Roy Moore justifications
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
It just makes me wonder how much of it is true.
Again, I believe that vast majority of claims. But it makes me wonder how much the %s change or if the even change at all.
What matters to me is that Roy Moore lied about the situation. Just like in court, if a witness lies about one thing it is reasonable to assume anything they say is a lie.
Roy Moore KNEW those women and he lied and said he didn't. I don't really care if only 1% of it is true. It no longer matters to me in regard to what I absolutely know about Roy Moore: he lies to his constituents about his conduct, he accuses his victims of dishonesty and deceit.
Case against Roy Moore is closed. He is a scumbag.
I'm not trying to defend Moore. Glad he lost. Scumbag works for me.
I am talking in a general sense.
Oh. Yeah, I think it's a valid question. And I think before people lose their livelihoods there needs to be a reasonable amount of substantiation to allegations. But once credible allegations of serious sexual misconduct are there I think it's fair for any organization to exclude the offender. Criminal convictions are on a whole other level.
Pretty sure Mitt and Jeb are working on it.
Jeff Flake and other RINOs are tweedle-dee to the Dem Tweedle-dum. They don't really offer an alternative, just exist to follow the basic powers that be.
I used to think that the Dems offered a genuine voice for the people, say way back when.... say FDR or JFK. Carter was a nuclear engineer but just a figurehead for the status quo. But imo Bill Clinton was a Jay Rockefeller stooge. Since the Clintons rose to the limelight, the Dem party has been worse in the tank for the oligarchs than the Republicans ever were.
Roy Moore made too much of his fundamentalist bible beliefs for most people. He was not Jesus, but even Jesus would have lost the Senate race. Nobody really wants a senator voting on religious principle.
And yah, I don't smoke weed so I have no idea what reality looks like to the young'uns.
recent studies outta Palo Alto show that weed's effects are due to the cannabinoids mimicking some natural, as in stuff we make ourselves in our DNA-driven biochemistry, that directly affects the formation of new neuron connections, and while being somewhat pleasureable, it is likely going to curtail some brain functions prematurely. The younger you use it, the more it will affect you.
Nobody has proven anything about Roy Moore. Allegations are hearsay if second-hand. First hand, the judge or jury will listen to you but question your assertions against reasonable or logical relationships to whatever evidence is available.
The Gloria Allred client decided, on the advice of her attorney, to retract the assertion that Moore wrote some of the damning comments in her yearbook, after people asked for it to be produced for expert forensic analysis. The ink would have proven it was written literally this year. I think it was a deliberate falsehood cooked by political hacks, who must have done a bit of footwork trying to find anyone who had anything to say about Moore.
Some of you keep saying it's proven. It just isn't.
That is THE REALITY on the charges against Moore.
candrew
Well-Known Member
Link to the recent palo alto studies, pls.
And marijuana use amongst youth has been declining for a long time now from what I've read, I'll get a link for that if you want, but particularly in states where it has been legalized recreationally.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-is-down-in-colorado/?utm_term=.57f3e455bd44
RINOs, you say that like it's an insult. How lock-step should a party be? How narrow should a major political ideology for a nation of over 300 million people be? Is Republican purity really the way forward for that party? Can such purity be accomplished in a honest way, or does it require individuals to conform to something and to pretend to believe it and be 100% loyal, even though they sometimes have different views?
When they start stacking up you know something is up, and credible hard evidence shouldn't be necessary. Does anyone think we screwed up as a society by not sending Josh Powell to prison before he killed his own children as well? Circumstantial evidence in the Powell [non]case & testimony from a combination of people a man has had documented contact with should be enough for the public to indict them.
There has to be some degree of credible substantiation. Multiple similar accounts is a form of substantiation, imo. Non-accusers confirming the reasonable possibility of the accuser's account is a form of substantiation. Enough, at least, for someone to be removed from a workplace if the alleged abuse is happening there.
Red
Well-Known Member
The World Health Organization says CBD in weed does have health benefits:
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20171215/world-health-group-pots-cbd-has-health-benefits
All of it is probably true. Why would someone come forward when there are others coming forward? Why even come forward unless it's true? Unless you think they are paid operatives. And why pay someone and risk being found out when others are already coming out?
Spinoza
Well-Known Member
It scares me that people actually think this way. As if the act of somebody making a claim about something implies that it's true. There could be political motivations, desire for attention, potential monetary awards in the form of civil suits, desire for revenge, psychosis, impaired memory... the list could go on. For example, I think most of Al Franken's accusers are greatly exaggerating or flat out lying. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if I was right.
Stats show that many, many women deal with sexual abuse in some form, and almost all with sexual harassment. What is reported is a drop in an ocean. Yet people still believe that men are innocent and women have ulterior motives, or even if men are guilty it wasn't that big of a deal. Why is that? It makes me sick to see how many men, on here and everywhere, who want to discredit and blame women still. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? It's time to check your stupid male privilege. There will always be people that lie, but the assumption that men are typically not lying and that women most likely are is so frustrating. Do the math!
How many women's lives have improved by reporting sexual abuse? Some received well-deserved monetary settlements because it has typically been the only form of justice they would be able to receive, but if you think money makes the horror and pain go away, you are mistaken. If you think the attention they get is positive, you are sadly in error. Ask Monica Lewinsky and Kobe's rape victim and Elizabeth Smart and Anita Hill and a million other women how much better their lives got at the time.
Thanks to the men on here who seem to understand. It is finally time for women to be heard, and it makes me angry that so many men want to keep the status quo where men get to do whatever they want and women have to shut up and take it.
The idea that women are lying in Roy Moore's case is an example of not understanding this situation at all. No woman reports all of the abuse and harassment incidents they experience. We suffer in silence because no one listens. Why do women come forward many years later? Usually because something happens that compels them to do so (like your abuser running for the Senate) or because the climate becomes a little more friendly to do so.
I have experienced many situations from co-workers that now would get them fired, but at the time it occurred there were not the procedures in place to do anything about it. I have no intention of hunting these men down and trying to ruin their lives now, but if any of them ran for government office, you bet I'd want to join my voice with others who experienced pain, trauma and humiliation at their hands. If they did it to me, they did it to others.
How many women's lives have improved by reporting sexual abuse? Some received well-deserved monetary settlements because it has typically been the only form of justice they would be able to receive, but if you think money makes the horror and pain go away, you are mistaken. If you think the attention they get is positive, you are sadly in error. Ask Monica Lewinsky and Kobe's rape victim and Elizabeth Smart and Anita Hill and a million other women how much better their lives got at the time.
Thanks to the men on here who seem to understand. It is finally time for women to be heard, and it makes me angry that so many men want to keep the status quo where men get to do whatever they want and women have to shut up and take it.
The idea that women are lying in Roy Moore's case is an example of not understanding this situation at all. No woman reports all of the abuse and harassment incidents they experience. We suffer in silence because no one listens. Why do women come forward many years later? Usually because something happens that compels them to do so (like your abuser running for the Senate) or because the climate becomes a little more friendly to do so.
I have experienced many situations from co-workers that now would get them fired, but at the time it occurred there were not the procedures in place to do anything about it. I have no intention of hunting these men down and trying to ruin their lives now, but if any of them ran for government office, you bet I'd want to join my voice with others who experienced pain, trauma and humiliation at their hands. If they did it to me, they did it to others.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Just like people who are not guilty of murder have no need to be concerned, right? After all, innocents never get imprisoned or even accused.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
"sexual misconduct" hate it
Pretty sure he was accused of statutory rape. Having sex with a child. That ain't misconduct. Having sex with an employee or cheating on your spouse is sexual misconduct. Rape is not. I think using these kind of euphemisms is counterproductive.
I wasn't talking about any specific person in my post. That's why I used a general term like that.
True, there's a lot of psycho bitches out there. And psycho dudes.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I stopped reading when you called Jeff Flake a RHINO.
The mere fact that many on the right have the opinion that politicians like Flake, Romney, and Jeb Bush are RHINOs just goes to show how far to the right their party has shifted...
And why it resembles more of a sick cult than a political party.
Yeah, I mean they don't even have a horn, and if there's one thing I know about rhinos, it's that they have horns.