Democrats Seize the Moral High Ground: Dems Dump Franken Overboard As Bannon And RNC Embrace Moore

[EasyAce]

By Ben Shapiro
http://www.dailywire.com/news/24398/democrats-seize-moral-high-ground-dems-dump-ben-shapiro

. . . [T]here’s no question that Democrats are dumping Conyers and Franken in order to regain the moral
high ground on the #MeToo movement: they want to be able to point at Moore and President Trump and
suggest that Republicans don’t have women’s backs. But that doesn’t mean that Democrats are morally
wrong to dump Franken and Conyers. They’re right, even if they’re cynically motivated.

Meanwhile, Republicans are granting Democrats the political high ground on an obvious moral issue. And
they’re not just granting the high ground: they’re throwing it at Democrats with both hands.

Leading the charge: Stephen K. Bannon . . . All Bannon has to do is this: claim that any bad man is
actually an innocent victim, and that those conservatives who refuse to buy such an argument are actually
gutless wimps. Thus, last night, Bannon . . . re-emerged from the darkness to shout about Roy Moore’s
virtues (Bannon was nowhere to be found while President Trump and the RNC considered Moore’s fate).
Bannon donned his homeless hunter outfit and stood on stage in Alabama ripping Mitt Romney, who had
the temerity to question Moore’s fitness for office.

And Bannon didn’t just defend Moore — he suggested that Moore, a man who has been credibly accused
of attempting to molest a 14-year-old girl and a 16-year-old girl when he was in his early 30s — was a man
of the highest quality and character, far superior to the clean-cut Romney . . . Bannon knows that he can
outflank non-scuzzy Republicans by calling them cowards for not defending bad behavior. If they weren’t
weak cucks, wouldn’t they side with Roy Moore?

. . . Democrats were willing to embrace Bill Clinton’s sins when they thought it would harm them to do
otherwise; Republicans are willing to embrace Moore’s sins in the same way. But Republicans were never
supposed to be Democrats. And with Democrats beginning to clean house, Democrats aren’t the Democrats
they used to be — at least for the moment.

[truth_seeker]

As the grandson and nephew of lifelong Mormons, I'll submit pushing too hard into the Mormons' history reveals polygamy, whereby men are the powerful masters of little families of lots of females, and cast out bothersome surplus males.

Mitt Romney's great grandparents WERE polygamists. The Mormons' claims of ending polygamy would be stronger, had they not quietly stood by while it continued to be practiced.

In polygamist Mormonism, marriages were arranged, for very young girls.  Mitt might find it uncomfortable, to delve deeply into this subject.

[EasyAce]

Mitt Romney's great grandparents WERE polygamists.

But he is not a polygamist.

I'm Jewish. The ancient, ancient, ancient Hebrews (Abraham and his grandson Jacob had two wives
each) were polygamists, too. We did away with the practise, too, and I am not a polygamist.

[Smokin Joe]

Those allegedly "credible accusations" have frayed quite a bit, if someone were to take the time to examine them.

The Democrats are trying to placate the CBC which was complaining about how fast Conyers got out, but none of the white Dems had. They threw them a cracker. (And they had pictures, and an admission of guilt to do it with).

[truth_seeker]

But he is not a polygamist.

I'm Jewish. The ancient, ancient, ancient Hebrews (Abraham and his grandson Jacob had two wives
each) were polygamists, too. We did away with the practise, too, and I am not a polygamist.

I made my remarks about how it can be portrayed in today's political environment.

Some Christians do not think highly of Mormons, for various reasons. My point is it can be used against Romney, not whether is should be.

My Italian Catholic wife says "Mormons are a lot like Italians; all about food and family." 

[Frank Cannon]

More whining NeverTrump shit from the Shapiro. The Rats tried to set a bomb off to take Trump down and it backfired in their faces. Now they look like clowns because they have serious issues with women on their side. Notice the these sacrificial lambs the Rats are throwing overboard are in safe Rat seats and will immediately be swapped out with another Commie Pinko. It's by design. I also note that the charges against these Rats are within the last year, not 40 years ago with strange evidence.

You go sit on your moral high horse Ben and rock away. The world will continue on just fine without you.

[Bigun]

Bovine fecal matter from beginng to end!  There is absolutely zero corelation between things that have been conclusively  proven and an obvious political hit job.   None! Zero! NADA!

[roamer_1]

And Bannon didn’t just defend Moore — he suggested that Moore, a man who has been credibly accused of attempting to molest a 14-year-old girl and a 16-year-old girl when he was in his early 30s — was a man
of the highest quality and character, far superior to the clean-cut Romney . . .

There is no credible accusation. *none*. Far different from Conyers and Franken where real, tangible evidence and actual admission are in the hopper.

And in that the accusations are not credible, accompanied by evidence (which is what makes accusations credible), Roy Moore is indeed a man of the highest quality and character, as 40 years of public life attest.

[Frank Cannon]

There is no credible accusation. *none*. Far different from Conyers and Franken where real, tangible evidence and actual admission are in the hopper.

And in that the accusations are not credible, accompanied by evidence (which is what makes accusations credible), Roy Moore is indeed a man of the highest quality and character, as 40 years of public life attest.

What do you expect from Ben. He spent that last decade whining that the GOP didn't fight to win, but now that we are he is outraged. He is a contrarian. I guess he sees money in it because otherwise it's a waste of bandwidth.

[roamer_1]

What do you expect from Ben. He spent that last decade whining that the GOP didn't fight to win, but now that we are he is outraged. He is a contrarian. I guess he sees money in it because otherwise it's a waste of bandwidth.

Sadly, Shapiro has joined the Blue-haired Old Ladies Committee on this one.

Somehow, this has to get turned around (this idea that accusations have weight on their own), or we are done as a people. This is a thing of high principle - Shaking it has consequences.

[andy58-in-nh]

The only reason that Democrats feel safe piling on Al Franken is because they know that the Democrat governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, is certain to appoint a Democrat to replace him.

It allows them to pretend to give a crap about morality, while taking zero political risk. Paying a price for hypocrisy is a cost of being a Republican, while Democrats get a free pass courtesy of the media/cultural complex.   

[Fishrrman]

EasyAce wrote:
"The ancient, ancient, ancient Hebrews (Abraham and his grandson Jacob had two wives each) were polygamists, too. We did away with the practise, too, and I am not a polygamist."

A little off-topic, but...
When Joseph Smith introduced his revelation on plural marriage, he stated that its principles were rooted in the Biblical lineage of Abraham, etc. (See Doctrine & Covenants 132, verses 34-40) He waited about 10 years after first "receiving" it, until making it known to his closest church members. His [first] wife Emma opposed the idea vigorously (an understatement) and wanted the written revelation burned. Joseph would not be denied and eventually ended up marrying more than 40 women.

Some of them were teenagers, the youngest around 15 or so. But Joseph's version of plural marriage never resembled that of the twentieth-century "fundamentalist" Mormon sects, in which many of "the brides" are girls. That's a distortion of what Smith preached.

Smith never "went public" to his followers with D&C 132. It was known to, and practiced by, a select group of officeholders in the Church who kept quiet about it.

Of course, Joseph's commitment to plural marriage and his refusal to abandon it once its knowledge became know to the general non-Mormon population struck to the core of his downfall and assassination in 1844.

Joseph's widow Emma split with Brigham Young after Smith's death, and refused to go with the Mormons to Utah when they left Nauvoo en masse in early 1846. She eventually re-married -- to a non-Mormon (Major Bidamon).

I believe it was Young who later made the revelation of plural marriage "public" -- around 1852, after the Mormons had fled to Salt Lake City. They held onto in until 1890, when the Church president at the time brought forth another revelation that suspended the practice, since it would have been impossible to continue it and have been welcomed into the Union as a state. That happened in 1897, I believe.

But... even though no longer "practiced", plural marriage has not been excised from the Mormon liturgy. D&C 132 is... still there.

[EasyAce]

EasyAce wrote:
"The ancient, ancient, ancient Hebrews (Abraham and his grandson Jacob had two wives each) were polygamists, too. We did away with the practise, too, and I am not a polygamist."

A little off-topic, but...
When Joseph Smith introduced his revelation on plural marriage, he stated that its principles were rooted in the Biblical lineage of Abraham, etc. (See Doctrine & Covenants 132, verses 34-40) He waited about 10 years after first "receiving" it, until making it known to his closest church members. His [first] wife Emma opposed the idea vigorously (an understatement) and wanted the written revelation burned. Joseph would not be denied and eventually ended up marrying more than 40 women.

Some of them were teenagers, the youngest around 15 or so. But Joseph's version of plural marriage never resembled that of the twentieth-century "fundamentalist" Mormon sects, in which many of "the brides" are girls. That's a distortion of what Smith preached.

Smith never "went public" to his followers with D&C 132. It was known to, and practiced by, a select group of officeholders in the Church who kept quiet about it.

Of course, Joseph's commitment to plural marriage and his refusal to abandon it once its knowledge became know to the general non-Mormon population struck to the core of his downfall and assassination in 1844.

Joseph's widow Emma split with Brigham Young after Smith's death, and refused to go with the Mormons to Utah when they left Nauvoo en masse in early 1846. She eventually re-married -- to a non-Mormon (Major Bidamon).

I believe it was Young who later made the revelation of plural marriage "public" -- around 1852, after the Mormons had fled to Salt Lake City. They held onto in until 1890, when the Church president at the time brought forth another revelation that suspended the practice, since it would have been impossible to continue it and have been welcomed into the Union as a state. That happened in 1897, I believe.

But... even though no longer "practiced", plural marriage has not been excised from the Mormon liturgy. D&C 132 is... still there.

@Fishrrman
I had known D&C was still there.

But I have also known Mr. Romney himself is not a polygamist, though I'm also only too well aware of how political manipulators
can in this case add 2+2 and come up with 22, so to say. (It would be, among other things, quite of a piece with Mr. Bannon's
customary playbooks . . . )