Let's talk Moore

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, Godless said:

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

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

 

No, that's not the translation.  However, in some aspects, as I think I did vote for Clinton, that MAY be true (it's been shown he had a pretty close connection to that type of ring, and flew on an airplane which had the express situation in that regards, ironically, the many of the same people who voted for him are the ones who are supposedly having problems with Moore...go figure) in an unknowing manner.

In this one, it's a sticky situation.  I know of a couple in Alabama that are still married, she was engaged at 14, married at 15.  He was 25.  They are still married.  14 was legal for marriage in Alabama at that time with parental consent...so it's a questionable thing.

However, it's been 40 years.  This guy was on the Supreme Court RULING ON THINGS SPECIFICALLY PERTINENT TO THESE SITUATIONS.  If a time was for it to come out...it was then.

This lady is old enough to have grandkids...think about that.  She's had more than ample situation, and more than ample time, and ample encouragement to state this previously.  Obviously, it didn't affect her life to any great degree, if it even happened (and things are questionable in that regards, actually VERY much so that, despite what the media is portraying, most of the town is against the media's portrayal from what I understand at this point), that if it was as important as she states...why did she choose now.

A senator is NOT held up to as high a degree of morality as a judge, especially one on the Supreme Court.  If his situation was such as well known...then it SHOULD have come up (and have been dug up by the democrats opposed) FAR before this point.  Why has it never come up before, he has been duly screened EXCESSIVELY. 

Point blank, if it was such a big effect on her life, she SHOULD have brought it up before he made rulings on things such as you mention (and he has), or underage consent, or multiple other cases he ruled on when he was on the bench and had a DIRECT EFFECT on Alabama law and results.

The ONLY reason to wait until AFTER the Republicans cannot replace him on the ticket (meaning an almost automatic seat to the Democrats, a seat they have not been able to win on their own merits), is political assassination.  It's a media manipulation, and I'm not going to sit for that, especially when his opponent (Doug Jones) is basically guilty of worse (not that you would have read this from the media...this is what is media manipulation at it's worse) if we are going by the insinuation that some have made in the eyes of many but is absolutely being ignored by the media in this instance.

 

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

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.

That's why I said earlier that the only way to make this happen less is to make false accusations expensive financially and socially.

[JoCa]

 

3 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. 

No, it's a sign of a godless society.  The wicked are turning on their own.

All a woman has to do in today's society to destroy a man is claim he did something untoward to her.  That is a very, very bad precedent.  It is the salem witch trials, the hysteria of the mob.  It's lynching.  It's happened plenty of times in the past and is currently happening today . . .so sad that people don't see what's happening around them.  They think they are so pristine and so much "better" than people 50-60 years ago.

Nope, they are much worse b/c they think they are better but are doing the exact same stuff that lead to mobbings and lynchings. 

[Guest Godless]

12 minutes 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.

I didn't accuse you of anything. @JohnsonJones stated that he believes the accusations to be true, but that he would possibly vote for Moore anyway if he could because he's disgusted by the timing and political motivation of the accusations. I was simply pointing out the very clear implication of what he was saying. If you don't believe Moore is a pedophile, then clearly my post doesn't apply to you, does it?

Edited November 16, 2017 by Godless

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

No, that's not the translation.  However, in some aspects, as I think I did vote for Clinton, that MAY be true (it's been shown he had a pretty close connection to that type of ring, and flew on an airplane which had the express situation in that regards, ironically, the many of the same people who voted for him are the ones who are supposedly having problems with Moore...go figure) in an unknowing manner.

In this one, it's a sticky situation.  I know of a couple in Alabama that are still married, she was engaged at 14, married at 15.  He was 25.  They are still married.  14 was legal for marriage in Alabama at that time with parental consent...so it's a questionable thing.

However, it's been 40 years.  This guy was on the Supreme Court RULING ON THINGS SPECIFICALLY PERTINENT TO THESE SITUATIONS.  If a time was for it to come out...it was then.

This lady is old enough to have grandkids...think about that.  She's had more than ample situation, and more than ample time, and ample encouragement to state this previously.  Obviously, it didn't affect her life to any great degree, if it even happened (and things are questionable in that regards, actually VERY much so that, despite what the media is portraying, most of the town is against the media's portrayal from what I understand at this point), that if it was as important as she states...why did she choose now.

A senator is NOT held up to as high a degree of morality as a judge, especially one on the Supreme Court.  If his situation was such as well known...then it SHOULD have come up (and have been dug up by the democrats opposed) FAR before this point.  Why has it never come up before, he has been duly screened EXCESSIVELY. 

Point blank, if it was such a big effect on her life, she SHOULD have brought it up before he made rulings on things such as you mention (and he has), or underage consent, or multiple other cases he ruled on when he was on the bench and had a DIRECT EFFECT on Alabama law and results.

The ONLY reason to wait until AFTER the Republicans cannot replace him on the ticket (meaning an almost automatic seat to the Democrats, a seat they have not been able to win on their own merits), is political assassination.  It's a media manipulation, and I'm not going to sit for that, especially when his opponent (Doug Jones) is basically guilty of worse (not that you would have read this from the media...this is what is media manipulation at it's worse) if we are going by the insinuation that some have made in the eyes of many but is absolutely being ignored by the media in this instance.

 

I generally agree that she should have done this earlier, and of course it's political in nature to some degree. 

That said, I can count on one hand how many times I've been accused of very serious things that I didn't do. 

[JoCa]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That's why I said earlier that the only way to make this happen less is to make false accusations expensive financially and socially.

Good luck with that; in our feminist matriarchal society!  A woman must be believed or you are a sexist pig!

Nevermind the saying "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" . . . 

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

If you don't believe Moore is a pedophile, then clearly my post doesn't apply to you, does it?

Oh don't even .  . . . way to backpedal. You knew what you were doing. 

[Grunt]

Just now, JoCa said:

Good luck with that; in our feminist matriarchal society!  A woman must be believed or you are a sexist pig!

Nevermind the scriptures say "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" . . . 

We must have different Scriptures, or you know them better than I.

[JohnsonJones]

5 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. 

However, they were digging up dirt on Moore some time ago.  I mean, REALLY digging, and his past life was not something that was ignored.  This guy was on the Supreme Court in Alabama...he was dictating cases specifically in this regards at times.  Anyone with dirt like this was something they would have had a heyday with, and it would have been something his hometown would have brought up.  The fact that the media has blacklisted most of those in his hometown at this point and only bring out a FEW in his state that they deem they want to hear, while ignoring everything about Doug Jones...pretty much points out a media assassination of Moore.

Otherwise you'd also hear what people from his hometown are saying in general (instead of the blackout from the media on them in general), as well as the counter stuff that show Doug Jones may not be any better.  However, and ironically, you are not hearing anything about Doug Jones and, he wisely, has kept a low profile on this up to this point.

If you have two evils, the question then, is who do you pick?  Especially if they appear equally evil to each other?

Not such an easy choice to be honest.

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

That said, I can count on one hand how many times I've been accused of very serious things that I didn't do. 

Then maybe you haven't developed the right enemies.  Oh I can tell you, when you've got enemies this stuff is pretty common; it's high risk, but it's common.

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

We must have different Scriptures, or you know them better than I.

Lol sorry, written in the 1600s, my bad. Still a truism.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

Oh don't even .  . . . way to backpedal. You knew what you were doing. 

How am I backpedaling? What part of my original response to JohnsonJones do you think applies to you? You've made it very clear that you don't believe the accusations. My post was addressing someone who thinks the accusations might be credible, but doesn't seem to care enough to denounce Moore as a candidate. If you can't see the difference, then this discussion is over.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Godless

[JohnsonJones]

6 minutes ago, Godless said:

I didn't accuse you of anything. @JohnsonJones stated that he believes the accusations to be true, but that he would possibly vote for Moore anyway if he could because he's disgusted by the timing and political motivation of the accusations. I was simply pointing out the very clear implication of what he was saying. If you don't believe Moore is a pedophile, then clearly my post doesn't apply to you, does it?

You are implying that Doug Jones is innocent of the accusations against him?

It isn't simply a case on one side in this instance, it's a case of two evils in my opinion.  However, Doug Jones by some accounts would actively campaign for the permission of those types of acts that you ask if one would vote for.

You are taking for granted that the opposing choice is actually a better choice or innocent of the same type of thing or similar types of things.

In this instance, Doug Jones has chosen for the most part to lie low, because knowing the sort of dirt that was flung about him, it's probably the wisest thing for him to do at this point in the game.

[JohnsonJones]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

How am I backpedaling? What partof my original response to JohnsonJones do you think applies to you? You've made it very clear that you don't believe the accusations. My post was addressing someone who thinks the accusations might be credible, but doesn't seem to care enough to denounce Moore as a candidate. If you can't see the difference, then this discussion is over.

I also admit, they may be credible.  I'd be fool not to see them as...however as per Alabama LAW, it is not actually the crime you made it out to be.  The age of Marriage is 14 in Alabama with parental consent.  (it is the age of consent of a minor outside of marriage in regards to certain acts which is 16...which raises some interesting question as per Alabama law).   Does that mean I'm okay with it? NO...but then, Doug Jones isn't exactly innocent or get a pass either...which is what I think you may be missing.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest Godless]

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I also admit, they may be credible.  I'd be fool not to see them as...however as per Alabama LAW, it is not actually the crime you made it out to be.  The age of Marriage is 14 in Alabama with parental consent.  Does that mean I'm okay with it, no...but then, Doug Jones isn't exactly innocent or get a pass either...which is what I think you may be missing.

Sorry, been a busy morning, so it's been hard to keep up. 

I'm not familiar with the accusations against Doug Jones. If credible (and I'll look into that when I have a bit more time), then he should withdraw from the race, as should Moore. And if the accusations are of the same nature as Moore's, then it is a travesty that it hasn't gotten the same level of media attention.

[JohnsonJones]

16 minutes ago, Godless said:

Sorry, been a busy morning, so it's been hard to keep up. 

I'm not familiar with the accusations against Doug Jones. If credible (and I'll look into that when I have a bit more time), then he should withdraw from the race, as should Moore. And if the accusations are of the same nature as Moore's, then it is a travesty that it hasn't gotten the same level of media attention.

Well, it's gotten attention in Alabama before the Moore thing.  In essence one could view the idea of Moore's accusers of coming forward as some sort of infernal justice dug up by the Democrats in retaliation for what's been thrown at Doug Jones.  He lost pretty badly, in some instances maybe because of some of that stuff.  Is it credible?  I don't know.  I'd rather have him than Moore to be honest, BUT, if we are going to go with the default that Moore's accusers are credible, we probably shouldn't just give Doug Jones a pass either.

If anything, this may even up the field in people's eyes, but at the same time, they should have brought it up BEFORE the seats were unable to be filled by others.  The ONLY real reason to bring it up this close to the run off is because Jones wins by default if Moore steps down. 

Here is the kicker though, and why I'd vote for Moore.  This is absolutely media manipulation of the highest degree.  Absolutely, they've done it so that Jones wins by default if Moore steps down.  HOWEVER, if Moore wins, that doesn't mean We have Moore the Senator, which is another point that people are missing.

Due to how close to the run off they brought this up, there's no time to really vet the accusations except in the eyes of the media, which is not exactly all that great for getting the real story out there this close to a decision.  If Moore wins, and the truth comes out, it then boils down to several choices.  AT that point, Republican leadership can actually force him to step down and Alabama places in another to take his place.  Moore could fight it, but there is another alternative.  People are under the assumption that there is a statute of limitations, and there is...however in some of the accusations there is NO statute of limitations (Edit: for those interested, if the story related was accurate it falls under Alabama code 15-3-1, 15-3-2, 15-3-5 which has no statute of limitations.  I'm not going into explicit detail of why it would qualify for that as I tend to not want to relate such things personally, but this action has no SoL and hence Moore could still be prosecuted under it).  If Moore is convicted of a crime, I believe Alabama law and the government there would also force him to step down in that instance.  Hence, just because he is elected...does not mean he is going to be a Senator if the items stated are actually verified to be accurate (and it is the verification which is the important part).

On the otherhand, if Doug Jones is elected and this is all proven false, to me that stinks of a stolen election...far more manipulative than anything Russia ever did.  Plus, then we have someone who may have just as many ghosts in their closet, but because the media was on his side outside of Alabama's major city and outside the state, well...they are stuck with him.

If people are against other states interfering with elections, this is absolutely other states trying to interfere and manipulate Alabama's election rather than letting those in Alabama choose.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[person0]

Personally, if I lived in Alabama, I would not base my vote on this all of a sudden news of allegations.  The allegations may be true, but there's no way to tell until they are actually prosecuted and investigated.  I would base my decision on all the information that is already verified, such as his past policies and voting record, especially on matters of great importance.  If the allegations are later proved true, I would join in the call for his resignation, and possible incarceration.  On a side note, in general I would probably rather have a wicked man who governs in wisdom or righteously, than a righteous man who governs wickedly or foolishly.  Though the best would be a righteous man who governs in wisdom and righteousness.

[Guest Godless]

20 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, it's gotten attention in Alabama before the Moore thing.  In essence one could view the idea of Moore's accusers of coming forward as some sort of infernal justice dug up by the Democrats in retaliation for what's been thrown at Doug Jones.  He lost pretty badly, in some instances maybe because of some of that stuff.  Is it credible?  I don't know.  I'd rather have him than Moore to be honest, BUT, if we are going to go with the default that Moore's accusers are credible, we probably shouldn't just give Doug Jones a pass either.

If anything, this may even up the field in people's eyes, but at the same time, they should have brought it up BEFORE the seats were unable to be filled by others.  The ONLY real reason to bring it up this close to the run off is because Jones wins by default if Moore steps down. 

Here is the kicker though, and why I'd vote for Moore.  This is absolutely media manipulation of the highest degree.  Absolutely, they've done it so that Jones wins by default if Moore steps down.  HOWEVER, if Moore wins, that doesn't mean We have Moore the Senator, which is another point that people are missing.

Due to how close to the run off they brought this up, there's no time to really vet the accusations except in the eyes of the media, which is not exactly all that great for getting the real story out there this close to a decision.  If Moore wins, and the truth comes out, it then boils down to several choices.  AT that point, Republican leadership can actually force him to step down and Alabama places in another to take his place.  Moore could fight it, but there is another alternative.  People are under the assumption that there is a statute of limitations, and there is...however in some of the accusations there is NO statute of limitations (Edit: for those interested, if the story related was accurate it falls under Alabama code 15-3-1, 15-3-2, 15-3-5 which has no statute of limitations.  I'm not going into explicit detail of why it would qualify for that as I tend to not want to relate such things personally, but this action has no SoL and hence Moore could still be prosecuted under it).  If Moore is convicted of a crime, I believe Alabama law and the government there would also force him to step down in that instance.  Hence, just because he is elected...does not mean he is going to be a Senator if the items stated are actually verified to be accurate (and it is the verification which is the important part).

On the otherhand, if Doug Jones is elected and this is all proven false, to me that stinks of a stolen election...far more manipulative than anything Russia ever did.  Plus, then we have someone who may have just as many ghosts in their closet, but because the media was on his side outside of Alabama's major city and outside the state, well...they are stuck with him.

If people are against other states interfering with elections, this is absolutely other states trying to interfere and manipulate Alabama's election rather than letting those in Alabama choose.

Thank you for your well thought out response. I may not fully agree with your perspective, but I think I understand it better now. I apologize for my earlier comment. 

[JoCa]

Oh well looky here . . .

http://www.wbrc.com/clip/13905910/former-gadsden-mall-manager-says-roy-moore-wasnt-banned

Hmm. So if Roy Moore was banned from the mall from from 1977-1979 you'd think that the manager of the mall from 1981+ onward would have actually known about it!

Oh but he didn't and the manager who owned the mall from 1977-1981 is dead!  

Oh let's look at this from Gloria Alred:

--------------------------------

Blitzer asked, “Can you say flatly to our viewers right now, Gloria, that the signature, what he wrote in that yearbook in 1977, according to her, can you say flatly that was not a forgery?”

Allred answered, “Well, all I’m saying is we will permit an independent examiner of the writing to look at exemplars of [the] former judge…we will allow all of this to be asked and answered at the hearing.”

After Blitzer pressed, Allred responded, “Well, all I’m saying is we’re not denying, we’re not admitting, we’re not addressing. We will not be distracted, and we will pursue a just result for our client.” She added that she wants analysis of the signature “done in a professional setting to the extent possible. That’s the only setting in which people can testify under oath and that’s what we think is most important.”

--------------------------------------

Oh no, you're just smearing.  I've had this type of excrement of politics played on me personally-you're lying through your teeth, but since you have no morals it doesn't matter to you all that matters to to tarnish the reputation of a good man. If you wanted to prove the case and be honest about it, you would have had a handwritting expert lined up at the press conference to put their reputation on the line that the signature was the same.

Lies, lies, dang lies.  But the damage is done . . .individuals like Grunt (no offense personally meant, just meant as an example of types of people) have already made up their mind and no amount of disproving of the lies will convince them otherwise.

[NeuroTypical]

Talk about Roy Moore?  Ok.  Here's me talking about Roy Moore:

Seriously.  Don't date, or try to date, or propose dating, teen girls when you are in your thirties.  Because it might come back to bite you if you ever need, oh, I don't know, public approval or votes or political support or something.   You might find yourself making public statements like "I don't remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother."  And it puts those who support whatever agenda or influence you have in an awkward position, as they're forced to decide on whether they should try to dump you and lose political power, or try to support you and end up earning the title "person who supports a friggin' creepy peter pan".  

Here's a list of people's daughters.  They're random, coming out of the woodwork.  They don't all know each other.  They're not all part of some club or organization.  They may have a few things in common, but the main one is they're all ticked off enough at Roy Moore to come forward and face the grief/stress/backlash of making such claims.  Most of the claims are just about creepy behavior.  One is a claim that could land a guy in prison for 10 years with a felony conviction if true.  

Leigh Corfman
Wendy Miller
Debbie Wesson Gibson
Gloria Thacker Deason
Beverly Young Nelson
Tina Johnson
Kelly Harrison Thorp
Gena Richardson
Becky Gray

Here's a funny joke for everyone:
Q: Why is NeuroTypical glad he's got a 16 yr old daughter?
A: Because she'll be too old for Roy Moore in a few years.

When you have lived your life in such a way that someone can write such an on-point zinger about you, you have a problem. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Guest Godless]

Update: looks like we have another dirtbag on the chopping block.

[JoCa]

28 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Seriously.  Don't date, or try to date, or propose dating, teen girls when you are in your thirties. 

When you have lived your life in such a way that someone can write such an on-point zinger about you, you have a problem. 

How about just not doing anything that makes enemies b/c they will lie, cheat, steal, do anything to make you look bad.  It's amazing people really don't see where we are as a moral society.  All you need to do is make accusations (several already have been proven false), you can have a squeaky clean record for 40 years but nope that doesn't matter.  Come politics time, people will believe anything . .. 

[JoCa]

31 minutes ago, Godless said:

Update: looks like we have another dirtbag on the chopping block.

Couple of things with this one.  Okay pleeze, Leeann Tweeden . . .she made her career out of selling her body.  How many Playboy spreads, Maxim, FHM, etc. did she do? The military tour she was one she says specifically was made crude/lewd jokes.  The whole point of your career is to sell sex.  What the heck do you think is going to happen when your entire career is based on selling immorality?  So please spare me your fake hypocritical outrage.

Point two she claims he groped her . .. umm did you look at the picture?  The picture does not show him groping her.  The picture shows him acting like he is groping her.  So we don't know whether he actually did or didn't (my guess is he didn't and was simply being a very crude jerk-still totally inappropriate but worthy of jail time and/or expulsion no I don't think so).

It's everyone's 15 min. of fame right now in sexual harassment.  If you are a male-be very, very scared.  I would not work with or associate with any females unless I had to.  All it takes is one baseless accusation and you are toast and of course the female always tells the truth, b/c a woman would never lie about something like this to get back at a man.

Sick, sick world we live in.  He's a witch so burn him, burn him.

Guilty until proven innocent-it's a natural outcome of a godless society.

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[Guest MormonGator]

37 minutes ago, Godless said:

Update: looks like we have another dirtbag on the chopping block.

I have zero love for Al Franken but he at least admitted he was sorry and didn't try to excuse it. That's what a good person does instead of makes excuses or tries to justify their behavior. 

And I wouldn't vote for him even if I was at gunpoint. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by MormonGator

[JoCa]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

 If the allegations are later proved true, I would join in the call for his resignation, and possible incarceration.  On a side note, in general I would probably rather have a wicked man who governs in wisdom or righteously, than a righteous man who governs wickedly or foolishly.  Though the best would be a righteous man who governs in wisdom and righteousness.

I agree except for the bold.  There is a reason why the law has a statute of limitations; to precisely avoid stuff like this. Common law recognizes and acknowledges that if a crime is perpetrated against you, the victim bares some responsibility.  Part of that responsibility is to report the crime immediately, exactly to avoid this stuff-how do you prove or disprove something from 40 years ago?  Even if the yearbook is accurate, it still doesn't prove anything . . .that's why we have the law and why we have reporting requirements.

But again, people have lost their everloving minds, they emotionally see this things happen and then want to burn them at the stake . . . we are going back centuries in time with regard to law. 

I definitely disagree with the second portion; show me one time in scriptures that a wicked man governed in wisdom and righteously and a righteous man who governed wickedly and foolishly.