Let's talk Moore

[JoCa]

Thoughts, opinions?

[Guest]

It's hard to have an opinion when we don't have any facts yet.

[anatess2]

The Democrats have done this waaay too many times for it not to be suspect.

Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, etc. etc.

That's why it irks me that Republicans are so sensitive to this kind of character assassination.  You can't use the same thing against Democrats because, as you can see with the Menendez trial, they don't care!  So it's too easy to pluck Republicans off a ticket.  And that's one of the benefits of a Trump win.  The Republicans are not as easy to pluck off anymore because the people are just not having it anymore.  Thomas persevered with dignity - I like that, Cain withdrew and fought the legal battle after removing himself from the race - I don't like that.  Moore is swinging punches while mounting a legal challenge to his accusers... I like that.

In any case, this is a decision for people in Alabama.  If I was an Alabama voter, I'd still vote for Moore.  A 40-year-old maybe-scandal over 40 years of public service record... no brainer.

 

[zil]

Moore, Oklahoma?  Utah? Idaho? North Carolina?  There are a lot of them.  Demi Moore?  Sir Henry Moore?  Moore's law?

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

Moore, Oklahoma?  Utah? Idaho? North Carolina?  There are a lot of them.  Demi Moore?  Sir Henry Moore?  Moore's law?

Moore kissed a 15 year old while drunk at a party.

Wait.. that was Demi Moore... not that Moore.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Moore, Oklahoma?  Utah? Idaho? North Carolina?  There are a lot of them.  Demi Moore?  Sir Henry Moore?  Moore's law?

I thought we were talking about Sir Thomas Moore.  Wait, that was "More".

I thought that was what people called you when they didn't want to listen to you anymore.  Wait, that was "bore".

I thought that was what goats do with their horns. Wait, that's "gore".

Wasn't that the guy who invented the internet?  Wait, uhm  yeah, but no.  He didn't.

[Grunt]

The claim is plausible.  I have little support for people without morals that align with my own.

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

The claim is plausible.  I have little support for people without morals that align with my own.

Which claim?

Also... since there's not much time to litigate this thing in court (of course there isn't.  They wait 40 years until it's 2 days after nominees are locked before they come up with this stuff - and that itself is suspect, can't litigate so no need for proof to do damage), I want to know... how much plausibility is your threshold before you decide to sit out an election?

Edited November 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Grunt]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Which claim?

 

Pick one.  Some of them have witnesses.  Others circumstantial evidence that contradicts his defense.

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Also... since there's not much time to litigate this thing in court (of course there isn't.  They wait 40 years until it's 2 days after nominees are locked before they come up with this stuff - and that itself is suspect, can't litigate so no need for proof to do damage), I want to know... how much plausibility is your threshold before you decide to sit out an election?

1

I would never sit out an election.  I'd write someone in.  The level of evidence I require isn't fixed, I view each case on its own merit.  I also don't care what the motivation was for coming forward now.  Of course, it was politically compelled.  I only care about his character.  In a Republic, character matters.  Suppose you robbed my house and was caught by my neighbor.  You promised to split the money with him if he stayed quiet.  A month goes by without you paying him, so he comes to me and turns you in.  His motivation isn't pure, but that doesn't change the fact that you still robbed me.

Many people put the party over the character when voting.  I have a difficult time doing that.  Even if I cave in the ballot box, I can't provide public support.  That would speak poorly of my own character.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Pick one.  Some of them have witnesses.  Others circumstantial evidence that contradicts his defense.

I would never sit out an election.  I'd write someone in.  The level of evidence I require isn't fixed, I view each case on its own merit.  I also don't care what the motivation was for coming forward now.  Of course, it was politically compelled.  I only care about his character.  In a Republic, character matters.  Suppose you robbed my house and was caught by my neighbor.  You promised to split the money with him if he stayed quiet.  A month goes by without you paying him, so he comes to me and turns you in.  His motivation isn't pure, but that doesn't change the fact that you still robbed me.

Many people put the party over the character when voting.  I have a difficult time doing that.  Even if I cave in the ballot box, I can't provide public support.  That would speak poorly of my own character.

I understand this.  But here's the problem... these people can just come out and accuse Republicans with impropriety because they never have to provide proof.  So good Republicans can easily be sniped off the ticket because voters flee at the first hint of scandal, no proof necessary.

So, let's put this in a 20/20 hindsight scenario.  Herman Cain ran for President in the 2012 elections.  He got sniped by Gloria Allred, the same lawyer that is now trying to snipe Judge Moore.  Allred's allegations were vicious.  3 women, I believe, one claiming a 13 year affair with Cain.  Cain suspended his campaign in deference to his wife.  It wasn't until 2 years later that he was able to fight off the allegations with counter-evidence and that was mainly because the accusers faded into the woodwork never to be heard from again.  So, let's say Cain stayed in the ticket and won the primaries.  And let's just say his policies align with yours.  Would you have voted for him?

How about if it was Clarence Thomas?  The Anita Hill accusations were even more vicious.  If Thomas was running for Senate instead of SCOTUS, would you have voted for him?

And one last thing, different question but related... Did you vote for Reagan?

Edited November 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

I understand this.  But here's the problem... these people can just come out and accuse Republicans with impropriety because they never have to provide proof.  So good Republicans can easily be sniped off the ticket because voters flee at the first hint of scandal, no proof necessary.

So, let's put this in a 20/20 hindsight scenario.  Herman Cain ran for President in the 2012 elections.  He got sniped by Gloria Allred, the same lawyer that is now trying to snipe Judge Moore.  Allred's allegations were vicious.  3 women, I believe, one claiming a 13 year affair with Cain.  Cain suspended his campaign in deference to his wife.  It wasn't until 2 years later that he was able to fight off the allegations with counter-evidence and that was mainly because the accusers faded into the woodwork never to be heard from again.  So, let's say Cain stayed in the ticket and won the primaries.  And let's just say his policies align with yours.  Would you have voted for him?

I'm not going to go back and research past political scandals that I don't presently have a ton of information on.  We can play the "what if" game all day.  Specifically relating to Roy Moore, there is enough information out there for me to believe his character is unsuitable to represent me.  

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm not going to go back and research past political scandals that I don't presently have a ton of information on.  We can play the "what if" game all day.  Specifically relating to Roy Moore, there is enough information out there for me to believe his character is unsuitable to represent me.  

I'm not talking about Moore in specific.  I'm talking about the Democratic playbook of sniping Republicans through baseless character assassinations because of how easy it is to use that to get voters to flee.  A trick they've used on many Republicans like Clarence Thomas (SCOTUS hearing) and Cain (Pres Primaries) among others.

Edited November 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Grunt]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not talking about Moore in specific.  I'm talking about the Democratic playbook of sniping Republicans through baseless character assassinations because of how easy it is to use that to get voters to flee.  A trick they've used on many Republicans like Clarence Thomas (SCOTUS hearing) and Cain (Pres Primaries) among others.

I can't be responsible for other voters.  I'm only responsible for myself.  If I deem the accusations to be credible, I can't support the candidate just because I like his politics.  Character matters to me.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I can't be responsible for other voters.  I'm only responsible for myself.  If I deem the accusations to be credible, I can't support the candidate just because I like his politics.  Character matters to me.

I understand this.  All I'm getting at is that this is a characteristic of Republican voters that has been used by Democrats as a weapon to snipe off Republicans of good character.  So I'm interested to know why Republicans can't seem to figure out how to fight it.

Guilty in the arena of public opinion is a very low threshold to meet!

Edited November 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Grunt]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I understand this.  All I'm getting at is that this is a characteristic of Republican voters that has been used by Democrats as a weapon to snipe off Republicans of good character.  So I'm interested to know why Republicans can't seem to figure out how to fight it.

Guilty in the arena of public opinion is a very low threshold to meet!

It's not that they can't fight it, it's that they won't.  Ben Shapiro did a great piece on his podcast regarding this.  Essentially, it boils down to most on the left don't care about the character of their politicians.  Now, after decades, the right is saying "if they don't care, why should we".  

Public opinion has always had a low threshold.  The media is against us.  The Daily Wire also had a piece on the number of minutes the media has spent talking about Moore compared to Menendez, who is actually on trial.

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, Grunt said:

It's not that they can't fight it, it's that they won't.  Ben Shapiro did a great piece on his podcast regarding this.  Essentially, it boils down to most on the left don't care about the character of their politicians.  Now, after decades, the right is saying "if they don't care, why should we".  

Public opinion has always had a low threshold.  The media is against us.  The Daily Wire also had a piece on the number of minutes the media has spent talking about Moore compared to Menendez, who is actually on trial.

Exactly my point.  Easy pickings.

What do you mean, they won't?  Thomas, Cain, Moore have tried fighting it.  It wasn't until Thomas called it a public lynching that the Dems got embarrassed enough to let up.  But the problem is not the Dems.  The problem is the Repub swamp is just as guilty with using this trick on the political playbook and the rest wouldn't try to help fight off the allegations for their own political self-preservation.

Edited November 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

 

What do you mean, they won't?  

 

I was referring to the party as a whole, not the individuals.  People won't tell their neighbors to pound sand because they don't want to be accused of defending child molesters and rapists.  They keep their mouths shut.  The only way to combat it is to make it expensive for individuals to make false claims and for the public to support them.  Unfortunately, many of these claims turn out to at least have an element of truth.

[JohnsonJones]

40 years and not saying anything????

This is political assassination.  I don't like Moore, but I like how the media does political assassinations like this more.  I'd vote for Moore right now if I was in Alabama because I despise it when it is a political driven thing rather than moral or reality.

If it was REALLY a moral thing, they had 40 years prior...AND many times he's been in the public face of things that they could have said something before this.

The reason the Democrats (and despite what some of the media is saying, those who did research found out that these people actually are NOT Republican or Trump supporters, but actually some were pretty deep in the pockets of the Democrat party) are doing this is because if they can force Moore to step down or get out, they will probably gain the seat in the Senate and possibly end the Republican majority.

Now, in my opinion, getting that seat at this point may actually be a good thing (afterall, those Republicans who voted out the ACA over 100 times when they were the minority, can't even get it repealed now...they are basically useless political hacks who will do nothing anyways), HOWEVER...to me, this is straight up political assassination of Moore.

If he did that stuff, it's reprehensible, but exposing it at this specific time is literally the definition of a political assassination.  Any fool could see that, which is why, even as someone who is more inclined to vote against Moore, I'd refuse to give in to it and do the exact opposite (call it my anti-authority personality for media stunts at this pint).

40 years people...that's a dang long time to choose this exact moment to go live...and it's NOT due to his trying to get a position as he's had positions which have been far more significant in Alabama prior to this, it's all about the entire party thing and how many seats in the congress there are.

To me it's purely political rather than anyone actually concerned about their actual accusations in regards to the accusers side of things.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I was referring to the party as a whole, not the individuals.  People won't tell their neighbors to pound sand because they don't want to be accused of defending child molesters and rapists.  They keep their mouths shut.  The only way to combat it is to make it expensive for individuals to make false claims and for the public to support them.  Unfortunately, many of these claims turn out to at least have an element of truth.

Ok, let's take this element of truth and follow it farther.  Did you vote for Reagan?  Did you vote for Bush Sr.?  If you lived in Georgia in the 90's would you have voted for Gingrich? 

[Grunt]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Ok, let's take this element of truth and follow it farther.  Did you vote for Reagan?  Did you vote for Bush Sr.?  If you lived in Georgia in the 90's would you have voted for Gingrich? 

First, my morals and political views have changed greatly as I've aged.  I would likely have voted for Clinton even AFTER the allegations.   Today, I would not have.  Second, I feel I've established and supported my position quite well with regard to the Moore case.  I'd rather not have to go back and research politicians and their scandals almost 40 years ago to decide if I would have voted for them at the time.

[anatess2]

Just now, Grunt said:

First, my morals and political views have changed greatly as I've aged.  I would likely have voted for Clinton even AFTER the allegations.   Today, I would not have.  Second, I feel I've established and supported my position quite well with regard to the Moore case.  I'd rather not have to go back and research politicians and their scandals almost 40 years ago to decide if I would have voted for them at the time.

Ok, we don't need to go back.  We can make them today.  20/20 hindsight.  Let's put these people on the Alabama ballot:

1.) Reagan.   Swiped some female body parts while in Hollywood.  Infidelity with the first wife.

2.) Bush Sr.  Harrasment of a sexual nature.  He apologized so must be true.

3.) Gingrich.  Infidelity.

We know their achievements in political office.  Would you vote for them?

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

To me it's purely political rather than anyone actually concerned about their actual accusations in regards to the accusers side of things.

Gloria Allred.  Ding ding ding.

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Ok, we don't need to go back.  We can make them today.  20/20 hindsight.  Let's put these people on the Alabama ballot:

1.) Reagan.   Swiped some female body parts while in Hollywood.  Infidelity with the first wife.

2.) Bush Sr.  Harrasment of a sexual nature.  He apologized so must be true.

3.) Gingrich.  Infidelity.

We know their achievements in political office.  Would you vote for them?

 Infidelity?  I probably wouldn't withhold a vote for infidelity.  Harassment?  Depends on the severity, details, and victim.

[anatess2]

Just now, Grunt said:

 Infidelity?  I probably wouldn't withhold a vote for infidelity.  Harassment?  Depends on the severity, details, and victim.

Ok, now I'm getting confused.  What do you think is Moore's credible accusation?

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ok, now I'm getting confused.  What do you think is Moore's credible accusation?

That he was trolling for teenagers and making inappropriate and unwanted attempts at having relations with them.