kick their fans in the balls...and yet they still cheer because they are 'winning'.

[Felya]

One could even argue that he's already created hell on earth. Ever been to Atlantic City?

Yes, and if you think that’s hell... you are both spoiled and lucky...

[Breccia]

Just so everyone's clear, the GOP is willing to accept a child rapist, but not someone who isn't sure about voting to increase the taxes of his voters.

Leaders of the conservative Republican Study Committee met last week and discussed their desire to oust Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen as Appropriations chairman after the New Jersey Republican voted against the GOP tax-reform bill, The Hill has learned.

Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), a former Republican Study Committee (RSC) chairman who’s now the party’s chief vote-counter, participated in that discussion last Thursday, GOP sources said.

The very next morning, RSC Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.) and another RSC leader huddled with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in his office and informed him that it was the “consensus” of RSC leadership that Frelinghuysen needs to go. The RSC leaders cited Frelinghuysen’s “no” vote on the tax-cuts bill last month and his waffling over ObamaCare repeal earlier this year.

Frelinghuysen had initially told reporters he would oppose the American Health Care Act (AHCA), but he eventually voted for the repeal and replace legislation after some arm-twisting by leadership.

“Having a chairman basically going rogue on the two most important issues we’ve promised … To me, there’s a line there,” Walker told The Hill in an interview Tuesday.

“The RSC has discussed his situation, has concerns and now has officially met with leadership over those concerns,” Walker added.

Asked if he brought his concerns directly to Ryan, Walker replied: “Yes, we have. The RSC Steering Committee appointed or asked two of us to meet with the Speaker over that concern.”

But the pair of RSC leaders did not threaten Ryan, instead telling the Speaker the ball was in his court, a GOP source said.

On the day of the House tax vote, Walker had signaled to The Hill that he was incredibly frustrated with Frelinghuysen’s “no” vote on tax. There are unspoken GOP rules that “A” committee chairmen like Frelinghuysen vote with the team on key issues like tax reform, the party’s No. 1 legislative priority.

Still, Frelinghuysen is a top Democratic target in 2018 and the 12-term congressman had warned that the bill’s elimination of key tax deductions could cause many of his constituents to pay higher taxes.

[downnola]

Yes, and if you think that’s hell... you are both spoiled and lucky...

The Borgota is nice. But the Taj Mahal and the surrounding neighborhood is straight depressing.