I mean, this isn’t an otherwise cool guy who unfortunately got banned from the local shopping mall because he kept hitting on teen-age girls when he was in his 30s. Roy Moore has always been a dolt and a danger, even beyond leching after and groping and assaulting teens.
Earlier this year, when he was just a zany outsider in the US Senate race in Alabama:
In response to a question from one of the only African Americans in the audience — who asked when Moore thought America was last “great” — Moore acknowledged the nation’s history of racial divisions, but said: “I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another…. Our families were strong, our country had a direction.”
America was last “great” … when we still had slavery … but families were “united” … so chattel slavery doesn’t disqualify a country from greatness (assuming it’s not actually a desired feature).
One presumes Moore would love to go back to those days of “greatness,” regardless of the cost. As would, one must assume, his followers. [1]
And now this dolt has a serious likelihood of becoming a US Senator, has the open support of the President of the United States, and the active financial backing of the Republican National Committee.
[Warning: Autoplaying Video]
——
[1] To be fair, a good chunk of his followers wouldn’t agree. They would simply argue that it’s more dangerous to have a (gasp) Democrat in the US Senate than someone who thinks our country was last great at a time when we (or at least Alabama) had slaves.
Roy Moore said the last time America was “great” was during “slavery”
“Can’t make this up,” a former Obama official tweeted regarding Moore’s comments.
So, America hasn't been great since 6 December 1865? That's 152 years of non-greatness.
+Travis Bird Would you like to explain how you read that into it?
Look at the source, and the assumption, I call bullshit on the content. This thing is likely taken out of context, like most crap DEMS do.
AND I believe that WWII was the last time America was great. We we're a United country.
You’re such a freaking liar. That’s not even what he said.
You make it difficult. I’m not a Moore fan but compared to you pukes he’s the golden child.
+Bill Polhemus If you have a better or more complete source of "even what he said," please do tell. If these stories misstate Moore's apparent willingness to take "united families" of the mid-19th Century (!) as being great even at the cost of slavery, I'm certainly willing to see the record fixed.
Moore said a few other things at that particular rally. Heck, he's said all sorts of entertaining things that should disqualify him from being elected to the Senate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/12/08/roy-moore-america-was-great-in-era-of-slavery-is-now-focus-of-evil-in-the-world/
Oh Fuck this guy with a cactus already! What kind of country puts up with this bullshit? Why are we still talking about this asshole? He should be GONE. Period. End of story. Next case.
More CIA/Globalist lies about a Godly man — Judge Roy Moore
Tbf he said "even though" which implies he thinks slavery was evil
AMERICA?? DO [MORALS] & [TRUTH]] COUNT IN THIS COUNTRY ANYMORE?? SAD SAD sad!!!
+Peter Lemmon So are suggesting that Moore didn't actually say this? Or that he meant to say something else? Or that the CIA is running the LA Times? You need to be more specific.
+Hgean Kid Nebula But an acceptable evil, it seems.
And, of course, by implication, his statement addresses only those families not torn apart by slavery itself, in particular by slaveholders selling children, breaking up married couples, etc., among their property.
Those families, it seems, don't count in Moore's moral calculus of "greatness."
For that matter, I wonder what "direction" he felt this country was united in..
I wonder what Jesus would say about slavery???? PATHETIC specimen of humanity!!!! There are NO words for this man and ALL who support him and his SICKENING philosophy.
I live here in Alabama and I must say that if this psycho get's elected I'm moving to Canada
+Dave Hill You’re not quoting, you’re assuming.
You’re lying, in other words.
+Dave Hill “he said things that should disqualify him…”
Really? By your logic we can oust Keith Ellison then.
I'm curious to see how the election goes. My personal want is for Doug Jones to win. But I know that is a major longshot.
+Bill Polhemus I'm drawing conclusions from what the man said. If America was great at a time when we had slavery, and bases that greatness on family unity at a time when slavery was tearing slave families about, I don't think it's an assumption (let alone a lie) that he doesn't consider slavery all that bad a thing, that he has little regard for African-Americans, or that he would consider slavery of little cost if we could turn the clock back to the 1850s.
+Dave Hill At the very least he doesn't seem to consider slavery a disqualifying factor in greatness.
I think most rational people would disagree with Moore's stance on that.
+Bill Polhemus But we're talking about Roy Moore here, who said (as noted in the article linked to that comment) that:
— being taught about evolution leads to violence
— "homosexual conduct" should be illegal
— Keith Ellison should not be allowed to serve in Congress because he is a Muslim
— he truly doesn't believe Barrack Obama was born in the United States
— allowing same-sex marriage has made the US a "focus of evil" in the world
And, of course, being ousted by his own state twice from the Alabama Supreme Court, once for refusing a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had installed, once for telling his judges to defy the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.
Any of that, let alone the abuse and skeeviness allegations against him, should have meant he came nowhere near even nomination for US Senator, let alone be poised to be elected into that role.
He also said teaching evolution leads to drive by shootings because it makes people behave like animals
+Christine Felixon Heard that. Shook my head and realized that there will never be any common ground upon which I can have a discussion with Moore or his supporters…
He also was the only no vote on a Bama scotus case of child rape I believe
For the love of God and his beloved son Yahweh " Jesus Christ " understand these John 3:16 only if one confesses their faith and believe onto Jesus Christ can one find comfort in the world
Daniel 10:6 , Revelation 1:13-15
https://plus.google.com/photos/…
Make America great Again by letting black people know their place slaves with no say-so
Hmmm sounds like "+Isaabdul Ghaffar " is a person I can block due to racist posts.
, that makes him a slave master all he see is a happy pickaninny
#rapist wrong for the senate
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/w1PwtgKCVhjoKR8OqXyKfNOg5_o8KS5CTNIOsCCckD7mF56r9FHSHQsO8f0FFVjZ5wf_9ak8TwU
+Dave Hill this is a great example of the media misquoting someone and taking things out of context for their agenda. A major problem that needs to be resolved.
The quote "I think it was great at the time when families were united—even though we had slavery—they cared for one another…Our families were strong, our country had a direction."
The actual quote isn't that bad. It doesn't say that slavery is good. It's pointing out a time where families and communities were close and involved. In his head he might think that includes the slaves as they had their own community that overcame something horrendous so those of us living today would never know their sacrifice. Every American should be thankful for their sacrifice and remember how wrong it is. Anyone pro slavery should be shot on site in my opinion as obviously no human should be owned by another and I'm sure someone will try twisting my words just like this article twisted Moores. Those who focus only on the slavery part in a negitive way should think about changing the way they view everything. Bad things have happened in the past and there's nothing anyone can to to change it but during the bad times there was good times and events that happened as well. Personally I could care less if Moore is elected or not however I do agree with some things he claims to support such as federal over reach but I do share some ideas from the dems as well. His opponent Jones must be very quiet and not really trying to be elected because if it wasn't for the junk about Moore I wouldn't even know an election was taking place in Alabama.
+Jason Thompson he's a religious idiot.
+Jason Thompson "The quote "I think it was great at the time when families were united—even though we had slavery—they cared for one another…Our families were strong, our country had a direction."
The actual quote isn't that bad."
You are suggesting that a person saying that a country could be great in the presence of slavery isn't that bad? Because if that is your stance then you are a seriously evil person.
Not intrested in these post delete them please.
Please stop this from coming to my google + its irratating me badly.
+Beverly Upshaw It's your prerogative to be irritated if you choose. It is not your prerogative, however, to order others to delete their posts because it bothers you. You have several options- ignore the posts, block the person posting them or stop looking at your computer screen.
Showing up and ordering another person to " delete them please" is not within your set of options.
+Beverly Upshaw Well, then, if that is all you can post then I will demonstrate your options and block you.
There, simple as that.
He's not a Democrat
https://plus.google.com/photos/…
+Dennis Cisar So, let me get this straight : You have just tried to draw an equivalence between Roy Moore engaging in pedophilia with a picture of Obama taking a picture with others around with a child? Are you truly that stupid and you don't understand the basic difference? Or are you so brainwashed into supporting Moore and his pedophilia that you feel you must try to do that?
+Dennis Cisar Now that is interesting. You are a poster with no other posts in your profile that is just using a stock picture for your profile… I smell a troll.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/yyEZwkAhVGeEP4qYAzN3sxd64b7PYEfMigO1eSPNQwUrLqBuWnJJ4g6ubEuWpUVFAu3vSQQeFIo
Let's bottonline this – if you are a person trying to justify a statement by a pedophile who just suggested that slavery wasn't a disqualifying aspect for a nation to be great then you are a seriously screwed up person.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/oLmH0-XJe42v4qqjWKklYg3b00GvhUVe5T2QpGqz14Jb3Q3N1BIrHi8IvRabFRxYrFmVFDafHBA
+Timothy Collins Then why haven't they filed charge? Because they know filing a false police report is a crime and their lawyers know she will be disbarred, This is a dry out nothing burger
+Timothy Collins in the time during slavery there was good things. No taxes and medical care was a non issue except it wasn't that advanced and sometimes the doc lived far away. Family, friends, and neighbors actually talked and befriended each other instead of being just Facebook friends. If you moved to a new neighborhood the neighbors would share a dish and the platter would be returned with a dish. Local government was more important and people in general were more involved because they actually had a voice. Talking politics wasn't forbidden like it is today. Lets not forget that during that same timeframe there were many places where slavery was illegal as well. However it's not easy to seperate the good from bad because once one mentions slavery in any form it becomes the topic.
Obviously there were many issues as well but there was a sense of community that almost seems fictional. Like a great grandparent walking 20 miles in 8ft of snow to get to school. Take the technology we have today and merge it with the way people lived then, minus slavery and any other form of discrimination, and it'd be a pretty great time. There would still be issues but if any form of discrimination, taxes, medical care, and military funding weren't an issue wouldn't you prefer that over what it's like now?
+Jason Thompson I hate to break this to you but institutionalized slavery disqualifies a country from greatness. Period.
You are currently trying to argue that slavery is not such a human rights violation that a country can be great in the presence of it. As such you are an evil person.
It's people like this this country doesn't need…..just go away and die…..this liar is not what people need to help run this country….
+Jason Thompson I mean, let's be blunt – you are currently spinning yourself into dizziness in order to defend a pedophile that apparently doesn't see slavery as a human rights violation bad enough to disqualify greatness while it existed. There really isn't much further to sink for you.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/u9cQS8RXW2-3CwHaKUV8DHxDAlrs4jiQYPX0PzRFtNQFsm-jEh9_u6j_huqCUrCneFT-QHqR_vc
Y'all can cry your hearts out but come Tuesday I'm voting for Roy Moore! So will a lot of other Alabama's !
+Timothy Collins I could care less about Moore. My argument for this article is that it misquoted for clickbait and to make an individual look how they want him to look. It's a massive problem and has been for decades. If Moore said what the headline states this conversation would be completely different. Especially being that many won't even read the article.
My argument in general is the federal government is and has been overreaching it's purpose. One state representative shouldn't have an effect on the entire nation. Moore being elected or not shouldn't have any affect on me being I live in the PNW. It should be only Alabama's problem. Originally states were to govern theirselfs but that's not the case anymore. It's sad how many don't realize there's a reason it's called the United States of America and not simply America. Every state has a right to their own laws. The feds are to make sure things such as discrimination are illegal accross the board. They aren't to be involved in much but they are. Why? Because it became a business full of "donations" and lobbyists. The people in general shouldn't be paying a federal tax. State taxes would still exsist and they should go directly to the state for what the people in that state want. In many ways states should be their own countries with the fed overlooking and making sure items like slavery never returns. How people don't understand how the government was originally set up is a large problem and politicians in general are guilty as they do very little to stop the growth of the feds.
+Dave Hill he said "even though" which means he likely doesn't support any of that. He probably likes other things that were present in those times. word choice matters
Maybe Roy Moore is right. During slavery the black people were under control. Look at what they do now.
+Mike Perkins She final came clean and told the truth. She " Fake It" it's not like you haven't heard that before. LOL
+Benjimen Franklin Leaving your comment here just to demonstrate the idiocy (and racism) of your position.
But blocking you because, frankly, life's too short.
+Jason Thompson the article prints the entire quote. It doesn't make Moore look any better.
You are defending an indefensible stance. You are trying to say, in effect, "apart from slavery it was good". And any argument that can be summed up as starting with "apart from slavery" marks the user if that argument as an evil and vile person.
+Jason Thompson 'this is a great example of the media misquoting someone and taking things out of context for their agenda. A major problem that needs to be resolved.'
You then proceed to give the quote … verbatim from the story above. So … not a misquote.
Nor do you provide any context.
If you have the full quote, or a better context, I would love for you to present it.
Otherwise, I have to assume your charges are simply meaningless.
The rest of your apologetic is essentially saying, hey, that was a good time, but slavery is bad, but maybe some slaves were having a good family time, too, so slavery is bad, but people who just focus on how bad slavery is need to not focus just on that.
Which … yeah, basically makes my point. Handwaving the evils of slavery, or minimizing its harm and conjuring up happy slave families, and assuming that's all what's in Moore's head is what seems … well, "a major problem that needs to be resolved".
+Beverly Upshaw As noted, if you don't like it, block it. (Or turn off the "trending" stuff in your G+ options.)
Let me help you with that. Aloha.
+Dennis Cisar Why haven't they filed charges? Because it's well past the statute of limitations. As various Moore supporters keep pointing out as a way of "defending" him.
One might as easily ask why Moore hasn't filed a defamation suit.
+Jason Thompson Your ability to create a nostalgic era when everything was wonderful except for that one kind of mean slavery thing but hey there were places where it wasn't legal so that's clearly what Moore was talking about (in Alabama) so if only things could be like they were then except with better medical care but no slavery … does not lend any credibility your assessment of how good things were in the good ol' (except for slavery) days. Or Moore's.
+Mike Perkins I'd really love to consider your graphic outrageous and beyond the pale — but it's hard to argue with. Because that is literally the argument being put forward by some Moore supporters. "He's the only way we're going to get a Republican in that seat" says Orrin Hatch.
Benjemin – 'So will a lot of other Alabama's !'
Huh. You're not from around these parts, are you? Or from any English-speaking region, even Alabama.
Interesting.
+Jason Thompson 'I could care less about Moore. My argument for this article is that it misquoted for clickbait and to make an individual look how they want him to look. It's a massive problem and has been for decades. If Moore said what the headline states this conversation would be completely different.'
Except you requoted the same quote, and you still haven't provide a different corrected quote.
If Moore didn't say that, what did he actually say?
+Hgean Kid Nebula No, saying "even though" doesn't excuse him. Because he's still saying that's a time America was, in fact, great, te greatness of it exceeding even the blot of slavery. And, as previously noted, it ignores the impact of slavery on the families of slaves themselves, which indicates the priority Moore gives to that group of people.
At the risk of Godwinning, it's like saying, "You know, the Third Reich really was a great time — lots of German pride, military strength, trains running on time — even though, yeah, death camps, but just look at those trains!"
+Dennis Cisar Actually, no, she hasn't said she '" Fake It"'.
Morals? Truth? We have the most immoral,godless,sexist man ever elected UN the white house and immoral sexist racist people put him there. It's the end of the world as we know it God help us all
+Dave Hill the title of the article is "Roy Moore said the last time America was "great" was during "slavery".
The actual quote within the article is "I think it was great at the time when families were united—even though we had slavery—they cared for one another…Our families were strong, our country had a direction."
I understand that not many would view that time period as a great time and with good reason. However if Moore was someone that the media (and whoever they're pushing an agenda for) liked they would have spun the even though part to make it something the masses would accept. Personally I'm not concerned about Moore as I don't live in Alabama. My issue is how the media twists things and this is a great example of why people think the media is fake news. If one doesn't view this as fake media that's fine but many do view it as fake. The article is objective, opinionated, and completely one sided to make Moore look bad. Journalism should be written without bias so the reader can make an educated decision and it's hard to find proper journalism. As I'm not a journalist my sad little argument trying to show the other possible side of the quote obviously wasn't good. However there is another side that wasn't provided in the article as Moore was not quoted saying last time America was great was during slavery. As far as I know he could be trying to rekindle a lifestyle his great grandparents spoke about while never mentioning slavery. I'm not defending Moore like people assume. I know if I was under fire for whatever reason and I was misquoted I'd hope someone would at least attempt to find the entire story instead of believing and making a decision from an article like this.
+Timothy Collins I find it funny how you have no idea who I am except a couple of comments yet you continue to say I'm evil. Like your opinion of me has meaning or something. I get it. You've made your stance that you can't find anything good from a terrible time in history and you dislike Moore to the extint that anyone who does is evil to you. That you obviously don't understand the concept of innocent till proven guilty as you think he's guilty even without significant evidence or a trial. Hope you never find yourself in a similar situation as Moore cause karma isn't kind.
+Dave Hill I'd respond but I think +Jason Thompson summed it up perfectly for me
+Jason Thompson If people are reading that headline to mean "Roy Moore thinks America was great in 1860 because it had slavery," I would completely agree that it was misinterpreted.
If they are reading it to mean "Roy Moore thinks America was great in 1860, even though it had slavery," that would be a legit reading of the headline in accord with Moore's own quote.
'Moore was not quoted saying last time America was great was during slavery.'
He specifically called out an era that he deemed great, "even though we had slavery." Prioritizing (non-slave) family unity and (non-slave) national purpose as the most important features of a society, and giving the slave-holding of the era a pass, makes the point right there.
'Personally I'm not concerned about Moore as I don't live in Alabama'
A US Senator's vote affects all Americans. I'm certainly concerned about Moore, even though I don't live in Alabama; my concerns are not around his support of Alabama's parochial interests, but his support of interests that affect the nation as a whole.
+Jason Thompson 'you obviously don't understand the concept of innocent till proven guilty as you think he's guilty even without significant evidence or a trial'
There is significant evidence to make the accusations credible, and that continues to build over time. There will never be a (criminal) trial, because this is well past the statue of limitations for such things. Does that mean that no judgement can be made?
+Dave Hill oddly enough I understand your points. I also understand there is a huge division of the people. Everyone does have a right to their opinion and I understand that Moore shouldn't be on the ballot. You obviously agree with the article. So I am naturally curious if you feel the same about Clinton, any ex con, or do you simply judge who you like or not then find articles that agree with your opinion? What if the allegations towards Moore are false? I can refer you to articles or videos stating that they are if you'd like as there are many. I am sure if I dug deep enough that I could find the polar opposite of this article as well.
The media in general, especially the msm, has been reporting for an agenda. What that actual agenda is could be as simple as a ceo liking one over another up to some very crazy conspiracy theory. Either way they have been one sided for a very long time and it was obvious last presidential election. Since then they have still been one sided and I find it odd how many still believe whatever because it's on the news. There has been numerous things that were stated, found false, then whoever apologies after the damage is done. The headline alone of this article does its damage as many will scroll through thinking Moore said one thing when he said another without reading the article to form a full opinion. This isn't the only article either so after one reads headline after headline about someone they tend to form their uninformed opinion. Its a lot like advertising but its call propaganda.
"Roy Moore said the last time America was "great" was during "slavery" as the headline states is far different then "I think it was great at the time when families were united—even though we had slavery—they cared for one another…Our families were strong, our country had a direction." If the writer of the article headlined it "I think it was great at the time when families were united" it would give the reader a completely different view of Moore and it would depend on the article if it was bias or not. They could have kept it honest with the entire quote but they didn't for a reason. Because they know more people will read the headline then the article and the damage will be done.
On the concept that nothing good came from that time I call simple bs. Are we to live in shame the rest of our lives because our past is horrific? Am I not allowed to have family pride if a great grandparent of mine was pro slavery? My grandparents are Russian does that make me a mortal enemy? In the same scenario why would we allow anyone from the middle east into the country? I have lost many friends and family due to the conflicts there. Should I hang on to the concept they are bad people because someone from their time and land killed those close to me? Should I hold on to hate and anger for the bs in Vietnam, North Korea, WW2, WW1, how many things should I list that have affected every individual. Did nothing good come from any of those times or events? Or is slavery a special case? I also have Irish heritage so we can talk slavery if you'd like or religious persecution in general. The fact is slavery is part of the past but I can find horror in anyone's past. So if one isn't allowed to find or see good times from a time in slavery that same concept should be for any horrific event. I personally will not live in shame and will not be held accountable for actions that I had absolutely nothing to do with.
+Jason Thompson Nobody is asking anyone to live in shame for having ancestors or even parents who did something that today would be considered reprehensible. We all have that, because all of our predecessors come from the past, by definition, and has eras held opinions put matters (particularly social matters) that today would be roundly condemned. (Heck, I once held opinions that I now considered to be awful.)
That said, the question to Moore was not, "When did America think itself the greatest," but "What was America last great." He chose an era that was steeped in racism, institutionalized in slavery, and as a dyed-in-the-wool Alabaman, it's hard to believe was referring to parts of the country that weren't slaveholding.
Could one find good things in antebellum Alabama? Of course. And bad things, as well. I believe, however, that (all other social evils of the era aside) the taint of chattel slavery of blacks disqualifies that era from being deemed great as a whole, even if one allows that (some) families were united and that (some) Americans had a purpose.
Again, it would be like saying Germany in 1940 was the greatest, or Russia in 1938 or South Africa in 1973 or China in 1970 or North Korea in 1995. There may have been elements of greatness, but only for some people, in some places, and one cannot ignore the tyranny, racism, and mass suffering that was also taking place.
Someone who said, "China was great in 1970, despite the depredations of the Cultural Revolution, because the Chinese people still believed in Chinese values" says that the mass death and suffering of the Cultural Revolution isn't of prime importance. Saying, "South Africa was last great in 1973, despite apartheid, because they had a great soccer team and students and the universities scored really well on their tests," then apartheid (which kept blacks out of those universities and national soccer teams) clearly is not of great import to you.
To identify time in the US when slavery was a legal, even defended institution, and admitting it's part of his moral calculus, says that he holds slavery to be less of a negative in judging greatness than a vision of (some) families united. That, to me, is both headline-worthy and deplorable.
+Dave Hill I not disagreeing with your opinion as I wouldn't have chosen that time period. I would've said now is the greatest and it's only going to get better. Do you think the media would have mentioned slavery if Moore never mentioned slavery but referred to that specific time period? I believe a good chunk of the media would or that the story wouldn't have been mentioned in general. Take Yemen for example. It's hardly in the news but the atrocities taking place there are in par with other horrific events from the worlds past. Yet there's little outcry to even be informed about it or do anything. Much like the apartheid.
I don't think or worry that slavery will ever happen in the states again. Therefore references to it, unless it's obviously an ignorant statement, don't worry me. Equality in general has gained more ground in the past year then the previous 36 at least. Only if it's the concept of being heard people are more empowered and encouraged to speak their opinion. I'm not giving credit to anyone except time but coincidentally Trump pisses people off enough to where more people are being vocal instead of assuming things will get better. I do think a major problem is the media and that it's untrustworthy, judgemental, and trying to have people remain in the past or they're pushing a hidden agenda. This article prompted me because it was an obvious click bait headline with the purpose to make Moore look bad so I was curious if they'd stick to a one sided opinion or left the judgement to the reader by giving multiple views. It was opinionated instead of journalism. However it obviously started conversations that obviously still need to be discussed. It's odd that the spectrum of speaking about the time slavery was legal is from if you mention that anything good happened during that time it makes you a racist individual to it's not to be mentioned unless you believe in it or object anything good could come from that time.
Regarding slavery where's the outcry to stop it in Nigeria? Is it not a problem unless it's in the states or are people not informed? Google slavery. Moore is the top subject because of a statement referring to a time period. Yet people are being auctioned and we hear next to nothing about it unless you search for it. There is a definite problem with the media and I personally see this article as an example of that problem.
Goings-on on in Nigeria have little to do with consideration of Moore as a candidate.
The media is clearly sending a message here. But it's not a distorted message, but a very accurate one: Moore does not see legal and institutionalized chattel slavery as a bar to a period being deemed "great." Not that he thought it a period of laudable things, but that it was a time that America was great, even if this particular horror was going on.
+Dave Hill just out of pure curiousity can you name a period of time that the United States wasn't involved in some kind of horror?
+Jason Thompson Which is a reason why "when was this nation great?" (or "is it great now?" or "when will it be great again [by building up the military and increasing income inequality and social divisions]?" are themselves dangerous questions. They focus on positives while ignoring the negatives, or even implying that the negatives are minor next to the positives. They assume some idyllic past age when humans didn't act like humans, but were somehow paragons, living in perfect harmony and blessed happiness.
If Roy Moore had said that a particular aspect of America was great — the unity of our families, say — that would be quite different.
Could some folk have found fault in almost anything he said? Sure, but it would have been a lot less of a brouhaha.
+Dave Hill Being it's an Alabama election this particular scenario works for both sides with creating divsion. I imagine Moore had a reason he said what he did no matter how one spins it. It's not much of a secret that politicians aren't actually supporting the people. Yes one can argue they are and maybe a few thought they could until they arrived in D.C. but I digress. However I also find it fascinating how one will find the concept that Moore might be elected completely wrong while they supported Clinton during the last presidential election. Oddly enough the same moral questions of should one who's under some form of investigation be allowed to continue being a viable candidate? The other question to that is what's to stop anyone from making a false accusation that would place an individual under investigation simply to smear an opponent? I personally don't think the severity of the allegations make much of a difference but I'm curious if you think they do? Should anyone with allegations that include breaking laws of any form be allowed to run for a government position? If so who's to create the lines of accusations that are acceptable and what repercussions should there be for those who falsely accused whoever? If found falsely accused should it call for a immediate reelection if they weren't elected at the time?
+Jason Thompson
'However I also find it fascinating how one will find the concept that Moore might be elected completely wrong while they supported Clinton during the last presidential election.'
Because I didn't find anything that Clinton had been credibly accused of (and thoroughly investigated for) anywhere approaching the turpitude of a 30yo guy hitting on (let alone assaulting) teenage high school girls, including at least one below the age of consent.
' the same moral questions of should one who's under some form of investigation be allowed to continue being a viable candidate?'
I think it depends on what they are under investigation for, by whom, and how credible the accusations are.
'The other question to that is what's to stop anyone from making a false accusation that would place an individual under investigation simply to smear an opponent?'
That's always a danger — but, then, that's a danger with any accusation. Which is why I repeat, it depends on what they are under investigation for, by whom, and how credible the accusations appear to be.
'I personally don't think the severity of the allegations make much of a difference but I'm curious if you think they do? Should anyone with allegations that include breaking laws of any form be allowed to run for a government position?'
Of course they do. "Roy Moore allegedly failed to return a library book while a 30yo DA" is quite different from "Roy Moore allegedly played underwear games with a 14yo girl while a 30yo DA."
And there's "allowed' and "allowed." Short of an actual conviction, there should be no legal bar to running for office. But honor and social norms and shame should keep someone under serious and credible accusation from running, or from people nominating or voting for the individual.
+Dave Hill although I don't agree with some of your answers you make good points. I'm 39 and I'm fairly set in my ways. I imagine the majority of adults are. Most people in general are good people although views differ. However I'm curious if you believe in big government more then state government. Abortion seems to be a huge reason why people support Moore as he's pro life. I personally believe in pro choice unless it involves me directly as I wouldn't want any possible child of mine aborted. Do you think individual states should control such options or that the feds should make them? Example. Should Alabama be able to set a pro life law while California has a pro choice law? I feel the people in the states should be able to vote to set such laws as well. Obviously I'm not speaking of only abortion and some laws do need to be federal but once things go federal the peoples control thins and I feel that is a large part of why our country is in the mess it is. I also feel if states had more control people could move to a state that generally agrees with their views.
In today's world it seems some are being forced to accept anothers views and lines of diversity are starting to cross. Like the odd situation between a bakery and a gay marriage cake, freedom of speech even if it is hateful, and freedom of religion and the numerous issues that involve the various beliefs.
+Jason Thompson 'I'm curious if you believe in big government more then state government.'
I believe both have their strengths and weaknesses. More centralized control and uniformity can more evenly address and cure injustice, or more broadly impose it.
Few people — including Mr Moore (and myself) — are consistent on the question of states rights. They support them when it's a matter of a given state doing what they want over federal opposition, but oppose such rights when that other state is doing something they don't want. So, for example, Roe v Wade prohibits from a federal level prohibition of abortion, and many pro-lie conservatives decry this and say it should be up to the states. But were Roe v Wade be overturned, I guarantee the same folk would be looking for a federal anti-abortion law.
The evolution of marriage equality within the US gives another example. Conservatives rallied for a "Defense of Marriage Act" that would ban gay marriage from a federal level on down, but as soon as court cases began to make it seem like the federal level would become unfriendly to their position, they immediately shifted to the argument that the states should be able to decide. (And, to be fair, liberals in the matter argued in the other direction.)
To the extent that the federal level can protect individual liberty from the depredations of local prejudice, I'm in favor of it. To the extent that imposes tyranny against local efforts to protect against it, I am opposed to it. But since my definition of what is liberating and what is tyrannical is not necessarily the same as others, that's not a bright line answer, either.
To your broader point, society by definition has a tension between individuals and the collective, and that can cut both ways. A "cake artist" can feel their rights in society violated by the order that their public business has to serve all the public, even folk he doesn't approve of. A gay individual, on the other hand, may feel their rights in society violated by others' religious opinions threatening their job, their housing, or even their ability to get a darned wedding cake.
(For "gay" one can substitute "Jew" or "African-American" or "Catholic" or "Italian" or "Chinese" or "Woman" or …)
Balancing those protections is not trivial. The reason things seem different now than in the past is that who is in the majority, and expressing expectations (social and legal) about the behavior of others, is changing. People who once would have said of course society should be able to legally and socially punish social deviants like gays are suddenly appalled that a growing number of people think of course society should be able to legally and socially punish social deviants like homophobes.
+Dave Hill what strikes me is how many are voting for ideas over character. Moore is a prime example. People say they'll choose Moore simply because he's a Republican and supports the basics such as 2nd amendment rights and pro life. He could be an ex con and it wouldn't change their vote. This includes the possibility of any new supreme justice to be nominated. Trump won with the same mindset.
Numerous states have voted in the same representatives over and over without seeing any change for the same reasons. Independents have increased in numbers because hybrid politicians seem to be a possible answer to some but their numbers aren't even close to have any form of real affect yet.
I fear our country is at a crucial turning point that may not be able to be detoured. Many see an Orwellian style future and that type of fear will drive many to extremes which only makes things worse. People such as Moore, if he wins, brings multiple moral questions to a situation where many already fear the government is corrupt and lacks morals. I myself feal it is corrupt and question many decisions made but also feel powerless. My voice doesn't seem heard and I can't imagine I'm the only one. So like this conversation I try to find common ground while politicians seem to attempt to further divide the people. Other then finding a way to limit federal power I have no ideas. Educating the youth would be a great start but I can either teach my son from a library and have him fail his high school class or have him be taught things like how the U.S. defeated communism. Which was stated on his class syllabus.
Basically people are being forced to choose sides even if they normally wouldn't have anything to do with it. Any thoughts on how to repair what seems unrepairable?