[link]       Four different women are accusing him of doing this when he was a district attorney.  Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Quests. | Journs. | Gen. | News | Quiz | Links | TV | Music | Movies | Games | Sports | Sug. | Lit. | Jokes | Artcls. | Newb | O.S.
AL GOP senate candidate Roy Moore accused of making sexual advances toward underage girls

Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 20 Next (showing 101-125 of 481)

Back to Thread List
Bottom Last Post

9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:08:43 PM EST (GMT-5)
He doesn't hold any power- - didn't you say that he hasn't been elected yet?

You don't want anyone to actually weigh whether or not he deserves their vote- - you have already decided that he doesn't. Why not let the people decide?

9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:11:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:08:12 PM birdsong4j wrote:
A not-insignificant percentage of the Republican Party is defending a f*cking child molester. You people have lost your god damn minds, end of story.


Doesn't everyone deserve a second chance? Certainly if a KKK Exalted Cyclops (or whatever Byrd's title was) can serve effectively in the Senate, why can't a one time child molester?
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:13:31 PM EST (GMT-5)
i for one applaud cowdung for defending nazis and pedophiles. cd has it rough. it’s probably difficult for him to find his child cinema for adult viewing nazi themed. it’s very niche
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:16:24 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:13:31 PM Dirt_ wrote:
i for one applaud cowdung for defending nazis and pedophiles. cd has it rough. it’s probably difficult for him to find his child cinema for adult viewing nazi themed. it’s very niche


Someone has to stand up for the oppressed and hated. We can't allow mob rule to silence unpopular opinions.

9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:18:50 PM EST (GMT-5)
Child molesters are just oppressed victims now. It's just an "unpopular opinion" that a 14-year-old can't consent to sex.
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:23:38 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:18:50 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Child molesters are just oppressed victims now. It's just an "unpopular opinion" that a 14-year-old can't consent to sex.


Feel free to prosecute child molesters to the fullest extent of the law. Until convicted, they should be free to run for public office.


9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:27:19 PM EST (GMT-5)
First, he is an ALLEGED child molester. That's not a defence it's a fact.

Second, allegations have tanked campaigns before and rightfully so. If this were a report where people refused to go on the record it would be easier to dismiss. But he's facing accusations ftom four people willing to go on record. That doesn't mean he did it but it certainly raises issues with judgment, multiple times. Judgement is extremely important for the role of a senator. Thus this is fair play to has for him to remove his name or the Republican Party to withdraw it.

Now he has the right to stay in the race, which he intends to do. But he was already a highly controversial candidate before all of this.

He is not greatly favored, oddly enough. he is running 6 points ahead of the Democratic candidate in a state Trump won by 28 points.

9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:32:01 PM EST (GMT-5)
I never said he didn't have the *right* to, you disingenuous…

I said that it DOES MATTER, which you have repeatedly disagreed with. You do not think it matters if he molested kids. You do not think that should be disqualifying for someone seeking a senate seat. You are defending the choice to potentially elect a child molester to the U.S. senate.

As I said: those defending this have lost their everloving minds.
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:34:36 PM EST (GMT-5)
Right- - an allegation is not a conviction.

The Republican party does make their own rule as far as removing candidates and such. In this case, it's too late to replace him with another candidate on the ballot. Any replacement would have to run as a write in.

The alleged incident with the 14 year old happened in 1979, when Moore was in his early 30s. There have been no additional allegations in the 40 years or so since then. I don't think it is so unreasonable to let this guy continue his run for the Senate.

9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:36:16 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:32:01 PM birdsong4j wrote:
You do not think that should be disqualifying for someone seeking a senate seat. You are defending the choice to potentially elect a child molester to the U.S. senate. .


As I've pointed out above, we've had lots worse elected to the US Senate...
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:40:59 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:32:01 PM birdsong4j wrote:
You do not think that should be disqualifying for someone seeking a senate seat. You are defending the choice to potentially elect a child molester to the U.S. senate. .
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:36:16 PM CowDung wrote:
As I've pointed out above, we've had lots worse elected to the US Senate...

Believe me when I say that I don't give one single solitary f*ck about how this compares to anyone else who's been elected to the senate. Take the situation on its merits, and it still boils down to you not caring whether a man molested a child. You'd still be fine electing him to the senate.
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:41:11 PM EST (GMT-5)
538 article

A study was done that shows scandal tend to affect the candidate to a tune of -6.5 points and his challenger +6.5 points. A potential 13 point swing puts this race as clearly up in the air.

Now if people decide to write in Strange and the Alabama Republican Party doesn't withdraw Moore's name. That could lead to Jones being the first Democrat elected as Alabama Senator since 1986.

From a political standpoint, Moore is looking like an anchor tied around the neck of the National Republican Party. Time is running out to organize a write-in campaign for a secondary candidate and coordinate the media campaign that would be needed to pull off a win.

9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:41:25 PM EST (GMT-5)
The smart move is to pull Moore and back strange and try to keep the Democrat from embarrassing you in what should have been a safe election.
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:48:24 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:34:36 PM CowDung wrote:
There have been no additional allegations in the 40 years or so since then. I don't think it is so unreasonable to let this guy continue his run for the Senate.


To be fair these allegations just surfaced now. It's not something that's just been sitting out there as a known thing for 40 years and is resurfacing. We have no idea what other things may come to light between now and the election or when he would assume office. Even if he won he might be so caught up in the scandal that he has to resign immediately or even before he takes office. Not really a good look.

My feeling is there is more to come but this story dropped less than 12 hours ago. We'll see where this whole thing is by next week.

9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:54:52 PM EST (GMT-5)
Honestly, if the party doesn't just suck it up and take the L, rather than keep trying to get Moore elected, they deserve to be reminded of it every single election from now to the end of time. Let it be an albatross forever.

I've never been faced with a choice like this (where my preferred candidate was facing credible accusations of being a child molester, rapist, sexual assaulter, etc.), but I still know it would take me zero seconds to decide I was either going to vote for a write-in candidate, a third party candidate, or possibly even the Republican, depending on how moderate they were. F*cking party politics are not as important as being able to sleep at night.
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:15:20 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:54:52 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Honestly, if the party doesn't just suck it up and take the L, rather than keep trying to get Moore elected, they deserve to be reminded of it every single election from now to the end of time. Let it be an albatross forever.


Kinda like the Dems kept allowing Byrd to run for reelection?
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:16:58 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:32:01 PM birdsong4j wrote:
You do not think that should be disqualifying for someone seeking a senate seat. You are defending the choice to potentially elect a child molester to the U.S. senate. .
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:36:16 PM CowDung wrote:
As I've pointed out above, we've had lots worse elected to the US Senate...
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:40:59 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Believe me when I say that I don't give one single solitary f*ck about how this compares to anyone else who's been elected to the senate. Take the situation on its merits, and it still boils down to you not caring whether a man molested a child. You'd still be fine electing him to the senate.


It's a matter of a single allegation at this point. You are the one that seems to have convicted him already as a 'serial child molester'.

9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:19:11 PM EST (GMT-5)
Keep trying to deflect. Keep failing. You're still defending potentially electing a child molester to the senate.
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:25:05 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:48:24 PM Rik_Khaos wrote:
To be fair these allegations just surfaced now. It's not something that's just been sitting out there as a known thing for 40 years and is resurfacing. We have no idea what other things may come to light between now and the election or when he would assume office. Even if he won he might be so caught up in the scan...Not really a good look. My feeling is there is more to come but this story dropped less than 12 hours ago. We'll see where this whole thing is by next week.


I suppose there is a chance of other allegations, but I would have expected more recent incidents to surface first (if there were any). As far as the party deciding to stick with him or try to promote a write in candidate depends a lot on the credibility of the accusation. 1979 was a long time ago.

9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:31:34 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:18:50 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Child molesters are just oppressed victims now. It's just an "unpopular opinion" that a 14-year-old can't consent to sex.


or people there can choose not to vote for him. i wouldn't do it personally. you can't really do much unless he is found guilty in the court of law.
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:35:24 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 10:18:50 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Child molesters are just oppressed victims now. It's just an "unpopular opinion" that a 14-year-old can't consent to sex.
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:31:34 PM Inquizitor2 wrote:
or people there can choose not to vote for him. i wouldn't do it personally. you can't really do much unless he is found guilty in the court of law.

Every member of the party (I'm talking public officials here) has the choice to publicly disavow his candidacy. Some have. A lot haven't. That is certainly a thing they could do.
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:38:07 PM EST (GMT-5)
...and if the allegation turns out to be credible and true, many will. Not everyone is as convinced as you are that he's been molesting children for the past 40 years.
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:52:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
Please explain how it is not credible. Did you even read the article?
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:56:19 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:25:05 PM CowDung wrote:
I suppose there is a chance of other allegations, but I would have expected more recent incidents to surface first (if there were any). As far as the party deciding to stick with him or try to promote a write in candidate depends a lot on the credibility of the accusation. 1979 was a long time ago.


The reason I think dumping him is better politically is this will not be resolved one way or the other before the election. It's going to continue to weigh him down and could cause a split republican electorate. The person they would organize around would be a currently sitting, though appointed, Senator. It's not like they would be starting from scratch. Trump had already endorsed him which helps with the base.

Right now keeping him poses greater risk of losing to a Democrat in my opinion.
9 days ago - Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:59:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 11/9/17 - 11:52:22 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Please explain how it is not credible. Did you even read the article?


Paywall.

Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 20 Next (showing 101-125 of 481)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Back to Thread List
Top

 
Edit