Should Judge Moore be given the benefit of the doubt?

[Frank Cannon]

@Victoria33

We'll see. If so, I am eternally offended. I thought women had more sense than that.
But, I don't think it's right.
And if it is, it won't matter at all to me.
The standard is proof.

Don't panic. Women can't vote in AL so this is no big deal.

[roamer_1]

Don't panic. Women can't vote in AL so this is no big deal.

LOL!

Did you see this?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,291416.msg1517473.html#msg1517473

Among other things, there is a statement from the mall manager refuting the 'mall ban'.

[Victoria33]

@Victoria33
We'll see. If so, I am eternally offended. I thought women had more sense than that.

@roamer_1

Your mistake is "I thought women...".  See, you aren't a woman as I said in another post to you so you can't know the universal experience women have with men which gives women the mindset they have.  Women are "made" to look for protection for herself and her future children, just as men are "made" to want to have sex.  She has to have protection because she is weaker than a man.  Women know they are vulnerable and are putting themselves in the place of the women who were approached/stalked by Moore, and most will not vote for him now.  That is why he is falling in the polls just as the Fox Poll shows and the Republican Poll showed a couple of days ago.

[GrouchoTex]

@corbe

Frankly (heh), I find your omission of 'more beer' as an option to be disgusting and proves you to be a weed-centric  bigot. There is virtually *no* question where 'more beer' is not a valid option. But that option has not yet been afforded even once (to my admittedly limited knowledge),   

I 2nd the motion...

[Silver Pines]

@Victoria33

We'll see. If so, I am eternally offended. I thought women had more sense than that.
But, I don't think it's right.
And if it is, it won't matter at all to me.
The standard is proof.

@roamer_1

Sense, like that sad, moronic excuse for a woman in Alabama who said today that Moore is the closest thing we have to a Founding Father?

Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddtrick didn't need proof to be believed.  We used our common sense, weighed what we knew, and came to the correct conclusion. 

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

Your mistake is "I thought women...".  See, you aren't a woman as I said in another post to you so you can't know the universal experience women have with men which gives women the mindset they have.  Women are "made" to look for protection for herself and her future children, just as men are "made" to want to have sex.  She has to have protection because she is weaker than a man.  Women know they are vulnerable and are putting themselves in the place of the women who were approached/stalked by Moore, and most will not vote for him now.  That is why he is falling in the polls just as the Fox Poll shows and the Republican Poll showed a couple of days ago.

@Victoria33
Then don't be whining about why there aren't any good men nowadays. This is why.

[Cyber Liberty]

@roamer_1

Sense, like that sad, moronic excuse for a woman in Alabama who said today that Moore is the closest thing we have to a Founding Father?

Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddtrick didn't need proof to be believed.  We used our common sense, weighed what we knew, and came to the correct conclusion.

But there was proof, evidence in the form of contemporary accounts and physical evidence as well.  Erasing that evidence was Hillary's task in quelling the "bimbo eruptions."  A reminder:  Billy got impeached not for diddling the teen-aged intern, but for lying in a deposition where Paula Jones was trying to get her justice.  The Obstruction of Justice in that case was the effort to deny Jones the evidence.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

Sense, like that sad, moronic excuse for a woman in Alabama who said today that Moore is the closest thing we have to a Founding Father?

Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddtrick didn't need proof to be believed.  We used our common sense, weighed what we knew, and came to the correct conclusion.

@CatherineofAragon

Actually no - I did believe Juanita Broderick (the only one that mattered) - But as I have said elsewhere, The blue dress is what did the trick.

And why you didn't immediately jettison Cruz is entirely beyond me - SAME circumstances, SAME vapid allegations without proof. SAME all the way around.

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon

Actually no - I did believe Juanita Broderick (the only one that mattered) - But as I have said elsewhere, The blue dress is what did the trick.

And why you didn't immediately jettison Cruz is entirely beyond me - SAME circumstances, SAME vapid allegations without proof. SAME all the way around.

@roamer_1

Not at all the same.  The characters of the two men (Trump and Cruz) were well known, as was Trump's history of dirty tricks.  The whole thing came off as a clown show.  Besides, you said you believed Juanita Broadderick without tangible proof, so...?

I truly can't comprehend not accepting a woman's claim of being sexually abused or molested unless there's tangible proof.  What do you think there's going to be?  A video?  I mean, when that guy in my past kept pushing me into corners and demanding sex, I guess you wouldn't have believed me unless I'd managed to get his skin under my fingernails.

Those are legal standards only.

[Frank Cannon]

@roamer_1

Not at all the same.  The characters of the two men (Trump and Cruz) were well known, as was Trump's history of dirty tricks.  The whole thing came off as a clown show.  Besides, you said you believed Juanita Broadderick without tangible proof, so...?

Roy Moores character is pretty well known prior to these allegations as fairly upright. It is also known that both the writer and the paper she works for that is alleging this is in the tank for Jones. By your logic Moore should be as innocent as Cruz.

[Silver Pines]

But there was proof, evidence in the form of contemporary accounts and physical evidence as well.  Erasing that evidence was Hillary's task in quelling the "bimbo eruptions."  A reminder:  Billy got impeached not for diddling the teen-aged intern, but for lying in a deposition where Paula Jones was trying to get her justice.  The Obstruction of Justice in that case was the effort to deny Jones the evidence.

@Cyber Liberty

Yeah, I understand that he was impeached for perjury and not his sexcapades.

We have plenty of contemporary accounts in the Moore cases.  Witnesses who heard the victims' claims years ago, character witnesses, etc.  Right down to the cop who tossed him from the mall.  So the question becomes, who's lying?  Moore?  Or every single one of those people?  And for what?  Some of them are Trump supporters.

Another thing...why are all of the victims stopping short of rape?  None of them claim Moore raped them.  If I were going to set out to deliberately bring a man down with fake sex charges, I wouldn't stop at fondling or undressing.  That undressing would turn into rape to make it as convincing as possible, to take it all the way.

[Silver Pines]

Roy Moores character is pretty well known prior to these allegations as fairly upright. It is also known that both the writer and the paper she works for that is alleging this is in the tank for Jones. By your logic Moore should be as innocent as Cruz.

@Frank Cannon

Is it?

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon

Is it?

And what are those allegations they claim? That he is a Jesus Freak?

[skeeter]

@Cyber Liberty

Yeah, I understand that he was impeached for perjury and not his sexcapades.

We have plenty of contemporary accounts in the Moore cases.  Witnesses who heard the victims' claims years ago, character witnesses, etc.  Right down to the cop who tossed him from the mall.  So the question becomes, who's lying?  Moore?  Or every single one of those people?  And for what?  Some of them are Trump supporters.

Another thing...why are all of the victims stopping short of rape?  None of them claim Moore raped them.  If I were going to set out to deliberately bring a man down with fake sex charges, I wouldn't stop at fondling or undressing.  That undressing would turn into rape to make it as convincing as possible, to take it all the way.

Maybe because a false rape charge is a chargeable offense, or would more likely be.

The goal of peeling away a few percent points on election day has (so far) not required the accusers to put themselves in potential legal jeopardy.

Just IMO.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

Yeah, I understand that he was impeached for perjury and not his sexcapades.

We have plenty of contemporary accounts in the Moore cases.  Witnesses who heard the victims' claims years ago, character witnesses, etc.  Right down to the cop who tossed him from the mall.  So the question becomes, who's lying?  Moore?  Or every single one of those people?  And for what?  Some of them are Trump supporters.

Another thing...why are all of the victims stopping short of rape?  None of them claim Moore raped them.  If I were going to set out to deliberately bring a man down with fake sex charges, I wouldn't stop at fondling or undressing.  That undressing would turn into rape to make it as convincing as possible, to take it all the way.

Beats me.  My only point in bringing that up was to show I don't accept stories without evidence.  I tend to think of people as innocent until evidence proves them otherwise.  I guess it's a character flaw, or I'm just being dense.

It's like science to me...I accept nothing about the behavior of the electronics I characterize unless I can prove it with solid measurement data. 

[Silver Pines]

And what are those allegations they claim? That he is a Jesus Freak?

@Frank Cannon

If we ever develop a time machine you can ride back to 2002 and ask them.

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon

If we ever develop a time machine you can ride back to 2002 and ask them.

Well going to the state of Alabama is like going to 1997, so maybe I'll go there and wait a couple years.

[Silver Pines]

Beats me.  My only point in bringing that up was to show I don't accept stories without evidence.  I tend to think of people as innocent until evidence proves them otherwise.  I guess it's a character flaw, or I'm just being dense.

It's like science to me...I accept nothing about the behavior of the electronics I characterize unless I can prove it with solid measurement data.

@Cyber Liberty

But how often do you get actual physical evidence of sexual abuse?  It's rarely possible, unless the abuser agrees to be videotaped.

In view of that, and in view of that fact that legal'scientific standards don't apply, then we have to take the information we have and sift through it and make a decision.  Demanding proof is just a punt.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

But how often do you get actual physical evidence of sexual abuse?  It's rarely possible, unless the abuser agrees to be videotaped.

In view of that, and in view of that fact that legal'scientific standards don't apply, then we have to take the information we have and sift through it and make a decision.  Demanding proof is just a punt.

Contemporary testimony has a lot of sway.  40-year old testimony, not so much.

[roamer_1]

Not at all the same. 

@CatherineofAragon

EXACTLY the same.

The characters of the two men (Trump and Cruz) were well known, as was Trump's history of dirty tricks.  The whole thing came off as a clown show. 

The character of the men involved here are just as equally known. As are the dirty tricks of the MSM, DNC, RNC... take your pick.

Besides, you said you believed Juanita Broadderick without tangible proof, so...?

I believed what she said, but what she said was not actionable. The blue dress, finally, proved he was lying, and not just mistaken in recollection, or any other excuse. A flat-out lie.

I truly can't comprehend not accepting a woman's claim of being sexually abused or molested unless there's tangible proof.  What do you think there's going to be?  A video?  I mean, when that guy in my past kept pushing me into corners and demanding sex, I guess you wouldn't have believed me unless I'd managed to get his skin under my fingernails.

Those are legal standards only.

That is why it is so important to stand from the beginning. That is why the bruises should be witnessed and why it's best if she leave a mark on him. And the story told while it is fresh, and things can be discovered.

Here, let me tell you a story.

I was punching cows one spring - Went over east of the hump with a buddy of mine, as the snow was off, and we were busting brush drifting the cows down toward the flats getting ready for branding...

We were there about 10 days or so when he had to cut and run for home (I don't remember the reason why).

A few days later another hand brought news to me that I had to get down and call him, which I did. Seems a gal accused him of raping her at a party, and he'd had to kick the crap out of three of her family since he was back, and they were gunning for him. He needed the truth told.

So I gathered signatures of everyone that knew he was working there for the last while, and beat feet for home. I got a sit-down with the grandfather of the family, showed him proofs which were enough for him to make the father of the gal come to the sit-down (which he'd declined, because of who my friend was).

The old man called off the dogs, and personally drove over the hump to confirm the thing. As it turns out, his daughter was too drunk to know who did her, and was relying upon what others said happened. Had my friend not been four counties away at the time, with folks to back him, he'd have been sorely abused for something he didn't do, and he would have been hung with the rapist label and run out of town, if he lived that long...

THAT is why it is so important. People go off half-cocked, and shit happens that ought not.

[roamer_1]

I tend to think of people as innocent until evidence proves them otherwise.  I guess it's a character flaw, or I'm just being dense.

Yeah, me too.

[Bigun]

Contemporary testimony has a lot of sway.  40-year old testimony memories that pop up 30 days before an election , not so much.

Fixed it for you.

[roamer_1]

@Cyber Liberty

But how often do you get actual physical evidence of sexual abuse?  It's rarely possible, unless the abuser agrees to be videotaped.

In view of that, and in view of that fact that legal'scientific standards don't apply, then we have to take the information we have and sift through it and make a decision.  Demanding proof is just a punt.

@CatherineofAragon
Someone so inclined is going to leave a trail, and that trail will have bastard children in it. Someone so inclined will mess up and run across a woman with a daddy and brothers, or uncles and cousins - there would be evidence of his getting a beat-down for it - And those men WOULD rise to say they did.

That is why it is so important to come forward at the time and not 40 years later, when there is nothing but hearsay and gossip. I am surprised that standard still ain't so elsewhere, especially in the South.

[Cyber Liberty]

@CatherineofAragon OK, here's the deal.  I refuse to be stampeded. 

I won't have people who hate this candidate force me to stand in opposition, and I won't have supporters of this candidate drive me like a herd of cattle into supporting him no matter what is revealed about him.

OK?

[Smokin Joe]

@Frank Cannon

Is it?

Nicely edited.

Read the whole thing.



Note the comment that Moore thought everyone was corrupt but him. Might that be the source of the eye rolling?

Take things out of contest to support the unsupportable and you indicate the allegations are less credible in the long run.