Let's talk Moore

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Are you saying models give up equal protection under the law?

Would it help if I mentioned the admitted grope happened in 2006, and she didn't pose nude until five years later?

 

1st off.  Franken did not grope her!!  Man, people are sheeple, everyone is losing their minds.  Look at the picture! You can clearly see daylight between his left hand and her body.  He took a mocking picture, dumb, stupid, inappropriate, harassment, etc. But it was not groping.  So let's get those facts straight.  The picture does not show him groping.  It shows him acting like he is groping.

Now, where I come from, there is a big difference between pointing a gun at someone and shooting them.  Both are wrong, but they are different.

2nd off. What Franken did was absolutely wrong . . .however "stealing a kiss" has gone on since the dawn of time.  If she'd been woman enough about it, she would have slapped the ever-living crap out of him. Did she do that, no, she was too "shocked". Oh please.  No, what you have is an absolute coward who sells her body for sex and now b/c she can get fame and fortune comes out against him.   As to the whether she posed nude later, it doesn't matter, we know what she was, she was a whore and she has gone a whoring.  If she were a good Christian girl-this would have never happened.  The wicked are turning on the wicked.

For what purpose, for what end?  What he did was a private problem that all she had to do was smack him across the face. He didn't do anything criminal; yet he will be flown up on the flagpole of lynch mob hysteria.

You really want to go down this road that if a man "steals a kiss" he should be prosecuted, jailed?

This whole lynch mob mentality does not bode well for society.  Why, b/c what it is and will do is drive men away from women.  In the professional world, there is no way in hades I want to be dating, just 1, just 1 false accusation and it doesn't matter, nothing else matters, you are done. 

Man, people need to read history.  Just like the Red Scare, but we are so much better than they were . . .idiots.

[Guest Godless]

4 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Guilty until proven innocent . . .got it. And you are right; you are godless and a godless society by virtue of it being godless must devolve into guilty until proven innocent.

In the court of public opinion, sure. And I think I've adequately explained my reasoning for that.

In a court of law, a person is still innocent until proven guilty. If the allegations against Moore are objectively disproven in a court of law, I will gladly reverse my opinion of him (In terms of him being a pedophile, anyway. There's still plenty of other things to dislike about him from where I sit). 

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

Because you see believers understand that ultimately I, nor you nor anyone else is the ultimate judge and one day, if you have committed a heinous crime. You will stand before God and you will be accountable. Based on that world-view, it is perfectly acceptable that some guilty individuals never get caught.

But in a godless, atheist society all that matters is the here and now.  If someone who is guilty, gets away with it, they will never answer for their "crimes" so it is better to assume one is guilty first and have the innocent prove they are innocent . . .b/c if we don't catch the guilty, no one will.

Again, public opinion vs. court of law. Religious belief has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of good Christians and LDS denouncing people like Moore, because our society has made a collective decision that sexual harassment and sexual assault will no longer be swept under the rug and ignored. The culture is changing, and for once it's changing in a way that people of faith should be happy about. So why are some of the loudest voices defending accused perverts coming from religious conservatives?

[Guest Godless]

5 minutes ago, JoCa said:

If she were a good Christian girl-this would have never happened. 

As it happens, I personally know a few "good Christian girls" who have been victims of sexual assault (and there's a good chance you do as well, whether you realize it or not). And I'm talking about things far worse than light groping or "stealing a kiss".

And FWIW, I don't think anyone has implied that what Franken did is a jailable offense. It's disgusting and repulsive and it's something that voters should know about. But I don't see a prosecutable offense here. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be brought to light. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Godless

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

In the court of public opinion, sure. And I think I've adequately explained my reasoning for that.

In a court of law, a person is still innocent until proven guilty. If the allegations against Moore are objectively disproven in a court of law, I will gladly reverse my opinion of him (In terms of him being a pedophile, anyway. There's still plenty of other things to dislike about him from where I sit). 

Again, public opinion vs. court of law. Religious belief has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of good Christians and LDS denouncing people like Moore, because our society has made a collective decision that sexual harassment and sexual assault will no longer be swept under the rug and ignored. The culture is changing, and for once it's changing in a way that people of faith should be happy about. So why are some of the loudest voices defending accused perverts coming from religious conservatives?

That is an evil ideology.  You obviously have not read history.  It has happened before and will happen again.  As soon as you go down this route, bad things happen.  It is not that far of a step from public opinion to law.  You state so yourself.  

The bolded is false; he can't prove it objectively false in a court of law and you know it. It will never be brought to a court of law; b/c it can't.  You have set up a standard that can not be met unless you change the laws. 

And that is what will happen.

Oh my gosh (2nd bold).  You have no clue . . . 

 

[JoCa]

10 minutes ago, Godless said:

As it happens, I personally know a few "good Christian girls" who have been victims of sexual assault (and there's a good chance you do as well, whether you realize it or not). And I'm talking about things far worse than light groping or "stealing a kiss".

And FWIW, I don't think anyone has implied that what Franken did is a jailable offense. It's disgusting and repulsive and it's something that voters should know about. But I don't see a prosecutable offense here. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be brought to light. 

Yeah, I do, my wife so you can take a long walk off a short pier . . ..

Mob mentality . . .that's all this is, mob mentality.  Hey you remember that time you got drunk and said some things.  As much as we like to claim we are a better society, we are worse b/c there is 0 room for people to make mistakes in today's world and that is a travesty.  You get drunk, say something stupid and boom your life is over-nothing criminal but just something stupid.  And some things, in fact most things unless they are criminal should just be forgotten and moved on from.

As much as you like to think Christians should cheer for this crap, you forget one of the key tenants of Christianity, forgiveness.

So all these people who are "Christian" who castigate Moore for possibly dating underage girls-they are the worst Christians . . .Look at the entirety of the man's life, look at his record, look at what he has done all the good.  Not at some idiotic thing that was not criminal that may or may not have happened 40 years ago. With what judgement ye met, that which you will be judged.

And thus you get evil men in office b/c their are very few good Christians who want to deal with their entire lives being destroyed over something stupid they might have done decades ago.  Evil men don't care.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[Grunt]

Now you folks are just arguing to argue.  Unless something new arises, I'm out.

[Guest Godless]

26 minutes ago, JoCa said:

It is not that far of a step from public opinion to law.  

George Zimmerman, OJ Simpson, and Casey Anthoney would beg to differ. They're hated individuals to this day, but they are hated individuals who were aqcuitted of wrongdoing in a court of law. They are living examples that the court of law trumps the court of public opinion. They can't control how people feel about them any more than Moore can, but at the end of the day they aren't in prison.  

26 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Yeah, I do, my wife so you can take a long walk off a short pier . . ..

I am truly sorry to hear that. I wasn't trying to make assumptions about you or your loved ones, and I apologize if it seemed that I was. 

26 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Mob mentality . . .that's all this is, mob mentality.  Hey you remember that time you got drunk and said some things.  As much as we like to claim we are a better society, we are worse b/c there is 0 room for people to make mistakes in today's world and that is a travesty.  You get drunk, say something stupid and boom your life is over-nothing criminal but just something stupid.  And some things, in fact most things unless they are criminal should just be forgotten and moved on from.

As someone who interacts with drunk people professionally, it has always been my opinion/observation that a person's ideology doesn't change with the consumption of alcohol, but their filter does. I have said embarassing things while drunk. I have never said racist, misogynistic, or homophobic things while drunk because I am not a racist, misogynist, or a homophobe. Do you really think that Mel Gibson only hates Jewish people when he's drunk? Because I don't believe that for a second. 

26 minutes ago, JoCa said:

As much as you like to think Christians should cheer for this crap, you forget one of the key tenants of Christianity, forgiveness.

So all these people who are "Christian" who castigate Moore for possibly dating underage girls-they are the worst Christians . . .Look at the entirety of the man's life, look at his record, look at what he has done all the good.  Not at some idiotic thing that was not criminal that may or may not have happened 40 years ago. With what judgement ye met, that which you will be judged.

If you think a lifetime of good deeds is enough to wash away some vile indiscretions, then there are some Catholic priests who would probably love to be your friend. Your brand of forgiveness sets a dangerous precedent. It tells young men that it's okay to have a few missteps with the opposite gender so long as everything else you do in your life is good and godly. 

I want to share with you the story of someone close to me. Her story is very public (of her own choosing) and I have her permission to share it, but still I will refrain from going into too much detail as to her identity. This individual is a returned missionary. Her mission was the greatest experience of her adult life, and she continues to draw spiritual strength from that experience. Last year she got engaged to a young man, also a RM, who she felt was her spiritual equal. A couple of months before the wedding, it was revealed that he had placed hidden cameras inside her dorm room and bathroom to spy on her and her roommates. After the cameras were discovered, he immediately confessed and turned himself in to the police. Her story got quite a bit of attention around campus because in a society that is quick to vilify and demonize individuals like him, she and her roommates were quick to forgiveness. She still saw all the good in him despite what he had done. HOWEVER, she still pressed charges because she recognized that he had a debt to pay to society for what he had done. It was a very painful ordeal that she is still recovering from. She couldn't bring herself to hate him, but she still saw the necessity of punishing him for the crime he committed. Because otherwise, even as good as he supposedly is, he would very likely commit the same crime again. THAT'S what Christian forgiveness looks like. She's a better person than I am. Heck, she's probably a better person than most Christians. But I wouldn't be so quick to label a desire for mortal justice as unChristian. 

[JoCa]

13 minutes ago, Godless said:

George Zimmerman, OJ Simpson, and Casey Anthoney would beg to differ. They're hated individuals to this day, but they are hated individuals who were aqcuitted of wrongdoing in a court of law. They are living examples that the court of law trumps the court of public opinion. They can't control how people feel about them any more than Moore can, but at the end of the day they aren't in prison.  

I am truly sorry to hear that. I wasn't trying to make assumptions about you or your loved ones, and I apologize if it seemed that I was. 

As someone who interacts with drunk people professionally, it has always been my opinion/observation that a person's ideology doesn't change with the consumption of alcohol, but their filter does. I have said embarassing things while drunk. I have never said racist, misogynistic, or homophobic things while drunk because I am not a racist, misogynist, or a homophobe. Do you really think that Mel Gibson only hates Jewish people when he's drunk? Because I don't believe that for a second. 

If you think a lifetime of good deeds is enough to wash away some vile indiscretions, then there are some Catholic priests who would probably love to be your friend. Your brand of forgiveness sets a dangerous precedent. It tells young men that it's okay to have a few missteps with the opposite gender so long as everything else you do in your life is good and godly. 

I want to share with you the story of someone close to me. Her story is very public (of her own choosing) and I have her permission to share it, but still I will refrain from going into too much detail as to her identity. This individual is a returned missionary. Her mission was the greatest experience of her adult life, and she continues to draw spiritual strength from that experience. Last year she got engaged to a young man, also a RM, who she felt was her spiritual equal. A couple of months before the wedding, it was revealed that he had placed hidden cameras inside her dorm room and bathroom to spy on her and her roommates. After the cameras were discovered, he immediately confessed and turned himself in to the police. Her story got quite a bit of attention around campus because in a society that is quick to vilify and demonize individuals like him, she and her roommates were quick to forgiveness. She still saw all the good in him despite what he had done. HOWEVER, she still pressed charges because she recognized that he had a debt to pay to society for what he had done. It was a very painful ordeal that she is still recovering from. She couldn't bring herself to hate him, but she still saw the necessity of punishing him for the crime he committed. Because otherwise, even as good as he supposedly is, he would very likely commit the same crime again. THAT'S what Christian forgiveness looks like. She's a better person than I am. Heck, she's probably a better person than most Christians. But I wouldn't be so quick to label a desire for mortal justice as unChristian. 

I understand GZ, OJ Simpson, etc. it gives people something to talk about that's fine. Whatever. I don't really care about them; they don't affect my life, never have, never will.  Who gets elected to Congress, that will affect my life and my children's.

To the bold, let's get this straight; you want to be the judge, the jury and the executioner for Roy Moore.  The story you relate has nothing to do with this case.  In one situation-the actual true situation of sexual abuse the abused presses charges!!! As they should, there is enough evidence to at least indict.  I'm okay with that . . .if there is enough evidence to indict not big deal.

But in this case . . .even if the incident happened 5 years ago, there is not enough evidence to indict. 

Just face it Godless, you are already predisposed to believe that Roy Moore is guilty b/c 1) you have friends who have sexual abuse stories 2) you have no belief in God and therefore the idea that someone could actually have a firm believe in God and be a moral individual their entire life is an anthema to you.  3) You would really, really, really love to see Roy Moore go down b/c as an atheist the worst thing is that there actually is a God.  It serves as confirmation bias that their is no God "look at all these self-righteous individuals who are no more moral than me".

Finally, even if he did everything he was accused of it does not make him a pedophile (man it really irks me when people use words incorrectly):

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

Having sex with a minor is not never has been and never will be pedophilia. It is having sex with a minor, which society has currently decided is morally wrong . . .but who knows check back in 30 years and we'll probably find true pedophilia embraced. 

To the last bold; I never said that and don't agree with that. A Christian duty is to understand that people are innocent until proven guilty, if it is the reverse society goes down a very, very bad path.

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, JoCa said:

1st off.  Franken did not grope her!!  Man, people are sheeple, everyone is losing their minds.  Look at the picture! You can clearly see daylight between his left hand and her body.  He took a mocking picture, dumb, stupid, inappropriate, harassment, etc. But it was not groping.  So let's get those facts straight.  The picture does not show him groping.  It shows him acting like he is groping.

 

She was asleep, and so did not consent to the picture. So, he did not grope, but he violated her--AFTER already being told sternly that she wanted no kissing or sexual contact with him whatsoever. This picture could even be perceived as harassment, given she had already told him his sexual advances had crossed a line. They were not friends, nor even friendly colleagues. Fine-tooth comb this, if you want. You win the debate point on it not being a verified grope (who knows for sure if he did or didn't). However, there's not much sunlight difference, imho, between groping and taking suggestive photos with someone who is asleep and has previously told you to BACK OFF.

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, JoCa said:

2nd off. What Franken did was absolutely wrong . . .however "stealing a kiss" has gone on since the dawn of time.  If she'd been woman enough about it, she would have slapped the ever-living crap out of him. Did she do that, no, she was too "shocked". Oh please.  No, what you have is an absolute coward who sells her body for sex and now b/c she can get fame and fortune comes out against him.   As to the whether she posed nude later, it doesn't matter, we know what she was, she was a whore and she has gone a whoring.  If she were a good Christian girl-this would have never happened.  The wicked are turning on the wicked.

 

This is horrible. "Stealing a kiss" in my line of work would get me up to 15-years in prison and a life-time label as a sex-offender. No means no. Your contention that if a woman does not fight back no wrong was done is equally horrible. "Fight or flight" is a myth. 80% freeze when confronted with an instant crisis. It's also bizarre that you equate modeling with prostitution, and insinuating that she got what she had coming. Frankly, I'm not at all certain she would not have experienced the imposed kiss had she been a sincere Christian. Sometimes predators find the innocent even more enticing. Let's not forget Elizabeth Smart.

Edited November 16, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[JoCa]

Just now, prisonchaplain said:

She was asleep, and so did not consent to the picture. So, he did not grope, but he violated her--AFTER already being told sternly that she wanted no kissing or sexual contact with him whatsoever. This picture could even be perceived as harassment, given she had already told him his sexual advances had crossed a line. They were not friends, nor even friendly colleagues. Fine-tooth comb this, if you want. You win the debate point on it not being a verified grope (who knows for sure if he did or didn't). However, there's not much sunlight difference, imho, between groping and taking suggestive photos with someone who is asleep and has previously told you to BACK OFF.

Thank you! Details are important here (but of course in the modern day lynch mob mentality, details don't mean squat-this is exactly how blacks were hung in the 60s, exactly how the Red Scare happened, exactly how the Salem Witch Trials happened, etc. etc. etc.).  

But again after she allegedly told him to back off.  She even admits that she had reservations about rehearsing the kissing . . . but did it anyways and then is shocked, shocked I tell you when he actually kissed her.  Please any self respecting woman would have never put herself into that situation.

10 years after the fact; I'm sorry I just get really, really sick of old allegations popping up for political gain or b/c someone wants their 15 min. or b/c they feel "empowered" now.  Oh please give me a break, you feel "empowered" just now.  I don't buy it in the least bit.  Really grow up . . .modern feminist/women in today's society want to act all empowered but never, not once actually stood up for themselves when the incident happened.  

They didn't slap the jerk, hit him, etc.  no, they were cowards in a corner and then at the opportune moment brought it out.

I agree what is confirmed (i.e. the picture) is totally inappropriate, I don't agree with it, I don't approve of it . . .but if that is the standard of conduct we are setting as to whether one should be publicly flogged in society then boy oh boy pain is coming for this culture.

[JoCa]

3 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

This is horrible. "Stealing a kiss" in my line of work would get me up to 15-years in prison and a life-time label as a sex-offender. No means no. Your contention that if a woman does not fight back no wrong was done is equally horrible. "Fight or flight" is a myth. 80% freeze when confronted with an instant crisis. It's also bizarre that you equate modeling with prostitution, and insinuating that she got what she had coming. Frankly, I'm not at all certain she would not have experienced the imposed kiss had she been a sincere Christian. Sometimes predators find the innocent even more enticing. Let's not forget Elizabeth Smart.

??? What, okay I'd like to see what line of work you are in.  First off she didn't say NO . . .oh my goodness, did you read what she wrote.  He asked to practice, she said she didn't want to and then he persisted and she said yes ... that's sexual harassment?  Did she tell him, "now when we practice, don't actually kiss me" No she didn't.  

I guess a man should never ask a women out on a date multiple times b/c NO MEANS NO!!!  

[JoCa]

12 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

 "Fight or flight" is a myth. 80% freeze when confronted with an instant crisis. It's also bizarre that you equate modeling with prostitution, and insinuating that she got what she had coming. Frankly, I'm not at all certain she would not have experienced the imposed kiss had she been a sincere Christian. Sometimes predators find the innocent even more enticing. Let's not forget Elizabeth Smart.

BS. Total BS.  Yes people freeze for a second and then instincts kick in.  Two the 2nd . . .have you never seen pictures of her, prostituting her body? I'd link but unfortunately it wouldn't be SFW. 

Her "modeling" is at best soft-core porn. Oh I forgot that's what they call it these days "modeling"  yeah right.

Yeah, I am saying if you swim with the bottom-feeding muck-rackers don't be shocked when you get crap flung on you.  

Oh . . .I get it, in today's society a woman should . . .it's her dang right don't you know.. . .walk around totally naked and never no not once get a cat-call or be leered at or any rude comments.  And if she does, well that man should go to Hell b/c he's an evil brute a beast that isn't worthy to live. Because don't ya know, she's always right!  

What you are asking for is an impossible standard.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[Just_A_Guy]

My thoughts on Moore are thus:

In this day and age, I don’t think much of a grown man who dates women who are significantly his inferiors—whether in age, life experience, education, intellect, social status, profession, etc.  A real man isn’t threatened by a woman who can hold her own in his presence.  It’s not *illegal* or *sinful*, sure—but it’s awful weaselly; and I’m inclined to view such a male as an unmanly cad.

Without more, that distaste would naturally disincline me to support Moore—except that his opponent seems to be a typical Democrat spouting all the liberal shibboleths.  All other things being equal, if I were an Alabaman I’d probably hold my nose and vote for Moore—all the while noting publicly that Moore is a textbook example of a so-called “beta male” who can’t handle a woman within ten years of his old age.  Put Moore against a fundamentally decent, non-predatory candidate of generally reliable conservatism—Jeff Flake, say; or Romney or McMullin—and I’d turn on Moore in a heartbeat.  D&C 98:10, 1 Kings 19:18, and all that.

But the actually illegal stuff, if true, is a game-changer.  And the trouble is, anyone who says they know those allegations to be true (or false) is simply lying.  Only Moore and his accusers know for sure; the rest of us are spitting into the wind.  I don’t dismiss the possibility of dirty tricks here.  My current job title is “assistant attorney general”, but I have NEVER signed my name “Just_A_Guy, AAG” out of court; and I don’t know any of my co-workers or out-of-state counterparts who have done so—much less on a document they knew could link them back to illegal behavior at some undefined future date.  The first time I heard about that yearbook, my gut said it was probably a forgery.  But really, I’m not sure.

And it seems to me that the Republicans have an awfully deep bench of solid politicos who *haven’t* been accused of sex with underaged teens and who, unlike Moore, haven’t lived in such a way as to make such allegations seem credible.  I think it’s still politically expedient for us to decline to elevate those whose own conduct has placed them under a question mark.  I think the least-bad policy here (which Ben Shapiro recently pitched) would have been for Trump to lead a call to dump Moore and get behind a write-in—maybe bring Strange back, or invite Sessions or Shelby to resign their current posts and run for that seat.  

Edited November 16, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But it seems to me that the Republicans have an awfully deep bench of solid politicos who *haven’t* been accused of sex with underaged teens; and I think it’s still politically expedient for us to decline to elevate those who are living under a question mark.  I think the least-bad policy here (which Ben Shapiro recently pitched) would have been for Trump to lead a call to dump Moore and get behind a write-in—maybe bring Strange back, or invite Sessions or Shelby to resign their current posts and run for that seat.  

I would generally agree JAG and it's a decent thought out response, except people don't understand the political process.   That is why they did this b/c the 2nd bold is just an impossibility.  A write-in?? Oh my goodness, they never succeed (Lisa Murkowski not withstanding).

You can't legally take his name off the ballot! And even if you could and did, you are going to do so over allegations?  Either Moore wins or the seat goes to the Democrat, period end of story.

Here is what you actually do if you want to really solve the problem; you allow the vote to be held, you push everyone to vote for Moore and then the Senate could easily censure him for ethics violations if there is a preponderance of evidence.

This was all done right now specifically b/c there are no other options left.  You can't postpone the election, you can't write-in, it is a political hit job.  I completely agree if these allegations came out 2 years ago, yeah fine find someone else . . .they didn't.

[Guest Godless]

 

Quote

2) you have no belief in God and therefore the idea that someone could actually have a firm believe in God and be a moral individual their entire life is an anthema to you. 

No, it's not. Unlike some Christians (and some atheists too, probably), I'm not naive enough to think that my worldview has a monopoly on morality. There are very good people in every religious worldview. Some of the best people I know are Christians. I also know very good people who are Muslim, Jewish, and Mormon. And guess what, not only do I know some horrible people in those religions, but I also know some pretty contemptable atheists. I don't know what kind of atheists you've met, but I can assure you that I'm not shallow enough to judge people strictly on their religious affiliation. 

Quote

3) You would really, really, really love to see Roy Moore go down b/c as an atheist the worst thing is that there actually is a God.  It serves as confirmation bias that their is no God "look at all these self-righteous individuals who are no more moral than me".

Wrong again. Bad Christians don't disprove their religion any more than good Christians prove it. IMO, Christianity (and other theist religions) are flawed enough on their own merits. I don't need their followers to confirm it for me. And that doesn't mean that I don't see the positive influence that religion has in the world. I do, and I have an immense amount of respect for it. Religion may be flawed in my mind, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a force for good in the world. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Godless

[JoCa]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And the trouble is, anyone who says they know those allegations to be true (or false) is simply lying.  

True but boy there is a lot of smoke coming from Gloria Alred that indicates that story is 100% false.

[JoCa]

5 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

No, it's not. Unlike some Christians (and some atheists too, probably), I'm not naive enough to think that my worldview has a monopoly on morality. There are very good people in every religious worldview. 

I totally agree . . .but there is a reason why the most free and prosperous countries in the history of the world were Christian.

And I do like your response . . . I guess the point being is most people have probably never been in a situation where their livelihood is on the line due to horrible accusations. 

I have been; it's horrible, it sucks and sometimes there are just bad people in this world who want to take you down and when these evil people decide to throw a bomb your way . . .there is nothing you can do to stop it. 

And when you sit on that side of the table being accused of things you would never do in a million years and no one believes you and you lose your job because of it . . .man that causes some real soul searching. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[Just_A_Guy]

8 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I would generally agree JAG and it's a decent thought out response, except people don't understand the political process.   That is why they did this b/c the 2nd bold is just an impossibility.  A write-in?? Oh my goodness, they never succeed (Lisa Murkowski not withstanding).

You can't legally take his name off the ballot! And even if you could and did, you are going to do so over allegations?  Either Moore wins or the seat goes to the Democrat, period end of story.

Here is what you actually do if you want to really solve the problem; you allow the vote to be held, you push everyone to vote for Moore and then the Senate could easily censure him for ethics violations if there is a preponderance of evidence.

This was all done right now specifically b/c there are no other options left.  You can't postpone the election, you can't write-in, it is a political hit job.  I completely agree if these allegations came out 2 years ago, yeah fine find someone else . . .they didn't.

It would work if the party chose to unite.  But given the state of things, the only one who could unite the party is Trump himself; and he seems inclined to stay out of it.  Even if he chose to take a stand, he has unclean hands—it’s David, unable to intervene in his sons’ feud over Tamar’s rape because David’s own sin with Bathsheba.

A Senate censure is meaningless unless they actually refuse to seat Moore; and we’ve seen that movie twice before during Moore’s time as Chief Justice—it’ll make him a martyr to the Washington bureaucracy; and his base will rally and send him back. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[JoCa]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It would work if the party chose to unite.  But given the state of things, the only one who could unite the party is Trump himself; and he seems inclined to stay out of it.

As he should.  The states get to decide, not the President . . it would set a very bad precedent for him to get involved in overturning the primary voters of Alabama.

[JoCa]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

we’ve seen that movie twice before during Moore’s time as Chief Justice

You disagree with the stands he took?

[Just_A_Guy]

Just now, JoCa said:

As he should.  The states get to decide, not the President . . it would set a very bad precedent for him to get involved in overturning the primary voters of Alabama.

As opposed to . . . say . . . inserting himself into an NFL labor dispute.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

You disagree with the stands he took?

I don’t know about them to say for sure, though my point was the political implications rather than the actual rightness or wrongness thereof.

[Guest Godless]

10 minutes ago, JoCa said:

 

And I do like your response . . . I guess the point being is most people have probably never been in a situation where their livelihood is on the line due to horrible accusations. 

I have been; it's horrible, it sucks and sometimes there are just bad people in this world who want to take you down and when these evil people decide to throw a bomb your way . . .there is nothing you can do to stop it. 

And when you sit on that side of the table being accused of things you would never do in a million years and no one believes you and you lose your job because of it . . .man that causes some real soul searching. 

You're right. Most people have never been in that position. My FIL was, and while he may be many less-than-desirable things, a misogynist isn't one of them (I know, I've seen him drunk on many occasions ). He was fortunate not to lose his job (the accusations against him were fairly minor, and ultimately disproven). I'm sorry that your experience was less fortunate, I truly am. It's clear to me that we both have very emotional takes on this situation based on personal experiences. I think I'm going to step away from this discussion for a bit and get back to selling beer. 

[prisonchaplain]

48 minutes ago, JoCa said:

??? What, okay I'd like to see what line of work you are in.  First off she didn't say NO . . .oh my goodness, did you read what she wrote.  He asked to practice, she said she didn't want to and then he persisted and she said yes ... that's sexual harassment? 

I am a prison chaplain, and I was drawing an extreme--if a staff person were to kiss an inmate it would be considered sexual contact, and the potential of doing time would be very real.  She did say no, and he used his position as a big star to pressure her into "practicing." Then, instead of the mock-kisses that are common in such shows, he went full-on with a forced French kiss.  YES, that is sexual harassment. And, yes, if an employee says to another employee that dating is not wanted, and the other persists, it can quickly become sexual harassment.