Roy Moore sexual allegations

Tools    





this is a guy who is on record saying that muslims should be barred from holding office or being in the military. That homosexuality should be illegal. And that America was a better place when slavery was legal. And he still got over 48% of the vote...
He also taught a class telling women not to run for office. Accepted money from a neo-nazi . Said the gay marriage decision was worse than the pro slavery one. Plenty more:

Moore himself has been outspoken against LGBT rights, calling homosexuality an "inherent evil," as well as "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God" in a 2002 opinion he issued as chief justice. Moore was suspended as chief justice in 2016 for instructing Alabama's probate judges to defy a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Good job black women.



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



Polls show that some people doubt the accusations, not that they're fine with what he was accused of. I find that disturbing, as well, but it's an important distinction.

Anyway, there have been a lot of "lesser of two evils" choices in American politics lately. I suspect a lot of people who voted for Moore were plenty disturbed by all of this, and simply made a pragmatic decision based on policy. It's a short-sighted decision, but it shouldn't be confused with an endorsement.
While there was some "pragmatism" no doubt there was also a WHOLE lot of loud red neck wails of "I'D RATHER HAVE A PEED-O-PHILE IN OFFICE THEN A DEM-O-CRAT!" i heard this more than once myself. And I reject the notion that Jones is an "evil" of any kind. He's a decent, middle of the road democrat with no known baggage, not some kind of left wing loonie. And if you are voting for a scum bag like Moore because all that matters to you is cramming through some conservative agenda then you have sold your soul to the devil. Which is especially troubling since most of his supporters are so called evangelicals. Hypocrites one and all. And I dont believe for a second most of those people really believe Moore is entirely innocent of all the charges leveled against him. They are just choosing to say that to the poll takers out of denial or defiance.
__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...



While there was some "pragmatism" no doubt there was also a WHOLE lot of loud red neck wails of "I'D RATHER HAVE A PEED-O-PHILE IN OFFICE THEN A DEM-O-CRAT!" i heard this more than once myself.
"More than once" isn't a lot, given how much this has been talked about. Personally, I heard way, way more of the pragmatic justification and/or disbelief in the accusations.

And I reject the notion that Jones is an "evil" of any kind. He's a decent, middle of the road democrat with no known baggage, not some kind of left wing loonie. And if you are voting for a scum bag like Moore because all that matters to you is cramming through some conservative agenda then you have sold your soul to the devil.
You say "conservative agenda" like people did this over carried interest or something. It's pretty clear it had more to do with abortion. And while you may not personally find that to be the moral imperative that it is for many pro-life people, it's pretty understandable that they do.

Again, I find that sort of decision to be horrendously myopic, and I think Moore is a buffoon and a disgrace to public service. But a lot of people felt they were choosing between an evil policy and a terrible person, and given that belief I don't think it's reasonable to pretend they were giving some full-throated endorsement to this guy.
__________________



Lots of bad hombres out there..
Any watching the live CNN interview from Leeann Tweeden (who was groped and kissed by Al Franken)? She made so many great points, very compelling and very sincere.

It's still on, by the way.
1. The more I listen to her the less sincere she sounds. I am all for listening to any woman speaking of abuse, but I have to say she sounds phony to me. Also, she has had a long and cozy history with appearing on Fox news, being cozy with Roger Stone (who published the Al Franken story before anyone else) and being a birther. The whole thing is very suspect to me.

https://pagesix.com/2017/12/07/tom-a...s-manipulated/

This doesn't change the fact that Al Franken is certainly guilty of inappropriate behavior, especially since she is not the only accuser against him.

2. This is a Roy Moore thread and you made 2 posts regarding Al Franken. Maybe you should make another thread.
__________________
“There's no place to hide, When you're lit from the inside” Roisin Murphy



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
"More than once" isn't a lot, given how much this has been talked about. Personally, I heard way, way more of the pragmatic justification and/or disbelief in the accusations.


You say "conservative agenda" like people did this over carried interest or something. It's pretty clear it had more to do with abortion. And while you may not personally find that to be the moral imperative that it is for many pro-life people, it's pretty understandable that they do.

Again, I find that sort of decision to be horrendously myopic, and I think Moore is a buffoon and a disgrace to public service. But a lot of people felt they were choosing between an evil policy and a terrible person, and given that belief I don't think it's reasonable to pretend they were giving some full-throated endorsement to this guy.


I'm not sure why I'm piping in here. Maybe because I'm frustrated at the work place and need a vent. Still, this may not be the best topic to jump into!!!! I'll (try to) tread lightly. Reading through my reply here I should point out that I'm not referring to media. Just us simple folk in the south.

As far as conservative agendas go with regards to this senate election, I do not think those who voted for Moore had an agenda. Or at least not one that rises to what I read as potential conspiracy-level manipulation, even in the lightest definition. I am speaking of the individual voter level and not the national level talking-heads, be it the politician or pundit. That is another level and another matter. I do believe many votes were made for party label and justified as opposition to the "evil" of abortion, regardless of whatever other issues were on the table. And it was as simple as that.

I agree that it would be unfair to take a vote for Moore as a default endorsement of pedophilia (or whatever). Similarly, I would like to believe that a vote for Jones is not an inherent endorsement of "killing babies". Unfortunately, my experience has shown me that the latter is absolutely true, at least in the social cross-section that I deal with here in the state of Alabama judging by commentary and frustration leading up to the election. A friend of mine recently said, "If you wear a Doug Jones shirt in public, I have the right to scream baby killer at you in public." Yes, that is anecdotal, but that comment is more accepting than a legitimate discussion on hypothetical situations where one must confront one's moral standard to question what, if anything, would be an acceptable level of compromise to cross those lines. Just in discussion! "Could I kill a man? Never! Well, to defend my family? Maybe. Probably." There is a range of possibilities between a yes or no answer. To dismiss that outright, I find it convenient and lazy.

Personally, I cannot even begin to relate to how one can distill all potential matters of concern down to vote = complicity to murder, as if nothing else exists. That, to me, is as arbitrary as claiming I hate fruit because I would not eat a plum. It bothers me, deeply.

I do understand the emotional power of the topic. I understand the faith in the issue. I understand the moral and ethical dilemma of the action. And I can absolutely understand how this one topic alone can be enough to validate one's voting preference---if honest consideration has been given to other weighing points but still choosing this principle over all others. That is a subtly that is continually lost in debate. I use that term lightly as my experience shows that debate quickly devolves to argument, at which point I have to give up. What I have difficulty understanding is how this voice can be so loud as to drown out a gradient of contexts from one extreme to another effectively grouping anything outside of this position as evil, while at the same time judging party-line internal conflicts of morality as not as bad. Why can there be no conversation or reflection? We all have principles, I believe. Those other principles are not void simply because one's principle may not be as strong as another's.

That is what I experience though. Whatever thought processes one takes to reach such a conclusion is mind boggling to me, yet so many around me follow that path.

Putting Moore's allegations aside, I believe there was enough conflict in his politics and his agenda (as a politician, not as as voter) to draw, at the very least, doubt in his competency as a national leader. Much of that appears to have been swept under the rug due to the volume of 1) opposition to allegation and judgment, and 2) hard line moral stances on abortion.

Side note: I am sorry to put so much emphasis on abortion. That really was not my point in this reply. I kind of see the word as a variable for my opinions above, where I could replace that word with any number of other wedge issues and draw similar conclusions. It is not the topic so much as it is the method of validation that I see play out in those around me that I am trying to highlight.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure I'm well off topic at this point. I'll close it out and submit. Time to go home now anyway, so yay!!!
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you."
- Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy."
- Captain Steel



Thoughtful reply ynwtf. Particularly:

1) That it wasn't just the accusations that caused Moore to get edged out. The black turnout that gave Jones the necessary boost didn't occur because the black community just takes "pedophilia charges" more seriously than white voters, it's because of Moore's politics. If either there wasn't the charges OR if Moore wasn't as extreme a candidate he probably would have won.

2) I've also been bothered that some of the conversation from the liberal side (my side) often boiled it down to a vote for Moore is a vote for pedophilia. Honestly we've all voted for candidates that are mental compromises. If I were in Alabama and both major party candidates were Pro-Life, I'd probably vote for the Democrat (provided they matched up with me on other important issues, like taxation, voting rights, civil rights, etc.) and not a Pro-Choice independent. And I wouldn't want to be called Pro-Life because I made that calculation.

As such, while I'm "excited" about the win because it means Trump has a tiny bit less power, I know that this one was partly arbitrary. There will probably be moore and moore Moores, and they could win.



i'm SUPER GOOD at Jewel karaoke
There will probably be moore and moore Moores, and they could win.
not if black women have anything to do with it!
__________________
letterboxd



As such, while I'm "excited" about the win because it means Trump has a tiny bit less power, I know that this one was partly arbitrary. There will probably be moore and moore Moores, and they could win.
Same, though this really puts the fringier candidates on notice. It's important to show them that there is a limit to this stuff. Post-Trump, people have been feeling out about just how much they can deny their way to victory in the face of mounting evidence, so it's important to establish a floor on that.

And it only works if both parties push back. The Democratic turnout surge was a necessary, but not sufficient, part of the result. There are a ton of Republicans in Alabama, so the Republican candidate isn't losing unless a lot of them stay home. Thankfully, they did.