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.

[Silver Pines]

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

@Frank Cannon

Point awarded!

[Silver Pines]

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

@Cyber Liberty

I don’t agree.  In this area, a child killer was recently put behind bars (should have been executed) for murders he committed over 50 years ago.  There were no issues concerning the testimonies of witnesses.

What happened to those women is as clear in their minds as if it happened last week. 

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon

EXACTLY the same.

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.

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.

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

Nope, not the same.  I explained why.

Part of the problem is that you see them as identical because, based on your experience with one woman, all women are, to quote TOS, lying bitches when they say they’ve been abused.  But it’s simply not true. 

It’s easy, extremely easy, to say yeah, you have to have a record of bruises and the woman has to fight back.  Do you realize that sometimes a female is too scared to do it?  Or is being threatened?  You can’t hold a 14 year old responsible for not fighting back and leaving marks.

It doesn’t always happen like that.  From the start, I’ve said that I take this kind of thing case by case.  I don’t start out with assumptions as to innocence or guilt.  Yesterday I read about another accuser who just came out.  She gave her account, then finished with the claim that Moore asked how old she was, and when she said she was past her teens, he looked very disappointed.  That raised a red flag with me.  It seemed too neat, too designed to wrap up a point. 

The thing is, I think you guys, in reacting to those times when men have been falsely accused, tend to go on defense every time. 

Regarding the media, yeah, I know how they are, but if we’re to the point that we refuse to listen or see anything at all because of them, then we’ve gone round the bend.  Not everything is a media attack.  Sometimes people just suck. 

[Neverdul]

@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
@CatherineofAragon

Juanita Broaddrick…..

In 1997 Juanita Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers stating there were unfounded rumors and stories circulating "that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue". She said this under oath.

Broaddrick then said in an interview with Dateline NBC that aired on February 24, 1999, that she had indeed been raped by Clinton in 1978, admitting to lying in a sworn affidavit.

However, three weeks after the alleged assault, Broaddrick participated in a small Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist. She claimed she only did so because she was “still in shock”.

At the time of the alleged 1978 rape, she was having an affair with David Broaddrick, who also was married to another person.

So do these inconstancies and changes in Broaddrick’s story, what some might say is a bad reflection of her personal and moral character such as having an affair with a married man while herself being married, and the fact that after the alleged rape, she attended a Clinton fundraiser make her claim untrue? No.

Yes, she has friends who say she told them about the rape contemporaneously, but then again Broaddrick never filed a police report, claiming she was afraid because at the time Clinton was the AG of Arkansas, nor did she go to a hospital where any physical evidence of a rape would have been collected, even if she didn’t want to file charges or name her rapist.

Is this really any different between Clinton’s accusers and many of Moore accusers? Let’s review.

Victims coming forward many years later? – Check
Multiple accusers? – Check
Being afraid to come forward because the man was in a position of power? - Check
A consistent pattern of behavior of the accused? – as yet unproven, but still, Check
The women having told others about what happened contemporaneously? – Check
That perhaps at least one victim had further contact with the alleged abuser after the alleged assault? - Check
Some of the women perhaps not being themselves of a perfect moral character? – Check
Questions about the “timing” of the allegations? - Check

So all I ask is that we try to be consistent.

If we are going to believe without question the word of women accusing those who we don’t like or who are on the opposite side of the political aisle, then we at least should try to be consistent in applying the same standards of when and why we believe women with very similar claims when it involves people we do like and or are our political allies.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

I don’t agree.  In this area, a child killer was recently put behind bars (should have been executed) for murders he committed over 50 years ago.  There were no issues concerning the testimonies of witnesses.

What happened to those women is as clear in their minds as if it happened last week.

Murder?  I think we're still talking past each other a bit on this @CatherineofAragon, so I think I'll drop it and go back to waiting to see what happens... 

[Jazzhead]

@roamer_1
@CatherineofAragon

Juanita Broaddrick…..

In 1997 Juanita Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers stating there were unfounded rumors and stories circulating "that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue". She said this under oath.

Broaddrick then said in an interview with Dateline NBC that aired on February 24, 1999, that she had indeed been raped by Clinton in 1978, admitting to lying in a sworn affidavit.

However, three weeks after the alleged assault, Broaddrick participated in a small Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist. She claimed she only did so because she was “still in shock”.

At the time of the alleged 1978 rape, she was having an affair with David Broaddrick, who also was married to another person.

So do these inconstancies and changes in Broaddrick’s story, what some might say is a bad reflection of her personal and moral character such as having an affair with a married man while herself being married, and the fact that after the alleged rape, she attended a Clinton fundraiser make her claim untrue? No.

Yes, she has friends who say she told them about the rape contemporaneously, but then again Broaddrick never filed a police report, claiming she was afraid because at the time Clinton was the AG of Arkansas, nor did she go to a hospital where any physical evidence of a rape would have been collected, even if she didn’t want to file charges or name her rapist.

Is this really any different between Clinton’s accusers and many of Moore accusers? Let’s review.

Victims coming forward many years later? – Check
Multiple accusers? – Check
Being afraid to come forward because the man was in a position of power? - Check
A consistent pattern of behavior of the accused? – as yet unproven, but still, Check
The women having told others about what happened contemporaneously? – Check
That perhaps at least one victim had further contact with the alleged abuser after the alleged assault? - Check
Some of the women perhaps not being themselves of a perfect moral character? – Check
Questions about the “timing” of the allegations? - Check

So all I ask is that we try to be consistent.

If we are going to believe without question the word of women accusing those who we don’t like or who are on the opposite side of the political aisle, then we at least should try to be consistent in applying the same standards of when and why we believe women with very similar claims when it involves people we do like and or are our political allies.

A thoughtful post,  a fair point raised.  This is how Republicans think, at least the ones I know.   

[Silver Pines]

Murder?  I think we're still talking past each other a bit on this @CatherineofAragon, so I think I'll drop it and go back to waiting to see what happens... 

*SIGH*

For the love of PETE, @Cyber Liberty, I halfway expected someone to squawk “so you’re equating Roy Moore with a murderer” but I didn’t think it would be you.  Really?  You couldn’t see that I was responding to your post about 40 year evidence by countering with an example that’s 50 years old?

Talking past each other?  Speak for yourself, I’ve been perfectly clear.

smdh

[Cyber Liberty]

*SIGH*

For the love of PETE, @Cyber Liberty, I halfway expected someone to squawk “so you’re equating Roy Moore with a murderer” but I didn’t think it would be you.  Really?  You couldn’t see that I was responding to your post about 40 year evidence by countering with an example that’s 50 years old?

Talking past each other?  Speak for yourself, I’ve been perfectly clear.

smdh

I was speaking for myself.  I'm obviously not coming across well.  Now stop shaking your head at me...lol

Of course you are perfectly clear, @CatherineofAragon

[Smokin Joe]

@roamer_1
@CatherineofAragon

Juanita Broaddrick…..

In 1997 Juanita Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers stating there were unfounded rumors and stories circulating "that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue". She said this under oath.

Broaddrick then said in an interview with Dateline NBC that aired on February 24, 1999, that she had indeed been raped by Clinton in 1978, admitting to lying in a sworn affidavit.

However, three weeks after the alleged assault, Broaddrick participated in a small Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist. She claimed she only did so because she was “still in shock”.

At the time of the alleged 1978 rape, she was having an affair with David Broaddrick, who also was married to another person.

So do these inconstancies and changes in Broaddrick’s story, what some might say is a bad reflection of her personal and moral character such as having an affair with a married man while herself being married, and the fact that after the alleged rape, she attended a Clinton fundraiser make her claim untrue? No.

Yes, she has friends who say she told them about the rape contemporaneously, but then again Broaddrick never filed a police report, claiming she was afraid because at the time Clinton was the AG of Arkansas, nor did she go to a hospital where any physical evidence of a rape would have been collected, even if she didn’t want to file charges or name her rapist.

Is this really any different between Clinton’s accusers and many of Moore accusers? Let’s review.

Victims coming forward many years later? – Check
Multiple accusers? – Check
Being afraid to come forward because the man was in a position of power? - Check
A consistent pattern of behavior of the accused? – as yet unproven, but still, Check
The women having told others about what happened contemporaneously? – Check
That perhaps at least one victim had further contact with the alleged abuser after the alleged assault? - Check
Some of the women perhaps not being themselves of a perfect moral character? – Check
Questions about the “timing” of the allegations? - Check

So all I ask is that we try to be consistent.

If we are going to believe without question the word of women accusing those who we don’t like or who are on the opposite side of the political aisle, then we at least should try to be consistent in applying the same standards of when and why we believe women with very similar claims when it involves people we do like and or are our political allies.

Sworn affidavit? No.
Risking perjury charges to recant said affidavit? No.
Consistent pattern of behaviour of the accused?  Not so much.

(Two claimants who say he made sexual advances. More who say he did not, and conducted himself as a gentleman. At this point conducting himself as a gentleman is in the majority, and conforms to behaviour observed by the vast majority of those who came into contact with him. If I had to pick 'flyers' on the chart, it would be for him to conduct himself in a sexually aggressive manner.)

[Silver Pines]

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.

@Smokin Joe

Maybe he did think everyone was corrupt but him.  And maybe the source of the eye rolling was the rumors that have been circulating about him and the things which are known about him.

What exactly is unsupportable?  That Moore is guilty?

Let me make this clear, Joe:  I saw that clip on Shapiro's Twitter.  I didn't edit anything.  Sometimes a Twitter feed will feature a small snipping of an article and lead back to the entire thing.  It might have in this case.  I have yet to see Shapiro mislead on anything.

It might as well have linked to the whole article.  After reading the entire thing, there was nothing that contradicted the highlighted part or made it hard to believe.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

Nope, not the same.  I explained why.

Part of the problem is that you see them as identical because, based on your experience with one woman, all women are, to quote TOS, lying bitches when they say they’ve been abused.  But it’s simply not true. 

@CatherineofAragon

Based on my experience of ONE woman, you say? I but related ONE STORY as an example toward my position. I could go on. And on sommore. Not just in salacious cases of a sexual nature - The very same applies between men having a bone to pick. It is the standard in all things.

And the reason it is that way, in places where folks still rule themselves, beyond the reach of the supposed law and order y'all know, is because that standard prevents false accusations, in large part. How then do you prevent or discover a false accuser within this absurdity you recommend? By how you feeeel? Or is the woman just to be believed whole cloth?

It’s easy, extremely easy, to say yeah, you have to have a record of bruises and the woman has to fight back.  Do you realize that sometimes a female is too scared to do it?  Or is being threatened?  You can’t hold a 14 year old responsible for not fighting back and leaving marks.

I am not 'holding her responsible' for not leaving marks. I am saying there is nothing actionable WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Like I said, I believed Broderick, but I wasn't moved by her story. Likewise in this. Whether the stories are believable or not is incidental to the point. The worst injustice is false accusation, because in the aggregate, justice flees. Any accusation can be leveled on a whim, and in that environment justice is meted by an emoting mob - Be careful what you wish for, because the next time, it could be you.

It doesn’t always happen like that.  From the start, I’ve said that I take this kind of thing case by case.  I don’t start out with assumptions as to innocence or guilt.  Yesterday I read about another accuser who just came out.  She gave her account, then finished with the claim that Moore asked how old she was, and when she said she was past her teens, he looked very disappointed.  That raised a red flag with me.  It seemed too neat, too designed to wrap up a point.

 
Innocence or guilt has nothing to do with it - ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE VERACITY OF THE EVIDENCE.

The thing is, I think you guys, in reacting to those times when men have been falsely accused, tend to go on defense every time. 

No, the standard remains the same every time. You want me to tear a man down with no proof at all - none whatsoever.

I might if the guy was a boor and a lout - Like Trump, as an instance - He has no character, and he has already demonstrated himself to be a liar. so I have absolutely no need at all to rise to his defense, nor believe a damn thing he says. When this shit is turned on him, you won't find me rising - I will do nothing. There is nothing to defend. He will have to defend himself.

Now, that is quite another thing in a man of honor, one who conducts himself well. That's why I will rise to defend Cruz, and why I will rise to defend Moore.

Your accusation that I am "reacting to those times when men have been falsely accused, tend to go on defense every time" is as false as it can be. I don't give a shit about anything but honor. And where it is, I'll fight like hell, whether a man or a woman. Where it ain't, they're on their own.

In this case, there ain't enough evidence to amount to a row of pins, and certainly not enough to tear down a lifetime of integrity. I may be wrong about Roy Moore, but these accusations aren't anywhere near proof enough to change my mind.

It ain't whether or not, it's holding against gossip, rumor, and innuendo as sufficient proofs, to protect those falsely accused. That is the point, and I will not be moved from it..

Regarding the media, yeah, I know how they are, but if we’re to the point that we refuse to listen or see anything at all because of them, then we’ve gone round the bend.  Not everything is a media attack.  Sometimes people just suck.

I have never believed the media. Again, I believe evidence. That's all I'll believe.

[Sighlass]

In the meanwhile down in Bama... picture of sister (who got all the looks, and was valedictorian in HS and college) with Roy Moore. Our votes hold firm... proof or it is hearsay.

We share the same eye features...

[roamer_1]

Juanita Broaddrick…..

In 1997 Juanita Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers stating there were unfounded rumors and stories circulating "that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue". She said this under oath.

Broaddrick then said in an interview with Dateline NBC that aired on February 24, 1999, that she had indeed been raped by Clinton in 1978, admitting to lying in a sworn affidavit.

However, three weeks after the alleged assault, Broaddrick participated in a small Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist. She claimed she only did so because she was “still in shock”.

At the time of the alleged 1978 rape, she was having an affair with David Broaddrick, who also was married to another person.

So do these inconstancies and changes in Broaddrick’s story, what some might say is a bad reflection of her personal and moral character such as having an affair with a married man while herself being married, and the fact that after the alleged rape, she attended a Clinton fundraiser make her claim untrue? No.

Yes, she has friends who say she told them about the rape contemporaneously, but then again Broaddrick never filed a police report, claiming she was afraid because at the time Clinton was the AG of Arkansas, nor did she go to a hospital where any physical evidence of a rape would have been collected, even if she didn’t want to file charges or name her rapist.

Is this really any different between Clinton’s accusers and many of Moore accusers? Let’s review.

Victims coming forward many years later? – Check
Multiple accusers? – Check
Being afraid to come forward because the man was in a position of power? - Check
A consistent pattern of behavior of the accused? – as yet unproven, but still, Check
The women having told others about what happened contemporaneously? – Check
That perhaps at least one victim had further contact with the alleged abuser after the alleged assault? - Check
Some of the women perhaps not being themselves of a perfect moral character? – Check
Questions about the “timing” of the allegations? - Check

So all I ask is that we try to be consistent.

If we are going to believe without question the word of women accusing those who we don’t like or who are on the opposite side of the political aisle, then we at least should try to be consistent in applying the same standards of when and why we believe women with very similar claims when it involves people we do like and or are our political allies.

@Neverdul

Like I said, I believed Juanita Broderick's tale. But it wasn't actionable. All of what you've written here is moot, because without evidence, whether I believe her or not is without merit, and the accusations are discarded.

And in that, btw, I will reiterate that I had no use for Clinton, as like Trump, he was a known cad, and a proven liar... A long list of bimbo eruptions dogged him his entire career. Actionable? No. The decision must be reserved. But a long and sordid history is in his record.

Shall I rise to defend a serial adulterer against the accusations of other admitted serial adulterers? Doesn't matter a whit to me. None of em were good people. All of them people of low character. I did, however, believe Broderick. I saw truth in what she spoke. But it was the blue dress in the end. Incontrovertible evidence. That is actionable.

I am in fact using the very same standard against Moore. Precisely the same. The difference is his character.

Unlike Clinton, not a whiff of this sort of thing, throughout a long, long career. Not a whiff of any sort of impropriety at all.

If that is worth nothing, then there is no point in honor, or being honorable. That is precisely the cost of allowing gossip to govern this public opinion verdict, rather than the veracity of the evidence.

[Silver Pines]

@roamer_1

Based on my experience of ONE woman, you say? I but related ONE STORY as an example toward my position. I could go on. And on sommore. Not just in salacious cases of a sexual nature - The very same applies between men having a bone to pick. It is the standard in all things.

Yeah, one---you described one, so why would I assume differently.

And the reason it is that way, in places where folks still rule themselves, beyond the reach of the supposed law and order y'all know, is because that standard prevents false accusations, in large part. How then do you prevent or discover a false accuser within this absurdity you recommend? By how you feeeel? Or is the woman just to be believed whole cloth?

Roamer, come on, stop talking like you live on a frontier planet.  You live in the United States with the rest of us. 

I've stated repeatedly, over and over, that I don't assume guilt or innocence of either man or woman.  How is that you guys just keep missing me saying that, every time?  I wait for information to come in before I make my judgment.

As for "feeeelings", like I said, I weigh the information and the facts,  Some of you, on the other hand, are operating as though that saint in a cowboy outfit couldn't have told a lie, much less molested someone.  Now that's based on feeling.

Innocence or guilt has nothing to do with it - ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE VERACITY OF THE EVIDENCE.

Yeah, and we have a pretty good amount, by now.

[musiclady]

@Cyber Liberty

I don’t agree.  In this area, a child killer was recently put behind bars (should have been executed) for murders he committed over 50 years ago.  There were no issues concerning the testimonies of witnesses.

What happened to those women is as clear in their minds as if it happened last week.

I keep wondering why the fact that this happened 40 years ago somehow makes the story less believeable.

A traumatic occurrence 40 years ago never leaves one's mind.

The fact that the memories are old doesn't make them any less valid,  and does not prove exculpatory no matter how much Moore's defenders want it to be.

@CatherineofAragon

[Bigun]

I keep wondering why the fact that this happened 40 years ago somehow makes the story less believeable.

A traumatic occurrence 40 years ago never leaves one's mind.

The fact that the memories are old doesn't make them any less valid,  and does not prove exculpatory no matter how much Moore's defenders want it to be.

@CatherineofAragon

I keep wondering why they kept it to themselves until a critical time right before an election.

[Sighlass]

I keep wondering why the fact that this happened 40 years ago somehow makes the story less believeable.

A traumatic occurrence 40 years ago never leaves one's mind.

The fact that the memories are old doesn't make them any less valid,  and does not prove exculpatory no matter how much Moore's defenders want it to be.

How you ever gathered with siblings to discuss early life like I have ( w/ brothers and sisters) and get to retelling events we lived together. We come up with 3 different tells of the same event, some things similar, but often some things totally in disagreement. Yes, there is a reason for statue of limitations in most things except perhaps murder.

Memories get muddled, and then tellings and retellings start to take life. The witnesses of the "hands up, don't shoot" Michael Brown shooting is a perfect example. By the time some get their stories down on paper, it has already been influenced by tales of others, to where you sometimes believe you saw something you didn't. Their interviews were only weeks later, not years.

[Silver Pines]

I keep wondering why the fact that this happened 40 years ago somehow makes the story less believeable.

A traumatic occurrence 40 years ago never leaves one's mind.

The fact that the memories are old doesn't make them any less valid,  and does not prove exculpatory no matter how much Moore's defenders want it to be.

@CatherineofAragon

@musiclady

It’s denial based on tribalism.  And yes, I agree with you.

Bigun has me blocked, but the question he raised in his post has been answered repeatedly.  The women never went looking to tell their stories—-not during that long 40 years.  The Post went looking for them—-which has nothing to do with the veracity, or not, of the charges.

At least one of the women is a Republican who voted for Trump.  So much for the conspiracy theory.

[Silver Pines]

How you ever gathered with siblings to discuss early life like I have (brother and sister) and get to retelling events. We come up with 3 different tells of the same event, some things similar, but often some things totally in disagreement. Yes, there is a reason for statue of limitations in most things except perhaps murder.

@Sighlass

The issue is sexual abuse, not the cookout you had when you were fifteen.  Research will tell you it stays clear in the minds of the victims.

[Sighlass]

@Sighlass

The issue is sexual abuse, not the cookout you had when you were fifteen.  Research will tell you it stays clear in the minds of the victims.

BS, I also was a victim of sexual abuse, or attempted anyway. Had a same sex band director that tried to get me to do some things. Yeah, I remember his proposition line, I remember turning him down, but I couldn't tell you what month it was to save my life now.

Honestly I couldn't even tell you the season it occurred. But then again, like I said my memory just ain't what it used to be.

@CatherineofAragon

[Bigun]

@musiclady

It’s denial based on tribalism.  And yes, I agree with you.

Bigun has me blocked, but the question he raised in his post has been answered repeatedly.  The women never went looking to tell their stories—-not during that long 40 years.  The Post went looking for them—-which has nothing to do with the veracity, or not, of the charges.

At least one of the women is a Republican who voted for Trump.  So much for the conspiracy theory.

@CatherineofAragon

So it's a drag a $100 bill through a trailer park kind of thing!  I figured as much!

And just in case you're wondering, someone sent me a link to the post you mentioned my name in.  Bye now!

[Silver Pines]

BS, I also was a victim of sexual abuse, or attempted anyway. Had a same sex band director that tried to get me to do some things. Yeah, I remember his proposition line, I remember turning him down, but I couldn't tell you what month it was to save my life now.

Honestly I couldn't even tell you the season it occurred. But then again, like I said my memory just ain't what it used to be.

@CatherineofAragon

@Sighlass

And?

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon

So it's a drag a $100 bill through a trailer park kind of thing!  I figured as much!

And just in case you're wondering, someone sent me a link to the post you mentioned my name in.  Bye now!

@Bigun

No, it’s not.  That was disproved a while back, but facts don’t stop you from your Moore fangirling.

Btw, is that how ignore works—-buddies send you links so you can post from behind the safety of the block, lol?  I’m sorry you don’t have the guts to post directly to me.  Says a lot about your confidence in your argument.  Ironically, it’s a very feminine, catty way to operate.

I do think it’s cute that y’all have a little ladies’ sewing circle of support behind the scenes, though.  Better have it well-coordinated, because I’m not shutting up.

[Bigun]

@Bigun

No, it’s not.  That was disproved a while back, but facts don’t stop you from your Moore fangirling.

@CatherineofAragon

Actually by your own words you prove it was! And BTW: I seem to have a damned site more FACTS on my side than you and your lynch mob have on yours!

Btw, is that how ignore works—-buddies send you links so you can post from behind the safety of the block, lol?  I’m sorry you don’t have the guts to post directly to me.  Says a lot about your confidence in your argument.  Ironically, it’s a very feminine, catty way to operate.

I do think it’s cute that y’all have a little ladies’ sewing circle of support behind the scenes, though.  Better have it well-coordinated, because I’m not shutting up.

You can run your mouth till hell freezes over and I won't care.  But when you mention me by name I might respond!

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon

Actually by your own words you prove it was! And BTW: I seem to have a damned site more FACTS on my side than you and your lynch mob have on yours!

You can run your mouth till hell freezes over and I won't care.  But when you mention me by name I might respond!

@Bigun

*Sight*