Let's talk Moore

[estradling75]

I am disgusted by the whole trial in the court of public opinion... (and I have been for like ever)

Serious charges like this demand, serious investigation and a careful weighing of the evidence, testimonies, and law.  It is the only way we can have any hope of seeing justice.

These media fed show trials are nothing even remotely close to what needs to happen.  And everyone (including posters in this thread) are feeding it

[prisonchaplain]

49 minutes ago, JoCa said:

BS. Total BS.  Yes people freeze for a second and then instincts kick in. 

Not always, and probably not usually. First there is the shock, then the freeze. Then the guilt that she should have already done something, then the 2nd-guessing and sense of futility. The incident gets stuffed, and then, in an era like this, where people are feeling free to expose such incidents, the realization that the truth can be known at last. 

[prisonchaplain]

52 minutes ago, JoCa said:

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.

She's not LDS, and we're not even sure if she claims any religious observance. Even if she were, it would be up to her spiritual leadership to counsel her about such matters. We cannot hold her to our standards. She is a model and did/does not sell sexual favors. Even if she did, it is rape to force oneself on a prostitute.

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

The blunt truth: guilt and innocence are legal terms, not terms in the political arena. Politics is a tough game, and it's not a fair game. If you want a fair game, play chess or checkers. Wisely, many GOP leaders have thrown him under the bus. You tell Roy here that "It's not personal, just politics. We need to keep the seat and we have better odds with Mr. Smith than we do with Mr. Moore." Why people have grown to love this guy is beyond me.

It's Alabama. Probably the most red state in the union. I say that as a registered republican by the way, not a pejorative. I want the GOP to win. The GOP can easily, easily easily find someone just as conservative who doesn't have the baggage. 

I believe right now, they cannot.  It's too late to put anyone else on the ticket (especially in a run off).  If Moore steps down, Jones wins by default is the basic way of putting it.

NOW, if Moore wins, they then can replace him if he steps down AFTER winning.  But he would need to win first.

I think with most of them trying to distance themselves away from him, it's more about self preservation of their own seat in that type of politics than anything else.  Personal opinion of course.

As for Moore being the outsider like Trump...didn't Trump actually support Luthor Strange.  Despite him deleting his tweet about it, I'm pretty sure Luthor Strange was Trump's guy...not Moore.  (that's a response to JoCa by the way, not specifically to you, gator).

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, JoCa said:

40 years ago man, 40 years ago.  I'm sure 40 years from now people will say.  How could it be that Joe Blow ever held an opinion that homosexuals shouldn't marry . . .what an evil, degraded person.  Judging people on actions they took 40 years ago, that were not criminal then. and fitting it into today's culture is morally wrong.

What actions today are you doing that in 40 years will be looked upon society as evil, wrong, bad?  That's why we have statute of limitations.

I have relatives who married 8 years apart the the woman was 18 when the married; they are happily married 40 years later which is a heck of a lot longer than probably 60% of marriages.  Get off your high-horse.

Actually, if he did do the things he is accused of to a 14 year old, I think it actually was a criminal act at that point in time, and has been since around the 1920s (I think that's when the age of consent was raised to 16 in Alabama, or somewhere around that time).  It's a different category than if they were elementary age kids, but still, just as much a crime I think. 

It's the oddities of Laws.  Marriage to a 14 year old...legal with parental permission.  Age of consent...16.  It's a weird and strange situation.

Still...at 30 asking teenagers out.  Even more odd, high school girls.  That's a little screwed up I'd think.

[JoCa]

28 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

 She is a model and did/does not sell sexual favors. Even if she did, it is rape to force oneself on a prostitute.

Yes, I do agree it is rape to force oneself on a prostitute . . .the person who commits the crime has a responsibility and if they commit a crime be prosecuted for it. Period! 

But to say that the "model" . . . have you ever seen pictures of the woman?  Obviously not, but she was/is a low grade porn model.

Why in the world is it so hard for people to just say, yes in many cases the "victim" has a personal responsibility, i.e. if you don't want men to leer at you make crude jokes, then don't put yourself in a situation where that will happen.

It's this idiotic ideology that I should be able to do whatever I want, I should be able to be a porn model (which is really what she was, she got paid for strutting her stuff around in highly sexualized magazine, her tour was even sexualized) and then get to claim . . ."well I was just an innocent little victim". 

When your whole career is based on exciting the base animal instincts in man and then the man actually acts out, claiming your a "victim" does a disservice to woman who are truly victims who have never encouraged a man's base instinct by their dress, their actions, etc. 

Again, I know my wife was assaulted.  To compare this woman and this incident to actual victims makes a travesty out of actual victims. 

What the guy did was wrong. Period.

But to let the woman who's whole career (except for when she got older and didn't have quite as much sex appeal) was geared towards getting a rise out of men, skate through this like she is just some innocent poor little victim is hypocrisy.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think with most of them trying to distance themselves away from him, it's more about self preservation of their own seat in that type of politics than anything else. 

I agree it's complete virtue signaling.

[Guest Godless]

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

As for Moore being the outsider like Trump...didn't Trump actually support Luthor Strange.  Despite him deleting his tweet about it, I'm pretty sure Luthor Strange was Trump's guy...not Moore.  (that's a response to JoCa by the way, not specifically to you, gator).

The way I understand it (and I could be very wrong about this), Moore was Trump's candidate, but Trump publicly threw in his support from Strange because he was going to need Strange's help in the Senate between the primary election and next month's election. It's worth noting that Strange was backed by Steve Bannon in the primary. 

[JoCa]

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

As for Moore being the outsider like Trump...didn't Trump actually support Luthor Strange.  Despite him deleting his tweet about it, I'm pretty sure Luthor Strange was Trump's guy...not Moore.  (that's a response to JoCa by the way, not specifically to you, gator).

Politics . . . if you look at the reasons, etc. he endorsed Strange b/c he needed to for political reasons.  Trump ain't no dummy . . .

[JoCa]

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

The way I understand it (and I could be very wrong about this), Moore was Trump's candidate, but Trump publicly threw in his support from Strange because he was going to need Strange's help in the Senate between the primary election and next month's election. It's worth noting that Strange was backed by Steve Bannon in the primary. 

That's a negative ghostrider. Bannon backed Moore.

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-rally-alabama-luther-strange-2017-9

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/steve-bannon-demands-review-of-trumps-luther-strange-endorsement/article/2635587

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[Guest Godless]

2 minutes ago, JoCa said:

That's a negative ghostrider. Bannon backed Moore.

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-rally-alabama-luther-strange-2017-9

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/steve-bannon-demands-review-of-trumps-luther-strange-endorsement/article/2635587

Ugh, that's what I meant. Got the names switched. My bad. 

[JoCa]

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Actually, if he did do the things he is accused of to a 14 year old, I think it actually was a criminal act at that point in time, and has been since around the 1920s (I think that's when the age of consent was raised to 16 in Alabama, or somewhere around that time).  It's a different category than if they were elementary age kids, but still, just as much a crime I think. 

It's the oddities of Laws.  Marriage to a 14 year old...legal with parental permission.  Age of consent...16.  It's a weird and strange situation.

Still...at 30 asking teenagers out.  Even more odd, high school girls.  That's a little screwed up I'd think.

It might have been a criminal act . . .I haven't read anything where he allegedly exposed himself (that would be a crime). I'm not confident even if the story went the way the alleger said it did that he would be prosecuted.

As for the "oh she was so scared she wouldn't report it"

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/11/16/sylvester-stallone-accused-assaulting-teenage-girl/

(It's a little graphic in the middle).  But in 1987 (10 years after the alleged incident), a girl filed a police report. She was 16, stallone much older.  Now that is what you call a case.  You show me a police report from 1977-1979, I'll flip so fast I'll make your head spin.

[JohnsonJones]

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

The way I understand it (and I could be very wrong about this), Moore was Trump's candidate, but Trump publicly threw in his support from Strange because he was going to need Strange's help in the Senate between the primary election and next month's election. It's worth noting that Strange was backed by Steve Bannon in the primary. 

Interesting.  Didn't help Strange though.  If anything (kind of funny in a way), it may have even hurt Strange.  Trump supporters would say the exact opposite, but I think Trump is political poison to people these days.

Of interest, one of the cases that Moore ruled on that directly relates to the accusations against him now, was brought up I that campaign...

That's one of those instances when these accusations SHOULD have been brought up as it could have had a direct relation on whether Moore was even fit to make a call on that case.

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

It might have been a criminal act . . .I haven't read anything where he allegedly exposed himself (that would be a crime). I'm not confident even if the story went the way the alleger said it did that he would be prosecuted.

As for the "oh she was so scared she wouldn't report it"

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/11/16/sylvester-stallone-accused-assaulting-teenage-girl/

(It's a little graphic in the middle).  But in 1987 (10 years after the alleged incident), a girl filed a police report. She was 16, stallone much older.  Now that is what you call a case.  You show me a police report from 1977-1979, I'll flip so fast I'll make your head spin.

In regards to Moore, I'm not going into detail, but it was FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR worse then exposing himself.  It was just about what one would consider rape of a minor, but just short of the full act.  However, it's distasteful enough and involves stuff I consider a little too vulgur to go into detail about.  It is all online though, if you wish to find it.

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Interesting.  Didn't help Strange though.  If anything (kind of funny in a way), it may have even hurt Strange.  Trump supporters would say the exact opposite, but I think Trump is political poison to people these days.

Of interest, one of the cases that Moore ruled on that directly relates to the accusations against him now, was brought up I that campaign...

That's one of those instances when these accusations SHOULD have been brought up as it could have had a direct relation on whether Moore was even fit to make a call on that case.

Exactly!

[prisonchaplain]

@JoCa If it's any consolation, feminist are just as disgusted by porn as we are--for different reasons (objectification of females). I would counsel my daughters in much the way you are talking. Sometimes the unbelieving even come around to our views on a few things. I just read an article by a liberal sociologist, and she admitted her grandfather was right about the saying that men won't buy the cow (marry) when the milk is so very free (thanks Tinder!). My deal is that we do well to teach our young women about chastity and modesty, but gain very little traction when we lecture older, secular woman. On the other hand, there is near universal agreement that men should not pressure women for sexual favors. That is our common ground with the culture--that is our arena where 'salt and light' can be effective.

Edited November 16, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[JoCa]

12 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In regards to Moore, I'm not going into detail, but it was FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR worse then exposing himself.  It was just about what one would consider rape of a minor, but just short of the full act.  However, it's distasteful enough and involves stuff I consider a little too vulgur to go into detail about.  It is all online though, if you wish to find it.

Not really . . .I've read the account and shoving towards an unexposed body part is definitely assault no doubt . . .it's just that even if it went the way she said it did . . .unless there was physical evidence (bruises on the neck) you couldn't convict on it.

It's why these things are so damaging politically b/c you can make the claim all day long damage someone's reputation and there is literally nothing the accused can do about it.  Even if they "win" they still lose.

It's a perverse twisted society, b/c you see we are teaching young women that all you need to do is make an accusation and you can get revenge.  Instead we need to be teaching our daughters, look someone tries to assault you . . you beat the ever-living snot out of them. You kick, you slap, you hit, you get physical evidence, you make sure you leave a mark and then you immediately go to the police.

Not this wussy, "oh you poor thing, you were so scared, you were totally powerless" , which surprisingly enough actually plays against what the feminist would have you believe.  If women are so "strong and powerful" why didn't you do anything when it happened.  Oh now you are so "strong and powerful", 15+ years after the fact-give me a break.  If that is the case, then quite frankly you don't need to be in the work force, you need to be at home with a strong man who will protect you.

So which is it feminazis? Are women so weak, docile, and powerless that they can't fend off a man when the attack happens? Or are they so "strong and powerful" they can break glass ceilings?  The hypocrisy is stunning.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

9 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@JoCa If it's any consolation, feminist are just as disgusted by porn as we are--for different reasons (objectification of females). I would counsel my daughters in much the way you are talking. Sometimes the unbelieving even come around to our views on a few things. I just read an article by a liberal sociologist, and she admitted her grandfather was right about the saying that men won't buy the cow (marry) when the milk is so very free (thanks Tinder!). My deal is that we do well to teach our young women about chastity and modesty, but gain very little traction when we lecture older, secular woman. On the other hand, there is near universal agreement that men should not pressure women for sexual favors. That is our common ground with the culture--that is our arena where 'salt and light' can be effective.

prisonchaplain, I agree with much of what you say, I think it a pretty well reasoned response.

I don't think the first sentence is all that true but that's a minor quibble.  Unfortunately with the bolded section . . . I agree with you men should not do that.  But you can't have one without the other; if you want a society where men do not pressure women for sexual favors then you also must have a society where women do not go around sexualizing themselves for the gratification of men.

You can't have one without the other. And it is in fact the feminist goal, totally completely emasculate men.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour 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.

You encapsulated right there why it stinks to high heaven of a political assassination.  It was perfectly timed for this, and leaves very little thought that there was any other motivations other than political assassination.  There is a time and a place for this type of stuff to be handled in a proper manner, and the timing of it was NOT IT. 

With 40 years to do this, the best time would have been when there was still time to make a difference on the ballot, OR right after to eviscerate him and then have him step down...thus the election is done and Moore can be killed off (politically) without any of the moral quandaries that are hitting people right now.  A replacement could be found at that point, and it would be far easier as a whole for everything (including prosecuting him...this reveal did NOTHING to help in that and if anything may hinder investigators a LOT more because you now may have a LOT more false flags than reliable evidence coming out, at least until the election is over.  Then the best bet is to somehow have the Moore stuff die down so you can weed out the noise and get to the important facts of the case).  Politically it's great timing, to build a case this is absolutely the worst timing for a reveal like this. 

It's like the entire Clinton email fiasco.  You're screwed if you charge, screwed if you don't, but probably far more screwed if you charge her.  If you charge her you are seen as purposefully interfering with the election, as that puts her in prison and a whole bunch of other things at a point where a candidate cannot really be feasibly replaced.  If you don't, it still may be seen as interference, but it is the lesser of the two evils.  The only real choice then is to not charge.

I think the only situation here is to try to make charges on Moore after the election if the accusations hold water and the victims are willing to work with the police.  Otherwise, they screwed themselves by the timing of this.  Another reason to ask...WHY NOW???

[JohnsonJones]

11 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Not really . . .I've read the account and shoving towards an unexposed body part is definitely assault no doubt . . .it's just that even if it went the way she said it did . . .unless there was physical evidence (bruises on the neck) you couldn't convict on it.

It's why these things are so damaging politically b/c you can make the claim all day long damage someone's reputation and there is literally nothing the accused can do about it.  Even if they "win" they still lose.

It's a perverse twisted society, b/c you see we are teaching young women that all you need to do is make an accusation and you can get revenge.  Instead we need to be teaching our daughters, look someone tries to assault you . . you beat the ever-living snot out of them. You kick, you slap, you hit, you get physical evidence, you make sure you leave a mark and then you immediately go to the police.

Not this wussy, "oh you poor thing, you were so scared, you were totally powerless" , which surprisingly enough actually plays against what the feminist would have you believe.  If women are so "strong and powerful" why didn't you do anything when it happened.  Oh now you are so "strong and powerful", 15+ years after the fact-give me a break.  If that is the case, then quite frankly you don't need to be in the work force, you need to be at home with a strong man who will protect you.

So which is it feminazis? Are women so weak, docile, and powerless that they can't fend off a man when the attack happens? Or are they so "strong and powerful" they can break glass ceilings?  The hypocrisy is stunning.

You haven't read the story then.  The accusation is pretty specific and it's far worse than what you've written thus far.  Keep looking.

[JoCa]

I tell you it will be a travesty if he isn't elected. 

If people don't see this guy as a good moral man, they wouldn't know one if it smacked them in the face.  His got the record to prove it.   I actually didn't know too much about this when I posted the topic . . . I've done a lot of digging and this man impresses me more and more.  I wish we had 20 like him.

I've taken a stand in the past, I'll take a stand in the future and I'll quit standing when they lay me in that box and put me in the ground. #alsen

That is not the answer of a guilty man. If you think it is, then you are so jaded by politics you can't tell the good from the bad.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You haven't read the story then.  The accusation is pretty specific and it's far worse than what you've written thus far.  Keep looking.

?? Really.  Hmm point me in the right direction is it the unnamed 14-year old or the fake yearbook story?

[JohnsonJones]

7 minutes ago, JoCa said:

?? Really.  Hmm point me in the right direction is it the unnamed 14-year old or the fake yearbook story?

The 14 year old is named, it is not an unnamed 14 year old.  Furthermore, it was released without the individuals consent from what I understand.  In that respect, I'm not going to give out the name, but I believe that the person has already been named and eviscerated to a degree.  It's out there, but I'm not really going into the details.  It's just not something I would discuss in public as it's not a very decent thing to discuss.  It's bad.  If true, it's really bad.  There's a reason so many are trying to distance themselves from him, because just the hint of it could be a political death for some.  If he is found guilty it is absolutely a political death sentence most likely for anyone associated with him.

[NeuroTypical]

Cropping off the bottom of the picture a bit here.  Just to make sure I understand:

Edited November 16, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Even if she did, it is rape to force oneself on a prostitute.

What about paying her with counterfeit currency?