Bible-Thumper Roy Moore Accused of Hanky-Panky

[Seabass]

Calling the outpouring of sexual misconduct allegations against power men a “watershed moment in this country,” Ryan said that Congress should “set high standards for ourselves so that we can be role models and set examples.”

He then spoke about his decision to call on Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore to bow out of the race. Moore has been accused of sexual harassment and assault by multiple women, including some who said they were teenagers at the time.

“I believe those allegations are credible,” Ryan told NPR in an interview that aired Friday. But when asked whether that standard applied to President Donald Trump― who has been accused of sexual harassment by more than a dozen women and was infamously caught on tape bragging about groping― Ryan balked.

“I think the Roy Moore — I don’t know if — I’m focused on Congress,” Ryan said. “Roy Moore is trying to come to Congress. My job here as Speaker of the House is to help make sure that Congress is an institution that we’re proud of and that’s what I’m focused on. He’s running for Congress and I think the allegations against him were very very credible.”

He then wouldn’t directly respond to a question about whether Trump is being held to a high enough standard, instead referring to him as “a president who’s fighting for an agenda that will make a positive difference in people’s lives.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pa ... 50e0b5fd7a

[L'Emmerdeur]

A 'superhero against the dark forces of political correctness' weighs in on the question of voting for Moore:

'Why Alabamians Should Vote For Roy Moore'

I am going to argue for the very unpopular, even shocking, view that, even if Roy Moore did what he is accused of doing, Alabamans are within their rights to vote for him, and they shouldn’t let Democrats and Never Trumpers shame them into not voting.

Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.

...

What else do we know? We know that two women have accused him of having inappropriate sexual contact or coercion. The most recent allegation appears to have involved more coercion than the first. Whether it would rise to attempted rape in court no one knows, because the details are too sketchy. Forty years is a long time to remember a lot of details.

Both claims have been called into doubt. The yearbook Moore allegedly signed appears to have been doctored, and his accuser falsely claimed never to have seen Moore since even though he was the judge for her divorce. Given recently discovered court records, there is also reason to doubt Leigh Corfman’s story.

But let’s suppose the accusations are mostly true. Then from a conservative moral perspective, Moore is guilty of lying, trying to have pre-marital sexual relations with girls half his age, and pressuring them to do so without first determining that they reciprocate. There is no sugar-coating what he did. Moore was a dirt bag and is currently lying about his actions rather than confessing the truth and asking for forgiveness.

...

The question before us is whether one can still maintain faith and one’s moral integrity while voting for a lesser of two evils. The answer is, yes, in both cases.

All voting is voting for the lesser of two evils, and it’s almost never wrong to vote for the lesser of the two. There are no perfect candidates. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, sometimes bigly. Assuming Moore did what’s been alleged, let’s turn to his rival, Democratic candidate Doug Jones.

Doug Jones Is a Moral Monster Or Moral Ignoramus

Jones has gone on record that not only does he support abortion, but he supports unrestricted abortion, even opposing a ban on abortion after 20 weeks. This is morally equivalent to supporting infanticide. So either Jones knows exactly what he’s doing in supporting killing babies in utero but doesn’t care, in which case he’s a moral monster, or his moral compass is in such need of calibration that one should never trust his judgment in moral matters. Politics, of course, is inextricably bound with such matters.

In my mind, Jones’ position is so extreme that a vote for him is a vote for the greater of two evils by a wide margin. It’s hard to imagine much worse than the mass murder of innocents. That’s also not taking into consideration his many other views with which conservatives disagree.

Furthermore, there is no reason to think that Moore, as an old, married man, is still trying to have sex with teens. All the accusations target his early thirties before he was married. But Jones supports infanticide in utero today. Virtue-signaling Republicans condemning other Republicans for voting for Moore strike me as being more concerned about their own appearance than the seriousness of abortion and the mental state of someone supporting it.

Why are no Republicans or Democrats calling for Jones to step aside if not for the fact that they are really not that serious about the immorality of supporting infanticide in the womb? If Moore should step aside, so should Jones. Of course there is another alternative, one that I support: Elect Moore and support the Senate not giving him a seat. This would bring about another special election.

So there.

[Brian Peacock]

A Republican paedo is always better than an non-child-molesting Democrat. Everyone knows that.

[Seabass]

A 'superhero against the dark forces of political correctness' weighs in on the question of voting for Moore:

'Why Alabamians Should Vote For Roy Moore'

I am going to argue for the very unpopular, even shocking, view that, even if Roy Moore did what he is accused of doing, Alabamans are within their rights to vote for him, and they shouldn’t let Democrats and Never Trumpers shame them into not voting.

Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.

...

What else do we know? We know that two women have accused him of having inappropriate sexual contact or coercion. The most recent allegation appears to have involved more coercion than the first. Whether it would rise to attempted rape in court no one knows, because the details are too sketchy. Forty years is a long time to remember a lot of details.

Both claims have been called into doubt. The yearbook Moore allegedly signed appears to have been doctored, and his accuser falsely claimed never to have seen Moore since even though he was the judge for her divorce. Given recently discovered court records, there is also reason to doubt Leigh Corfman’s story.

But let’s suppose the accusations are mostly true. Then from a conservative moral perspective, Moore is guilty of lying, trying to have pre-marital sexual relations with girls half his age, and pressuring them to do so without first determining that they reciprocate. There is no sugar-coating what he did. Moore was a dirt bag and is currently lying about his actions rather than confessing the truth and asking for forgiveness.

...

The question before us is whether one can still maintain faith and one’s moral integrity while voting for a lesser of two evils. The answer is, yes, in both cases.

All voting is voting for the lesser of two evils, and it’s almost never wrong to vote for the lesser of the two. There are no perfect candidates. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, sometimes bigly. Assuming Moore did what’s been alleged, let’s turn to his rival, Democratic candidate Doug Jones.

Doug Jones Is a Moral Monster Or Moral Ignoramus

Jones has gone on record that not only does he support abortion, but he supports unrestricted abortion, even opposing a ban on abortion after 20 weeks. This is morally equivalent to supporting infanticide. So either Jones knows exactly what he’s doing in supporting killing babies in utero but doesn’t care, in which case he’s a moral monster, or his moral compass is in such need of calibration that one should never trust his judgment in moral matters. Politics, of course, is inextricably bound with such matters.

In my mind, Jones’ position is so extreme that a vote for him is a vote for the greater of two evils by a wide margin. It’s hard to imagine much worse than the mass murder of innocents. That’s also not taking into consideration his many other views with which conservatives disagree.

Furthermore, there is no reason to think that Moore, as an old, married man, is still trying to have sex with teens. All the accusations target his early thirties before he was married. But Jones supports infanticide in utero today. Virtue-signaling Republicans condemning other Republicans for voting for Moore strike me as being more concerned about their own appearance than the seriousness of abortion and the mental state of someone supporting it.

Why are no Republicans or Democrats calling for Jones to step aside if not for the fact that they are really not that serious about the immorality of supporting infanticide in the womb? If Moore should step aside, so should Jones. Of course there is another alternative, one that I support: Elect Moore and support the Senate not giving him a seat. This would bring about another special election.

So there.

Ugh. Religious conservatives are the worst.

[mistermack]

It's actually a well argued piece.
If I was that way inclined, I'd still vote for him.

I would resent the fact that none of this was mentioned, till he ran for office. It's pretty clearly an attempt to persuade people not to vote for him. Which would make me even more determined to vote for him.

The notion of people thinking I could be that easily swayed would guarantee him my vote. I wouldn't be surprised if he got in, on the back of it.

Anyway, teenage girls are the best. His critics are just jealous.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, it doesn't mean anything unless you run for office. You could bugger the Queen and it wouldn't raise an eyebrow unless you run for office. It's unfair that such shocking double-standards are applied as soon as you run for office. Undertaking sexual activity with minors is fine, as long as you don't run for office - nobody cares otherwise.

[mistermack]

Yeah, it doesn't mean anything unless you run for office. You could bugger the Queen and it wouldn't raise an eyebrow unless you run for office. It's unfair that such shocking double-standards are applied as soon as you run for office. Undertaking sexual activity with minors is fine, as long as you don't run for office - nobody cares otherwise.

If he buggered the Queen, I'd vote for him.

nobody cares otherwise.

Quite true. Nobody DID care, till he ran for office. You said it.

[Seabass]

[NineBerry]

That's more than 100%

[Seabass]

It's alternative math.

[Tero]

Moore has 4% votes from all those patriots, voting twice.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Could be double-posted in the 'Republicans' thread.

'RNC reinstates support for Moore after Trump endorsement'

The Republican National Committee is reinstating its support of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore after initially cutting ties over allegations of sexual misconduct, two sources confirmed to The Hill Monday.

It's the modern Republican 'big tent.' Pussy-grabbers and kiddy-fiddlers welcome, as long as they're ready and willing to give tax breaks to the richest Americans and screw over the nation's most vulnerable citizens.

[pErvinalia]

Incredible state of politics there. Utterly foreign and bizarre.

[Hermit]

That's more than 100%

Fox knows how many fraudulent votes the Democrats have at the ready for election day.

[Animavore]

Washington (CNN) — Over the last 48 hours, the Republican Party has come to grips with a stark reality: Roy Moore may well win the Alabama special election next Tuesday.

That realization has triggered a series of events. President Donald Trump, always interested in associating himself with winning, endorsed Moore on Monday in a tweet and a phone call -- telling the embattled Senate nominee to "go get 'em!" And the very same senators who called on Moore to step aside and condemned him for allegedly pursuing sexual relationships with teenage girls when he was in his 30s started to find ways to walk those comments back.

"I think we're going to let the people of Alabama decide a week from Tuesday who they want to send to the Senate, and then we'll address the matter appropriately," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Sunday.

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch took that rationalization even further on Monday while traveling with Trump in Utah.

Of Trump's endorsement of Moore, Hatch said: "I don't think he had any choice but to do that. You know he needs every Republican he can get so he can put his agenda through. So that's the only Republican you can possibly get down there."

Added Hatch of the accusations against Moore: "Many of the things he allegedly did are decades ago. So it's hard to -- that's a decision that has to be made by the people in that state."

And, of course, the Republican National Committee announced Monday night that it will re-engage financially in the Alabama race just weeks after pulling its money out of the state.

So. This is where we are. In the space of a few weeks, establishment Republicans have gone from saying they believed the allegations made against Moore and insisting he couldn't and shouldn't represent the GOP to leaving it to the people of Alabama to decide and attacking the accusations as decades old.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/05/polit ... index.html

The Republican party showing themselves to be the cesspool of moral decay that they are.