Let's talk Moore

[Just_A_Guy]

25 minutes ago, JoCa said:

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.

Stood next to a lot of guilty men in court, have you?   

I don’t mean to be a condescending burro; but I’ve long since abandoned trying to determine innocence or guilt (or even just plain “goodness”) by the rhetoric or demeanor of the accused.

Incidentally, the fact that allegations are publicized at politically convenient times, does not per se mean the allegation is untrue (No one seriously doubts the Trump/Billy Bush tape was legit; even though it was clearly deliberately withheld until the most politically opportune moment).

Also, I’ll go into a little more graphic detail than @JohnsonJones does:  legally speaking, touching a girl’s buttocks, genitalia, or breasts, for sexual gratification, goes FAR beyond simple assault—whether over or under the clothing.  That is the allegation from the fourteen-year-old, as I understand it.  And whether or not it’s true in this particular instance, people are routinely convicted of assault (both sexual and simple assault) without any physical evidence/bruising at all.

Also - while women do sometimes lie about sexual assault, there are *mountains* of evidence confirming that women (and men) really do frequently a) go catatonic in the face of a sexual assault, rather than actively resisting; and b) keep quiet about such assaults for months, years—even decades.  We have learned a lot, even just in the past ten years, about how the brain reacts to and processes trauma.  That doesn’t mean we run roughshod over the due process rights of the accused.  But it *does* mean that we need to get more comfortable saying “I just don’t know for sure” rather than defaulting to the old, comfortable standbys of “she’s lying, of course” or “the sl*t clearly wanted it”.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[NightSG]

53 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Stood next to a lot of guilty men in court, have you?

Well defense attorneys tend to be guilty of a lot, so if you spend a lot of time with them...

[JoCa]

59 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Stood next to a lot of guilty men in court, have you?   

I don’t mean to be a condescending burro; but I’ve long since abandoned trying to determine innocence or guilt (or even just plain “goodness”) by the rhetoric or demeanor of the accused.

Incidentally, the fact that allegations are publicized at politically convenient times, does not per se mean the allegation is untrue (No one seriously doubts the Trump/Billy Bush tape was legit; even though it was clearly deliberately withheld until the most politically opportune moment).

Also, I’ll go into a little more graphic detail than @JohnsonJones does:  legally speaking, touching a girl’s buttocks, genitalia, or breasts, for sexual gratification, goes FAR beyond simple assault—whether over or under the clothing.  That is the allegation from the fourteen-year-old, as I understand it.  And whether or not it’s true in this particular instance, people are routinely convicted of assault (both sexual and simple assault) without any physical evidence/bruising at all.

Also - while women do sometimes lie about sexual assault, there are *mountains* of evidence confirming that women (and men) really do frequently a) go catatonic in the face of a sexual assault, rather than actively resisting; and b) keep quiet about such assaults for months, years—even decades.  We have learned a lot, even just in the past ten years, about how the brain reacts to and processes trauma.  That doesn’t mean we run roughshod over the due process rights of the accused.  But it *does* mean that we need to get more comfortable saying “I just don’t know for sure” rather than defaulting to the old, comfortable standbys of “she’s lying, of course” or “the sl*t clearly wanted it”.

I agree just b/c of the timing does not mean they are not true. But I have been the subject of a false smear effort and I know what one looks like.  

And no absolutely not, I refuse to believe any allegation from a woman who was 14 at the time who is unnamed.  You throw a bomb like that, you step forward and you name your assailant with your own face. I don't care how much trauma you have received-it doesn't matter.  The accused has a right in a civilized society to face their accusers.  It is part of the responsibility of making an accusation.

This is the thing that boggles my mind.  I'm being totally honest here and give me a straight answer.

If the allegations are 100% false, is there anything Roy Moore could do to exonerate himself?

And if the answer to that question is an impossible standard then you have created a political and cultural system that will very easily devolve into a no kidding Salem Witch Trail . . . . for pete's sake.  Does no one read history??? Does no one remember The Crucible?

Because the rights of the accused are not being protected here. Not one single bit.  Oh it's the court of "public opinion", that's BS and you know it.  It's a very small step from the "court of public opinion" to throw them in jail.

Roy Moore is doing everything an innocent man would do!

I'd also love to see the "mountains" of evidence; quite honestly I don't believe it. That's such BS that they keep quite and don't tell a soul for years and years. Because we need to really separate out actual sexual assault.  The vast majority of sexual assault is from someone who is close (i.e. a family member, a relative, etc).  Those victims keep quite b/c they have no one to turn to.  

A woman who is sexually assaulted on a date . . .BS ... she'll tell parent, brother, sister, etc.  Why b/c she has someone to turn to.

This is all a pack of lies . . .why b/c actual true pedophiles, the ones that actually do this stuff; they groom.  They don't go from twirling a girl's hair in a restaurant to assaulting them in a car.  That just doesn't happen.  It's not the profile of an actual pedophile.  A true pedophile spends months and months grooming their victims, they go from twirling hair, to rubbing their legs, to rubbing shoulders to xyz activity.  It's a process that takes months and months and graduates from one degree to another.  And that is why true sexual assault victims either go into one of two classes; those who are groomed (and they rarely say anything b/c it is a process of months and they don't have anyone to tell) and those who are not (and those victims scream the loudest).

You've got to be an absolute blooming moron to do what the 16 year old alleges . . .sexual assault of minors does not occur that way; it just doesn't.  Man, did no one take their annual BSA training??

I was in the "I just don't know for sure camp" . . .that's why I posted the topic.  I've done a lot of research; I'm pretty convinced all the assault allegations are a pack of lies. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

I will say politically the Leeann Tweeden story is a great political push-back to get the headlines off of Moore.  From what I've gathered she is currently pretty conservative.  From a political standpoint I think it is a great pushback . . .I still am firm on all the rest.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

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).

If either Moore or Franken had an once of integrity left, they'd resign and go away. These people don't care about their side, or about any cause. They only care about winning. Sick, sick sick. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

I agree just b/c of the timing does not mean they are not true. But I have been the subject of a false smear effort and I know what one looks like.  

And no absolutely not, I refuse to believe any allegation from a woman who was 14 at the time who is unnamed.  You throw a bomb like that, you step forward and you name your assailant with your own face. I don't care how much trauma you have received-it doesn't matter.  The accused has a right in a civilized society to face their accusers.  It is part of the responsibility of making an accusation.

This is the thing that boggles my mind.  I'm being totally honest here and give me a straight answer.

If the allegations are 100% false, is there anything Roy Moore could do to exonerate himself?

And if the answer to that question is an impossible standard then you have created a political and cultural system that will very easily devolve into a no kidding Salem Witch Trail . . . . for pete's sake.  Does no one read history??? Does no one remember The Crucible?

Because the rights of the accused are not being protected here. Not one single bit.  Oh it's the court of "public opinion", that's BS and you know it.  It's a very small step from the "court of public opinion" to throw them in jail.

Roy Moore is doing everything an innocent man would do!

I'd also love to see the "mountains" of evidence; quite honestly I don't believe it. That's such BS that they keep quite and don't tell a soul for years and years. Because we need to really separate out actual sexual assault.  The vast majority of sexual assault is from someone who is close (i.e. a family member, a relative, etc).  Those victims keep quite b/c they have no one to turn to.  

A woman who is sexually assaulted on a date . . .BS ... she'll tell parent, brother, sister, etc.  Why b/c she has someone to turn to.

This is all a pack of lies . . .why b/c actual true pedophiles, the ones that actually do this stuff; they groom.  They don't go from twirling a girl's hair in a restaurant to assaulting them in a car.  That just doesn't happen.  It's not the profile of an actual pedophile.  A true pedophile spends months and months grooming their victims, they go from twirling hair, to rubbing their legs, to rubbing shoulders to xyz activity.  It's a process that takes months and months and graduates from one degree to another.  And that is why true sexual assault victims either go into one of two classes; those who are groomed (and they rarely say anything b/c it is a process of months and they don't have anyone to tell) and those who are not (and those victims scream the loudest).

You've got to be an absolute blooming moron to do what the 16 year old alleges . . .sexual assault of minors does not occur that way; it just doesn't.  Man, did no one take their annual BSA training??

I was in the "I just don't know for sure camp" . . .that's why I posted the topic.  I've done a lot of research; I'm pretty convinced all the assault allegations are a pack of lies. 

Semi-random responses:

1). The then-14-year-old isn’t anonymous.  Her name is Leigh Corfman; and her mother partially corroborated her account.

2). No, there is nothing one can do to completely exonerate oneself of this sort of allegation after the fact.  And no, it’s not fair.  But *before* the fact, Moore could have protected himself by not building a reputation for dating teens—even “legal” ones.  You notice that no one made these sorts of allegations against Flake, or Romney, or Mike Pence.  When some dirtbags tried to make allegations of pedophilia against President Hinckley 20 years ago, they were quickly pooh-poohed because Hinckley’s moral rectitude was well known.

3). You speak of “rights of the accused”.  That makes sense in a criminal standpoint; but no one has a “right” to a seat in the United States Senate.  Negative things get said in campaigns; and it’s on the candidate to refute those allegations either by evidence, by logic, or by the force of his long-established character.  Moore can probably do this partially, as in the case of the yearbook girl; but he seems to lack the wherewithal to do it conclusively for every accuser.  And again, lots of that is because—when all is said and done, even though it wasn’t illegal—he apparently did have a thing for much younger gals.

4). Google “tonic immobility”.  It doesn’t occur in all cases of sexual assault, and its prevalence may have been overstated in pop culture and campus Title IX offices—but it is a real thing; and you see incidences of it even in accounts of cases that as Republicans we are predisposed to believe (like accusations against Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK, etc).  And I would respectfully encourage you to take another look at your own rhetoric in this thread.  Would you subject yourself to the scrutiny and sniping and judgment of—well, you, and thousands like you—just to claim justice against a guy who was now out of your life after having copped a feel, or had caused a more aggressive sexual encounter than you are used to having?  Or would you just quietly move on?

And of course, the fact that law enforcement never opened an investigation doesn’t mean that these women never said *anything*.  Moore seems to have had a “reputation” down there in Alabama—just like Clinton, just like Weinstein, just like Spacey, just like Louis CK.  It never got to official channels . . . but people knew.

5). You’re making a lot of faulty assumptions here about sexual misconduct.  Even if the allegations are true, Moore’s no pedophile—his accusers were all post-pubescent.  Grooming does *not* need to take months (in our society, people—even teenagers—often get into one night stands with folks they’ve barely met).   And one of the ways one grooms, is becoming friendly with the object’s parents—which makes Moore’s protestations that “their mammas were all fine with it” a lot less exculpatory than he wants it to be.

6)  We all have to do our own research and draw our own conclusions, to be sure.  I’m sure there are details I have missed; and on this topic I’m not pushing any particular position except that we do not know, and may never know, the complete truth here.  But, permit me to say that I don’t find your conclusions particularly convincing when you insist on painting Corfman as anonymous even though @JohnsonJones told you upthread that she was *not* anonymous; and when in fact Corfman was named from the moment the Washington Post broke the story.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

53 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I will say politically the Leeann Tweeden story is a great political push-back to get the headlines off of Moore.  From what I've gathered she is currently pretty conservative.  From a political standpoint I think it is a great pushback . . .I still am firm on all the rest.

I agree.  Scott Adams recently tweeted that if Franken stays in the Senate, Moore’s prospects go up dramatically.

[Blueskye2]

Couple of thoughts after reading through ththe thread.

1) I work in the entertainment biz. Some men in powerful positions have a strong temptation to use that power to do whatever they want. Most often, they think themselves so awesome that women want to give them everything. And many women do, so they think all women are theirs for the taking. Trump’s Billy Bush recording is a prime example of this behavior.

2) It’s some weird kind of psychological thing that I’ve witnessed, but wouldn’t know how to explain, that for some of these types of men, a woman who sends clear signals of not interested, just means that all that needs to be done is push them past their limits, and then all in the world will be ok because it provides some kind of weird evidence that all women are irresistably attracted. It’s a power play. I think Franken’s a forced French kiss and photo of real or acted out assault fits this behavior. 

3) In the case of a 30 something man being attracted to teenage girls, gosh, that’s not such a rare thing. Acting on it, was wrong 40 years ago and is wrong today. I know, I was a teen 40 years ago and there is no way on God’s green earth my parents would have let me “date” a 30 year old. Every parent of a daughter I know, says, “hell no”. Trying to shrug it off as ok and normal, just adds to the creep factor. It’s just another kind of power play, against teens in this case.

4) An otherwise good man, doing any of these things, is not a big shocker.  Most people are good people, most wrong doing is good people making bad choices. Like the time this really good guy I worked with for several years, turned out to be a bank robber, Really, not making it up, good husband, father, active LDS, robbing banks because he thought it the only way out of a large debt. Super bad choice

5) Nothing surprises me any more. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Guest MormonGator]

6 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

4) An otherwise good man, doing any of these things, is not a big shocker.  Most people are good people, most wrong doing is good people making bad choices. Like the time this really good guy I worked with for several years, turned out to be a bank robber, Really, not making it up, good husband, father, active LDS, robbing banks because he thought it the only way out of a large debt. Super bad choice

5) Nothing surprises me any more. 

4) Totally agree. We never know what a person struggles with. The guy (and in fairness, the girl too) who presents one face to the public might be an absolute monster in their private life.  I've seen thing like that. Where a person presents themselves as a super moral and righteous person yet has some serious demons. What I find very interesting is the opposite. I've met people who many other think is a scumbag but in reality has a heart of gold. 

5) Nothing surprises me either. Welcome to 2017. 

[zil]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Nothing surprises me either. Welcome to 2017. 

What!?  It's 2017?   When did that happen?  Excuse me while I go check my calendar.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

What!?  It's 2017?   When did that happen?  Excuse me while I go check my calendar.

@zil I think all of us are worried about your addiction to fountain pens. It's beginning to take an impact on your mind.

(Playing! Playing!) 

[zil]

Just now, MormonGator said:

@zil I think all of us are worried about your addiction to fountain pens. It's beginning to take an impact on your mind.

(Playing! Playing!) 

Are you surprised at my surprise?

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, JoCa said:

Wrong.  You don't understand the game.  They can find a conservative they can control.  They can't control Roy Moore.  You really don't understand how the system works.  The reason why they all threw him under the bus is b/c the guy is legit! He is a legitimate Christian conservative who believes very firmly in God and his actions back him up on it.  Rs and Ds are cut from the same cloth; it's why things don't change too much during the changing of the Guard it is the uni-party. 

But Moore-just like Trump is an actual legitimate threat to their power.  Trump was not supposed to win at all and they want to send a message to any actual true-blue conservatives thinking of running in 2018 in the Trump mold (i.e. to break the power structure), "you don't play our ball-game, we will take you out".

Oh they can easily find someone they want . . .Luther Strange, he was their guy.  But the actual people of Alabama rose up and said NO! This is the swamp fighting back, they will do everything to take down good, moral men. 

If you don't see that what is actually going on is a very real war between good and evil . . . . well then man, it's just all made up-no God, no Satan, no Heaven, no Hell.

Let me summarize.

This is GOP vs GOPe.

There are 2 Republican wings now with GOPe adopting the same playbook as the Democrats.  McConnell is fit to be tied that Strange couldn't get there even with Trump's endorsement.  It is clear to him now that the Trump supporters are not puppets to Trump and they are uncontrollable.  If Trump - their chosen warrior - can't drain the swamp, they will drain the swamp themselves.

Edited November 17, 2017 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Let me summarize.

This is GOP vs GOPe.

There are 2 Republican wings now with GOPe adopting the same playbook as the Democrats.  McConnell is fit to be tied that Strange couldn't get there even with Trump's endorsement.  It is clear to him now that the Trump supporters are not puppets to Trump and they are uncontrollable.  If Trump - their chosen warrior - can't drain the swamp, they will drain the swamp themselves.

Well, it’s “people who think sexual assault of minors, if true, is a disqualifier” versus “people who don’t”.  Or, if you will, “people who value and practice prudent living” versus “people who think they should be immune from the consequences of prior profligacy and promiscuity”.  

I’d be sorry to think that those issues constitute a litmus test for who’s in the GOPe versus who’s in the GOP.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, it’s “people who think sexual assault of minors, if true, is a disqualifier” versus “people who don’t”.   I’d be sorry to think that that issue creates a litmus year for who’s in the GOPe versus who’s in the GOP.

Forget the old school "Big tent GOP" of Reagan-Bush. It's now "You must endorse a possible sexual predator or you are somehow deficient" GOP. 

[NeuroTypical]

GOPe?  What means this thing?  We're only one letter away from GrOPe...

[anatess2]

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, it’s “people who think sexual assault of minors, if true, is a disqualifier” versus “people who don’t”.  Or, if you will, “people who value and practice prudent living” versus “people who think they should be immune from the consequences of prior profligacy and promiscuity”.  

I’d be sorry to think that those issues constitute a litmus test for who’s in the GOPe versus who’s in the GOP.

No.

It's "people who think sexual assault of minors, if true, is a disqualifier but they will let the process continue until it is proven true" (GOP) versus "people who think sexual assault of minors, if true, is a disqualifier, but they don't care about innocent until proven guilty because they don't want the guy in the Senate regardless of innocence" (GOPe).

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

GOPe?  What means this thing?  We're only one letter away from GrOPe...

Establishment.  Those who are getting fat on taxpayer dime and care more about continuing to get fat than actually representing the people.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

No.

It's "people who think sexual assault of minors, if true, is a disqualifier but they will let the process continue until it is proven true" (GOP) versus "people who think sexual assault of minors, if true, is a disqualifier, but they don't care about innocent until proven guilty because they don't want the guy in the Senate regardless of innocence" (GOPe).

That’d be more convincing if the so-called “GOP” had waited for the same level of proof against Clinton, Kennedy, Weinstein, etc that they now demand for Moore, Trump, and their ilk.

But of course, they didn’t.  Whence cometh the sudden fixation on “innocent until proven guilty”?  

The simple fact is, there will never be enough proof to make some folks turn against a guy with whom they’ve thrown in their lot.  I mean, there’s a near-contemporaneous, sworn affidavit saying that Donald Trump had forcible nonconsensual intercourse with his wife; but there are still people on this very board who object to my labeling him a “rapist”.  And there are folks who can listen to that Billy Bush interview and still insist that Trump just isn’t the sort of fellow who would do the things he bragged of having done.

So, I stand by my earlier suggestion.  There are Republicans who give a flying flip about sexual assault . . . and then there are Republicans who take the Nina Burleigh approach.  

Edited November 17, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

59 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’d be more convincing if the so-called “GOP” had waited for the same level of proof against Clinton, Kennedy, Weinstein, etc that they now demand for Moore, Trump, and their ilk.

But of course, they didn’t.  Whence cometh the sudden fixation on “innocent until proven guilty”?  

The simple fact is, there will never be enough proof to make some folks turn against a guy with whom they’ve thrown in their lot.  I mean, there’s a near-contemporaneous, sworn affidavit saying that Donald Trump had forcible nonconsensual intercourse with his wife; but there are still people on this very board who object to my labeling him a “rapist”.  And there are folks who can listen to that Billy Bush interview and still insist that Trump just isn’t the sort of fellow who would do the things he bragged of having done.

So, I stand by my earlier suggestion.  There are Republicans who give a flying flip about sexual assault . . . and then there are Republicans who take the Nina Burleigh approach.  

Okay, you got it backwards.

Clinton, Kennedy were already in office.  Weinstein is not somebody GOP is trying to remove from the ballot or an "office".

Now, here's what's happening:

GOPe = McConnell, Graham, etc.  Are trying to get Moore out of the ticket with just allegations - not result of hearings.  They stated that they would support not seating Moore if he manages to win the election.  This is not a campaign tactic because they are all Republicans.

These same people got presented with Menendez and Al Frankenstien's allegations and their response is to not take these guys out of office immediately, but rather to await the results of the hearing, and in Al's case to half-heartedly suggest a hearing.  The Democrats wouldn't have fought their getting removed from the Senate as they are from Blue state governors who will appoint blue replacements until an election can be held.  Same people fought HARD for Clarence Thomas - even as the allegations became vicious - to get him into the Supreme Court even before he was cleared of wrongdoing.  If Thomas would have been proved guilty, I doubt they would support getting him impeached.  As you can see, this is all political and nothing at all to do with morality (that's just political posturing) especially with their continued praise of Reagan who, let's not forget, made abortion legal well before Rowe vs. Wade in addition to his Hollywood history.

Ted Cruz - not a GOPe - simply withdrew his endorsement of Moore, not try to take him out of the ticket but leave it to Alabama to decide.  His reasoning is that he doesn't want to be tainted in future campaigns if Moore comes out of court guilty... IF Gloria Allred even bothers to go to court.  But, Moore is suing them anyway, so one way or the other, they're going to court.

The Bannon wing of the Republican Party on the other hand, is solidly supporting Moore until he is proven guilty.  This makes it harder for Democrats and GOPe to use this same tactic on innocent people like they did to Thomas and Herman Cain and others.

P.S.  Just out of curiosity.  Did you listen to the Billy Bush tape or did you just listen to the news about the Billy Bush tape?  I talked to some guy yesterday who was wailing about the koi until I realized he never saw the video - just the CNN version of the video.

Edited November 17, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest Godless]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Establishment.  Those who are getting fat on taxpayer dime and care more about continuing to get fat than actually representing the people.

Maybe that's why only 25% of Americans approve of the GOP tax plan, which arguably makes the fat cats fatter while gutting deductions that have historically helped middle class families during tax season. 

 

[Guest Godless]

54 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

P.S.  Just out of curiosity.  Did you listen to the Billy Bush tape or did you just listen to the news about the Billy Bush tape?  I talked to some guy yesterday who was wailing about the koi until I realized he never saw the video - just the CNN version of the video.

If there's a full version of the video that doesn't sound rapey, I'd love to see it. I honestly don't know how you can spin that thing to not seem wildly inappropriate at best and an open admission of sexual assault at worst, but I look forward to seeing you try.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, you got it backwards.

Clinton, Kennedy were already in office.  Weinstein is not somebody GOP is trying to remove from the ballot or an "office".

Now, here's what's happening:

GOPe = McConnell, Graham, etc.  Are trying to get Moore out of the ticket with just allegations - not result of hearings.  They stated that they would support not seating Moore if he manages to win the election.  This is not a campaign tactic because they are all Republicans.

These same people got presented with Menendez and Al Frankenstien's allegations and their response is to not take these guys out of office immediately, but rather to await the results of the hearing, and in Al's case to half-heartedly suggest a hearing.  The Democrats wouldn't have fought their getting removed from the Senate as they are from Blue state governors who will appoint blue replacements until an election can be held.  Same people fought HARD for Clarence Thomas - even as the allegations became vicious - to get him into the Supreme Court even before he was cleared of wrongdoing.  If Thomas would have been proved guilty, I doubt they would support getting him impeached.  As you can see, this is all political and nothing at all to do with morality (that's just political posturing) especially with their continued praise of Reagan who, let's not forget, made abortion legal well before Rowe vs. Wade in addition to his Hollywood history.

Ted Cruz - not a GOPe - simply withdrew his endorsement of Moore, not try to take him out of the ticket but leave it to Alabama to decide.  His reasoning is that he doesn't want to be tainted in future campaigns if Moore comes out of court guilty... IF Gloria Allred even bothers to go to court.  But, Moore is suing them anyway, so one way or the other, they're going to court.

The Bannon wing of the Republican Party on the other hand, is solidly supporting Moore until he is proven guilty.  This makes it harder for Democrats and GOPe to use this same tactic on innocent people like they did to Thomas and Herman Cain and others.

P.S.  Just out of curiosity.  Did you listen to the Billy Bush tape or did you just listen to the news about the Billy Bush tape?  I talked to some guy yesterday who was wailing about the koi until I realized he never saw the video - just the CNN version of the video.

The trouble with your shots at McConnell et al, is that I wasn’t  talking about “establishment Republicans” who show selective outrage at accusations of sex abuse.  I was talking about the party hoi polloi.  It was  pretty well-settled on the right that Clinton and Kennedy were guilty; hearings or not.  In fact, Republicans were pretty quick to accept that Menendez himself had hired underaged prostitutes in the Dominican Republic five years ago when the story first broke—even though the witnesses there later admitted they had been paid to lie.  But put one of your darlings in the line of fire, and all of a sudden it’s “well, yesh, yesh, we have procedures for that sort of thing, and those procedures take time to play out.” 

It’s quite a delicious irony:  the Trump/Moore/Bannon wing of the GOP got to where they are by misrepresenting the GOP leadership’s emphasis on procedural integrity, as a sign of apathy/betrayal of core conservative principles.  And now here they are, playing the same game.  This newfound admiration for procedural niceties is indeed heartwarming; perhaps they can be housebroken after all!  Welcome to the establishment, guys—now please, don’t grope the help.

And speaking of groping—yeah, I’ve heard the Trump/Bush video.  And if you’re going to defend Trump again with phony-baloney Gatewaypundit articles that invented false facts and omit key details in their efforts to absolve the guy—well, we’ve trod that path already. 

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

One other thing:  it’s pretty rich for someone who was fully on board with Trump’s accusing Rafael Cruz of complicity in the Kennedy assassination, to suddenly get all concerned about the possibility of the Republican party bench being eviscerated by untrue, politically-rooted attacks on personal character.  

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Blueskye2]

8 hours ago, MormonGator said:

4) Totally agree. We never know what a person struggles with. The guy (and in fairness, the girl too) who presents one face to the public might be an absolute monster in their private life.  I've seen thing like that. Where a person presents themselves as a super moral and righteous person yet has some serious demons. What I find very interesting is the opposite. I've met people who many other think is a scumbag but in reality has a heart of gold. 

5) Nothing surprises me either. Welcome to 2017. 

I don’t think it is a case of hiding faults. More a case of not acknowledging faults.  Some people are their own worse critics others are their own best admirers. Ha. 

And some are just plain hysterical, in a keystone criminal kind of way.