Roy Moore

For non-Vanderbilt sports discussion including but not limited to politics, science, the arts, travel, technology, entertainment, food & drink and more.

Moderators: Vandyman74, roanoke, VandyWhit, kerrigjl, BrentVU, jfgogold, NateSY, KarenYates

AtrumEtAureum
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:20 am
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby AtrumEtAureum » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:55 pm

vebiltdervan wrote:
Golddore68 wrote:...Moore should win or lose the election on his qualifications as a Senator, not based on something that allegedly happened 30-40 years ago...
Same would go for any murderer or rapist or child molester, then? If it happened 35 years ago, then they've beaten the rap, & you're good to go with them, as long as they're republicans?

Sometimes I despair of this country & the excuse-inventing fools who too much inhabit it.


I think Golddore's position is too broad and was not what I intended. There is a reason statutes of limitations exist for most crimes. Evidence goes stale, not only evidence in favor of prosecution but also evidence necessary to the defense of claims. If Himmler were alive today, it would be pretty easy to label him as a former Nazi regardless of the age of his actions. I would have no problem in vilifying him for that conduct. However, as the age of claims grow older, one must be aware of potential extenuating circumstances that may explain the lack of exculpatory evidence, especially in he said/she said cases.



vebiltdervan
Posts: 18627
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby vebiltdervan » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:03 am

AtrumEtAureum wrote:...There is a reason statutes of limitations exist for most crimes. Evidence goes stale, not only evidence in favor of prosecution but also evidence necessary to the defense of claims. If Himmler were alive today, it would be pretty easy to label him as a former Nazi regardless of the age of his actions. I would have no problem in vilifying him for that conduct. However, as the age of claims grow older, one must be aware of potential extenuating circumstances that may explain the lack of exculpatory evidence, especially in he said/she said cases.

Good points, of course. Didn't prevent you from labelling Bill Clinton a "serial rapist", I note. I'm chuckling mildly at your (evidently, highly) personal criteria for deciding who's as guilty as Himmler versus who may have been deprived of exculpation.

vebiltdervan
Posts: 18627
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby vebiltdervan » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:25 am

Golddore68 wrote:...Where are all the Democrats denouncing Senator Menendez?...not a single Democrat has denounced Menendez...Where are the Democrats denouncing him? Crickets...

I want to go back to Golddore's angry denunciation of democratic cowardice. Can we all promise to stop it already with this kind of silly demand? It doesn't serve a useful purpose.

I've probably done it myself, so I promise I'll be taking the same medicine. But seriously, the only way to avoid this silliness would be if us all posted, once a week, a list of everything & everybody (10,000 minimum) in the world that we deplore. Absent that, lobbing angry accusations of failure-to-condemn at the members of the other party are not even Fake News, they're Non-News. Just ask what people think of Menendez, or whoever, if you're interested (or just hope to deflect from the topic of discussion). But let's not pretend like any of us has justification for getting in everybody else's face.

EllistonVU
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:13 am
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby EllistonVU » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:26 am

Moore was banned from a mall in Gadsden for harassing young girls, but there are still republicans who support him in Alabama? Many who claim to be "religious" kind of people?

#sad #pathetic #deplorable #hypocrites

BILTMORE
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby BILTMORE » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:59 am

AtrumEtAureum wrote:
BILTMORE wrote:

I can't "disqualify" Roy Moore for being a pervy creeper who probably committed statutory rape.Never said you could. You were the one that argued that his conduct goes beyond just criminality in a thread about his "suitability" for office.

Incorrect. I did not argue that his conduct "goes beyond criminal." I stated the opposite (three times essentially) that his conduct may not rise to the level of criminality because that's what's in the news- since most of these allegations are not criminal to begin with, or if they were cannot be prosecuted. My understanding is that Alabama removed statute of limitations laws for certain crimes in 80s but did not grandfather in every crime from any time. These more damning allegations are not prosecutable. But even so, I think voters can apply our 2017 values on 1977 actions when we're at the ballot box. Just because it was legal in 1977, doesn't make it less emotionally damaging to a girl of 16 to be seduced by a man of 32. That was not behavior that all men engaged in back then.

But those "60%" allegations sure do show a pattern that make those 40% a lot more believable. Because he dated teenagers legally, it is believable that he committed statutory rape with a 14 year old? Are you serious?
Yeah.
I do.
And so does everyone in the world with a brain - including you. You're just trolling bigly with this comment.
If you had to pick who to prosecute (or in this case merely vote for - sigh) between two men accused of sexual contact with a 15 year old minor. One has only dated women his own age, and the other has repeatedly dated girls around 16 or 17 years old after approaching them with the same grooming patterns as the victim alleges... you'd what... be stumped as to how to proceed? Say "it's just a coin flip between these two guys"?



And I would hope that the reports of his conduct (which sound more credible every day) would dissuade voters from putting this man in the Senate.
If you'll refer to my OP, you'll see that my point was to express incredulity at ability for Alabama conservatives to continue to defend and support him. Because they don't believe timely criminal allegations that have managed to stay hidden despite "common knowledge" for almost 50 years?
I wonder why.
It's pretty common (and commonly understood) that victims of child sex abuse, child sexual assault, sexual harrassment and statutory rape do not come forward quickly if at all. They may try to suppress their experiences or do not feel empowered to take action until years or decades have passed - and even then they're confronted with the choice of saying something for which they'll be vilified or just moving on with their lives.

5 separate women have come forward with similar sounding allegations - some of which are allegations of sexual assault against minors. It's not he said, she said. It's he said, they said.
But conservatives in Alabama (and here apparently) refuse to believe the women - I wonder why.

[/color]
Last edited by BILTMORE on Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.


AtrumEtAureum
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:20 am
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby AtrumEtAureum » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:59 am

vebiltdervan wrote:
Golddore68 wrote:...Where are all the Democrats denouncing Senator Menendez?...not a single Democrat has denounced Menendez...Where are the Democrats denouncing him? Crickets...

I want to go back to Golddore's angry denunciation of democratic cowardice. Can we all promise to stop it already with this kind of silly demand? It doesn't serve a useful purpose.

I've probably done it myself, so I promise I'll be taking the same medicine. But seriously, the only way to avoid this silliness would be if us all posted, once a week, a list of everything & everybody (10,000 minimum) in the world that we deplore. Absent that, lobbing angry accusations of failure-to-condemn at the members of the other party are not even Fake News, they're Non-News. Just ask what people think of Menendez, or whoever, if you're interested (or just hope to deflect from the topic of discussion). But let's not pretend like any of us has justification for getting in everybody else's face.


Tu quoque. That's fair.

AtrumEtAureum
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:20 am
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby AtrumEtAureum » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:00 am

VandyWhit wrote:
AtrumEtAureum wrote:Backed-up? The Menendez trial is in jury deliberations at this very moment. Clearly, those allegations had enough merit to proceed to trial. By contrast, the allegations against Moore lack considerable credibility, as they are decades-old, have never surfaced previously, and lack corroboration.


I agree that Melendez and Moore are apples and oranges. But I found the allegations extremely credible.

I don't mean that I believe they could be proven in a court of law. There wouldn't be a paper trail like I assume there was in the Menendez case. It would be a he-said she-said.

I do understand that the incidents happened decades ago and that they hadn't ever surfaced to the public eye before (although apparently in some cases they had been shared privately).

But that doesn't make the stories any less credible to me, and I really don't understand how people believe that undermines their credibility. Could you explain?



It's the timing of the release. Moore has been a public figure in Alabama for decades and not exactly a popular one throughout the state for that time. He has been the subject of various state investigations throughout his career, several bar complaints, and a number of contentious races. He was even removed twice from the Alabama Supreme Court through ethics proceedings which are typically quite political.

Multiple stories have come out saying that Moore's predilection for teenagers was common knowledge beyond just Gadsden throughout this time period, but at no point did this information come out. Nor did it come out before the primary. Instead, it came out after it was too late for an alternative to be placed on the ticket to Moore and without enough time to actually investigate the allegations. That makes the timing of the allegation suspect and less credible because it smacks of political opportunism that this story is now coming to light, as similar claims have been made against Republicans in the past only to fade after an election (Reagan, Trump, Thomas, etc.). Opportunistic timing alone does not mean that the claims are not credible, but the claim is also based solely on testimonial evidence that is decades-old which is often less reliable on its own and do not present a fair opportunity for cross as the accused has little opportunity to gather evidence in defense. Taken together, the timing and age of the claims reduces the credibility of them. That does not mean that the claims against Moore are not true. It makes this a credibility issue. It very well could be true, but at the moment, you have a he said/she said. And we happen to presume innocence, and I don't think that should be different in the court of public opinion.

BILTMORE
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby BILTMORE » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:29 am

AtrumEtAureum wrote:
VandyWhit wrote:
AtrumEtAureum wrote:Backed-up? The Menendez trial is in jury deliberations at this very moment. Clearly, those allegations had enough merit to proceed to trial. By contrast, the allegations against Moore lack considerable credibility, as they are decades-old, have never surfaced previously, and lack corroboration.


I agree that Melendez and Moore are apples and oranges. But I found the allegations extremely credible.

I don't mean that I believe they could be proven in a court of law. There wouldn't be a paper trail like I assume there was in the Menendez case. It would be a he-said she-said.

I do understand that the incidents happened decades ago and that they hadn't ever surfaced to the public eye before (although apparently in some cases they had been shared privately).

But that doesn't make the stories any less credible to me, and I really don't understand how people believe that undermines their credibility. Could you explain?



It's the timing of the release. Moore has been a public figure in Alabama for decades and not exactly a popular one throughout the state for that time. He has been the subject of various state investigations throughout his career, several bar complaints, and a number of contentious races. He was even removed twice from the Alabama Supreme Court through ethics proceedings which are typically quite political.

Multiple stories have come out saying that Moore's predilection for teenagers was common knowledge beyond just Gadsden throughout this time period, but at no point did this information come out. Nor did it come out before the primary. Instead, it came out after it was too late for an alternative to be placed on the ticket to Moore and without enough time to actually investigate the allegations. That makes the timing of the allegation suspect and less credible because it smacks of political opportunism that this story is now coming to light, as similar claims have been made against Republicans in the past only to fade after an election (Reagan, Trump, Thomas, etc.). Opportunistic timing alone does not mean that the claims are not credible, but the claim is also based solely on testimonial evidence that is decades-old which is often less reliable on its own and do not present a fair opportunity for cross as the accused has little opportunity to gather evidence in defense. Taken together, the timing and age of the claims reduces the credibility of them. That does not mean that the claims against Moore are not true. It makes this a credibility issue. It very well could be true, but at the moment, you have a he said/she said. And we happen to presume innocence, and I don't think that should be different in the court of public opinion.


He's also been in positions of considerable judicial power through nearly all of his career (with a demonstrated pattern of going easy on men accused of sexual acts on children). That would be a reason for staying silent. But his political ascendancy also builds the guilt for doing nothing in the minds of the accusers. When whack like Moore is on the cusp of winning one of the most important political offices in the world, I can see how victims-who are now older adults themselves - would finally be in at a station in their lives where they are capable of saying "enough is enough. I 'm not gonna let this a-hole be Senator." And hell look at what's happening in Alabama right now in 21017. This guy is being accused of statutory rape and attempted rape of two minors. There is a national campaign being led by Trump's former policy advisor to attack and discredit all of these women. Imagine what the attitudes were like in Alabama in the 70s if it was legal for a 32 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old. Do you think they changed much in the 80s when the age was bumped up to 18? These women are going through hell right now and for zero promise of any personal gain for lying. Roy Moore has everything to gain by lying.

As for the past accused politicians - Anita Hill has never backed off her claims.The Trump accusers have not backed off their claims and it was most definitely common knowledge that Trump would do something like that. The Access Hollywood tape proves it. If he would brag about something like that while mic'd up for a TV show in a room full of TV crew - how many thousands of times did he brag about it to others? He bragged on New York radio about popping in to the pageant dressing room to ogle contestants. Guess what... he did it!
Conversely, what about G Bush senior? He's not running for anything but he's got some splaining to do for something that happened decades ago.

And why limit your examples to just republicans running for office?
Harvy Weinstein - it was common knowledge that he harassed women, yet it continued for decades. Sexual misconduct is not an easy thing to prove against men in power.
Everyone knows that -except for Republicans in Alabama.
And you.

AtrumEtAureum
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:20 am
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby AtrumEtAureum » Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:36 am

vebiltdervan wrote:
AtrumEtAureum wrote:...There is a reason statutes of limitations exist for most crimes. Evidence goes stale, not only evidence in favor of prosecution but also evidence necessary to the defense of claims. If Himmler were alive today, it would be pretty easy to label him as a former Nazi regardless of the age of his actions. I would have no problem in vilifying him for that conduct. However, as the age of claims grow older, one must be aware of potential extenuating circumstances that may explain the lack of exculpatory evidence, especially in he said/she said cases.

Good points, of course. Didn't prevent you from labelling Bill Clinton a "serial rapist", I note. I'm chuckling mildly at your (evidently, highly) personal criteria for deciding who's as guilty as Himmler versus who may have been deprived of exculpation.


Let me re-quote my post for you again, since you seem to have missed a key word. You tell me where I labelled Bill Clinton a serial rapist.

Bill Clinton was an alleged serial rapist already in 1992 but stayed on the ticket. I worry about the precedent of forcing someone off the ballot for unverifiable, decades-old allegations.


It's almost like I was worried about the precedent of allegations being used to force someone off the ballot. Bill Clinton was an analogue, as he too was the subject of sexual assault allegations but was not forced off the ballot by the public. Again, please tell me where I labelled him a serial rapist.

vebiltdervan
Posts: 18627
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby vebiltdervan » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:10 am

AtrumEtAureum wrote:...Let me re-quote my post for you again, since you seem to have missed a key word...
Bill Clinton was an alleged serial rapist already in 1992 but stayed on the ticket. I worry about the precedent of forcing someone off the ballot for unverifiable, decades-old allegations.
...

My bad, sorry. I was remembering the coupla words that stuck forcibly in my memory, but I should have gone back to read the whole quote.

vandy05
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby vandy05 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:35 am

I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but I'll go back to my original statement that at worst someone should just be silent on this topic. There is no need to try and get technical and parse words. We're talking about a child molester for goodness sakes.

vandy05
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby vandy05 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:36 am

dcdore wrote:
vandy05 wrote:
dcdore wrote:Paraphrasing things I've heard here;
"Doug Jones is a good guy, but he will vote with Shumer and Pelosi - not worth it."
"Roy Moore is a jerk/pedophile, but he will oppose Shumer, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton..... - it's worth it"

At the very worst you should just be silent on this topic, but the folks who are vocally supporting this guy are beyond the pale. How could you? Do you have no love or care for children? I think I know the answer to those questions unfortunately.


To clarify, I abhor Roy Moore; I have supported Jones with time and $$. Just relaying comments that might explain a Moore victory when it happens.

Of course. I wasn't talking about you specifically. I meant "you" in general.

AtrumEtAureum
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:20 am
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby AtrumEtAureum » Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:38 pm

vandy05 wrote:I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but I'll go back to my original statement that at worst someone should just be silent on this topic. There is no need to try and get technical and parse words. We're talking about a child molester for goodness sakes.


Everyone is entitled to a defense, no matter how serious the allegations. Allegations should not be treated as conclusive proof, whether in a court of law or of public opinion.

BILTMORE
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby BILTMORE » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:03 pm

AtrumEtAureum wrote:
vandy05 wrote:I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but I'll go back to my original statement that at worst someone should just be silent on this topic. There is no need to try and get technical and parse words. We're talking about a child molester for goodness sakes.


Everyone is entitled to a defense, no matter how serious the allegations. Allegations should not be treated as conclusive proof, whether in a court of law or of public opinion.


No not conclusive proof!
But Criminal law and civil law do not have the same burdens of proof and neither would the court of public opinion. If you don't want to be viewed as a perv in the court of public opinion, then don't try to molest "date" five different teen-agers-legally or otherwise. Don't leer at girls at a the mall. Don't harass waitresses at the local diner.

We're never going to get "proof" in terms of phone records, DNA, video recordings etc. Does that mean a woman should stay silent if she was molested by Moore? No it does not.
We were probably never going to get actionable proof even back in 1977 Alabama.

But these women did tell people about their experiences--which is something harassment victims are told to do. Roy Moore hasn't actually denied the allegations by the older women, and he's been caught lying on a couple of key points, not the least of which is knowing the victims of the more serious allegations. His wife is lying up a storm to protect him and has been caught peddling the most far-fetched of the "defenses" ginned up by the right wing nut-o-sphere.

Furthermore, 5 separate women, some of whom are politically aligned with Moore is proof of a pattern. Not enough to convict, but enough to appear exactly how it is: a pattern. Not very becoming of a "Godly man" or US Senator.

VandyWhit
Posts: 27941
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 2:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby VandyWhit » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:10 pm

AtrumEtAureum wrote:
VandyWhit wrote:
AtrumEtAureum wrote:Backed-up? The Menendez trial is in jury deliberations at this very moment. Clearly, those allegations had enough merit to proceed to trial. By contrast, the allegations against Moore lack considerable credibility, as they are decades-old, have never surfaced previously, and lack corroboration.


I agree that Melendez and Moore are apples and oranges. But I found the allegations extremely credible.

I don't mean that I believe they could be proven in a court of law. There wouldn't be a paper trail like I assume there was in the Menendez case. It would be a he-said she-said.

I do understand that the incidents happened decades ago and that they hadn't ever surfaced to the public eye before (although apparently in some cases they had been shared privately).

But that doesn't make the stories any less credible to me, and I really don't understand how people believe that undermines their credibility. Could you explain?



It's the timing of the release. Moore has been a public figure in Alabama for decades and not exactly a popular one throughout the state for that time. He has been the subject of various state investigations throughout his career, several bar complaints, and a number of contentious races. He was even removed twice from the Alabama Supreme Court through ethics proceedings which are typically quite political.

Multiple stories have come out saying that Moore's predilection for teenagers was common knowledge beyond just Gadsden throughout this time period, but at no point did this information come out. Nor did it come out before the primary. Instead, it came out after it was too late for an alternative to be placed on the ticket to Moore and without enough time to actually investigate the allegations. That makes the timing of the allegation suspect and less credible because it smacks of political opportunism that this story is now coming to light, as similar claims have been made against Republicans in the past only to fade after an election (Reagan, Trump, Thomas, etc.). Opportunistic timing alone does not mean that the claims are not credible, but the claim is also based solely on testimonial evidence that is decades-old which is often less reliable on its own and do not present a fair opportunity for cross as the accused has little opportunity to gather evidence in defense. Taken together, the timing and age of the claims reduces the credibility of them. That does not mean that the claims against Moore are not true. It makes this a credibility issue. It very well could be true, but at the moment, you have a he said/she said. And we happen to presume innocence, and I don't think that should be different in the court of public opinion.


Thanks. I understand that as an initial response to hearing the claims. But I don't think evaluating credibility ends there. It's a starting point. The obvious next question is, is there a good reason why the allegations came to light when they did, instead of at an earlier time?

Yes.

In general, I find it believable when any woman decides to keep an unpleasant or inappropriate sexual encounter quiet, so the question boils down to -- if these encounters in fact took place, and the women didn't go public over the years, why do it now?

The answer seems pretty straight forward to me. The Senate campaign is of more importance nationally than any of Ray Moore previous races, so it drew attention from the national media, even more so because it's not in the midst of a jillion important races across the country.

So does it seem credible that the WP would have sent a reporter down there? Yes. Is it credible that a reporter would have worked on a story about Moore supporters? Yes (really, just look at how much coverage Trump supporters have gotten in the past year or two.) Is it credible that while talking to townspeople she might have gotten a lead that led to her tracking down and contacting women who allegedly had had encounters with Moore? I think so.

What the women then had, that they never had had before in all those decades, were two things. First, there was a competent journalist from a well-respected national newspaper who thought their stories were important to tell, and second, it comes at a time when many women have been coming forward about inappropriate (or even criminal) sexual conduct. Lately there have been many women coming out with stories of incidents that happened long in the past, and these women aren't any different.

Without the interest from the journalist, the stories wouldn't have become public. They'd simply have remained part of small town gossip.

I think that more than adequately explains the timing of the public disclosures.

And the alternatives are far less credible to me. Do you think it's likelier that the reporter lied about how the story came to be? Do you think it's likelier that five different women, who mostly didn't know each other, each decided to fabricate a story and call up the Washington Post to see if anybody wanted to pick up their stories (which would also require believing that the reporter lied)?

If not that, then what? Can you put together a narrative, up through the publishing of the story in the WP, that's more credible? If so, I'd like to hear it.

vebiltdervan
Posts: 18627
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby vebiltdervan » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:28 pm

VandyWhit wrote:...The obvious...question is, is there a good reason why the allegations came to light when they did, instead of at an earlier time?...Yes....The answer seems pretty straightforward to me. The Senate campaign is of more importance nationally than any of Ray Moore previous races, so it drew attention from the national media, even more so because it's not in the midst of a jillion important races across the country...So does it seem credible that the WP would have sent a reporter down there? Yes...

Moreover, in case anyone's been in a coma, the issue & exposure of powerful males who had long taken sexual advantage of unpowerful women in their orbits has been the #! most consistent theme in the media the past couple of weeks.

It's no surprise to me that these women—having recently watched predators like Weinstein and a slew of others being successfully taken down, instead of having to watch their accusers slip by unscathed, upon hearing/reading the words of other sexually abused women in the media—would find that to be an inspiration to finally come forward and tell the truth about Judge 10-Commandments Moore.
Last edited by vebiltdervan on Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

BILTMORE
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:56 pm
Contact:

Woman # 6 Comes Forward

Postby BILTMORE » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 pm

She's a teacher at a community college and a moderate republican.
She has a detailed account of Roy Moore pursuing her against her wishes when she was 17 going on 18. Ended with him grabbing and kissing her against her will. She also notes, that the store at the mall where she worked, the manager warned all the girls to watch out for Moore and most of the females would hide from him when he came in.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... 146d8c9de3

Golddore68
Posts: 4821
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby Golddore68 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:44 am

For all the lame attempts to say that Menendez did isn't on the same level as what Moore did, so it's not an "apples to apples" comparison --

In addition to the corruption, one of the things Menendez is being charged with is hiring underage prostitutes.

Which is VERY similar to the pedophilia that Moore is being accused of.

So in my way of thinking Menendez should be kicked out of the Senate. As should Al Franken.

vandy05
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby vandy05 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:16 pm

Golddore68 wrote:For all the lame attempts to say that Menendez did isn't on the same level as what Moore did, so it's not an "apples to apples" comparison --

In addition to the corruption, one of the things Menendez is being charged with is hiring underage prostitutes.

Which is VERY similar to the pedophilia that Moore is being accused of.

So in my way of thinking Menendez should be kicked out of the Senate. As should Al Franken.

I missed the accusation of underage prostitutes against Menendez. That's not very similar, its the same thing, maybe even worse. Sourcing? (I would, but I'm on my work computer and don't want to type the words I'd need to in order for the Google machine to find an article for me).

But if its just corruption, then those are not lame attempts, they're true. You'd have to agree with that right? That corruption is not the same thing as preying on underage girls? But preying on underage girls is the same offense no matter a politician's stripes.

vandy05
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Roy Moore

Postby vandy05 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:17 pm

AtrumEtAureum wrote:
vandy05 wrote:I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but I'll go back to my original statement that at worst someone should just be silent on this topic. There is no need to try and get technical and parse words. We're talking about a child molester for goodness sakes.


Everyone is entitled to a defense, no matter how serious the allegations. Allegations should not be treated as conclusive proof, whether in a court of law or of public opinion.

But you're not his attorney so why even sully yourself with giving his defense on a message board? Like I said, I love a good debate, but I just can't engage in providing a defense of Moore's side. Maybe I could do it as a paid representative, but not for free on the internet.



Return to “Black and Gold Coffee Shop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Titans309fan and 80 guests