@Sighlass, can we not do this here?
If judging each case on its own merit is hypocrisy, then everybody's crazy. Also, it's all right for you to name me.
That's my last response about the past on this thread.
No problem for one to be judging each case on it's merits if one is "judging
rightly and not administering different standard depending on how well you like each candidate.
Now we have a far left senate member (Doug Jones) who is an expert at this type of sexual smear job sitting on the bench judging (and probable helping the left in this matter) who Trump gets to place on the SCOTUS. We could of had a solid conservative vote on all issues.
The hypocrisy is not in "rightfully" judging, it is the double standards applied in that judgement as I clearly pointed out in examples. Posting horse pictures and saying only public opinion matters instead of facts that can not be proven one way or another 40 years after the fact. Now circumstantial bs becomes relevant, anyone can step forward, make an accusation and get enough people behind them to push it into the limelight.
This mess is partially due to people not defending other candidates in the past, not just Moore, but others like Herman Cain (and nearly Judge Thomas). Once tainted even without solid evidence, they were dropped like hot potatoes, called creeps and perverts, and mocked endlessly. All without the benefit of the common courtesy of looking at the big picture of just how easy it was for political operatives to orchestrate.
Now it is happening to the poster good-ole-boy republican that everyone seemed to like and suddenly people decide it is too close to home and time to defend him. But is the establishment GOPe gonna suddenly grow a backbone after caving so many times in the past, and fight this tactic? Well one or two more women coming forward and odds are, the answer is no. The delays are pretty much the proof that this is already happening.
Do I derive some sort of pleasure seeing the redux of what went down in Alabama a few months ago happen again? No, but I still harbor some bitterness that it leads to this slippery slope that is a runaway feminism/lawyer controlling policy via means that few men can "rightfully" defend themselves from.
