Poll of the Day > Let's talk about Roy Moore, predatory U.S. Republican nominee for a Senate seat.

(+) Yeah! (+)

RCtheWSBC posted...

The memes write themselves these days

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

The memes write themselves these days

I don't even want to imagine! Laughing for 20 minutes straight once I get home keeps me afloat these days
---

lets talk about Roger Moore, a great james bond.
---

Zangulus posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

https://news.vice.com/story/alabama-seniors-say-roy-moores-alleged-actions-were-normal-back-then

Is that what manking America great again means? Being able to prey on 14 year olds without repurcussion?

Considering people have said it was okay because Mary was a teenager when she married Joseph.

So yes. Fucking teenagers is considered making America great again.

And yet again, it must be pointed out that beyond how horrible a justification that is, it also demonstrates a HILARIOUS ignorance of your own fucking religion's single most important belief.
Explanation for people from Alabama, since apparently they need one: If Joseph fucked Mary, she wouldn't have been a virgin in the first place!

RCtheWSBC posted...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/360616-moore-to-mcconnell-bring-it-on

Everything about that is so perfect, lol!
The pedo quoting a high school girls' movie and the one replying to him having that name, hahaha!

Krazy_Kirby posted...

lets talk about Roger Moore, a great james bond.

Let's also talk about Dinty Moore, a cheap and fairly bad line of food products, but at least none of them ever attempted to rape a minor.

I had originally found this amusing bit of info at Breitbart -- but, since I realise that a link to Breitbart will probably just get ignored and skipped over, ;.;

I then re-found it at what appears to be an extremely liberal-leaning site instead:

https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/35-percent-alabama-voters-say-moore-allegations-made-likely-vote/
https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/poll-37-percent-alabama-evangelicals-say-theyre-likely-vote-moore-allegations/

Presented without further comment. ^.~
---

I saw that a poll of Alabama voters found 37% think he should step down from running for office, and the number increases to 64% if it's proven he's done the crimes he's accused of, if that's what you're referencing.

Which means that...36% of Alabama would still be fine w/ a convicted rapist and pedophile on the ballot for US Senate.

This is why party over country is wrong and people who vote that way need an education.

Lil69Leo posted...

This is why party over country is wrong and people who vote that way need an education.

You'd think but
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

A great article

Not really. They're using the word pedophilia wrong.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

A great article

Not really. They're using the word pedophilia wrong.

Watch out we have an expert in child sex predator terminology here
---

Technically, pedophilia refers to liking prepubescent children, although we use it to include mid and post-pubescent too.

Technically Rapin' Roy Moore is still a disgusting piece of shit anyway.

SushiSquid posted...

Technically, pedophilia refers to liking prepubescent children, although we use it to include mid and post-pubescent too.

Technically Rapin' Roy Moore is still a disgusting piece of shit anyway.

Indeed he is, by any definition!
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Watch out we have an expert in child sex predator terminology here

Teens aren't children.

SushiSquid posted...

Technically, pedophilia refers to liking prepubescent children, although we use it to include mid and post-pubescent too.

Technically Rapin' Roy Moore is still a disgusting piece of shit anyway.

Only people who don't know what the actual definition of the word means do it that way. Also yes he is but we need to call them proper labels instead of using words wrong.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Only people who don't know what the actual definition of the word means do it that way. Also yes he is but we need to call them proper labels instead of using words wrong.

Language adapts and people can expand their understanding of acceptably used terms in context even if you can't
---

Lil69Leo posted...

This is why party over country is wrong and people who vote that way need an education.

Says the guy who argued against political literacy tests. I guess it underscores that he doesn't want people informed on issues or what candidates stand for, but whatever can be used to exclude votes for the opposing party.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Only people who don't know what the actual definition of the word means do it that way. Also yes he is but we need to call them proper labels instead of using words wrong.

Language adapts and people can expand their understanding of acceptably used terms in context even if you can't

#IntellectuallyDishonestArgumentDefendingBeingCalledOutOnDeceptiveSmear
---

Everyone seems to agree Moore is guilty as sin (save for some GOP bandwagon holdouts)

So let's keep talking Trump and his 17 public accusers

https://qz.com/1130324/17-women-have-accused-donald-trump-of-sexual-assault-or-misconduct-its-time-to-revisit-those-stories/

http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-sexual-assault-accusers-want-justice/
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

SushiSquid posted...

Moore's lawyer

ooooh yes, let's talk about him!

Roy Moore must be desperate for legal counsel because he hired a racist lawyer, Trenton Garmon, who was disbarred in Alabama for an awful incident involving him impersonating a religious figure.

Then-Judge Moore voted to uphold his own attorney's disbarment.

https://twitter.com/grantstern/status/930947981745979392
Scroll down to see the full revelation.

Because nothing about that sounds like heavily-biased alt-news nonsense....

Doctor Foxx posted...

Zeus posted...

Apparently he was up to no good during the 80s as a Dem but, after switching to a Republican, he didn't seem to get into trouble. So either he found morality or... well, since predators tend to stay predators, it's a little weird that there *isn't* a chain of abuse to this current day.

They protect their own. He found an alignment to keep him safe. Predators gonna help predators stay in the shadows.

lolwut? He'd be better off as a Democrat because then FEMINISTS would defend him against charges that he forcibly raped a woman, just like they did for Clinton. And you don't get a better defender on women's issues than feminists, the very agitators of most women's issues.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Zeus posted...

The charge of walking into a dressing room doesn't seem anything close to what Roy Moore did

Uh excuse me how about the far greater number of allegations from adults about sexual assaults and misconduct? Just because his assault victims were older does not make his behaviour acceptable or above scrutiny. He still has a history of wholly inappropriate behavior to teenagers and there's likely to be more to it. IIRC one of the allegations against Trump included him drugging and raping a 13 year old at a party.

lolwut? Are you going with completely unfounded accusations from generally anonymous sources again? And given that the only charges against him were leveled as a cheap political ploy at the most opportune time, it's likely that there's no merit to them.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Zeus posted...

You're basically doing what Jeff Bezos pays WaPo staffers to do for free.

And you do the work of Russia for free. You have a promising career as a projectionist. Za zdorovje

lolwut? Hypocrite much? You're spreading misinformation and lies for the purpose of stirring up political unrest, which is EXACTLY what Russians were alleged to do during the 2016 campaign and before.
---

SushiSquid posted...

Moore's lawyer admitted that Moore dated teenage girls, but that he never did so without their mother's permission. Because that makes it so much better.

Considering how the laws regarding marriage work, it actually does.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Language adapts and people can expand their understanding of acceptably used terms in context even if you can't

Except for the fact that even the actual dictionary definition disagrees with you.
---

Zeus posted...

lolwut? Are you going with completely unfounded accusations from generally anonymous sources again? And given that the only charges against him were leveled as a cheap political ploy at the most opportune time, it's likely that there's no merit to them.

yes those rape charges filed in the 1990s by people like his ex wife were right on time for the 2017 election, you nailed it

(Basically every one of those charges predates his campaign by a great deal)

Zeus posted...

lolwut? He'd be better off as a Democrat because then FEMINISTS would defend him against charges that he forcibly raped a woman, just like they did for Clinton. And you don't get a better defender on women's issues than feminists, the very agitators of most women's issues.

Feminists don't defend clinton, he's also a piece of shit but he's also no longer in office
---

Revelation34 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

Language adapts and people can expand their understanding of acceptably used terms in context even if you can't

Except for the fact that even the actual dictionary definition disagrees with you.

Some dictionary definitions use prepubescent, others don't. I didn't write the darn article. Sub the term ephebophile if it makes your little heart happier. the article still holds true: he is a child sex predator
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Some dictionary definitions use prepubescent, others don't. I didn't write the darn article. Sub the term ephebophile if it makes your little heart happier. the article still holds true: he is a child sex predator

Not even dictionary.com uses your definition and that's not even a real dictionary. Also,

Revelation34 posted...

Teens aren't children.

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Zeus posted...

lolwut? He'd be better off as a Democrat because then FEMINISTS would defend him against charges that he forcibly raped a woman, just like they did for Clinton. And you don't get a better defender on women's issues than feminists, the very agitators of most women's issues.

Feminists don't defend clinton, he's also a piece of shit but he's also no longer in office

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/11/reckoning-with-bill-clintons-sex-crimes/545729/

Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.

It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that todays accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willingeagerto let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.

The notorious 1998 New York Times op-ed by Gloria Steinem must surely stand as one of the most regretted public actions of her life. It slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed; it urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused. Moreover (never write an op-ed in a hurry; youll accidentally say what you really believe), it characterized contemporary feminism as a weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party.

---

Zeus posted...

Because nothing about that sounds like heavily-biased alt-news nonsense....

It's literally Alabama public record. You can look it up and verify it yourself. Disbarments are serious.
---

Zeus posted...

But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that todays accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willingeagerto let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.

thank fuck things have progressed in 25+ years, and modern feminists would not be leaping to his defense just because he wasn't as shitty as all of the other shitty men. If the clinton scandal broke now in 2017 he would be thrown under the bus. But it did not. And at that time anyone feigning and interest in helping women was lauded as some hero, because men were so openly hostile to women in general that even a friendly rapist was a welcome face. Dark times. Society has changed a lot since then and largely for the better of everyone.

This speaks to the progress of how women are perceived and treated in society, as well as the progress made to allow accusers to come forward and have a chance at being believed. If they want to go after Clinton now, go for it, put Trump up there on that same chopping block.
---

Good lord...

"Kellyanne Conway on Roy Moore: 'We want the votes' for tax bill"

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/kellyanne-conway-roy-moore-fox-interview/index.html

So if you care about taxes, vote child molester in December.

rjsilverthorn posted...

So if you care about tax cuts for the rich, vote child molester in December.

Fixed.
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

rjsilverthorn posted...

So if you care about tax cuts for the rich, vote child molester in December.

Fixed.

What counts as rich? I'm actually curious.
---

darcandkharg31 posted...

I wanna talk about butts

---

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/25/politics/charles-barkley-roy-moore-alabama-senate/index.html
---

https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-has-obtained-exclusive-information-from-jai-1820808638

oh onion never stop
---

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fake-news-washington-post-1.4429525
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fake-news-washington-post-1.4429525

My wife was mentioning this earlier, a tad depressing to hear.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Zeus posted...

Apparently he was up to no good during the 80s as a Dem but, after switching to a Republican, he didn't seem to get into trouble. So either he found morality or... well, since predators tend to stay predators, it's a little weird that there *isn't* a chain of abuse to this current day.

They protect their own. He found an alignment to keep him safe. Predators gonna help predators stay in the shadows.

You mean Democrats? Considering that Dems can get feminists to wholeheartedly embrace a violent rapist for president and write off his victims as crazy, he was foolish to switch parties.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Zeus posted...

The charge of walking into a dressing room doesn't seem anything close to what Roy Moore did

Uh excuse me how about the far greater number of allegations from adults about sexual assaults and misconduct? Just because his assault victims were older does not make his behaviour acceptable or above scrutiny. He still has a history of wholly inappropriate behavior to teenagers and there's likely to be more to it. IIRC one of the allegations against Trump included him drugging and raping a 13 year old at a party.

You mean suspiciously timed allegations that nobody had heard of until right near the end of a presidential campaign?
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

yes those rape charges filed in the 1990s by people like his ex wife were right on time for the 2017 election, you nailed it

You mean an ex-wife in a nasty divorce with an axe to grind who claimed all sorts of other absurd things about Trump? Great source. Because, you know, women *never* lie about anything during a divorce just to fuck over their ex.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Zeus posted...

But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that todays accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willingeagerto let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.

thank fuck things have progressed in 25+ years, and modern feminists would not be leaping to his defense just because he wasn't as shitty as all of the other shitty men. If the clinton scandal broke now in 2017 he would be thrown under the bus. But it did not. And at that time anyone feigning and interest in helping women was lauded as some hero, because men were so openly hostile to women in general that even a friendly rapist was a welcome face. Dark times. Society has changed a lot since then and largely for the better of everyone.

This speaks to the progress of how women are perceived and treated in society, as well as the progress made to allow accusers to come forward and have a chance at being believed. If they want to go after Clinton now, go for it, put Trump up there on that same chopping block.

It's cute that you actually believe feminists wouldn't do it again.
---

Melon_Master posted...

My wife was mentioning this earlier, a tad depressing to hear.

Better a lie than something that actually happened.
---

Zeus posted...

You mean suspiciously timed allegations that nobody had heard of until right near the end of a presidential campaign?

Because hey, it's not like seeing your abuser every day in the news being feted by legions of adoring followers and boasting about what an excellent leader and bang-up guy he is might re-open some old wounds and consider you to come forward with a charge you didn't think would be taken seriously before.

I mean, do you think many people would care about the allegations if this was ten years ago and Trump was still known as "that guy that hosts The Apprentice"? Maybe if she gets lucky. More likely Trump would just do Trump's usual thing - bring his tremendous financial assets to bear and bury her in litigation until she finally decided the legal bills weren't worth it.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Because hey, it's not like seeing your abuser every day in the news being feted by legions of adoring followers and boasting about what an excellent leader and bang-up guy he is might re-open some old wounds and consider you to come forward with a charge you didn't think would be taken seriously before.

I mean, do you think many people would care about the allegations if this was ten years ago and Trump was still known as "that guy that hosts The Apprentice"? Maybe if she gets lucky. More likely Trump would just do Trump's usual thing - bring his tremendous financial assets to bear and bury her in litigation until she finally decided the legal bills weren't worth it.

Nobody cares about allegations at all until they are facts.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

You mean suspiciously timed allegations that nobody had heard of until right near the end of a presidential campaign?

Because hey, it's not like seeing your abuser every day in the news being feted by legions of adoring followers and boasting about what an excellent leader and bang-up guy he is might re-open some old wounds and consider you to come forward with a charge you didn't think would be taken seriously before.

I mean, do you think many people would care about the allegations if this was ten years ago and Trump was still known as "that guy that hosts The Apprentice"? Maybe if she gets lucky. More likely Trump would just do Trump's usual thing - bring his tremendous financial assets to bear and bury her in litigation until she finally decided the legal bills weren't worth it.

There were quite a few well before the Presidential campaign was even a twinkle in Putin's eye. Not at all surprising Trump's #1 internet fanboi is unclear on that timeline. Over a dozen had spoken out before then. No one cared about it at that time because sexual harassment and sexual assaults in general were not taken seriously. With it being against a self indulgent D list celebrity hosting a reality television show about himself it was easy to turn off the television. Those allegations were still out there at that time all the same. Definitely going to stir up far more feelings seeing your rapist enter the highest levels of US government in a big pubic spectacle.
---

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Because hey, it's not like seeing your abuser every day in the news being feted by legions of adoring followers and boasting about what an excellent leader and bang-up guy he is might re-open some old wounds and consider you to come forward with a charge you didn't think would be taken seriously before.

I mean, do you think many people would care about the allegations if this was ten years ago and Trump was still known as "that guy that hosts The Apprentice"? Maybe if she gets lucky. More likely Trump would just do Trump's usual thing - bring his tremendous financial assets to bear and bury her in litigation until she finally decided the legal bills weren't worth it.

Nobody cares about allegations at all until they are facts.

Of course. That's why when we arrest someone for murder, we immediately let them go free until they are convicted.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Those allegations were still out there at that time all the same. Definitely going to stir up far more feelings seeing your rapist enter the highest levels of US government in a big pubic spectacle.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/allegation

darkknight109 posted...

Of course. That's why when we arrest someone for murder, we immediately let them go free until they are convicted.

That would be why everybody is guilty until proven innocent.
---

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Because hey, it's not like seeing your abuser every day in the news being feted by legions of adoring followers and boasting about what an excellent leader and bang-up guy he is might re-open some old wounds and consider you to come forward with a charge you didn't think would be taken seriously before.

I mean, do you think many people would care about the allegations if this was ten years ago and Trump was still known as "that guy that hosts The Apprentice"? Maybe if she gets lucky. More likely Trump would just do Trump's usual thing - bring his tremendous financial assets to bear and bury her in litigation until she finally decided the legal bills weren't worth it.

Nobody cares about allegations at all until they are facts.

Burying someone in legal bills seems shady, no, ok?
---

Revelation34 posted...

That would be why everybody is guilty until proven innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty applies only in criminal law. It does not, for instance, apply in civil law or contract law (your company, for instance, can fire you with cause for having a complaint lodged against you - that complaint need not be proven to the legal standard required to maintain a criminal conviction).

Again, this isn't hard to figure out. See my earlier example with murderers. Even though the allegations against them haven't been proven, we frequently use preliminary judgement based on probability to decide whether or not they should remain free prior to their trial or whether they should be held in custody. This in spite of the fact that they are still considered innocent until proven guilty, at least as far as the courts are concerned.

No one is saying that Roy Moore should be locked up based on unproven allegations. However, these allegations are numerous and serious, with significant supporting testimony and evidence - suggesting that he should be removed from the senate race as a result of those allegations is not morally incongruous, which is why many high ranking Republicans have supported the idea.

For an analogous example, OJ Simpson was not proven guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt to the standards of a criminal trial. That doesn't mean everyone does (or should) treat him like he's innocent, since it's pretty obvious that he did the crime.
---

darkknight109 posted...

No one is saying that Roy Moore should be locked up based on unproven allegations.

I'm saying that.
Dude was so well know to have done this he was banned from a mall and basically everyone who ever invited him anywhere warned the staffs of venues about it.
Lock him up.

knivesX2004 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

No one is saying that Roy Moore should be locked up based on unproven allegations.

I'm saying that.
Dude was so well know to have done this he was banned from a mall and basically everyone who ever invited him anywhere warned the staffs of venues about it.
Lock him up.

You're smart.
---

knivesX2004 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

No one is saying that Roy Moore should be locked up based on unproven allegations.

I'm saying that.
Dude was so well know to have done this he was banned from a mall and basically everyone who ever invited him anywhere warned the staffs of venues about it.
Lock him up.

I'm fine with gathering evidence, building a case, charging him, trying him and, if he's found guilty, then locking him up. But there is a process here - we don't get to jump straight to the "put him behind bars" step, for the same reason why Donald Trump can't arbitrarily imprison Hillary Clinton because he thinks she's done something illegal.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Innocent until proven guilty applies only in criminal law. It does not, for instance, apply in civil law or contract law (your company, for instance, can fire you with cause for having a complaint lodged against you - that complaint need not be proven to the legal standard required to maintain a criminal conviction).

Again, this isn't hard to figure out. See my earlier example with murderers. Even though the allegations against them haven't been proven, we frequently use preliminary judgement based on probability to decide whether or not they should remain free prior to their trial or whether they should be held in custody. This in spite of the fact that they are still considered innocent until proven guilty, at least as far as the courts are concerned.

No one is saying that Roy Moore should be locked up based on unproven allegations. However, these allegations are numerous and serious, with significant supporting testimony and evidence - suggesting that he should be removed from the senate race as a result of those allegations is not morally incongruous, which is why many high ranking Republicans have supported the idea.

For an analogous example, OJ Simpson was not proven guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt to the standards of a criminal trial. That doesn't mean everyone does (or should) treat him like he's innocent, since it's pretty obvious that he did the crime.

No I was making a point. Everybody automatically assumes somebody is guilty. Because people are fucking stupid in general.

darkknight109 posted...

since it's pretty obvious that he did the crime.

Citation needed.
---

nothing makes me care less about something when somebody starts a topic/conversation with "lets talk about"
---