Why It’s Justified To Vote For A Morally Questionable Politician

[Cyber Liberty]

And to think I figured I was just another Northeastern Republican.  Do folks like me really appear so alien to you?   What's your beef with something so basic to traditional conservatism as the rule of law?   

You were dishonest in debate.  Is that typical of Northeastern "Republicans" (I think you are dishonest about that too)? 

[roamer_1]

If I'm an employer presented with an applicant who faced such accusations, I'd need to know if
the accusations were proven false and, if they were proven false, I'd have no problem
at all hiring him or her. (I'm mindful of the fact that there have been false accusations of rape
levied against people and that the mere accusation of such a grotesque crime is enough to prejudice
people against the accused, but if the accusation was indeed proven false I for one would
have no issue with such a person.)

I have actually run into this in my business.
It is nearly impossible to prove a negative. Rather the other way around. The burden of proof lies upon the accuser, and that is why.
I will and have hired folks under a cloud of accusation. I simply compare the character of the man against the veracity of the evidence against him, and a man of good character is always worth hiring on the spot. I have never once regretted it.

I'd rather debate Mr. Moore's suitability for the Senate on political and policy grounds, as would
you, but it seems to be nothing more than plain sense to suggest that until/unless the accusations
against him are proven false he should not be considered a suitable job applicant especially
if you wish to clean Capitol Hill of its apparent subculture of sexual misbehaviour.

Judge Moore's character is impeccable.
The allegations against him are without proof, and therefore lack veracity.
The burden of proof against him has not been met.

And I have every confidence the people of Alabama know that.

[Cyber Liberty]

Lied about what?  Have you lost your mind?  When have I conveyed anything other than that he is IMO unfit for the Senate?   

You lied about the "why," and you have proven you think the Members of this forum are a bunch of knuckledragging dim bulbs.  You did it to get people on your side.  Liars who lie to get their way are just about the worst kind.

[roamer_1]

first came a presidential candidate who bragged about
what he could do with his hands on a certain part of the female anatomy at will, if he so chose, not to
mention having been an adulterer in his past;

then, comes a Senate candidate who is accused of sexual
misconduct involving a fourteen-year-old girl when he was in his thirties. And we probably have no idea
about how many other Republican incumbents or candidates might yet be accountable for such behaviours,
though we've had the occasional one held to account in the past.

The two are incompatible comparisons: The first, having the entirety of his debauchery played out in the press, across decades, with much of the evidence against him springing forth from his own mouth.

Evidence abounds with regard to his lack of character.

The second has allegations opportunely raised in a political fashion, thirty years old, with no supporting evidence, and in direct opposition to an absolutely  spotless character in a man who will stand on his convictions regardless of the cost.

The two cases are diametrically opposed- A man who is a noted boor, with no character whatsoever and a mountain of historical public records to prove it, and the other a man of impeccable character, and a 40 year record to prove it, with nothing more than gossip and rumor applied against him from 40 years in the past.

I don't see how anyone can have a problem discerning the difference.

[TomSea]

Senator McCain seems dismissive of Americans, Republicans, the President and Conservatives. That is immoral to me and his vote is almost like a no-count or Democratic vote. Such a shame.

McCain seems to be treating the people who elected him and Conservatives and Republicans and maybe Americans too in general very badly. Perhaps that is as immoral as anything. Mr. McCain has voted against big tax cuts before, including two that passed under another Republican president: George W. Bush. In that case, he bucked the majority of his party on the grounds that the 2001 and 2003 cuts overwhelmingly benefited the rich — a widespread criticism of the current Senate legislation and the bill that has already passed the House. Mr. McCain is also a deficit hawk and could find it hard to swallow a tax cut that will add around $1.5 trillion to the federal debt over 10 years.

With their slim majority in the Senate, Republicans can lose no more than two votes, and several others are on the fence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/us/politics/republican-victory-may-rest-once-again-with-mccain-this-time-on-taxes.html

[INVAR]

I don't see how anyone can have a problem discerning the difference.

Politics and/or a virulent hatred of Christians who actually live their faith and refuse to acquiesce to 'societal changes' and pressures.

[Free Vulcan]

Mr. Moore could litigate, couldn't he? Put the burden of proof on his accusers? On The Washington
Post? Hasn't he threatened to do so? Why not make the threat reality? It isn't unprecedented so
far as I know for decades-old accusations to be taken to court and disposed of in one or another
way. You'd think a man with a reputation on the line, accused of such sordid doings, would want
to see his name cleared as far as it can be cleared. (Though in Mr. Moore's case, from what I've
seen of his attorney so far I think I'd want to change attorneys first . . . )

Yeah that logic just doesn't work in a campaign situation.

[Sighlass]

Read the original article, IMHO it in my case does not even closely suggest a valid reason to vote for Moore on the premise of "do evil that good may come of it"... I will vote Roy Moore because I know his record/stances/positions, and the allegations are just "rumors" that can not be verified from highly questionable sources. There is two stories that a voter like me has to verify, one with 14y/o and other suggesting Roy wanted to rape her (or close enough). The other stories are not relevant and some even are laughable (example: the two die hard liberal people they rolled out to say Roy was banned at the mall).

Now two accusations, of which both have had numerous holes poked in them, but one still can not completely rule the 14y/o one out. Could it of happened, possible, but not likely given the time frame 12 days and the court documents that prove some things she said do not add up.  The other one with the yearbook to me is about beyond probable likelihood. Witnesses have called a lot of her details into question, from where the dumpsters actually were to the time she claimed the restaurant actually closed. Details that some here said would be "forever etched in the victims minds".

Below is a list of things that I took into account.

According to a former waitress, Olde Hickory House required employees to be 16 years old. Nelson claims she was 15 when she started.

The claim the restaurant closed at 10pm is disputed. Some saying it closed at earliest at 11pm but most likely at midnight. Especially since Goodyear (source of a lot of business for them) only let out at 10pm.

That the restaurant was dark is disputed. It had a lit wrap around porch. The claim of a back entrance to the parking is disputed.

According to a former waitress, Olde Hickory House required employees to be 16 years old. Nelson claims she was 15 when she started.

Nelson claimed that Judge Roy Moore came in almost every night and sat at the counter, but former employees state that customers at the counter were served by the bartender or short order cook - not served by the waitresses and had no reason to interact with the wait staff. Additionally, two former waitresses and two former patrons state they never saw Judge Moore come into the restaurant.

These are not things that the MSM has reported for a reason. Read up on statement Rhonda Ledbetter has given. The MSM will not give them much daylight, but the waitress worked the same years as Beverly Nelson and being a Baptist choir director she makes a good fairly reliable source. Not only her, but two other people.

whnt.com/2017/11/20/woman-brought-forward-by-moore-campaign-says-she-can-dispute-details-surrounding-sexual-assault-claim/

Also..Johnny Belyeu, Sr. is a former police officer with over two decades of experience with the Etowah County Sheriff’s Department and the Gadsden Police Department. Read up on his accounts of Olde Hickory.

Another witness is Renee Schivera, She also worked as a waitress in 1977. None of them remember Roy Moore frequenting the place (and being he wore a suit and tie he would of stuck out).

________________________________________

What I am saying, I didn't vote for Trump because of character issues. I wouldn't vote for Moore if some detail of actual proof was presented. I took time to look at the two people that claimed Moore was "banned" and found them to be so far leftist in the FB accounts that I believe they just made the stories up. One was a far left liberal black lady that worked for the police dept... I was able to cruise her FB page before she flaked out and say people were harassing her online. Kinda hard to do since she had her settings set that non-friends could not post on her FB page (unless they perhaps were messaging her). The other was the fellow that worked as a record bar (sold music) around 1980 that had anti-Trump FB posts (but his wife was the real flaming nut, he was more just a bum 70s music fan).

Anyhoo... as an Alabama voter privileged to vote here in a couple of weeks. I can say I have been keeping up with both sides of the story. I don't take my this vote (and those of my family who count on me to be the investigator) lightly. But until actual proof of something I consider is wrong is shown, it is just gossip and does not change how we will vote.

P.S. I also dated teenage girls while much older, so that did not play a negative part of my decision. My brilliant and beautiful sister also dated older men during HS.

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon
I'm still convinced that what God had to say if anything about last year's presidential election
was: Sorry, kids, but I'm sitting it out. You know, the way I usually do. I learned My lesson
about getting mixed up in politics with King Saul. You have a national house on fire and you
want nothing but a choice between two arsonists to put it out, that's your choice. I got out of
the arson business after Sodom and Gomorrah. Stop snarling, Mrs. O'Leary. And there's no
need to incinerate a nice country like the United States. But I guess My children still have to
learn the hard way. And when you do, I'll be here to pick up the pieces when you need Me to
be there. I always am. And I always will be.

Right now I can't help thinking He must be thinking, I give My children two nice little miracles
in back-to-back World Series and this is the thanks I get? Maybe I ought to give those nice
young kids in the Yankee uniforms a break next year . . .

@EasyAce

I agree with that.  At some point He steps back and let’s us have what we want.

As for the last part of your post—- the part about the World Series—-I defer to you because I tune out baseball.  I don’t even know who won, lol.  (Prepares for stoning)

[Silver Pines]

We've become brussel sprouts? You have gone off the deep end. Get your shit together man.

@Frank Cannon

Dude, you don’t even know how to eat sprouts.  Throw some hot sauce on top and go to town.

[Silver Pines]

Well then. I send an apology to @CatherineofAragon for jumping the gun. She was right.

An apology from @Frank Cannon...

Screenshotting and alerting the media.

[EasyAce]

As for the last part of your post—- the part about the World Series—-I defer to you because I tune out baseball.  I don’t even know who won, lol.  (Prepares for stoning)

@CatherineofAragon
Last year's miracle: the Chicago Cubs. This year's: the Houston Astros. And if you want to get stoned, that's
your business. ;)

[Gefn]

@CatherineofAragon
Last year's miracle: the Chicago Cubs. This year's: the Houston Astros. And if you want to get stoned, that's
your business. ;)

Well, the Shirley Jackson kind is not good.

As for baseball, I'll send you my 45 of Terry Cashman. :)

@EasyAce
@CatherineofAragon

[EasyAce]

Well, the Shirley Jackson kind is not good.

As for baseball, I'll send you my 45 of Terry Cashman. :)

@Freya
I have it---the original ("Willie, Mickey & the Duke [Talkin' Baseball]") and versions he did for the Mets
and the Phillies . . . not to mention these versions . . .

"Talkin' Baseball (The Earl of Baltimore)"

! No longer available)

"Talkin' Baseball" (Baseball in St. Lou)

! No longer available

[Jazzhead]

You lied about the "why," and you have proven you think the Members of this forum are a bunch of knuckledragging dim bulbs. 

Speak for yourself.  The members of this forum are some of the smartest on the internet.  And how did I lie about the "why"?    Can't one have more than one reason not to support Roy Moore?   The charges against him were the result of careful, on the record reporting.   They are credible to many reasonable people,  and call into question the man's character.  Any why shouldn't character be a factor in deciding who to vote for?

 But I opposed Roy Moore before the mall-trolling stuff came out.   I'm in the legal profession,  and understand that the system works only because of an abiding respect for the authority and rule of law.   Indeed, as I've said before,  it is the cornerstone of a Constitutional republic.   Conservatives are supposed to oppose, are they not, mob democracy and rogue judges?   

We have all faced the dilemma posed by the post topic -  to act to achieve the good, in a world of imperfection.   Sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote for a morally deficient man in order to defeat a larger evil.   I understand that will be the rationale behind many of the votes that will be cast for Roy Moore.   But to me,  Roy Moore is indeed the larger evil -  his turpitude extends beyond his private life into the realm of public service and directly impacts his fitness for the office he seeks.   

 A man who was removed from office twice for violating his sacred oath to faithfully execute the law is not qualified to serve in the Senate.   That's my bottom line, and I'm stickin' to it.     

[Gefn]

@EasyAce

 

[Cyber Liberty]

Speak for yourself.  The members of this forum are some of the smartest on the internet.  And how did I lie about the "why"?    Can't one have more than one reason not to support Roy Moore?   The charges against him were the result of careful, on the record reporting.   They are credible to many reasonable people,  and call into question the man's character.  Any why shouldn't character be a factor in deciding who to vote for?

 But I opposed Roy Moore before the mall-trolling stuff came out.   I'm in the legal profession,  and understand that the system works because of respect for the authority and rule of law.   Indeed, as I've said before,  it is the cornerstone of a Constitutional republic.   Conservatives should oppose, should they not, mob democracy and rogue judges?   

We have all faced the dilemma posed by the post topic -  to act to achieve the good, in a world of imperfection.   Sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote for a morally deficient man in order to defeat a larger evil.   I understand that will be the rationale behind many of the votes that will be cast for Roy Moore.   But to me,  Roy Moore is indeed the larger  evil -  his turpitude extends beyond his private life into the realm of public service and directly impacts his fitness for the office he seeks.    A man who was removed from office twice for violating his sacred oath to faithfully execute the law is not fit to serve in the Senate.   

Forget it Jazz.  You've been caught lying.  You've admitted your attitude is identical to the people you claim to oppose:  You don't give a rip whether he's guilty or not of what he's been accused. You lie every time you say you do, and you do it to drag others to your point of view.

You are a disgrace, to coin a phrase.  I'm done with you.

[EasyAce]

@EasyAce

 

@Freya

[jpsb]

Then we're in bigger trouble than we thought.  There are a lot more of them....

Now you know why I choose to often enjoy a good Scotch whiskey on the rocks.

[Silver Pines]

Yeah that logic just doesn't work in a campaign situation.

@Free Vulcan

Moore’s a lawyer.  If that’s true, why doesn’t he know it?

He threatened to sue the Post, but he backpedaled.

Next he started yapping about suing al.com.  They told him to do it, but he better be ready for discovery.  Not surprisingly, he dropped that, too.

Now he wants to see the yearbook.  He could bring a suit and see it pretty quickly.  Allred says he can have it if he agrees to testify under oath.  He won’t do either of those.

So there are three options:

Moore is an idiot who doesn’t understand he can’t sue during a campaign.

He does know it and repeatedly said he would do it anyway, which makes him a liar who’s just throwing red meat to his fans.

Or he knew he was never going to sue anybody because he’s afraid of discovery, and for the same reason refuses to go under oath.

I’m going with # 3.

[Jazzhead]

Forget it Jazz.  You've been caught lying.  You've admitted your attitude is identical to the people you claim to oppose:  You don't give a rip whether he's guilty or not of what he's been accused. You lie every time you say you do, and you do it to drag others to your point of view.

You are a disgrace, to coin a phrase.  I'm done with you.

Except you haven't explained how I "lied".   You've thrown out a charge without backup. 

Of course I "give a rip whether he's guilty or not".   I read the Washington Post article, and concluded the charges were scrupulously reported with corroboration and care.   I concluded the charges were credible.   If you read the article and reached a different conclusion, then that's your right. 

But folks who don't "give a rip" are many of the folks who will be voting for Roy Moore.  They too,  consider the charges credible but don't care -  they care more about installing a pro-life vote in the Senate.   That's the whole point of this thread topic -  whether it's okay to vote for a guy you know is a creep because the greater political cause demands it. 

And that's why I've shifted my argument somewhat in the context of the thread topic.   Assuming arguendo that the charges are false,  Moore is still unqualified for the Senate, because of his lawlessness.    But arguing for a position on multiple grounds is not "lying".  If Moore continues to have supporters notwithstanding his creepy behavior,  then the focus of argument must shift to his substantive fitness for the office he seeks.   And a rogue judge who violates his oath of office ought to be, for conservatives, at the bottom of the barrel.       

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes I have.  It's not my problem you choose to be too obtuse to understand me.

[Jazzhead]

So there are three options:

Moore is an idiot who doesn’t understand he can’t sue during a campaign.

He does know it and repeatedly said he would do it anyway, which makes him a liar who’s just throwing red meat to his fans.

Or he knew he was never going to sue anybody because he’s afraid of discovery, and for the same reason refuses to go under oath.

I’m going with # 3.

There's a fourth option - he's cynically playing the martyr for a few weeks,  to gin up the narrative among his supporters that he's the victim, not his accusers.   By threatening to sue, he's trying to raise enough doubts in his supporters' minds so they won't abandon him on election day.   Indeed,  polls show his supporters don't believe his accusers, notwithstanding that the charges were on the record and scrupulously corroborated.   That makes sense, since few of us would want to admit that our vote is morally compromised. 

Tell the Big Lie for another week or so,  and Moore will be the next Senator from Alabama.   This is cynicism, pure and simple.   

[Free Vulcan]

@Free Vulcan

Moore’s a lawyer.  If that’s true, why doesn’t he know it?

He threatened to sue the Post, but he backpedaled.

Next he started yapping about suing al.com.  They told him to do it, but he better be ready for discovery.  Not surprisingly, he dropped that, too.

Now he wants to see the yearbook.  He could bring a suit and see it pretty quickly.  Allred says he can have it if he agrees to testify under oath.  He won’t do either of those.

So there are three options:

Moore is an idiot who doesn’t understand he can’t sue during a campaign.

He does know it and repeatedly said he would do it anyway, which makes him a liar who’s just throwing red meat to his fans.

Or he knew he was never going to sue anybody because he’s afraid of discovery, and for the same reason refuses to go under oath.

I’m going with # 3.

According to you. You're doing the same thing that's gotten you into trouble on this issue from day one. You keep positioning yourself as the arbiter of moral righteousness, throw out a list of things that Moore must do to be worthy, and then condemn him because he doesn't measure up.

Unfortunately it just holds no weight in the real world.

[Silver Pines]

There's a fourth option - he's cynically playing the martyr for a few weeks,  to gin up the narrative among his supporters that he's the victim, not his accusers.   By threatening to sue, he's trying to raise enough doubts in his supporters' minds so they won't abandon him on election day.   Indeed,  polls show his supporters don't believe his accusers, notwithstanding that the charges were on the record and scrupulously corroborated.   That makes sense, since few of us would want to admit that our vote is morally compromised. 

Tell the Big Lie for another week or so,  and Moore will be the next Senator from Alabama.   This is cynicism, pure and simple.   

@Jazzhead

That’s a possibility.