# Roy Moore accused of sexually assaulting a 14 year old



## Drew (Nov 9, 2017)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...art-1pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.a6c3ad039d5a

The alleged assault occurred when the youngest was 14 and he was 32, but three other girls have come forward claiming anything from sexual assault to inappropriate advances when they were underage and he was in his 30s.

Admittedly, after Trump, it's awfully tough to say how much of an impact this could have on the Alabama special election - maybe a couple percentage points, but in a tight race maybe that could be enough.


----------



## Randy (Nov 9, 2017)

Yay conservative religious, family values!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 9, 2017)

Funny how these guys are willing to burn down Harvey Weinstein (a notable democratic donor), but will find ways to excuse poor ol' boy Roy Moore.

I'm seeing a lot of these guys admit the truth, at least. They're openly admitting they'll vote for Pedo Moore just so they don't let the D win.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 10, 2017)

I'm just going to note that in Alabama, sexual abuse of a minor child, younger than 16, is a felony with *no statute of limitations.
*
Which means Moore might get the chance to clear his name in an actual criminal court.


----------



## thraxil (Nov 10, 2017)

I'm a little confused... the ultra conservative republicans usually get caught molesting young boys.

Anyway, he'll probably still win...


----------



## Drew (Nov 10, 2017)

thraxil said:


> I'm a little confused... the ultra conservative republicans usually get caught molesting young boys.
> 
> Anyway, he'll probably still win...


It'll be an interesting test of just how far we as a country have come with regards to tolerance for sexual assault, for sure. GOP leadership in Washington has been careful to caveat "if true..." but has been pretty quick to condemn this, but to be fair they supported Strange in the primaries over Moore, too, so that's hardly surprising. 

Moore has (obviously) accused the Post of running a partisan smear campaign against him and this being an unfounded and baseless attempt by the Democrats to keep him out of Washington, preemptively running a piece in Breitbart before the story broke. And until there's more evidence, we of course can't _completely_ rule that out. However, Moore is also extremely unpopular with the establishment GOP - remember, this is a man who's been removed from office twice for refusing to protect the separation of church and state - and I've heard some still-quiet speculation that this is a _right_-wing smear campaign, as well. It's certainly more their style, anyhow. Either way, the simplest explanation is that it's true, but we'll see what happens here. 



Explorer said:


> I'm just going to note that in Alabama, sexual abuse of a minor child, younger than 16, is a felony with *no statute of limitations.
> *
> Which means Moore might get the chance to clear his name in an actual criminal court.


I doubt it. This is something that happened 45 years ago, and while it sounds like the women have a number of other sources who can collaborate parts of her story, at the end of the day a he-said, she-said trial isn't likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Moore molested her.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 10, 2017)

I saw this comment about Congresional Republicans and laughed.

."Democrats are divided on single payer healthcare. Republicans are divided on pedophilia."

Then again, when even Jerry Falwell Jr. defends pedophilia, it just drives decent people away from affiliated organizations.

I do find that to be a strange side story: several of Moore's defenders are arguing that it's okay, and even Biblical, to molest young girls. Who knew?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 10, 2017)

It's a sad state of affairs when people are openly willing to admit they'll vote for a pedo over a democrat.

I fear for these people's children.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 10, 2017)

Well, the legal MARRIAGE age is sub-16 in most states. Like, in Kansas, it's explicitly 12! (Most other states, you can do as young as you want as long as their parents OK it) They can consent as long as you're their husband! So I guess that still doesn't explain the biblethumper support if they weren't married.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 10, 2017)

Oh, one more thing.

I'd like to know why Roy Moore can get away with this, yet Carlos Dangerous cant. 

spoiler: It's obvious why.


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 10, 2017)

Yeah, now they’re saying that it’s no big deal because he just made out with her. And that the 16 year old shouldn’t be complaining, because she was of the age of consent in the state at that time. WTF?  Like these are good defenses.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Nov 11, 2017)

Did you guys all go to the same school? Boy scout clan maybe? Lol. This is a very liberal board i noticed.


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 11, 2017)

How 'liberal' of us to think that a 32 year old man sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl is wrong...


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Nov 11, 2017)

No but this isnt a thing that only conservatives do


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 11, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> No but this isnt a thing that only conservatives do



Totally agree!

But it seems like everyone, democrats included, are (now that it has become public knowledge) decidedly against Weinstein et al. Whereas, you have people on the right making the attempt to condone and/or mitigate what Roy Moore did (or may have done). And I'm ok with saying something to the effect that "we have to wait until all the facts are in" etc... but this is most certainly not that type of excuse. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/moore-unholy-excuses/index.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/roy-moores-many-defenders/545609/


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Nov 11, 2017)

Trump did say that he was going to crack down of sex offenders, i believe. So at least someones finally shedding light on these situations and people are coming forward everyday. We need more people to expose the corruption and perversity of hollywood especially


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 11, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Trump did say that he was going to crack down of sex offenders, i believe. So at least someones finally shedding light on these situations and people are coming forward everyday. We need more people to expose the corruption and perversity of hollywood especially



Yup... wait... what? So you are giving Trump credit for this?


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Nov 11, 2017)

USMarine75 said:


> Yup... wait... what? So you are giving Trump credit for this?


Not necessarily but it very coincidental then if its not because of him. But he did say that.


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 11, 2017)

Fair enough.

One time... my mom had a heart attack... and I'm fairly certain, at some point during that day, that I did in fact step on a crack.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Nov 11, 2017)

I have a website reference for just about every crack you stepped on today then  say what you will about the sources, but here they are

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/trump-busts-1500-pedophiles-media-keeps-silent

http://eng.the-liberty.com/2017/6845/

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14176/sex-trafficking-arrests-soar-under-trump-msm-joseph-curl

www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/25713-dr-phil-interview-exposes-global-elite-pedophiles

columnists/lizcrokin/2017/02/25/why-the-msm-is-ignoring-trumps-sex-trafficking-busts-n2290379


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Nov 12, 2017)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> It's a sad state of affairs when people are openly willing to admit they'll vote for a pedo over a democrat.
> 
> I fear for these people's children.


With those two as my options, I think I'd rather vote for Bart Simpson. If Moore did as what is being alleged, then fuck him. I think it's past the statute of limitations, though I'm not sure, but either way, I hope he's real proud of himself for being a dirtbag. I don't approve the actions of Roman Polanski and Victor Salva, nor do I agree with this either.



HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Funny how these guys are willing to burn down Harvey Weinstein (a notable democratic donor), but will find ways to excuse poor ol' boy Roy Moore.
> 
> I'm seeing a lot of these guys admit the truth, at least. They're openly admitting they'll vote for Pedo Moore just so they don't let the D win.


I think both should be put on the same burning boat if allegations against both are true.


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 12, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I have a website reference for just about every crack you stepped on today then  say what you will about the sources, but here they are
> 
> https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/trump-busts-1500-pedophiles-media-keeps-silent
> 
> ...



How many of those IP addresses trace back to Macedonia? 

You really cited some authoritative sources there lol... the John Birch Society bruh? C'mon man. Those sites would consider Fox news too far to the left lol.


----------



## Randy (Nov 12, 2017)

This is the same guy that pissed all over me for posting a link to a History Channel article because it's tainted by "the Rothchilds", yet these are considered links to reputable sources.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Nov 12, 2017)

Randy said:


> This is the same guy that pissed all over me for posting a link to a History Channel article because it's tainted by "the Rothchilds", yet these are considered links to reputable sources.


I think the History Channel sicks a duck, but that's not why.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Nov 12, 2017)

USMarine75 said:


> How many of those IP addresses trace back to Macedonia?
> 
> You really cited some authoritative sources there lol... the John Birch Society bruh? C'mon man. Those sites would consider Fox news too far to the left lol.


Lmao. Im in a good mood and your post made me laugh. (Not in a sarcastic or condesending way, but its funny)

But which one of those is from the John Birch Society exactly? I mustve missed something...


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 12, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Lmao. Im in a good mood and your post made me laugh. (Not in a sarcastic or condesending way, but its funny)
> 
> But which one of those is from the John Birch Society exactly? I mustve missed something...



Haha no worries all in good fun! 

The new American is a John Birch Society website. Hey, you love Hillary, ya hate Hillary... whatever. But you can't go calling Ike a commie!


----------



## Drew (Nov 13, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> No but this isnt a thing that only conservatives do


Certainly not. However, Anthony Weiner's political career was dead from the first dick pic, and we're currently in the middle of purging Hollywood of a bunch of sexual criminals. I don't see anyone saying we should just move on and let bygones be bygones with Kevin Spacey because The Usual Suspects was so good, you know?


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Nov 13, 2017)

Drew said:


> Certainly not. However, Anthony Weiner's political career was dead from the first dick pic, and we're currently in the middle of purging Hollywood of a bunch of sexual criminals. I don't see anyone saying we should just move on and let bygones be bygones with Kevin Spacey because The Usual Suspects was so good, you know?


True. But im not making excuses for either person. Both sides have their fair share od corruption


----------



## bostjan (Nov 13, 2017)

It's amazing to me that Spacey's entire network all scattered a New York minute after the allegations came out. By neither admitting nor denying it all, I guess he basically _de facto_ admitted it, as far as his business contacts were concerned- his publicist dropped him, his shows were all canceled, and the movie he just filmed was immediately reshot with a new actor. It's been a month, and his career has already been flushed right down the toilet.

But this thread is not about Kevin Spacey.

With all of these cases, it seems like "people" in general are really quick to jump on the hate bandwagon for the accused person. It reminds me of Cinna from _Julius Caesar_ - the poet who was lynched by a mob on a flash judgement, even though he had done nothing wrong, he just got swept up in the whole flash justice thing that the public was doing at that moment. So, while Weinstein and Spacey are sure looking guilty right now, there are a handful of other people getting swept up in this "trend," who may or may not be guilty of the accusations against them.

I would simply recommend that people reserve judgement until there are enough independent facts to corroborate one side's story or the other.

In Roy Moore's case, the act of sexual assault is alleged in one case. He denies it happened and she says it happened. That seems to be as far as it's gone for now, so I think it's too early to say if it happened or not. I think people get vested emotionally in these sorts of things one way or the other prematurely, when either outcome is possible. If no one else comes forward, since it happened so long ago, there is a good chance that it cannot be proven one way or the other anymore.

On the other hand, the practice Moore has admitted to doing, dating several girls younger than 18 while he was in his 30's, while legally allowed, is socially unacceptable, so it's going to ruin his political career, I believe.


----------



## vilk (Nov 13, 2017)

lol, maybe it would have ruined his career... in any place but Alabama!

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/53_pastors_sign_letter_of_supp.html#incart_river_home


----------



## MFB (Nov 13, 2017)

Who would've thought that pedophiles would have the biggest support nets


----------



## bostjan (Nov 13, 2017)

Well, if a pedophile happens to be an up-and-coming politician, sure. No different than any up-and-coming politician, though.

On the other hand, a pedophile who happens to be an otherwise average jerk, not so much.

Nothing in life is fair. Sports star and actor accused of double homicide hires expensive lawyers and gets acquitted, despite a mound of physical evidence. Meanwhile, a public school custodian is pulled over for vaguely matching the description of a fugitive, and is shot dead in front of his fiancee and a young child in the car while he's reaching for his ID, as the officer requested. In the end, the cop who shot the custodian gets acquitted.

It's all about your position in life. It's not even so much about what you know, how educated you are, blah blah blah; it's about your position within the network that has been an open secret for hundreds of years - who you know, and of those you need to know, who likes you and who doesn't.

This Roy Moore guy seems like the kind of guy on whom some rather influential and important people had bet, but I doubt he's intimately connected to those people, so who knows. Personally, I don't see him winning after this. The argument, "Oh, it's Alabama, he'll win there anyway," seems like a stereotype heavily reliant on heavy assumptions, but maybe it'll turn out correct anyway...who knows.


----------



## Edika (Nov 13, 2017)

If Trump is going hard after sexual assault cases wouldn't that mean he has to arrest himself to give a good example? Or does "grab them by the pussy" means something else in Trump reality?


----------



## vilk (Nov 13, 2017)

Edika said:


> If Trump is going hard after sexual assault cases wouldn't that mean he has to arrest himself to give a good example? Or does "grab them by the pussy" means something else in Trump reality?



He says he only grabbed them by their metaphorical pussies. It's just Locker Room Talk™


----------



## Drew (Nov 13, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> True. But im not making excuses for either person. Both sides have their fair share od corruption


Actually, I think what you're saying is both sides have had their share of pedophiles. While that's technically true, that's no excuse to brush the allegations off and still vote for the guy, and again, we cast Anthony Weiner out pretty hard once the allegations came out.

Thankfully, the GOP seems to be growing a set and becoming somewhat less equivocal in their condemnation - McConnell is now calling for him to drop out, with no hemming about "...if true.."


----------



## Explorer (Nov 14, 2017)

I'm interested in this "both siderism" claim.

Has there been a groundswell of liberal support for the various liberals who have been exposed in this recent wave of sexual assault and pedophilia? 

The contrast between the two sides is huge and unmissable. From Trump, O'Reilly and. Moore we see a huge wave of conservatives, including evangelicals and their leaders, who are just delighted to defend this kind of behavior. That's what makes the "both sides" claim such obvious BS.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 14, 2017)

Explorer said:


> I'm interested in this "both siderism" claim.
> 
> Has there been a groundswell of liberal support for the various liberals who have been exposed in this recent wave of sexual assault and pedophilia?
> 
> The contrast between the two sides is huge and unmissable. From Trump, O'Reilly and. Moore we see a huge wave of conservatives, including evangelicals and their leaders, who are just delighted to defend this kind of behavior. That's what makes the "both sides" claim such obvious BS.



Maybe Hollywood movie people are equivalent to Washington government people in some people's minds. One tells you a fictional story as a fictional story with fictional characters portrayed by real people supported by consumer funding and the other tells you what you can and cannot do supported by tax money. If you disobey the government, you go to jail, get deported out of the country, or even have your life's spark snuffed out, and if you disobey the movie people, you, well, I guess you don't like the movie. Totally the same thing, right?


----------



## Explorer (Nov 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> True. But im not making excuses for either person. Both sides have their fair share od corruption





Explorer said:


> I'm interested in this "both siderism" claim. Has there been a groundswell of liberal support for the various liberals who have been exposed in this recent wave of sexual assault and pedophilia? The contrast between the two sides is huge and unmissable.





bostjan said:


> Maybe Hollywood movie people are equivalent to Washington government people in some people's minds. If you disobey the government, you go to jail, get deported out of the country, or even have your life's spark snuffed out, and if you disobey the movie people, you, well, I guess you don't like the movie. Totally the same thing, right?


Maybe if one is an idiot. *laugh* still, I'm hoping our friend can unleash some facts to support his claim, unlike previously.


----------



## Randy (Nov 14, 2017)

Explorer said:


> Maybe if one is an idiot. *laugh* still, I'm hoping our friend can unleash some facts to support his claim, unlike previously.



I'm pretty sure he's gone and not coming back.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 14, 2017)

Just as another quick reality check for those who are out of touch:

Roy Moore has unequivocally claimed the county was "dry" at the time of the incidents.

It had been for some time, starting in 1972.

Lie little, lie big, especially if you think no one will catch you. 

----

Of course, the other big requirement for the denial of reality is a working time machine.

The clouds of those who knew about what Moore did to/with the girls, and who knew around the time of the incident, knew so back when they happened, and went on the record.

The "He's innocent!" conspiracy theory requires even the Republican voters who have accuse Moore to have set this trap, and to have spread the stories, more than thirty years ago. 

I'm always fascinated by cockamamy conspiracy hypotheses which require time machines to make them work.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 14, 2017)

And now, one more moore complication.

A former mall employee from Moore's town states Moore was on the mall's ban list for soliciting sex from young girls.

http://people.com/politics/roy-moore-badgered-teen-girls-alabama-mall-1980s/

There's also CNN video of an interview with the employee, but I just think it's amazing that even People Magazine is doing a better job of real journalism than Faux. *laugh* 

People Magazine means that even housewives will be reading this stuff.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 15, 2017)

> Recent arrest reports show that more than 1,500 sexual predators were busted for their involvement in child sex-trafficking rings in the United States since January 20, the day Donald Trump was inaugurated.



Trump didn't do jack shit, the DOJ, and FBI bust pedophiles. What, do you think fuhrer Trump busts down the doors of pedophiles houses after he was sworn in with an AR-15 in one hand, a bald eagle in the other, and proudly exclaims "you're fired" before booking them? *Law enforcement agencies will continue to do their jobs regardless of who's president. *


This is also another textbook example of one of the rights favorite tactics, whataboutism. We say "Moore is a pedophile" You say "what about the FBI busting a huge pedophile ring?" (and you somehow give Trump the credit for it, and that in itself is a really astounding level of delusion)

You might as well have said "Well what about Salmon migration patterns???" and it would be just as relevant to the conversation.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 15, 2017)

Explorer said:


> And now, one more moore complication.
> 
> A former mall employee from Moore's town states Moore was on the mall's ban list for soliciting sex from young girls.
> 
> ...



The People Magazine article seems to understate this.

Here's a quote from https://www.newamericanjournal.net/2017/11/politics-makes-strange-bedfellows-but-jesus-not-this/ :



> Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall and the YMCA for his inappropriate behavior of soliciting sex from young girls.



I'd like to hear what Moore has to say in response to that claim. I'm pretty sure he'll just say that it isn't true. But with two separate allegations of sexual assault against a minor, which he denies, and the widespread stories of him actively seeking romantic interests with very young girls, which he does not deny, things were already looking bad. This claim that he was banned from two different establishments associated closely with teenagers for "soliciting sex" is flat out damning. If that statement is true, then I don't see how he's going to keep himself out of jail at this point, even if he does shockingly win the election.



will_shred said:


> You might as well have said "Well what about Salmon migration patterns???" and it would be just as relevant to the conversation.



But that's how these arguments always work... 
I mean, look at these pizzas! Terrible! These pizzas were made by child slaves in a secret underground bunker in Hillary's basement! We won't stand for child slavery. And the plague. Look at Africa! The plague! Hillary. Child slaves. The plague. Hillary. Terrible... Therefore vote for the GOP.

It's a satirical caricature of the sort of political discussions I hear around the break room where I work. If it's bad, associate it with the person you don't like. If it's good, associate it with the person you support. No facts or logical correlations matter anymore in politics, and that can be said for some people who support each party...I just think it is more prevalent with one party's supporters than with the others, personally. And, well, maybe it's just because those people are louder and more obnoxious than the others, but the perception of mine is shared by plenty of other people, so...eventually, the GOP comes to the point where it is the party that represents stupidity more than the alternatives (not that there are any parties right now that represent wisdom and integrity absolutely, but you have to admit that there are generalizations that are easy to make at this point in time).


----------



## vilk (Nov 15, 2017)

bostjan said:


> But that's how these arguments always work...
> I mean, look at these pizzas! Terrible! These pizzas were made by child slaves in a secret underground bunker in Hillary's basement! We won't stand for child slavery. And the plague. Look at Africa! The plague! Hillary. Child slaves. The plague. Hillary. Terrible... Therefore vote for the GOP.



 this reminds me of a satirical post I made on a different website yesterday



vilk said:


> As a staunch republican I firmly believe absolutely everything written on fox news and breitbart. In fact I often call it the New New Testament, since it is gospel direct from God above and also Jesus. On the other hand, anything I don't like or even just don't especially agree with is obviously fake news.
> 
> For instance, let's say you told me it will rain today. Now, I'm not interested in that, so that would be fake news. However, suppose that later on in the day it does start raining; I'm not afraid of any "I told you so". The raining is still fake news because Hillary Clintons emails beghazi george soros and why you gotta discriminate against me just because I'm a white? what's wrong with being a White Christian there's a war on Christmas, thats why gotta build a wall because their ILLEGAL what dont you understand about the word ILLEGAL duh obviously anyone and anything ILLEGAL is tryin to make it illegal just to be white? next thin you know they let a dog marry a fire hydrant then where will we be


----------



## Drew (Nov 15, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I'd like to hear what Moore has to say in response to that claim. I'm pretty sure he'll just say that it isn't true. But with two separate allegations of sexual assault against a minor, which he denies, and the widespread stories of him actively seeking romantic interests with very young girls, which he does not deny, things were already looking bad. This claim that he was banned from two different establishments associated closely with teenagers for "soliciting sex" is flat out damning. If that statement is true, then I don't see how he's going to keep himself out of jail at this point, even if he does shockingly win the election.



Somewhat encouragingly, when these allegations started breaking was more or less the time when McConnell dropped his "if true" equivocation and when there began to be some serious talk about the GOP expelling him from the Senate if he won. Still, he's still the slight favorite, which is kind of, well, abhorrent. Alabama voters seem to think it's better to be a pedophile than a Democrat, if polls can be believed.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 15, 2017)

Drew said:


> Somewhat encouragingly, when these allegations started breaking was more or less the time when McConnell dropped his "if true" equivocation and when there began to be some serious talk about the GOP expelling him from the Senate if he won. Still, he's still the slight favorite, which is kind of, well, abhorrent. Alabama voters seem to think it's better to be a pedophile than a Democrat, if polls can be believed.


The poll that counts is yet to happen, but...hmm, well, again, I'd have to look more into their platforms. I read a little about the opponent running against him, and he seems like a decent guy for a politician, on the surface, and his platform seems to be pretty standard fare, so, unless Moore promised to give away hundred dollar bills every Friday or something, this doesn't seem to add up in a rational way.


----------



## Drew (Nov 15, 2017)

bostjan said:


> The poll that counts is yet to happen, but...hmm, well, again, I'd have to look more into their platforms. I read a little about the opponent running against him, and he seems like a decent guy for a politician, on the surface, and his platform seems to be pretty standard fare, so, unless Moore promised to give away hundred dollar bills every Friday or something, this doesn't seem to add up in a rational way.


White Evangelicals. Remember that Moore got thrown off the state court, twice, for refusing to uphold the separation of church and state, and the Democratic Party is the party of same-sex marriage and abortion rights. The Evangelical voters are still firmly behind Moore, because they either 1) don't believe the accusations, or 2) think that while Moore is _personally_ repugnant, he is still capable of being a Soldier of God in defending their religion against those Godless Democrats on the Senate floor, or some crap like that. Sort of the reason Trump still won - sure, he allegedly assaulted a whole bunch of women, divorced a couple times, cheated on his wives... But, he'd put a good Conservative justice on the Supreme Court, so he's merely an imperfect vessel for the Word of God.

Jones made his name prosecuting Klansmen for the murder of a couple 13 year old girls, which adds another wrinkle to this. While Jones was busy defending teenage girls, Moore was molesting them.


----------



## vilk (Nov 15, 2017)

I may or may not have already said this in this thread, but Trump won the Evangelical Christian vote in-full when he pantomimed a partial birth abortion during the 3rd debate. There's just nothing an Evangelical Christian mind can do to overcome it. He instantly transformed the complex, multifaceted question of political policy into a simple one:_ baby murderer _vs. _non
_
Trump won by understanding how stupid and simple Americans are, by taking advantage of how totally shallow their political opinions and identities are.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 15, 2017)

Yeah, Jones seems like a cool cat. I think that's maybe his problem, like you said.

By comparison:

Moore is staunchly anti-abortion, believing that life begins at conception. Jones says that the current restrictions on abortion are enough and does not want to seek changes with the law. I guess that's where people in Alabama already lost touch with Jones. Personally, I think that the whole debate over when life starts is idiotic. The egg is already a living cell, as is the sperm. When the two cells combine to make a zygote, which is already a living cell, life was not created, but passed onto a new genetic entity...but whatever.

Moore is also staunchly anti-LGBTQ+, anti-muslim, anti-immigrant, pro-racial-segregation, and pro-confederacy. Personally, being pro-confederacy makes him ineligible to serve in the federal government, as he doesn't even believe in the federal government. I mean, if he can be a congressman, then I, as an atheist, can be a Catholic bishop, but, again, whatever, I guess none of this stuff needs to make a damn bit of sense.

Moore believes that pre-school classes should be banned by law, because children are "much more likely to learn a liberal social and political philosophy" there than at home. Dafuq?!

Moore believes in amending the first and fifth amendments, so that there is no freedom of speech and no separation of church and state. He thinks that the official US Flag Code etiquette guide already is enforceable as criminal law (it's not, and no lawmaker should ever get a pass not knowing that fact), and he thinks that evolution is something unsupported by simple facts.

He also was one of the key people leading the birther nonsense against Obama. Don't like Obama, no problem...believe in birtherism? - stupid, but whatever, you have your opinion...but to go and start baseless rumours against someone, well, that's libel and makes you a bad person.

After studying up on this guy, I would say that a) his political beliefs are absolutely incompatible with my own, and, b) totally aside from that, he is a willfully ignorant piece of garbage and if he was choking on a hot dog near me, I might suddenly forget what the Heimlich maneuver is. Fuck Roy Moore.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 15, 2017)

will_shred said:


> This is also another textbook example of one of the rights favorite tactics, whataboutism. We say "Moore is a pedophile" You say "what about the FBI busting a huge pedophile ring?" (and you somehow give Trump the credit for it, and that in itself is a really astounding level of delusion)
> 
> You might as well have said "Well what about Salmon migration patterns???" and it would be just as relevant to the conversation.



Nitpicking here, but that isn't whataboutism. Whataboutism is when you point out an opponent's flaws in response to them pointing out yours, rather than addressing or refuting their claims. So it'd be more like the Left saying "Moore is a pedophile," and the Right replying with "what about Bill Clinton? He committed adultery_ in the White House_!"

That definitely is a common GOP tactic, of course. I definitely wouldn't dispute that. It's just not what's happening in the example being discussed. To get extra fancy, claiming that an increase in pedophile busts that took place after Trump took office happened _because _Trump took office is probably more accurately categorized as the fallacy "_Post hoc ergo propter hoc_," or "After this, therefore because of this." It might also be a bit of a Red Herring, haha.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 16, 2017)

Well, it's up to eight women accusing Moore, and the one dude. 

Since some of the women are Republican, it's pretty funny to still hear that "liberal conspiracy" crap surfacing.


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 16, 2017)

will_shred said:


> This is also another textbook example of one of the rights favorite tactics, whataboutism. We say "Moore is a pedophile" You say "what about the FBI busting a huge pedophile ring?" (and you somehow give Trump the credit for it, and that in itself is a really astounding level of delusion)
> 
> You might as well have said "Well what about Salmon migration patterns???" and it would be just as relevant to the conversation.





Grand Moff Tim said:


> Nitpicking here, but that isn't whataboutism. Whataboutism is when you point out an opponent's flaws in response to them pointing out yours, rather than addressing or refuting their claims.





^embed not working correctly... skip to 6:17 in.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Nov 19, 2017)

It took no more than a few posts for this to turn into a Republican vs Democrat shitfest. Instead of admitting than anyone (regardless of political affiliation) who does something as disgraceful as this are the shit stains on the underwear of life, how about we just point fingers at the other party for being the shitbags they are? I'm sure that's going to solve problems, bet your bottom dollar.


----------



## vilk (Nov 20, 2017)

I think you'll notice that only one party, out of two parties, agrees with your sentiment that anyone who does something as disgraceful as this are shit stains. That could be one possible reason why the issue may naturally be examined from a partisan viewpoint.

No one is saying that _you are conservative, therefore you sympathize with a sex offender_. What we are saying is _presently elected conservative officials are sympathizing with a sex offender_.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 20, 2017)

Here's my extra hypocritical post:

Roy Moore is a dirtbag. Anyone who tries to make a thread about dirtbag Roy Moore into a thread about something else is guilty of whataboutism, including making the thread about whataboutism or making the thread about how bad and hypocritical whataboutwhataboutismism, or ... I think I just confused myself.

Anyway, Roy Moore is a dirtbag, whataboutism sucks, and whataboutwhataboutismism is just going to accomplish the purpose the whataboutism was supposed to accomplish anyway.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/us/jones-alabama-democrats.html

So Moore is losing momentum in the polls...but he's still in the lead?! WTF Alabama?!


----------



## hairychris (Nov 20, 2017)

*sigh*

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...-misconduct/nls3lkhOHopU5fUe6bM2hJ/story.html


----------



## bostjan (Nov 20, 2017)

hairychris said:


> *sigh*
> 
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...-misconduct/nls3lkhOHopU5fUe6bM2hJ/story.html



What would Jesus do?

"And Jesus said unto them: 'Let all who will listen to the Word of God vote not for the Pharisee, not for the Sadducee, not for the Jezubite, nor for the Democrite, but for the Republican, no matter of the sins he hath cast before his race, so that the sodomite and the man who has confusion about his gender should weep and gnash their teeth, so that the leper will have no place to seek treatment for his sickness, nor that the athlete shall be any longer able to refuse to bend his knee to Caesar. Let us not judge the man for his sins, but let us instead judge the man based upon his liberal tendencies, so that he may be cast into the flames as a heretic in accordance with his quest for equality, so that he may burn himself out of our minds. Voteth not for the one who so opposes thy incumbent!'"
-No Bible Verse Ever.


----------



## Drew (Nov 27, 2017)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...ar&tidr=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.47055c3f8877

Remember those Project Veritas idiots, and James O'Keefe? The guys behind the DNC email they had heavily edited and claimed was "proof" Clinton was sending paid protestors to Trump events, or something like that? They had an agent contact the Washington Post with a story about getting impregnated by Moore at 15, the Post's quick background check didn't tie out, so they secretly filmed the meeting themselves. At it, the woman kept moving her purse to make sure it had an unobstructed view of the journalist even when she moved hers, and she kept pushing for assurances that her story would definitely make Moore lose (presumably so they could edit the video afterwards to make it look like that's why the Post wanted her to come forward). She abruptly ended the video when the Post journalist confronted her with a printout of a GoFundMe to move to NY to take a job with the conservative media attacking the mainstream media, and when they followed her to a Project Veritas office, figured they'd pre-empt anything they could do with the video, and run the story themselves.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 27, 2017)

I came to post that O'Keefe/Project "Veritas" story myself.

It's pretty astounding that O'Keefe is so dumb... but he just caused this situation because he's apparently unaware, like much of the Fox News staff, of what actual journalistic investigation is, as well as journalistic ethics.

Many current conservatives think that news is just something invented by the writer, in the same way many conservatives feel the same way about science. Both mistaken beliefs ignore that actual evidence is necessary before making claims about reality.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 27, 2017)

The more people realize O'keefe is a fraudulent hack, the better.


----------



## NotDonVito (Nov 28, 2017)

The only people voting for Doug Jones are Avondale hipsters who will probably be too high to drive to the polls, or they couldn't get off work from Starbucks.

He's got that black vote though, he's from the hood lol. I used to live in downtown Bessemer, and even I wouldn't drive through Fairfield at night.


----------



## thraxil (Nov 28, 2017)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> The more people realize O'keefe is a fraudulent hack, the better.



No one's going to see it though. The main story on Fox News right now is the latest version of "but her emails". No mention of this. No mention of Trump using a racial slur in front of Navajo war heroes.

If anything, I worry that most people will hear something about the story in passing won't have the attention to understand exactly who did what and all they'll remember is something about the Washington Post and "fake news" and confirm whatever biases they already have.

I mean, Veritas *succeeded* in taking down ACORN despite clear evidence that they edited videos and misrepresented basically everything (O'Keefe was successfully sued for $100k by one of the employees in the video). That was a huge victory for the pro voter disenfranchisement side, so they'll keep doing it. They pull this crap over and over again. Even if they usually come out of it looking like fraudulent hacks, if they can take down an org like ACORN every now and then, they'll keep getting funding (the Trump Foundation donated $10k to Veritas in 2015) and they'll keep doing it. When they succeed, they succeed. When they fail, like this time, it still just plays into the "fake news" narrative because most people aren't paying close enough attention.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 28, 2017)

thraxil said:


> No mention of Trump using a racial slur in front of Navajo war heroes.



Not to get too excited about defending Trump, but I don't think he meant it as a racial slur so much as an equally offensive and inappropriate dig at a political opponent over a racial issue. I'm not sure why I even feel it's important enough to waste my breath to point out the distinction. I guess that a racial slur would make Trump look racist, but this dig at Warren just continues to make Trump look like a beligerently insensitive dolt. To pick on any opponent because of their race is just stupid and tonedeaf, and to bring it up at a celebration of war heroes, especially in a war that was partially fueled by racial intolerance, and the only widespread war waged over an attempt at genocide, is just an all new level of idiocy that I don't think there are words to describe how icky it should make everyone feel. The closest thing I can think of would be a bad Roy Schneider comedy's most cringey scene, but in real life, and where the character is the actual President of the USA.


----------



## Drew (Nov 28, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I guess that a racial slur would make Trump look racist, but this dig at Warren just continues to make Trump look like a beligerently insensitive dolt.


I look at it the same way as you. I don't think it's a racial slur, so much as a dig at Warren's alleged ethnicity. It certainly has racist tones to it, but not because of his actual wording so much as his intent. Either way, it pales compared to the fact that it only succeeds in making him look like an immature schoolboy - that was NOT the place to make that joke, in a ceremony commemorating Code Talkers. No place to try to score a few cheap political points.


Explorer said:


> I came to post that O'Keefe/Project "Veritas" story myself.
> 
> It's pretty astounding that O'Keefe is so dumb... but he just caused this situation because he's apparently unaware, like much of the Fox News staff, of what actual journalistic investigation is, as well as journalistic ethics.
> 
> Many current conservatives think that news is just something invented by the writer, in the same way many conservatives feel the same way about science. Both mistaken beliefs ignore that actual evidence is necessary before making claims about reality.


Yeah, I don't know what's more shocking - the fact that O'Keefe thought the Washington Post wouldn't try to do any sort of a background check at all on a person coming to them with a sensational story (I mean, I guess that isn't so shocking, so much as it is confirmation of what he believes - he's trying to prove the Post is a politically motivated hatchet job with no journalistic integrety, so he treats them as such, and promptly gets caught with his pants down when they do due diligence on his plant), or the fact that, knowing full well that the Post had a video crew with the journalist that confronted him about this afterwards and had full, unedited video of the interaction, he STILL tried to do his usual out-of-context edit job to make it look like he was the one pressing the post and they were dodging his question.  All the Post had to do - which they did - was just release their raw footage.

James O'Keefe is an absolute tool.  I guess if I was that bad at journalism and thought I was pretty good, then maybe I'd expect an actual newspaper to be just as incompetent too. 

The only thing that worries me is thraxil's (well taken) point, that the Fox/Breitbart viewing contingent will see O'Keefe's video, hear about but neither read nor watch the Post's story and video of the interaction, and take his claim that the Post is trying to change the story and deflect from his work at face value. 

And, the thing that I keep coming back to, is that we now live in a country where this is the norm, that people of different political persuasions can no longer even agree on a set of basic facts. And while the handful of right-wing and right-leaving voices here will accuse me of bias, here we're talking about the Post with unedited raw footage of an exchange and O'Keefe doing his typical "provide a couple soundbytes from the video, but then give narrative context around them to make them sound like something totally different than the unedited footage shows it actually was" routine; it's a pretty clear scenario of one party presenting the truth while the other party gets caught trying to fabricate an alternative truth.


----------

