They’ve stopped joint fund-raising events and pulled the people they sent to Alabama to help canvass for him.
Moore’s trouble have a weird triangle shape to them. In one corner is Moore and his Alabama political supporters. Opposing him, but for different reasons, are the Democrats (locally and nationally) and the national GOP (even the folk out on the fringe of that party, like Ted Cruz).
Part of the opposition there comes from the charges against Moore. But part of it is old-fashioned politics — the Dems thirsting after a Senate seat, the GOP desperate to avoid losing one but profoundly unhappy with the idea of Moore, an anti-establishment pol / religious nutjob / accused chaser after under-aged girls getting into the Senate.
I’m fascinated by intersection of partisan politics and morality on display, even as I find myself repulsed by Moore both based on the (credible) accusations and his (documented) theocratic zaniness. I actually worry about both of those a lot more than the caucus sizes in the US Senate.
Oh, here’s a bit more about Moore back in those golden 70s.
I thought you were innocent until found guilty in our country. I would hope that would apply to me…but funny how a lot of you out there don't see that….you can't see past your political stance. Wicked shallow!
+Francine Archambo The statute of limitations is past. There I’ll be no court case to determine guilt or innocence. So instead you need to judge credibility. His accusers, his previous co-workers, the people who lived in his town; they all say he did these things. He says he doesn’t recall doing them, maybe. He’s not clear. He’s forged letters of support. He has multiple times ruled in court that if you don’t force a child to have sex, but persuade them, it’s not rape. So basically, whether or not he did those things, he doesn’t believe they are wrong.
Those are all the facts we know.
Do you still need a court to rule?
He seems unrepentant.
Kee, the people who worked for him and the small percentage of the people of Gadsden (his home town) who actually knew him (does everyone in your home town know everything about you?) do not say he did those things, it is only the accusers. The people who knew him during those years say they are shocked by the allegations and never saw anything that would indicate that he had an inclination to do anything like that.
He doesn't say that he "doesn't recall doing them", he has clearly stated that he never did anything like that in his entire life.
As for credibility, some of these women have already been tied to Hillary Clinton's campaigns and the Democrats. We no longer automatically assume that accusations that are made at crucial times in political races are true, particularly allegations that will never be able to be challenged by placing the accuser under oath.
You nitwits have no business in this country when you convict without proof.
+George Ford Fellow prosecutors. Other people who were teens at the mall. Two policemen. People who worked in the mall. Those people have all said he stalked teens. And are you denying his court decisions?
+George Ford which is true, the people who knew him or people in the town he lives in I'm confused by the statement.
+Robert Williams Nobody has been or will be convicted. Are you saying you don’t care about the morals of your leaders?
I wonder, Kee, if you feel the same when a Democrat is accused. BillyBob, for one. Biden, for two.
And, unless they were to prove him guilty, he's innocent. It appears you need lessons in law.
+Eric Walker The population of his home town of Gadsden Alabama was about 42,523 (1990 census), and out of those there were possibly two or three thousand who were aware of his existence. Of those, there may have been a hundred who knew him personally and of that hundred there were probably no more than twenty who were close enough to have the intimate details of his life.
Just living in the same town does not mean you know the details of the lives of every other person in your town. There are people who live three blocks from you that you have never met and are likely to never meet, so why would it be difficult to understand that people you have regular contact with know you better than people you have never met? Of the 42,523 people of his home town, 40,500 didn't know he existed, 2,000 had a vague awareness of him or were acquaintances and a couple of dozen knew him well.
Which is true? The most likely to be true is the people who actually knew him, the least likely to be true are those who did not know him, have a political ax to grind or something to gain from his defeat (homosexuals, atheists, Democrats and establishment Republicans).
+Robert Williams Again. There is no legal consequence here. This isn’t a legal question. It’s a moral one. Does Biden’s behavior bother me, damn right it does. Is it at the level of going after children and ruling that such behavior is not rape? You tell me. Do you think using a young child sexual gratify yourself is rape? He doesn’t. He is in the record saying it is not. He is on the record as saying that the behavior he is accused of is not bad. He is morally a bad person. Even if every single accusation (they keep coming in) is wrong. Do you agree with him?
Odd, I haven't seen his statement on that. All I continue to see is him denying all the claims.
+George Ford cept he was like one of the most important people in the state for decades but whatever your hypothetical made up stuff is cool too. He was an Alabama supreme Justice. He's run for several public offices. He's been in public legislative fights across the state. Goddamn it! What the is your damage man!
And btw, while I find immoral behavior reprehensible, most don't. Immorality includes much more than sex with children.
+Robert Williams https://thinkprogress.org/this-is-what-roy-moore-has-said-about-child-abuse-and-sexual-assault-c844cf8ff480/
Kee, you're completely off your rocker. Think Progress is a libshit joke. Most liberals don't trust anything they say. Try reading an article by Slate. It's also liberal, but considered trustworthy.
+Eric Walker He was not an important or well-known man during the years the allegation were supposed to have taken place.
Yes, he did become a prominent judge decades later and eventually became a state Supreme Court judge, which begs the question of why there was not a hint of these allegations before now? Would it not have been the time to make those allegations when he was being considered for the Supreme Court? During the Ten Commandments trials? When he ordered his clerks to not register homosexual marriages?
Are you so idiotic as to believe this is not a coordinated attack on Moore for the purpose of damaging him just before the special election? If not, what other possible reason kept them from coming forward before the primary election?
So, what is your "damage" and why can't you see that your argument actually bolsters mine? Had they made allegations at any other time, they would have warranted further investigation. As it is, having multiple accusers being found as having served in the Democrat party, including at least one who served in Hillary's campaign, makes it highly likely that the allegations are false and the accusers will disappear from the public eye as fast as those who falsely accused Trump did (you know, the ones who had their stories proven to be lies).
+Robert Williams The Slate argument on the case is interesting. They argue that from a pure textualist point of view (taking into account a completely literal view of Alabama law) his decision was correct. In the absence of other evidence (and if I were a textualist) I might agree. Mind you, the other judges did not.
And yes. Think Progress has gone downhill considerably in the last year or so. Sinking to the emotional and out of context level of some of the conservative rags.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/11/it_s_wrong_to_attack_roy_moore_for_his_dissent_in_a_child_rape_case.html
+George Ford Why not before? What happened to the 8 people who accused trump. What has happened to all the other women who challenged someone important. What is happening to these women.
Why now? Because people are finally listening and supporting women who are attacked.
Until recently, accusing a man of sexual assault was pretty much guaranteed to end your career. Or at least to cause you as much pain as the original assault. I know that. My wife went through. PTSD. Years of trying to get action taken. Zero results. Nada. And at least she wasn’t dragged publicly through the mud like these women are having to deal with.
Kee, Think Progress has never been a trusted news source. You put too much trust in liberal news outlets. I'm sure you'll continue to do so. You're bias will always render you ignorant to truth. Many females have made false accusations throughout the years. Stop believing woman are always truthfull. They're just as conniving as males.
And George is correct. All of these accusers will go back into the woodwork soon enough.
+Robert Williams the Washington Post did the reporting.
Eric, if you're going to comment, you should read the posts you're replying to. Kees' source was not the WAPO.
+Robert Williams a) don’t attribute things to me I didn’t say or do. Did I say women always told the truth? Nope. Did I say Think Progress was always accurate? Nope, the opposite. Did I quote articles that disagree with their take? Yes. I don’t know who you’re arguing with, but it isn’t me. It’s some selective picture of a libtard enemy that you’ve created in your mind.
b) you’re very selective in your responses. I have repeatedly mentioned information from the WAPO reporting. I do read conservative and mainstream reporting.
I’m done talking to you. You’re a blue head troll with no honest desire to have a conversation.
You haven't shown any other articles. You said nothing of Think Progress being inaccurate. You've posted nothing from WAPO. Go back to MySpace, child. You're not mature enough for adult conversation.
+Robert Williams You're clearly not reading what +Kee Hinckley is writing. And, looking at your profile of invective-as-commentary makes it clear you're not here for the discussion. Aloha.
Omg. ..I posted my opinion. I wasn't nasty but look at your response to me…hatefull and empty, without logic.
" +Francine Archambo ", the one response I see above is a polite and on-point response that there is a distinction between a court of law with criminal penalties (and, thus, a high bar for proof and a statute of limitations), and the court of public opinion. Your "omg … hatefull and empty" goes along with your empty profile. Aloha.