Roy Moore the Pedophile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dreaming is great, PP, isn't it?
The "fall" of the Republican Party?

We are witnessing the party being torn in two: traditional principled conservatives versus the Bannon wing where principles don’t count for anything in the quest for winning with the ultimate goal of destroying the federal government..

Let's be honest. Both parties have divisions.
Nothing new there.

Let’s be honest. Republicans don’t seem to have any principles at all. Even the self-avowed deficit hawks are willing to put their tails between their legs so that corporations and 0.1% can be further enriched. But a cynical person might think that if the tax bill is passed, and the CBO then revises it’s numbers to paint a more realistically dire picture, they will start slashing and burning anything and everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which is worse - the last minute fake news bombshell or the concerted effort of both the left and never trumpers that is obvious?

All you people who are questioning the timing—seems like you want to prevent Alabamans from hearing about Roy Moore before they send him to the senate for 6 years. You make everything sound like a conspiracy but basically you want to keep Alabama residents from hearing any negative news.

The WaPo’s endorsement of the opposition can before the story. And they drum up an activist at random?

Link or it didn't happen.

Google is your friend. That little fact is no secret, nor surprise, given WaPo's bias.

All sources are biased. What matters is the accuracy of the reporting.

If I say they need to name their 30 sources, you will say "they don't have to". That is correct, they don't. And therefore, I don't have to believe they have 30 sources and that the story is accurate. They can simply make up anything they want, publish it, then hide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it so hard to follow the 18-and-over rule?

It is when the legal age was 16, 38 years ago.

She was 14.

There is no concrete proof that Moore knew of that, if in fact the encounter occurred. None. Nada.

Look up statutory rape sometime. It doesn’t matter what he knew.

If someone lies about their age, it matters. Can you tell if every girl is 14, 16 or 18 these days? I bet you can't. Neither could your son, who could easily be lied to. And in some states, it DOES matter.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe the Republican party has become the party of pedophiles. I have voted Republican before and now I feel gross.

And before you start with "But Bill," I was too young at that time to even have awareness of that and god, at least it wasn't kids. I can't believe we are to a spot where we are even debating whether it's ok to be a pedophile. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it so hard to follow the 18-and-over rule?

It is when the legal age was 16, 38 years ago.

She was 14.

There is no concrete proof that Moore knew of that, if in fact the encounter occurred. None. Nada.

Look up statutory rape sometime. It doesn’t matter what he knew.

If someone lies about their age, it matters. Can you tell if every girl is 14, 16 or 18 these days? I bet you can't. Neither could your son, who could easily be lied to. And in some states, it DOES matter.

My DD is 13. With 13-14 year old friends. You can absolutely tell these are not grown women.

[Anonymous]

Why is a man in his 30s trying to pick up girls from 14-18? Yucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a contradiction between mother and daughter....no surprise...



Citing Corfman, the Post reported:

After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.

Corfman clearly claimed she spoke to Moore on what she said was “her phone in her bedroom” on at least one of those occasions. The Post did not specify whether the second or third alleged calls purportedly took place on a bedroom phone.

When her mother was asked whether or not her daughter had a phone in her room, this was the reply:


Wells, Corfman’s mother, was asked by Breitbart News: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”

“No,” she replied matter-of-factly. “But the phone in the house could get through to her easily.”

It's details like this that trip up stories - this is why police often question people multiple times in multiple ways - they want to see the inconsistencies that appear. Those inconsistencies are what leads an officer to break open a case.

What this is going to do is cause liberals here to me suppositions: "I bet she stretched the phone cord" or "Perhaps the cord was long enough for her to take the phone in her room?"

And those will just be 'perhaps' and 'maybes' and 'I bets'. That's it. That's all.

This is neither a police investigation or a trial. A candidate for Senate isn’t entitled to a presumption of innocence or a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is being tried in the court of public opinion, as these matters often are, and was the case of Juanita Broaddrick, which the right-wing noise machine ne was fine sith Moore doesn’t have a David Brock running around trying to dig up dirt. And the best he can do is offer non-committal comments about his “customary behavior.” Moore should put on his big boy pants. It’s nobody's fault but his own that he took them off in the first place. #GOPervs #GOPedos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which is worse - the last minute fake news bombshell or the concerted effort of both the left and never trumpers that is obvious?

All you people who are questioning the timing—seems like you want to prevent Alabamans from hearing about Roy Moore before they send him to the senate for 6 years. You make everything sound like a conspiracy but basically you want to keep Alabama residents from hearing any negative news.

The WaPo’s endorsement of the opposition can before the story. And they drum up an activist at random?

Link or it didn't happen.

Google is your friend. That little fact is no secret, nor surprise, given WaPo's bias.

All sources are biased. What matters is the accuracy of the reporting.

If I say they need to name their 30 sources, you will say "they don't have to". That is correct, they don't. And therefore, I don't have to believe they have 30 sources and that the story is accurate. They can simply make up anything they want, publish it, then hide.

You’re confusing the WaPo with Infowars. The reason Moore isn’t saying more is that there’s a lot more to come out. His apologists want to bury it by scaring off the other victims.

[Anonymous]

Maybe this thread it filled with Russian trolls.

37%of Alabam evangelicals say that allegations of pedophilia make them MORE likely to vote for more.

Birds of a feather?

I. Can’t. Even.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/360010-poll-37-percent-of-alabama-evangelicals-more-likely-to-vote-for-moore-after

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is a man in his 30s trying to pick up girls from 14-18? Yucky.

Not to mention that 40 years ago, girls hit puberty a year or 2 later than they do today. 1980s 14 looked like todays 12-13.

[Anonymous]

Moore knew she was underaged BECAUSE HE MET HER AT COURT BEFORE A *CHILD CUSTODY* HEARING.

I don't understand not reading the article before commenting. We are all stupider for having read your comment.

[Anonymous]

There was a picture of the girl at age 14 with the article. She looked very young. I would have guessed her to be around 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a contradiction between mother and daughter....no surprise...



Citing Corfman, the Post reported:

After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.

Corfman clearly claimed she spoke to Moore on what she said was “her phone in her bedroom” on at least one of those occasions. The Post did not specify whether the second or third alleged calls purportedly took place on a bedroom phone.

When her mother was asked whether or not her daughter had a phone in her room, this was the reply:


Wells, Corfman’s mother, was asked by Breitbart News: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”

“No,” she replied matter-of-factly. “But the phone in the house could get through to her easily.”

It's details like this that trip up stories - this is why police often question people multiple times in multiple ways - they want to see the inconsistencies that appear. Those inconsistencies are what leads an officer to break open a case.

What this is going to do is cause liberals here to me suppositions: "I bet she stretched the phone cord" or "Perhaps the cord was long enough for her to take the phone in her room?"

And those will just be 'perhaps' and 'maybes' and 'I bets'. That's it. That's all.

This is neither a police investigation or a trial. A candidate for Senate isn’t entitled to a presumption of innocence or a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is being tried in the court of public opinion, as these matters often are, and was the case of Juanita Broaddrick, which the right-wing noise machine ne was fine sith Moore doesn’t have a David Brock running around trying to dig up dirt. And the best he can do is offer non-committal comments about his “customary behavior.” Moore should put on his big boy pants. It’s nobody's fault but his own that he took them off in the first place. #GOPervs #GOPedos

Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence, at least in my world. I thought the Dems were a party of facts and science?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting story from the NYTimes on women voters from Alabama and how they perceive Moore, both pro and con.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/us/alabama-women-roy-moore.amp.html

The elementary school principal who thinks pedophilia is fine if it is not happening right now needs to be fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this thread it filled with Russian trolls.

37%of Alabam evangelicals say that allegations of pedophilia make them MORE likely to vote for more.

Birds of a feather?

I. Can’t. Even.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/360010-poll-37-percent-of-alabama-evangelicals-more-likely-to-vote-for-moore-after

No, they are not birds of a feather. They are people who know what liberals are made of.