Roy Moore the Pedophile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

THIS. Even in Alabama this is so wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"What liberals are made of?"

If they think pedophilia is fine and think liberals are worse than pedophiles, then NO, they don't "know what liberals are made of" - they don't know jack sh!t. And this being Alabama, which has some of the worst school outcomes in the nation, I'm pretty sure that I am right about that and that you aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Liberals are worse than pedophiles? Seriously? That’s the stance of Alabam Republicans? That they would rather have a pedophile than a liberal. I’m as liberal as they come, and I would rather have Ted Cruz than someone who would hurt kids like that.

Again— I. Can’t. Even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The WaPo laid out the facts based on first-hand information that was careful and thoroughly vetted and corroborated. It even went so far to point out that one of the women has had financial difficulties. Are there “alternative facts” you would like to share?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Liberals are worse than pedophiles? Seriously? That’s the stance of Alabam Republicans? That they would rather have a pedophile than a liberal. I’m as liberal as they come, and I would rather have Ted Cruz than someone who would hurt kids like that.

Again— I. Can’t. Even.

Agree, and the only thing Ted Cruz has ever done that I approve of is liking porn with an actress that resembled his wife.

[Anonymous]

95 pages of people claiming there is no evidence, then being refuted with all the info in the Post article, then saying the same thing. It makes you wonder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

THIS. Even in Alabama this is so wrong.

Alabama: Hey, at least we’re not ranked #48 in education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

THIS. Even in Alabama this is so wrong.

But it's apparently ok with liberals in the UK:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/462604/We-can-t-prove-sex-with-children-does-them-harm-says-Labour-linked-NCCL

Try to stay focused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Liberals are worse than pedophiles? Seriously? That’s the stance of Alabam Republicans? That they would rather have a pedophile than a liberal. I’m as liberal as they come, and I would rather have Ted Cruz than someone who would hurt kids like that.

Again— I. Can’t. Even.

Agree, and the only thing Ted Cruz has ever done that I approve of is liking porn with an actress that resembled his wife.

No, it was an intern who did it, remember? SMDH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

THIS. Even in Alabama this is so wrong.

But it's apparently ok with liberals in the UK:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/462604/We-can-t-prove-sex-with-children-does-them-harm-says-Labour-linked-NCCL

But this is not the UK. Focus. United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Liberals are worse than pedophiles? Seriously? That’s the stance of Alabam Republicans? That they would rather have a pedophile than a liberal. I’m as liberal as they come, and I would rather have Ted Cruz than someone who would hurt kids like that.

Again— I. Can’t. Even.

Agree, and the only thing Ted Cruz has ever done that I approve of is liking porn with an actress that resembled his wife.

No, it was an intern who did it, remember? SMDH.

That’s right, we all believe it was the intern.

[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.

Except they can't "hide," this isn't some anonymous blogger, this is one of the top three papers in the country. The Daily Caller--founded by Tucker Carlson--explains it pretty well for those of you too numb to figure it out on your own:

If the Post story were fabricated by liberal media schemers to frame Moore and undermine his candidacy, the number of people implicated would be immense. The newspaper would have to trust each of them never to expose the sham, even though doing so would garner immense favorable publicity.

Consider this: the story’s three authors, all their editors, the women interviewed, and multiple other on-the-record sources confirming the reports would have to keep the Post’s secret. None could ever tell spouses, friends, or family members without widening the circle of people who could demolish the whole enterprise.

Further, every detail of the ruse would have to be so meticulously planned that no news outlet sympathetic to Moore could ever do its own research to expose the deceit.

Finally, if this scandal is fake news, at least a half-dozen Washington Post journalists with extensive experience and great resumes would have to care enough about destroying Moore to risk their entire careers and reputations. And Bezos would willingly gamble the lasting value of a brand he paid a quarter of a billion dollars to buy.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/10/moore-molestation-scandal-cant-be-fake-news-or-wed-know/

[Anonymous]

It was Ted Cruz's intern, Ned Cruise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Everybody used to have one or two house phones back then. Many people used to have had a long cords that could reach to bedrooms or closets. Totally normal. If that’s all you got, you are losing this argument.

Except the girl clearly said it was HER phone in HER room. So you have to suppose and make things up. That's my exact point. You are embellishing her story to make it fit your narrative.

If you are going to parse words that carefully -- and I have no objection to that -- you need to go by her exact words, not a secondhand account of what she said.

Have you ever been paraphrased by a reporter? I have, more than once. Often even the "exact" quotes don't match the tape.

[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.

What's your basis for claiming they are just "making it up?" WaPo's history on these kinds of things is pretty damn good. Sorry to break it to you but that you don't like hearing something doesn't make it "made up" or "fake news."

Meanwhile, your boy Roy Moore has already been busted in a lie for claiming that the girls were lying because it would have been impossible for him to have given them alcohol because Etowah County was a dry county at the time. No, Etowah County was NOT a dry county then - that law had been repealed years prior and alcohol was definitely available, including at the pizzeria where one of his accusers said he bought wine to give to her to get her drunk. So we know he's definitely making things up.