Roy Moore the Pedophile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We now know that one of the accusers worked with Hillary and with Biden, and worked on the opposition's campaign. That accuser was of legal age. We also know that the WaPo openly endorses the opposition.

To me? That makes a difference.

Did the women all know each other? If not that is a real coincidence there.

And by "working with Hillary and Biden" you mean she worked for a company that was hired to do something for the campaign.

No, she has photos with Biden's arm around her and photos of her in a room doing sign language for Hillary. Those are out. That's pretty damn close proximity.

The reporter for a paper that endorsed the opposition went down to Alabama and 'found' women that Moore had dated, legal a the time he dated them (aside from accusations about one's age being 14, not 16 at the time). One of those women happened to be working on the opposition's campaign. Any chance these women were not 'found' through 'great journalistic research' at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

1. He told her mother he would watch her daughter while the mother went into the hearing. Does that sound like he didn't realize she was a minor?

2. I grew up in the 70's and a 32 year old hittting on a teenager would have been considered gross and inappropriate.

3. Would you be fine with a 30 something year old dating your 16 year old (much less your 14 year old)?

1) Let's start with the fact that this is a one-sided accusation and that's what the mother SAYS happened. I would imagine the mother was expressing concern about leaving her daughter outside in a hallway while she went through court hearings, and he was answering that concern.

2) I am 56. Graduated in '79 up north. This was not unusual even up there, though northerners DID raise their eyebrows at it more. The south is a different place

3) If my daughter was of legal age, what I thought would only matter on a moral level, not a legal level. The problem here is that in order to make the accusations fit, it HAS to hinge on Moore KNOWING this girl was 14. I have no concrete proof that is true. And I don't believe in destroying ANYONE without concrete proof.

The proof is that he didn't come to the front door to "court" her. He had her sneak out behind her mother's back.

That is what you are being told. Perhaps she did that because she told him she was 16 and her mother KNEW she was only 14 and she didn't want to be stopped. Perhaps that's not what happened at all. There are plenty of teenagers that have lied about their age and snuck out of their homes.

Again, you don't KNOW what the truth is. You only know what they are SAYING is true. If this were any democratic candidate, you would be destroying this woman! In fact, it's been done....

Sorry you don't believe women. You are the very reason we don't speak up when harassed and molested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rootin Tootin Roy better hope no more women start coming out or he will be in even deeper trouble. This guy is the Harvey Weinstein of Alabama politics. Maybe a quick trip to outpatient rehab can cure him too!

He absolutely knows more women are out there in the wings -- why do you think there's been such a ferocious pushback on this story this week? They're trying to intimidate the others into silence.

Here was a very curious paragraph in the Post story:

“According to colleagues and others who knew him at the time, Moore was rarely seen socializing outside work. He spent one season coaching the Gallant Girls, a softball team that his teenage sister had joined, said several women who played on the team. He spent time working out at the Gadsden YMCA, according to people who encountered him there. And he often walked, usually alone, around the newly opened Gadsden Mall — 6 feet tall and well-dressed in slacks and a button-down shirt, say several women who worked there at the time.”

What that suggests is the Post found -- but could not report because they would not go on record -- softball players, YMCA users and mall visitors who were accosted by him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair to Moore, the 14 year old was unusually tall, probably looked closer to 16-18 when he did it. And the age of consent in Alabama is 16. And the dating pool is/was quite shallow as most women in the 70s in Alabama were married by their late teens. My grandmother was married at 17, the week after she graduated from high school.

Facts don't matter to liberals. Put a bunch of teens in a lineup and I guarantee you that most liberal men would guess their age incorrectly. Furthermore, these idiots are deliberately 'forgetting' that almost 40 years has gone by and that it was a southern state where women did marry quite early. My very liberal MIL was pregnant with her first at 19, and that was in Ohio, never mind AL.

Why would a mother, at the courthouse for a hearing, need someone to watch a 19 year old? Especially if way back in the olden times in the south a 19 year old was practically an old maid? Something fishy about that story. Oh maybe it's because her daughter was actually 14 and still looked on as a minor.

I said my MIL was 19. This girl could easily be mistaken for 16. You know that, and that's why you are shifting the goalposts.

Doesn't matter how old your MIL was. If teenagers were practically brides back then why would the mother have needed supervision for a daughter if she was 16? Needing supervision implies she was still a minor needing protection from an adult. Is that what you call hitting on her?

Wasn't she going in for some sort of custody hearing? I would imagine that would make any mother paranoid to leave her daughter. Furthermore, I would have felt uncomfortable leaving my daughter at 14, 16, even 18 alone for a long period of time in a court setting, given the types of people that show up in courtrooms. There's a reason why I can't bring my knitting to jury duty, to pass the time. You are in no position to judge the motives of a mother going through marital issues in a court of law 38 years ago, when single mothers were more frowned upon

Yes of course. And probably if you were uncomfortable leaving you teenager daughter alone in that situation you the last thing you'd have wanted is a 30 something year old man making the moves on her when he was entrusted to chaperoning her.

Again, all you have is emotion here. I want to know what provable fact is. I don't believe in destroying anyone over how I - or anyone else feels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rootin Tootin Roy better hope no more women start coming out or he will be in even deeper trouble. This guy is the Harvey Weinstein of Alabama politics. Maybe a quick trip to outpatient rehab can cure him too!

He absolutely knows more women are out there in the wings -- why do you think there's been such a ferocious pushback on this story this week? They're trying to intimidate the others into silence.

Here was a very curious paragraph in the Post story:

“According to colleagues and others who knew him at the time, Moore was rarely seen socializing outside work. He spent one season coaching the Gallant Girls, a softball team that his teenage sister had joined, said several women who played on the team. He spent time working out at the Gadsden YMCA, according to people who encountered him there. And he often walked, usually alone, around the newly opened Gadsden Mall — 6 feet tall and well-dressed in slacks and a button-down shirt, say several women who worked there at the time.”

What that suggests is the Post found -- but could not report because they would not go on record -- softball players, YMCA users and mall visitors who were accosted by him.

All this is supposition on your part. And the rest is simply gossip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

... says the person who was absolutely convinced Hillary Cilnton was running a child sex ring from the basement of Comet Pizza.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reporter for a paper that endorsed the opposition went down to Alabama and 'found' women that Moore had dated, legal a the time he dated them (aside from accusations about one's age being 14, not 16 at the time).

Would you allow your 16yo to date someone in his 30's? Legal doesn't mean it's right, or acceptable, or a quality you want in a Senator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

You are justifying the actions of a pedophile. You are a sick, sick person.

Are you accusing a man of pedophilia without due process?

Not me. Four women who are on the record in print who have 30 corroborating witnesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

Even if she looked 20, she was 14. She was told to meet him "around the corner" when he picked her up. He knew it was wrong, or else he would have come to the front door like a true southern gentleman.

He hasn't denied this, but you are making excuses for him. Why?

Because I know how the liberal attack machine works.

The same liberal hit machine that broke the story about the clintons email server, the Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey incidents? The Washington Post committed fine journalism and the response from the Moore camp has been to smear the victims and discredit the News source

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

1. He told her mother he would watch her daughter while the mother went into the hearing. Does that sound like he didn't realize she was a minor?

2. I grew up in the 70's and a 32 year old hittting on a teenager would have been considered gross and inappropriate.

3. Would you be fine with a 30 something year old dating your 16 year old (much less your 14 year old)?

1) Let's start with the fact that this is a one-sided accusation and that's what the mother SAYS happened. I would imagine the mother was expressing concern about leaving her daughter outside in a hallway while she went through court hearings, and he was answering that concern.

2) I am 56. Graduated in '79 up north. This was not unusual even up there, though northerners DID raise their eyebrows at it more. The south is a different place

3) If my daughter was of legal age, what I thought would only matter on a moral level, not a legal level. The problem here is that in order to make the accusations fit, it HAS to hinge on Moore KNOWING this girl was 14. I have no concrete proof that is true. And I don't believe in destroying ANYONE without concrete proof.

The proof is that he didn't come to the front door to "court" her. He had her sneak out behind her mother's back.

That is what you are being told. Perhaps she did that because she told him she was 16 and her mother KNEW she was only 14 and she didn't want to be stopped. Perhaps that's not what happened at all. There are plenty of teenagers that have lied about their age and snuck out of their homes.

Again, you don't KNOW what the truth is. You only know what they are SAYING is true. If this were any democratic candidate, you would be destroying this woman! In fact, it's been done....

Sorry you don't believe women. You are the very reason we don't speak up when harassed and molested.

I don't believe women all the time, no. There was just a woman in NY who claimed to have been harassed by men who lied and pled guilty. She lied because she didn't want her parents to find out what she was really up to. There was a woman who lied about being raped in college and the man was expelled and his name was trashed. There was a MAN in Atlanta blamed for a bombing who was actually a hero. There was another woman who lied and trashed the reputations a bunch of Lacrosse players at Duke.

That has nothing to do with women who have been molested and everything to do with the fact that yes, some women lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate it that these people kept silent this long.
What changed just now?

There’s a tectonic shift following the Weinstein revelations. Victims finally feel empowered enough to challenge abusive men in positions of authority and power. The now see the pattern of abuse. They’re not doing it alone.

And it's also the perfect opportunity to use those revelations as a means to destroy those you want out of the way.

Ahh. Here we go. It’s a threat.

That’s why the GOP is scared of Roy Moore. If he gets to the Senate, other women are going to start coming out of the woodwork and telling their stories.

My, my.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

Even if she looked 20, she was 14. She was told to meet him "around the corner" when he picked her up. He knew it was wrong, or else he would have come to the front door like a true southern gentleman.

He hasn't denied this, but you are making excuses for him. Why?

Because I know how the liberal attack machine works.

The same liberal hit machine that broke the story about the clintons email server, the Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey incidents? The Washington Post committed fine journalism and the response from the Moore camp has been to smear the victims and discredit the News source

Actually, the NYT buried the Weinstein story for years. The WaPo has endorsed the opposition. That makes them a partisan newspaper regarding this campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair to Moore, the 14 year old was unusually tall, probably looked closer to 16-18 when he did it. And the age of consent in Alabama is 16. And the dating pool is/was quite shallow as most women in the 70s in Alabama were married by their late teens. My grandmother was married at 17, the week after she graduated from high school.

Facts don't matter to liberals. Put a bunch of teens in a lineup and I guarantee you that most liberal men would guess their age incorrectly. Furthermore, these idiots are deliberately 'forgetting' that almost 40 years has gone by and that it was a southern state where women did marry quite early. My very liberal MIL was pregnant with her first at 19, and that was in Ohio, never mind AL.

Why would a mother, at the courthouse for a hearing, need someone to watch a 19 year old? Especially if way back in the olden times in the south a 19 year old was practically an old maid? Something fishy about that story. Oh maybe it's because her daughter was actually 14 and still looked on as a minor.

I said my MIL was 19. This girl could easily be mistaken for 16. You know that, and that's why you are shifting the goalposts.

Doesn't matter how old your MIL was. If teenagers were practically brides back then why would the mother have needed supervision for a daughter if she was 16? Needing supervision implies she was still a minor needing protection from an adult. Is that what you call hitting on her?

Wasn't she going in for some sort of custody hearing? I would imagine that would make any mother paranoid to leave her daughter. Furthermore, I would have felt uncomfortable leaving my daughter at 14, 16, even 18 alone for a long period of time in a court setting, given the types of people that show up in courtrooms. There's a reason why I can't bring my knitting to jury duty, to pass the time. You are in no position to judge the motives of a mother going through marital issues in a court of law 38 years ago, when single mothers were more frowned upon

Yes of course. And probably if you were uncomfortable leaving you teenager daughter alone in that situation you the last thing you'd have wanted is a 30 something year old man making the moves on her when he was entrusted to chaperoning her.

Again, all you have is emotion here. I want to know what provable fact is. I don't believe in destroying anyone over how I - or anyone else feels.

You are impugning on a middle aged woman and her 71 year old woman and her friends who have backed her up saying they aren't trustworthy. Why do you think they would lie and make this up? Would you be able to convince your mother and your friends and your ex boyfriend to go on record to the nation and lie about something like this? We already know Roy Moore is capable of lying because he has a track record of it. The simplest story is usually the true one, and it is much easier to believe a proven liar is lying than to believe 30 some people who don't all know one another are all lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair to Moore, the 14 year old was unusually tall, probably looked closer to 16-18 when he did it. And the age of consent in Alabama is 16. And the dating pool is/was quite shallow as most women in the 70s in Alabama were married by their late teens. My grandmother was married at 17, the week after she graduated from high school.

Facts don't matter to liberals. Put a bunch of teens in a lineup and I guarantee you that most liberal men would guess their age incorrectly. Furthermore, these idiots are deliberately 'forgetting' that almost 40 years has gone by and that it was a southern state where women did marry quite early. My very liberal MIL was pregnant with her first at 19, and that was in Ohio, never mind AL.

Why would a mother, at the courthouse for a hearing, need someone to watch a 19 year old? Especially if way back in the olden times in the south a 19 year old was practically an old maid? Something fishy about that story. Oh maybe it's because her daughter was actually 14 and still looked on as a minor.

I said my MIL was 19. This girl could easily be mistaken for 16. You know that, and that's why you are shifting the goalposts.

Doesn't matter how old your MIL was. If teenagers were practically brides back then why would the mother have needed supervision for a daughter if she was 16? Needing supervision implies she was still a minor needing protection from an adult. Is that what you call hitting on her?

Wasn't she going in for some sort of custody hearing? I would imagine that would make any mother paranoid to leave her daughter. Furthermore, I would have felt uncomfortable leaving my daughter at 14, 16, even 18 alone for a long period of time in a court setting, given the types of people that show up in courtrooms. There's a reason why I can't bring my knitting to jury duty, to pass the time. You are in no position to judge the motives of a mother going through marital issues in a court of law 38 years ago, when single mothers were more frowned upon

Yes of course. And probably if you were uncomfortable leaving you teenager daughter alone in that situation you the last thing you'd have wanted is a 30 something year old man making the moves on her when he was entrusted to chaperoning her.

Again, all you have is emotion here. I want to know what provable fact is. I don't believe in destroying anyone over how I - or anyone else feels.

You are impugning on a middle aged woman and her 71 year old woman and her friends who have backed her up saying they aren't trustworthy. Why do you think they would lie and make this up? Would you be able to convince your mother and your friends and your ex boyfriend to go on record to the nation and lie about something like this? We already know Roy Moore is capable of lying because he has a track record of it. The simplest story is usually the true one, and it is much easier to believe a proven liar is lying than to believe 30 some people who don't all know one another are all lying.

Yes, I am. Because I am given no hard fact, just their statements. And I don't believe anyone on face value. People lie for many reasons. And given the political background of one of the 'victims', and given the WaPo endorsing the opposition, there are two hard FACTS that give me doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

... says the person who was absolutely convinced Hillary Cilnton was running a child sex ring from the basement of Comet Pizza.

Actually I thought that was ridiculous. But there you are, assuming I feel a certain way. My point is proven - liberal lie.