Roy Moore justifications

[JazzGal]

On average I would agree with you but this is a really broad brush. It is far bigger than anyone wants to admit IMO. No need to down play these cases due to gender swap. We can condemn them while still condemning what happens to virtually all women. If anything it gives some small, partial insight into what others experience.

I have also had women go way to far. Doesn't mean I am lessening others experiences by relating my own.

I completely agree. I was commenting on Franklin's examples of women aggressively hitting on him. People sometimes don't take the first "no" as an answer and continue their pursuit too long. That means they are horrible people, but not necessarily sexual abusers. I didn't detect in his examples any element of fear, that he was threatened with his life, his health, his safety, his livelihood, his reputation, etc. To me, that's what makes it different.

I'm sure there are plenty of men who have experienced sexual harassment and abuse. And I did not mean to lessen anyone's experiences at all.

 

[Stoked]

I completely agree. I was commenting on Franklin's examples of women aggressively hitting on him. People sometimes don't take the first "no" as an answer and continue their pursuit too long. That means they are horrible people, but not necessarily sexual abusers. I didn't detect in his examples any element of fear, that he was threatened with his life, his health, his safety, his livelihood, his reputation, etc. To me, that's what makes it different.

I'm sure there are plenty of men who have experienced sexual harassment and abuse. And I did not mean to lessen anyone's experiences at all.

Agreed, just as I'd expect some of the #mettoo examples from women to fall more in line with Franklin's experiences. So many variables. The individual people involve, the setting, was there any mind altering substances in play, violence, groups instead of individuals, peer or power pressure...

We need to be more aware of what is around us and act when needed. I've stepped in and complete redirected a scenario I felt was headed the wrong way a couple times. Challenging some drunk guy to beer pong or my wife and I walking up to a bar to talk to a guy and girl that didn't appear to be together. I step in and buy the guy a drink and my wife removes the woman form the situation. slap my money down and when the guy grabs the drink I disappear. I haven't, thankfully, seen anything in this type of scenario that requires a violent reaction.

And a negative response the first time was all I needed to wish them an awesome night and move on. Plenty off fish in the sea.

 

[franklin]

I completely agree. I was commenting on Franklin's examples of women aggressively hitting on him. People sometimes don't take the first "no" as an answer and continue their pursuit too long. That means they are horrible people, but not necessarily sexual abusers. I didn't detect in his examples any element of fear, that he was threatened with his life, his health, his safety, his livelihood, his reputation, etc. To me, that's what makes it different.

I'm sure there are plenty of men who have experienced sexual harassment and abuse. And I did not mean to lessen anyone's experiences at all.

I was going to point out that that is the big difference but didn't want to be long winded. Women are much more vulnerable from a physical standpoint and the amount of women who are violated at some point in their life is astonishingly high. I picked the situation of having to physically remove someone from my lap for a subtle reason that demonstrates exactly what you responded with. I'm not trying to take any of your main argument away from you other than the generic portrayal that men in general demand women please them through beauty and sex. A whole lot of that mentality comes from women competing with their peers. That's a typical evolutionary action just as it is with men acting macho or top of the social food chain or having a ton of money.

Also to add, I believe it is so much more traumatizing for a woman to be raped by a man than a man to be raped by a woman. I'm pretty sure I could get raped by a woman and the only grief I would have would be worrying about contracting an STD and not being able to be with my wife for an extended period of time. I wouldn't need special counseling or lose sleep over it. The reverse definitely is not true (nor is it true for all men, but I think most fit this mentality).

 

[Red]

Debatable

Lol, well I must confess my short term memory is not what it once might have been, so, who knows....

I've never been "victimized" by an overly aggressive woman. But, I used to hitchhike everywhere as a teen, and one time I caught a ride by a guy who might have been in his early thirty's. Within a couple of minutes, he was stroking my leg with his right hand, while steering the car with his left. We're doing a good clip, I can't start fighting him without risking cracking the car up with me in it. But I was very concerned, I don't know what this guy is capable of, and I'm in a moving vehicle. So I try to act like somehow this is cool. Meanwhile, first red light and you couldn't shoot me out of a cannon faster then I bolted from that car. And there I am in the middle of a major interesection shaking my fist and screaming my block off.

 

[babe]

But babe did fall into the base of Roy Moore supporters. Old White Males who don't really consider sexual assault a big deal.

Good job supporting a sexual assaulter babe.

But please, break down the evidence, with a detailed explanation of the portion of it that was written by the victim. How it has been established which portion was written by whom and what that means about Roy Moore's LIE about "knowing the accusers".

Roy Moore knew those women and he lied about knowing those women. That's a fact, babe. That's not in dispute by anyone residing in reality. Pick where you want to be, in reality, on in your own self-created fantasy. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for your answer, I know you're getting on in years and prefer your fantasy.

What will you do if you live long enough that the truth becomes inescapable?

The fact that facts are, and always will be, escapable when pitted against the human mind, is daily proven, in my view, by the rhetoric of delusional believers in any kind of politically-based utopia worth fighting for.

I think the "judge" Roy Moore is charming in his career of pretending to be the indefatigable defender of the Ten Commandments displays on public property. In an age of totally self-absorbed secular humanists who wake up every morning and find "God" leering back at them over the bathroom sink in the mirror.

It just seems necessary to keep up some kind of debate when people en masse finally decide they already know it all.

That's the reason our mainstream media needs to be taken out behind the woodshed and beaten for being such flagrant liars and agenda dogs. The whole reason why a "Free Press" has always been the necessity to oppose power, not enforce it.

I am never going to agree with public trials by media without principled due process before judges and juries committed to basic human rights and the determination that the accused are innocent until proven guilty in a factual manner.

And no, I don't give celebs any preference in setting public morals.

 

[Gameface]

The fact that facts are, and always will be, escapable when pitted against the human mind, is daily proven, in my view, by the rhetoric of delusional believers in any kind of politically-based utopia worth fighting for.

So you don't deny that Roy Moore, at the very least, has provided a false account of his interactions with those women?

 

[babe]

So you don't deny that Roy Moore, at the very least, has provided a false account of his interactions with those women?

I got your point about the possibility that part of the yearbook scribble might have been Moore's, and I don't really doubt he knew some of the women who accused him. His denials were standard legal blandishments all lawyers, including prosecutors, blather out instantaneously at any hint of truth, but that pales in the context of determined political assassination attempts like the Washington Post article.

Did you notice that the Post article that originated the controversy contained some deliberate falsifications..... that the accusers were without political bias, even Republicans? Do you disbelieve the obvious truth that someone went down to Alabama with some real cash in real envelopes, offering money for suitable stories?

Of course I'm not a great forensics analyst, and I haven't seen the scribblings, but I'm wondering why anyone would scribble in a yearbook over the Holidays to authenticate a place and a time for the link to be established. I think that was the part that was added, recently, in the context of some cash flows.

I don't think Moore is going to press his case, but that is the only way any investigation of the yearbook scribblings is ever gonna be done, so we will not really "know" the truth here.

Hannity had some pretty good comments on the case recently. He said that his man in the Alabama primary runoff was Mo Brooks, and that the establishment Rs supported Luther Strange, a prosecutor who until this campaign was pushing an investigation into the AL governor. When he got the political deal to be the interim Senator, he stopped that case cold. Sounds corrupt to me.

Hannity says Mo Brooks would be pretty much a pain in the arses of the establishment Republicans, say, sorta like a new Ted Cruz in the Senate.

Hannity denies that Moore's loss was any kind of reflection on Trump, and further asserts that Trump can't be impeached for offenses that may have occurred before the election. But hey, in todays world, facts really don't matter any more. In fact, I recently heard an interview from a normally-balanced and objective sort of guy, who wrote a book analyzing the Trump victory as "Win Bigly: Persuasion in a world where facts don't matter".
Amazon product ASIN 0735219710

 

[Gameface]

Trump can be impeached for whatever congress decides to impeach him for. You get that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, right?

 

[babe]

Trump can be impeached for whatever congress decides to impeach him for. You get that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, right?

you're hanging your hopes on some kind of significant reversal of things as they are. Yes, there is a Congress. And yes, Congress historically ignores the actual words of our Constitution. I was referring to the actual provision of the Constitution.

 

[Gameface]

you're hanging your hopes on some kind of significant reversal of things as they are. Yes, there is a Congress. And yes, Congress historically ignores the actual words of our Constitution. I was referring to the actual provision of the Constitution.

That post was not related to my hopes.

 

[babe]

Trump can be impeached for whatever congress decides to impeach him for. You get that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, right?

you're hanging your hopes on some kind of significant reversal of things as they are. Yes, there is a Congress. And yes, Congress historically ignores the actual words of our Constitution. I was referring to the actual provision of the Constitution.
Well, more precisely, I was referring to some boilerplate legalese Hannity read out on air the other day/ Probably some legal scholar's interpretation.....

Unless you want to give such latitude to Congress to go through some objectionable Presidents whole life, oh say like a Mueller sort of unlimited investigation..... well, most people don't care about what happened forty years ago, or ten. Impeachment would become a great method for skating around any elected or hired government official, capable of totally removing public elections from the people's grasp as a restraint on government.

I looked at the Senate rules, and the House rules, and it appears there is no time restrictive clause anywhere, nor in the Constitution itself. Impeachment is entirely in the hands of the House for bringing charges, and then in the Senate for trying the case.

I'll stand by my case that impeachment should be a rarely used thing. I mean, election results should outrank it. If someone gets impeached in a highly vindictive political partisan pissing match, the people can just re-elect the offending, non-conforming person the next election.

The whole idea of national interests pouring tens of millions of dollars into a state race for the US Senate just stinks to me. Who do you people think you are, anyway? If you don't live in Alabama, you're assholes for getting into the politics there.

Same thing for all the DumpTrumpsters. You don't get it that we have elections for a reason, really.

 

[babe]

That post was not related to my hopes.

Well, what you said was good enough for "fact" in my book. But thinking the Trump impeachment is a viable hope is something else.

You will need to pick up quite a few House and a few Senate seats, I think, in the next election. The Hannities on the hot airwaves are saying a significant movement in the next election will certainly lead to a Trump impeachment. If that happens, it will still take time. And you will get Pence if you win. really. What difference would that make.

I don't think very many Americans really want it, just the diehard losers who can't accept a simple electoral process as the basis enabling people to change the directions/personnel of their government. If you don't believe in, or have any kind of commitment to, electoral process, I don't think you're credible as a person committed to democracy.