Long Before Assault Allegations, Roy Moore Betrayed Conservatism: He was Not a Conservative to Begin with

[roamer_1]

Exactly, I have wrote in candidates for the President going on 3 elections now. If proven against Moore, I know how to write in someone else.

That's right - Me too.

[roamer_1]

Why should I believe the manager who didn’t even work there at the time and who qualified his statement because he isn’t sure?

@CatherineofAragon
Because being unsure of forty year old memories sounds a helluva lot more true than folks speaking with uncanny recollection, that far past.

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon
Because being unsure of forty year old memories sounds a helluva lot more true than folks speaking with uncanny recollection, that far past.

@roamer_1

Disagree.  This guy is fishing.  The rest of them would certainly remember a DA being banned from the mall, unless they're all senile.

[musiclady]

@CatherineofAragon
Because being unsure of forty year old memories sounds a helluva lot more true than folks speaking with uncanny recollection, that far past.

There goes the "if it's 40 years ago, it can't be remembered" stuff again.

Our oldest daughter was born 38 years ago, and I remember it like yesterday.

BIG things stick in your head.  Being assaulted is a BIG thing.

You can dismiss her memory if you want, but there is no factual accuracy in your doing so.

You can't draw any truthful conclusions based on the 40 year assumption you're making.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

Yes, it is.  I read it earlier, and I just read it again.

https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/

@CatherineofAragon Thank You. That link works, the one in post 57 did not and produced This and still does as of this posting.

[roamer_1]

There goes the "if it's 40 years ago, it can't be remembered" stuff again.

Our oldest daughter was born 38 years ago, and I remember it like yesterday.

BIG things stick in your head.  Being assaulted is a BIG thing.

You can dismiss her memory if you want, but there is no factual accuracy in your doing so.

You can't draw any truthful conclusions based on the 40 year assumption you're making.

@musiclady

I am not talking about the accusers. I am talking about the salacious gossip in support of him being banned from the mall.
I sure as hell wouldn't remember an ADA being banned from a mall forty years ago, and certainly not with the specificity these people seem to be blessed with.


I CAN, however, lean pretty heavily on the statements of management and security from that era, because they would have looked at his picture daily on the banned list - And no doubt recall an ADA trying to get permission to be allowed back into the mall at several occasions.

That's how banned lists work. I know from experience.

[Smokin Joe]

@CatherineofAragon Thank You. That link works, the one in post 57 did not and produced This and still does as of this posting.

Okay, I followed snopes to a New Yorker article https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/locals-were-troubled-by-roy-moores-interactions-with-teen-girls-at-the-gadsden-mall and followed that to the last source in the line: https://www.newamericanjournal.net/2017/11/politics-makes-strange-bedfellows-but-jesus-not-this/ which state unequivocally that

BREAKING NEWS: Sources tell me Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall and the YMCA for his inappropriate behavior of soliciting sex from young girls. If Moore keeps lying, that story will soon come out in a big way too.

Meh, those pesky "sources" again.

Of course there is a prominent Doug Jones ad in the right sidebar.
Read his comments to the one person who had the temerity to disagree with the writer.

[musiclady]

@musiclady

I am not talking about the accusers. I am talking about the salacious gossip in support of him being banned from the mall.
I sure as hell wouldn't remember an ADA being banned from a mall forty years ago, and certainly not with the specificity these people seem to be blessed with.


I CAN, however, lean pretty heavily on the statements of management and security from that era, because they would have looked at his picture daily on the banned list - And no doubt recall an ADA trying to get permission to be allowed back into the mall at several occasions.

That's how banned lists work. I know from experience.

Gotcha!   Sorry about that!

(I've just seen that 40 year stuff bandied about so much as some sort of proof, that I reacted to it without reading thoroughly).

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

Disagree.  This guy is fishing.  The rest of them would certainly remember a DA being banned from the mall, unless they're all senile.

@CatherineofAragon

Riiight. the guy who undoubtedly is THE guy he'd have to go to, at an eyeball sit-down meeting, to be taken off the banned list is not going to recall banning him or letting him back in, but some record store guy, incidental to any procedure does.

That's just not credible.

[Smokin Joe]

Gotcha!   Sorry about that!

(I've just seen that 40 year stuff bandied about so much as some sort of proof, that I reacted to it without reading thoroughly).

The relevance of the 40 years isn't that the memories might be flawed (although that could go either way), but that through multiple political campaigns and over 4 decades this hasn't been brought up.
While certainly odd, I do not see it as proof either way.

Memories that old are a funny thing. Some are crisp and clear, usually because a great deal of adrenaline was involved. I have some like that, and there are other, more mundane events I have little recollection of. Some things just don't stand out. But I have heard people relate events from our mutual past to me and the accounts are not the same as my recollections (even if they placed me in a better light than my own recollection of events).
So, even individual memories are not completely reliable in all cases, any more than eyewitness testimony, those memories can be altered from initial perception, being re-remembered/retold in slightly different iterations, even discussion with others which might cause a story to be remembered in an embellished form or to depart from fact. Even the recollection of participants involved can change over time, as a friend had placed me at several events in decades past which I know I had not been present at. The more people who independently recall a specific event or person, the more likely that is to be correct or close to being correct, provided they haven't discussed that among themselves, in which discussion stories (and the memory of them) tend to blend.

[musiclady]

The relevance of the 40 years isn't that the memories might be flawed (although that could go either way), but that through multiple political campaigns and over 4 decades this hasn't been brought up.
While certainly odd, I do not see it as proof either way.

Memories that old are a funny thing. Some are crisp and clear, usually because a great deal of adrenaline was involved. I have some like that, and there are other, more mundane events I have little recollection of. Some things just don't stand out. But I have heard people relate events from our mutual past to me and the accounts are not the same as my recollections (even if they placed me in a better light than my own recollection of events).
So, even individual memories are not completely reliable in all cases, any more than eyewitness testimony, those memories can be altered from initial perception, being re-remembered/retold in slightly different iterations, even discussion with others which might cause a story to be remembered in an embellished form or to depart from fact. Even the recollection of participants involved can change over time, as a friend had placed me at several events in decades past which I know I had not been present at. The more people who independently recall a specific event or person, the more likely that is to be correct or close to being correct, provided they haven't discussed that among themselves, in which discussion stories (and the memory of them) tend to blend.

The only problem I have with the use of the 40 year old stuff, is the immediate dismissal of the possibility of guilt because the memories are 40 years old and cannot therefore be valid.

As long as it's qualified, I don't have a problem with it.

But it hasn't been, so I do......

[Smokin Joe]

The only problem I have with the use of the 40 year old stuff, is the immediate dismissal of the possibility of guilt because the memories are 40 years old and cannot therefore be valid.

As long as it's qualified, I don't have a problem with it.

But it hasn't been, so I do......

That leaves the big question of "Why now?" Where were any of these allegations in the previous elections?

[musiclady]

That leaves the big question of "Why now?" Where were any of these allegations in the previous elections?

That's a legit question, but still can't be used as an assumption that these women aren't telling the truth.

That is the only point I'm making here.


40 year old memories??  Right before an election??  Must be all lies, right??

Nope.

[Smokin Joe]

That's a legit question, but still can't be used as an assumption that these women aren't telling the truth.

That is the only point I'm making here.


40 year old memories??  Right before an election??  Must be all lies, right??

Nope.

But questionable when there have been a few elections in between and these haven't surfaced.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

But questionable when there have been a few elections in between and these haven't surfaced.

Do you think it is possible that victims of rape saw what happened to women, who President Clinton raped and assaulted, and they decided it was the wrong climate to be brave?  Perhaps they recently saw widespread condemnation of Weinstien, and others predators, and thought the GOP might have evolved past "More women are sexual predators than men," and "Women are chasing young boys up and down the road, but we don't hear about that because it's not PC."  http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/361060-alabama-pastor-supporting-moore-more-women-are-sexual-predators-than-men

Well, I got one thing to say to those ladies, as I unbuckle my belt..."Today, just ain't your day."

[SirLinksALot]

Folks, we have enough threads elsewhere that discusses the allegations against Roy Moore.

I really want this thread to  be a discussion of Roy Moore's political record instead of rehashing the accusations of these women.

Notice that the accusation is that he is NOT really conservative ( ignore the women for now ).

How accurate is this ? THAT is the purpose of my posting this thread.

[Jazzhead]

Folks, we have enough threads elsewhere that discusses the allegations against Roy Moore.

I really want this thread to  be a discussion of Roy Moore's political record instead of rehashing the accusations of these women.

Notice that the accusation is that he is NOT really conservative ( ignore the women for now ).

How accurate is this ? THAT is the purpose of my posting this thread.

Of course Roy Moore is no conservative, in the American sense of that term.  He has demonstrated contempt for the rule of law on at least two occasions - in his capacity as a judge of the Alabama Supreme Court! -  sufficiently serious to warrant his removal.    The rule of law in a Constitutional Republic such as ours is, or should be, a bedrock principle of conservatism.     

Moore is a nihilist,  picking and choosing what laws he will obey based on his self-styled view of what his "God" demands.  He's the equivalent of a radical Muslim seeking to substitute shariah law for that of the Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection.  His way of thinking is disturbing and profoundly un-American,  and his willingness to ignore his oath of office makes him unfit for the Senate.   

[Bigun]

Folks, we have enough threads elsewhere that discusses the allegations against Roy Moore.

I really want this thread to  be a discussion of Roy Moore's political record instead of rehashing the accusations of these women.

Notice that the accusation is that he is NOT really conservative ( ignore the women for now ).

How accurate is this ? THAT is the purpose of my posting this thread.

Good luck with keeping ANY thread here on topic!  Just sayin!

[INVAR]

Of course Roy Moore is no conservative, in the American sense of that term.  He has demonstrated contempt for the rule of law on at least two occasions

You were already proven to be totally and completely wrong on this stupid and incessant talking-point assertion of yours by numerous members of this board in whom you have REFUSED to answer.  You were asked specifically which "laws" exactly did Roy Moore break and thereby demonstrated 'contempt'.  You kept going back to court ruling precedent by a federal district judge as "law" and when shown your error, you (as always) refused to acknowledge to push your liberal Leftist claptrap bullshit.

Moore is a nihilist

And you are a Stalinist.  Next accusation please.

picking and choosing what laws he will obey based on his self-styled view of what his "God" demands. 

You do the same when it comes to your professed 'Christianity' and your peculiar Leftist view of the Constitution.  Project much?

He's the equivalent of a radical Muslim seeking to substitute shariah law for that of the Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection.  His way of thinking is disturbing and profoundly un-American,  and his willingness to ignore his oath of office makes him unfit for the Senate.

That's what you and the Left want everyone to believe, that Biblically-adherent Christians who will not surrender their beliefs are a danger to the state and the people.

This is why I say that people like you are the very reason we have a Second Amendment to begin with - because people like you, given the power - would do as Nero did and worse, for similarly stated reasons as you just provided.

You are an enemy to everything our Founders established.

[musiclady]

But questionable when there have been a few elections in between and these haven't surfaced.

Agreed.

[Jazzhead]

This is why I say that people like you are the very reason we have a Second Amendment to begin with

So you're saying I should be shot for my beliefs.   Got it.   

[INVAR]

So you're saying I should be shot for my beliefs.   Got it.   

You've been busy suggesting biblical Christians who live their faith like Cake Bakers and people like Moore should be punished and exterminated.

If you want to act like a tyrant to impose tyranny - you should be afraid of the Second Amendment.

Clearly you are.

Good.