Let's talk Moore

[JohnsonJones]

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ok, now I'm getting confused.  What do you think is Moore's credible accusation?

I think it may all be credible, but you'd think after 40 years they may have spilled the beans earlier, OR, it really didn't matter that much to them in the way they are making it a big deal now. 

When he was a Judge (and a judge is a FAR more serious position of where one really needs that infallibility), , ESPECIALLY on the Supreme Court, one would think that there were far more important and specific situations in this regards to his morality where it would have been, or should have been brought up.  If it wasn't important enough for them to do so now, it brings into question...what makes it so important NOW!?

On the otherhand, this timing...it's absolutely a political assassination.  They didn't feel it was important for any REAL moral or personal reason, but when it's a Senate Seat where it could determine a party majority or minority...ONLY THEN is it important.  This is absolutely politically motivated and has nothing to do with whether the accusers really were hurt or not from the timing and appearance of it.

I would back them if it didn't seem so politically motivated, but as it is...I wouldn't want Moore elected, but in this case I'd absolutely vote for Moore just do to the fact that I am not going to be that manipulated by political media that are doing stunts like this. It should infuriate many red-blooded American that the media thinks they can control them to the degree that they are doing this.

Edit:  We all have different opinions though, but for me, it's absolutely revolting that the media does things like this.  I suppose though, for voters in Alabama it will come down to their own personal convictions.  If he did these things 40 years ago it is not a good thing, in fact it seems very bad.  However, if it didn't impact the accusers enough to come forward for 40 years when he was dictating morality from the highest court of the land in Alabama's bench...then I'm not sure why it should be big enough to impact others votes now when he is in the less then perfect running for a Senate Seat.  To each their own though.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[JoCa]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I can't be responsible for other voters.  I'm only responsible for myself.  If I deem the accusations to be credible, I can't support the candidate just because I like his politics.  Character matters to me.

And I understand your position . . . . but this is a political take-down of the highest magnitude and order.

Here is what I believe the actual truth to be.  I do believe that Moore most likely dated younger women, juniors or seniors in high school above the age of consent, 17-18.  I do believe that he probably asked their parents to take them out.  I do not believe that he harassed or did anything untoward to any of this women.

The greatest lies are those lies which are mixed with truth.

This is a great hit, a classic to see evil people work.  Because if you separate out the two (the lies from the truth) a picture of two totally different people emerge . . .and it's very easy to see the progression of a lie. 

From the first reporting of the 3 women who claimed to date him when they were teenager and the unnamed 14 year-old.  All three named women who dated him said that he was a gentleman and asked permission of their mother.   So I believe that was true; I believe the unnamed 14 year old was a total complete utter fabrication.  We still don't know who that 14-year old was and it reads like somebody's made-up story of what they think would happen had he done this not what actually happened.

Alright, so now we've established a baseline for the lie mixed in with truth; i.e. take a true event (dating younger women . ..nothing wrong with that back in the late 70s in Alabama!) mix it in with some lies (sexual assault).  Now all the while you are doing this, you are looking for a "credible face" to make a personal accusation.  So you bring in Gloria Allred and find some woman who has this story.  She spins a tale of sexual assault. 

Now you can't claim rape, b/c rape is a different beast, too many people would say "you were raped and you never reported it!!! that's dumb".  So you spin a tale of assault, just serious enough that it pisses people off but not serious enough to raise the radar of this is a lie.  So now that you have a "credible" witness you'd now but a face to the lie you told in the newspaper article.  Now you can start bringing out every Jane and Jill out there . . .it doesn't have to be corroborated, it doesn't have to be credible it just continues to build upon the lie.

The mall . . .well funny enough everyone who would have actually had authority in "banning him" is dead, and those who claim he was banned rely on 3rd party .. .well the night guard J.D. Thomas told me he was banned . . .can't talk to J.D., can't talk to the actual manager.

And from now until election they will trot out more and more woman . . .we'll probably but up to 20+ by the time this is done and not one will actually be credible.

Now let's go back to the yearbook woman.

She just "conveniently forgot" to mention that Judge Roy Moore was the judge presiding over her own divorce proceeding in the mid 90s!!!  This "event" was so tramatic that when he was the presiding judge over a divorce she didn't speak up, didn't say a word, didn't file a motion all b/c she was "scared".

Lol, give me a break.  

Political takedown of the highest order.

[JoCa]

7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That he was trolling for teenagers and making inappropriate and unwanted attempts at having relations with them.

Nope . . .all false.  Read the actual reports.  It is all based on third-party heresay.  The owner of the mall who would have put him on a ban list is dead! The owner of the mall in 1981 acknowledge a ban list could not confirm Roy Moore on the list . . .oh and just for giggles and grins this flozy who said he took her behind the restaurant, guess what there was a "Roy Moore" that graduated from Gadsen High School in the class of 1977.

You do know there are multiple "Roy Moore" . . .40 years later, and we are trying to remember what happend during a 2-year period of time from 1977-1979. It could very well be that a "Roy Moore" was banned from the mall, but that "Roy Moore" was the one who graduated in 1977.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, JoCa said:

And I understand your position . . . . but this is a political take-down of the highest magnitude and order.

Here is what I believe the actual truth to be.  I do believe that Moore most likely dated younger women, juniors or seniors in high school above the age of consent, 17-18.  I do believe that he probably asked their parents to take them out.  I do not believe that he harassed or did anything untoward to any of this women.

The greatest lies are those lies which are mixed with truth.

This is a great hit, a classic to see evil people work.  Because if you separate out the two (the lies from the truth) a picture of two totally different people emerge . . .and it's very easy to see the progression of a lie. 

From the first reporting of the 3 women who claimed to date him when they were teenager and the unnamed 14 year-old.  All three named women who dated him said that he was a gentleman and asked permission of their mother.   So I believe that was true; I believe the unnamed 14 year old was a total complete utter fabrication.  We still don't know who that 14-year old was and it reads like somebody's made-up story of what they think would happen had he done this not what actually happened.

Alright, so now we've established a baseline for the lie mixed in with truth; i.e. take a true event (dating younger women . ..nothing wrong with that back in the late 70s in Alabama!) mix it in with some lies (sexual assault).  Now all the while you are doing this, you are looking for a "credible face" to make a personal accusation.  So you bring in Gloria Allred and find some woman who has this story.  She spins a tale of sexual assault. 

Now you can't claim rape, b/c rape is a different beast, too many people would say "you were raped and you never reported it!!! that's dumb".  So you spin a tale of assault, just serious enough that it pisses people off but not serious enough to raise the radar of this is a lie.  So now that you have a "credible" witness you'd now but a face to the lie you told in the newspaper article.  Now you can start bringing out every Jane and Jill out there . . .it doesn't have to be corroborated, it doesn't have to be credible it just continues to build upon the lie.

The mall . . .well funny enough everyone who would have actually had authority in "banning him" is dead, and those who claim he was banned rely on 3rd party .. .well the night guard J.D. Thomas told me he was banned . . .can't talk to J.D., can't talk to the actual manager.

And from now until election they will trot out more and more woman . . .we'll probably but up to 20+ by the time this is done and not one will actually be credible.

Now let's go back to the yearbook woman.

She just "conveniently forgot" to mention that Judge Roy Moore was the judge presiding over her own divorce proceeding in the mid 90s!!!  This "event" was so tramatic that when he was the presiding judge over a divorce she didn't speak up, didn't say a word, didn't file a motion all b/c she was "scared".

Lol, give me a break.  

Political takedown of the highest order.

I acknowledged that it was a political takedown.  People keep bringing it up as though it were relevant.  To me, it isn't.  Did he do what he was accused of?  If you believe it is OK for a 32-year-old man to pursue minors, then vote for him.  If you believe he didn't make unwelcome physical advances upon minors, then vote for him.  Personally, I believe he did both and that flies in the face of my beliefs.

 

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

Nope . . .all false.  Read the actual reports.  It is all based on third-party heresay.  The owner of the mall who would have put him on a ban list is dead! The owner of the mall in 1981 acknowledge a ban list could not confirm Roy Moore on the list . . .oh and just for giggles and grins this flozy who said he took her behind the restaurant, guess what there was a "Roy Moore" that graduated from Gadsen High School in the class of 1977.

You do know there are multiple "Roy Moore" . . .40 years later, and we are trying to remember what happend during a 2-year period of time from 1977-1979. It could very well be that a "Roy Moore" was banned from the mall, but that "Roy Moore" was the one who graduated in 1977.

You claiming it was false doesn't actually make it false.  If you believe it to be false then vote for him.  I've stated what I believe and won't support a man of what I believe to be low moral character.

[JoCa]

9 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It should infuriate any red-blooded American that the media thinks they can control them to the degree that they are doing this.

Oh it's way worse than this.  What you are seeing is just the teeny, tiny, tip of the iceberg. 

There are real Gadianton Robbers within the U.S. Government.  What you are seeing is just a little bit of the deep, dark underbelly of those who pull the strings and control the U.S. government.  R, D it doesn't matter they are part of the uni-party.  

https://www.cfr.org/membership

 

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You claiming it was false doesn't actually make it false.  If you believe it to be false then vote for him.  I've stated what I believe and won't support a man of what I believe to be low moral character.

@Grunt Welcome to the group of people here on MormonHub that get told they are idiotic, simple minded fools, because we strive to follow the Lord command to seek out people of moral character to run for political office.  There is not much you can say or do that will change their mind about you, but in the end their opinion is not important.  It is between you and God who you vote for.

 

 

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

@Grunt Welcome to the group of people here on MormonHub that get told they are idiotic, simple minded fools, because we strive to follow the Lord command to seek out people of moral character to run for political office.  There is not much you can say or do that will change their mind about you, but in the end their opinion is not important.  It is between you and God who you vote for.

 

 

But I'm a heathen!  Won't they give me a pass?

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

But I'm a heathen!  Won't they give me a pass?

Apparently not... but you are always welcome in our group heathen or not.

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

@Grunt Welcome to the group of people here on MormonHub that get told they are idiotic, simple minded fools, because we strive to follow the Lord command to seek out people of moral character to run for political office.  There is not much you can say or do that will change their mind about you, but in the end their opinion is not important.  It is between you and God who you vote for.

 

 

I agree with that.  it really is on each of us to decide, in regards to our own personal convictions and morals on who is the best individual to vote for.  Luckily I'm not in Alabama to make such a choice of who to vote for.

[JoCa]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 If you believe it is OK for a 32-year-old man to pursue minors, then vote for him.  If you believe he didn't make unwelcome physical advances upon minors, then vote for him.  Personally, I believe he did both and that flies in the face of my beliefs.

 

You claiming it was false doesn't actually make it false.  If you believe it to be false then vote for him.  I've stated what I believe and won't support a man of what I believe to be low moral character.

Well let's get something straight, in Alabama age of consent is 16.  At worst he asked 17-18 year olds out and at worst did so with parents permission, 40 years ago! I have relatives who married were married at 18 and 26.  

It amazes me, you have someone who you believe is morally corrupt based on accusations from 40 years ago. 

By their fruits shall ye know them, that's what Christ says.  Look at what he has done over 40 years, judge him based on that record not some flimsy accusations based on 40 years ago. You don't have a man who is willing to lose his job (and did) as Alabama Supreme Court Judge over homosexual marriage who does these things.  A man who does the things he is accused of does not have that type of character!!!

And the news media claiming it was true doesn't make it true.  You acknowledge it is a political hit but yet are willing to accept at face value the information?  That's just logically inconsistent and morally wrong.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

So I'm interested to know why Republicans can't seem to figure out how to fight it.

Maybe don't hit on underage girls? That might be a good start.

38 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

40 years and not saying anything????

This is political assassination.  I don't like Moore, but I like how the media does political assassinations like this more.  I'd vote for Moore right now if I was in Alabama because I despise it when it is a political driven thing rather than moral or reality.

Translation: I would vote for a pedophile to stick it to the mainstream media. 

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

38 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If it was REALLY a moral thing, they had 40 years prior...AND many times he's been in the public face of things that they could have said something before this.

You don't get to dictate how and when victims speak up. We've seen things like this play out countless times. It often ends with character assassination of the accusers, questions about their motives for speaking out, and numerous kinds of victim-blaming. That's why a majority of sexual assault/harassment victims stay silent, especially when the guilty individual is a person in a position of power and/or influence. 

Is the timing politically-motivated? Sure. It is very likely that someone from the DNC went looking for dirt and found one of these women. But that shouldn't take away from the pain and trauma that these women have had to endure for years. 

But hey, if dirty politics is a more vile crime than pedophilia in your mind, then bully to you I guess.

 

[Grunt]

Just now, JoCa said:

Well let's get something straight, in Alabama age of consent is 16.  At worst he asked 17-18 year olds out and at worst did so with parents permission, 40 years ago! I have relatives who married were married at 18 and 26.  

1

What do we need to get straight?  I never claimed he broke the law.  I stated he acted outside what is acceptable for me, personally, morally.  

 

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

It amazes me, you have someone who you believe is morally corrupt based on accusations from 40 years ago. 

 

Ok?

 

[Guest MormonGator]

This is a classic case of "As long as I agree with you on politics, I'll excuse anything you do." The left did it with Bill Clinton, the right is doing it now with this pervert. 

At least the left had the decency to throw Anthony Weiner out. 

[JoCa]

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

But I'm a heathen!  Won't they give me a pass?

I totally agree with you, if he sexually assaulted women then he should't run.

But what he is accused of is out of character for the type of man he is.  This is different than Trump. It was obvious that Trump was a foul-mouthed heathen. Not the case with Moore.

Moore has generated a lot of enemies; he stood up to homosexual marriage in Alabama, he stood up to keeping the 10 commandments in Alabama.  You think that type of an individual would do what he is accused of?

If you do, then quite frankly we are sunk as a society b/c it means that no one has any character anymore and that people don't trust in the character of another individual . . .all it takes is made-up stories to sink an individual.

And trust me, I've had this played on me before and when you are a man of character and people sling mud at you . . .well Moore is doing exactly what a person who is innocent would do.

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

Translation: I would vote for a pedophile to stick it to the mainstream media. 

Okay . . .let the mudslinging begin.  You are a godless, soulless individual who one day will stand accountable before God for your actions; may God have mercy on your soul.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

Okay . . .let the mudslinging begin.  You are a godless, soulless individual who one day will stand accountable before God for your actions; may God have mercy on your soul.

You crossed the line with this. @Godless is a great guy so watch your mouth. 

Absolutely disgusting. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by MormonGator

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

This is a classic case of "As long as I agree with you on politics, I'll excuse anything you do." The left did it with Bill Clinton, the right is doing it now with this pervert. 

At least the left had the decency to throw Anthony Weiner out. 

Based on what!  Character assassination.  You are wrong gator.  You have no clue what you are talking about.  The guy is innocent.

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

I totally agree with you, if he sexually assaulted women then he should run.

But what he is accused of is out of character for the type of man he is.  This is different than Trump. It was obvious that Trump was a foul-mouthed heathen. Not the case with Moore.

Moore has generated a lot of enemies; he stood up to homosexual marriage in Alabama, he stood up to keeping the 10 commandments in Alabama.  You think that type of an individual would do what he is accused of?

If you do, then quite frankly we are sunk as a society b/c it means that no one has any character anymore and that people don't trust in the character of another individual . . .all it takes is made-up stories to sink an individual.

And trust me, I've had this played on me before and when you are a man of character and people sling mud at you . . .well Moore is doing exactly what a person who is innocent would do.

 

Then we'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose.  I think we've covered the basics of the discussion and it boils down to the fact that I believe much of what he was accused of is accurate, that it falls outside my tolerance for acceptable behavior, and that based on the previous two statements I would not be able to reconcile supporting him with my own conscience or the example I wish to set for my children.

[JoCa]

Just now, MormonGator said:

You crossed the line with this. @Godless is a great guy so watch your mouth. 

Absolutely disgusting. 

Oh I see you'll stand up for someone who accuses me of voting for a pedophile, but when I accuse him of being godless (which is in his name), soulless, I have to watch my mouth.

Lol hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Guest Godless]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

At least the left had the decency to throw Anthony Weiner out. 

And put him behind bars. And I shouldn't have to mention the shakeup that's taking place in Hollywood right now. Liberals are cleaning house, so I'm not sure if the double standard argument is going to work this time.

Speaking of Hollywood, I would assert that what we've seen with the allegations towards Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Louie CK, and others was probably a factor in leading Moore's accusers to speak out. 2017 seems to be the year of reckoning for perverts and rapists. 

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

Oh I see you'll stand up for someone who accuses me of voting for a pedophile, but when I accuse him of being godless (which is in his name), soulless, I have to watch my mouth.

Lol hypocrisy at it's finest.

Godless could have found a better phrase to get his point across, in my opinion, but you also responded in kind.   

Perhaps we all could stand to step back, take a deep breath, and look at how we are approaching this discussion.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

And put him behind bars. And I shouldn't have to mention the shakeup that's taking place in Hollywood right now. Liberals are cleaning house, so I'm not sure if the double standard argument is going to work this time.

Speaking of Hollywood, I would assert that what we've seen with the allegations towards Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Louie CK, and others was probably a factor in leading Moore's accusers to speak out. 2017 seems to be the year of reckoning for perverts and rapists. 

Yup, absolutely true. And in fairness, many many GOP leaders have spoke out against Moore. 
 

We need to focus on the sensible people out there who understand good behavior instead of the true believers that would clearly vote for the worst kind of person. It's a sad life truth that in politics, ideology trumps everything. Including basic decency. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by MormonGator

[JoCa]

Just now, Grunt said:

Then we'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose.  I think we've covered the basics of the discussion and it boils down to the fact that I believe much of what he was accused of is accurate, that it falls outside my tolerance for acceptable behavior, and that based on the previous two statements I would not be able to reconcile supporting him with my own conscience or the example I wish to set for my children.

I'm okay with agreeing to disagree.  That's why this stuff is so disgusting.  I've had this type of politics played on me personally before.  And when you have evil people lob unfounded, inaccurate lies at you . . .no one wins.

Even you you prove them wrong 100%, even if you show that they lied to the nth degree, you still lose.

Why, b/c no matter how false the accusations can be, no matter how much you deny it, no matter how much you prove it false, you have been convicted in the court of public opinion and you lose.

I understand people do not make logical decision; they like to think they do, but they don't.  When someone forms an emotional opinion (which these things are designed to do), even if it is proved false, they will still in the back of their mind say the accused is a pedophile.

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Godless could have found a better phrase to get his point across, in my opinion, but you also responded in kind.   

Perhaps we all could stand to step back, take a deep breath, and look at how we are approaching this discussion.

I don't pull punches. You hit me, I'll hit back just as hard.

[estradling75]

Sigh...  People...  We know sexual abuse and misconduct is a thing...  We know that political assassinations are a thing.

Just because in this one case you are saying you lean one way... it does not mean that you are OK or otherwise support the other things as being acceptable