If Roy Moore Isn't Rock Bottom for Republicans, What the Hell Is?

[Dashinka 23,366]

3 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

In other words, you're saying there was no reason for anyone not to vote for Clinton. 

Considering the credible rape claims even prior to 1992 I would say yes.  But of course he had Hillary on his side able to destroy those accusations.  I wonder if Roy Moore has enough money to hire Hillary to take care of these accusations?

[Dashinka 23,366]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

It isn't about claiming moral high ground. It is about applying the right criteria to the issues at hand. If the democrats have a candidate for Senate next year in a similar situation, we can have the same discussion. Discussing the active issues right now are of more importance than talking about elections from 20 years ago. I actually think it is an interesting question to ask whether Clinton (Bill) would still be elected in today's world under the same circumstances from the 90's. But that would just be speculation.

 

I'm glad to see many Republicans in Congress taking a stand against Roy Moore. While I'm glad they are doing it now, it does make me wonder what change has occurred since 2016 when similar accusations didn't seem to bother them. 20 years is plenty of time to change. 1 year is pretty quick. Will be interesting to see if they remain consistent.

What about applying the Clinton criteria to Moore?  What you said was essentially that a person would be unreasonable to ignore the mounting evidence against Moore.  Well we has a similar situation a few years back which is clearly comparable.  You can argue times change, etc, but rape is rape and has been for a long time in this country and Bill Clinton gets a pass.  Why is that? 

 

Please define the similar accusations?  Last I read, most of those were deemed not credible and honestly even though there was an underage rape accusation against Trump and Bill Clinton's friend Mr. Epstein, it was dropped. 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[CaliCat 3,957]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

What about applying the Clinton criteria to Moore?  What you said was essentially that a person would be unreasonable to ignore the mounting evidence against Moore.  Well we has a similar situation a few years back which is clearly comparable.  You can argue times change, etc, but rape is rape and has been for a long time in this country and Bill Clinton gets a pass.  Why is that? 

 

Please define the similar accusations?  Last I read, most of those were deemed not credible and honestly even though there was an underage rape accusation against Trump and Bill Clinton's friend Mr. Epstein, it was dropped. 

 

The question at hand is whether Moore should get a pass. You seem to favor that position. Should Moore get a pass, because he is not the first one accused of sexual assault and rape? Does the fact that he is not the first in his class makes him suitable for the senate?

 

[Dashinka 23,366]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

The question at hand is whether Moore should get a pass. You seem to favor that position. Should Moore get a pass, because he is not the first one accused of sexual assault and rape? Does the fact that he is not the first in his class makes him suitable for the senate?

 

I said many times already Moore should be gone.  I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the MDL with their handling of the Clinton's (yes, both of them) in relation to similar accusations. 

[bcking 3,157]

16 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

What about applying the Clinton criteria to Moore?  What you said was essentially that a person would be unreasonable to ignore the mounting evidence against Moore.  Well we has a similar situation a few years back which is clearly comparable.  You can argue times change, etc, but rape is rape and has been for a long time in this country and Bill Clinton gets a pass.  Why is that? 

You are mixing tenses, and I think tenses are important here.

 

Bill Clinton GOT a pass, he doesn't "get a pass" now, because he isn't running now. That isn't just grammar, that is an important distinction. We aren't talking a "few years back", we are talking around 20 years back now (Time flies). Now we could discuss whether he would still get a pass today, but that would be purely speculation. We could also discuss why he GOT a pass 20 years ago, but again I'm not sure that is helpful for the current discussion. 

 

Even if we concluded in the end that it was a mistake to give Bill Clinton a pass 20 years ago, how does that impact our discussion now? Whether it was or wasn't a mistake is irrelevant to the current question which is -

 

Should mounting sexual assault allegations from multiple independent sources that have been further corroborated by other sources disqualify someone from running for a political office in 2017? 

 

I would hope, regardless of the elections in the 90's, that everyone would say the answer is yes.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you really do want to compare them I would say this:

 

I think it is important to go back and review dates on things. It's been a long time for all of us. Bill Clinton's second Presidential election was in 1996. Broaddrick's claims that he raped her came in 1999. Paula Jones' case was prior, in 1994. However that wasn't rape, that was sexual harassment. Maybe that still should have been enough. However, at the time of the election in 1996 the case had been dismissed by a Republican Judge. It only resurfaced after his election during the Lewinsky business.

 

In the end he was impeached, though it was for obstruction of justice and not just for being a sleazy harasser/philanderer/possible rapist. But all of that was after his election.

 

We are now dealing with scenarios where the information is known BEFORE the public cast their vote. That is significantly different in my opinion. We had a similar scenario in the 2016 election and we know the outcome of that one.

Edited November 15, 2017 by bcking

[Jacque67 7,328]

Sixth woman comes forward-Moore groped her when he was married.

 

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/new_roy_moore_accuser_he_didnt.html

 

Has Hannity got a countdown clock running on Fox? 24 hours soon up.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Latest accuser says Moore asked her if her daughters were as pretty as she is while she was in his office to sign custody paperwork during a divorce.

8 minutes ago( Chris Hayes)

 

Eew, he's hitting on the mum AND daughters???

[Dashinka 23,366]

5 hours ago, bcking said:

You are mixing tenses, and I think tenses are important here.

 

Bill Clinton GOT a pass, he doesn't "get a pass" now, because he isn't running now. That isn't just grammar, that is an important distinction. We aren't talking a "few years back", we are talking around 20 years back now (Time flies). Now we could discuss whether he would still get a pass today, but that would be purely speculation. We could also discuss why he GOT a pass 20 years ago, but again I'm not sure that is helpful for the current discussion. 

 

Even if we concluded in the end that it was a mistake to give Bill Clinton a pass 20 years ago, how does that impact our discussion now? Whether it was or wasn't a mistake is irrelevant to the current question which is -

 

Should mounting sexual assault allegations from multiple independent sources that have been further corroborated by other sources disqualify someone from running for a political office in 2017? 

 

I would hope, regardless of the elections in the 90's, that everyone would say the answer is yes.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you really do want to compare them I would say this:

 

I think it is important to go back and review dates on things. It's been a long time for all of us. Bill Clinton's second Presidential election was in 1996. Broaddrick's claims that he raped her came in 1999. Paula Jones' case was prior, in 1994. However that wasn't rape, that was sexual harassment. Maybe that still should have been enough. However, at the time of the election in 1996 the case had been dismissed by a Republican Judge. It only resurfaced after his election during the Lewinsky business.

 

In the end he was impeached, though it was for obstruction of justice and not just for being a sleazy harasser/philanderer/possible rapist. But all of that was after his election.

 

We are now dealing with scenarios where the information is known BEFORE the public cast their vote. That is significantly different in my opinion. We had a similar scenario in the 2016 election and we know the outcome of that one.

Not quite correct given the current state of affairs going on now.  Folks like Bill Cosby are getting prosecuted for things that happened many years ago, but Bill Clinton is still getting a pass.  There is another big distinction in the comparison between Moore and Clinton.  In Moore’s case we are talking about allegations from 30-40 years ago, but back in 1992, the allegations regarding Bill Clinton were very recent.  I do agree, Bill Clinton received a pass in 1992 and he continues to get a pass today most likely due to his status as a past president.  Moore on the other hand has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.  In both cases we are talking about potentially despicable human beings, we know what the Clinton’s did, the Roy Moore item is still to be determined.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Not quite correct given the current state of affairs going on now.  Folks like Bill Cosby are getting prosecuted for things that happened many years ago, but Bill Clinton is still getting a pass.  There is another big distinction in the comparison between Moore and Clinton.  In Moore’s case we are talking about allegations from 30-40 years ago, but back in 1992, the allegations regarding Bill Clinton were very recent.  I do agree, Bill Clinton received a pass in 1992 and he continues to get a pass today most likely due to his status as a past president.  Moore on the other hand has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.  In both cases we are talking about potentially despicable human beings, we know what the Clinton’s did, the Roy Moore item is still to be determined.

In 1992 there was an allegation from one person. It went to court. And a judge threw the case out. There were witnesses that provided contrary testimony and a variety of other reasons.

 

More came to light later, but again that was after his reelection.

 

Again - timing is important.

[Jacque67 7,328]

https://www.axios.com/bannon-not-backing-down-on-moore-because-he-believes-denials-2509813886.html?utm_source=sidebar

so Bannon and Breitbart sticking with Moore.

 

moore's attny, Phillip L Jauregui didn't address the allegations but suggests the yearbook is false.He was EXTRELY careful not to allege Nelson's claims are false.

if you go to RayMooreGop.com you now get directed to make donations to sexual abuse charities.

 

what will Hannity say when the 24 hours are up?

 

Lock Him Up!

[JimandChristy 1,689]

I see the Trump supporters on here are following in dear leaders footsteps in mastering the art of Whataboutism.

[Jacque67 7,328]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/two-more-women-describe-unwanted-overtures-by-roy-moore-at-alabama-mall/2017/11/15/2a1da432-ca24-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html

 

what a creep! Called up girl's high school to ask her out!!! 

 

lock him up!

[Jacque67 7,328]

Dear Mitch McConnell, Bring. It. On.

31 minutes ago

roy moore

[Jacque67 7,328]

Oh boy, the idiot is gonna fight it.

 

more amazing is Donnie won't distance himself from this trash! (What on earth did Moore do to get banned from a mall in Alabama?)

not a great political operative! So beholden to his sad base.

hannity's response this evening is to attack Bill Clinton as he can no longer defend Moore.

[bcking 3,157]

31 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

Oh boy, the idiot is gonna fight it.

 

more amazing is Donnie won't distance himself from this trash! (What on earth did Moore do to get banned from a mall in Alabama?)

not a great political operative! So beholden to his sad base.

hannity's response this evening is to attack Bill Clinton as he can no longer defend Moore.

I've still yet to hear an proper explanation for how you can compare Moore running for election to Clinton, given the timings.

 

Moore is actively running for election and has multiple individual accusers as well as even more people who can corroborate their claims.

 

At the time if Clinton's reelection he had had a single case brought against him, and it had already been thrown out in court (by a republican judge). Even the republican party didn't see it as a major issue during the election campaign. There were witnesses that gave conflicting accounts to the woman's story.

 

Much of what we know about Clinton came up AFTER he was elected. That is VERY different from before an election.

 

I'm not condoning Clinton. I think he is sleazy and if he tried to run for office now he wouldn't have my support for just about anything. 

 

However, at the time his name was on a ballot it was different.

 

Right now, people have no excuse to say no to this current creeper.

 

Then again I find the situation now to be quite similar to the situation last November and we all know how that turned out. If you want another example of someone getting elected and people "turning a blind eye" you really don't need to go back 20 years to Clinton. You can go back one year and look at our current President. Far more fitting example of people adjusting their moral standard to fit their chosen candidate.