Roy Moore the Pedophile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely telling how so many keep ignoring the true definition of pedophile and keep tossing it as if it applies in this case. Diminishes your opinions every time you do.

But that's typical partisans with their inflammatory rhetoric attempting to apply the glue while the other side runs around with their whitewash.

Both sides are doing their level best to hold our nation up for contempt. Any wonder why both parties have diminished numbers over the last 20 years?

I hang out with the 13-14 year old set, since I have an 8th grade DD. Most of them: have recently started getting their periods, still have braces, still think boys are icky, are obsessed with Hamilton (like sing it together 24/7), don’t wear makeup, just started texting last year, and are both excited and terrified to be starting high school next year. They do not look like adult women. They certainly do not act like adult women. And maybe if you are a 14 year old boy, you have a crush on one of them, and want to go to a movie and try to hold her hand. But it would take a super sick emotionally stunted perverted creep to be a grown ass adult and to think that it was appropriate to have an adult sexual relationship with a girl this age.

BTW— pedophile is shorthand for “super sick emotionally stunted prevented creep who is a grown ass adult and thinks it is okay to have a sexual relationship with a 14 year old” I think the later is probably more accurate. But it is a lot to type. So pedophile it is.

And if you think Roy Moore is not a pedophile, that only goes to show that you were never a 14 year old girl, and have never parented a 14 year old girl. Also, that you, too, have more than one screw loose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well, his own son has a shady past and 9 arrests.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966224/amp/Son-Senate-candidate-Roy-Moore-arrested-Alabama.html

With a father like Roy Moore, the kid never stood a chance.

[Anonymous]

Context

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=dGVzc2EubXVnZ2VyaWRnZSttdXN0cmVhZHNAZ21haWwuY29t&s=5a07026dfe1ff6361c7a0c05

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Breitbart tried to do a hit piece and instead ended up confirming elements of the original article

http://theresurgent.com/breitbart-confirms-key-details-of-the-washington-posts-roy-moore-account/

Dumb ... dumb ... dumb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, his own son has a shady past and 9 arrests.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966224/amp/Son-Senate-candidate-Roy-Moore-arrested-Alabama.html

With a father like Roy Moore, the kid never stood a chance.

Making fun of a kid struggling with drug and alcohol issues? Dream big, buddy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s take step back. WaPo reporter hears about rumors that have been circulating for years relating to Moore and young women. Someone puts her in contact with Ms. Corfman who tells her about a single incident with Moore. Not multiple incidents, mind you. And what does she say? Does she assert that Moore had intercourse with her? No. Did she say she performed oral sex on Moore? No. Did she say that Moore digitally penetrated her? No. Did she say she gave Moore a handjob? No.

All of these would be terribly damaging to his campaign. Instead, she tells the reporter about the mundane details: being approached while sitting in the courthouse hallway, being asked for her number, speaking with Moore in the telephone from her bedroom, being picked up around the corner from her house and driven to a home out in the woods, being given alcohol and then disrobing as he kissed her, being touched and having him put her hand on his penis through his underwear, being uncomfortable and wanting it to just end. The best part of her scheme, however, was to travel back in time to 2009, just to tell her then-boyfriend about this encounter do that he could corroborate her story 18 years later when a reporter showed up at her door because Moore was the Republican candidate for the US Senate.

This. If the Post set out simply to slander Moore, wouldn't they have included even harsher details, for example about rape etc? Not that the story isn't bad enough but if you are making things up why not make up something even more salacious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, his own son has a shady past and 9 arrests.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966224/amp/Son-Senate-candidate-Roy-Moore-arrested-Alabama.html

With a father like Roy Moore, the kid never stood a chance.

Making fun of a kid struggling with drug and alcohol issues? Dream big, buddy.

Nobody is making fun of him. It must really suck to have Roy Crazypants Moore as a dad.

But I’m calling BS. Exactly how sorry are we supposed to feel for a 27 year old “kid” (living in a land where 14 year olds, who are half his age, are doable) with 9 drug arrests, including multiple operating under the influence arrests. I thought the Grab Our Pussies party was all about mandadtory minimums for druggies rather than treatment. You know— personal responsibility?

[Anonymous]

Well, the 29 year old on the campaign was just a coffee boy and Donald jr in his 30's is a good kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well, his own son has a shady past and 9 arrests.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966224/amp/Son-Senate-candidate-Roy-Moore-arrested-Alabama.html

Apple didn't fall far from the tree.

[Anonymous]

The son is good looking though, I’ll give him that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The son is good looking though, I’ll give him that.

He’s available. But prefers women who aren’t in high school yet. Just like dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s take step back. WaPo reporter hears about rumors that have been circulating for years relating to Moore and young women. Someone puts her in contact with Ms. Corfman who tells her about a single incident with Moore. Not multiple incidents, mind you. And what does she say? Does she assert that Moore had intercourse with her? No. Did she say she performed oral sex on Moore? No. Did she say that Moore digitally penetrated her? No. Did she say she gave Moore a handjob? No.

All of these would be terribly damaging to his campaign. Instead, she tells the reporter about the mundane details: being approached while sitting in the courthouse hallway, being asked for her number, speaking with Moore in the telephone from her bedroom, being picked up around the corner from her house and driven to a home out in the woods, being given alcohol and then disrobing as he kissed her, being touched and having him put her hand on his penis through his underwear, being uncomfortable and wanting it to just end. The best part of her scheme, however, was to travel back in time to 2009, just to tell her then-boyfriend about this encounter do that he could corroborate her story 18 years later when a reporter showed up at her door because Moore was the Republican candidate for the US Senate.

This. If the Post set out simply to slander Moore, wouldn't they have included even harsher details, for example about rape etc? Not that the story isn't bad enough but if you are making things up why not make up something even more salacious?

Not enough has been made of this. If she was going to make something up, why not go big? She knows it's her word against his. Why not say he raped her? Why not say he raped her and she got pregnant, and he made her get an abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s take step back. WaPo reporter hears about rumors that have been circulating for years relating to Moore and young women. Someone puts her in contact with Ms. Corfman who tells her about a single incident with Moore. Not multiple incidents, mind you. And what does she say? Does she assert that Moore had intercourse with her? No. Did she say she performed oral sex on Moore? No. Did she say that Moore digitally penetrated her? No. Did she say she gave Moore a handjob? No.

All of these would be terribly damaging to his campaign. Instead, she tells the reporter about the mundane details: being approached while sitting in the courthouse hallway, being asked for her number, speaking with Moore in the telephone from her bedroom, being picked up around the corner from her house and driven to a home out in the woods, being given alcohol and then disrobing as he kissed her, being touched and having him put her hand on his penis through his underwear, being uncomfortable and wanting it to just end. The best part of her scheme, however, was to travel back in time to 2009, just to tell her then-boyfriend about this encounter do that he could corroborate her story 18 years later when a reporter showed up at her door because Moore was the Republican candidate for the US Senate.

This. If the Post set out simply to slander Moore, wouldn't they have included even harsher details, for example about rape etc? Not that the story isn't bad enough but if you are making things up why not make up something even more salacious?

Not enough has been made of this. If she was going to make something up, why not go big? She knows it's her word against his. Why not say he raped her? Why not say he raped her and she got pregnant, and he made her get an abortion?

Because that would be less believable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s take step back. WaPo reporter hears about rumors that have been circulating for years relating to Moore and young women. Someone puts her in contact with Ms. Corfman who tells her about a single incident with Moore. Not multiple incidents, mind you. And what does she say? Does she assert that Moore had intercourse with her? No. Did she say she performed oral sex on Moore? No. Did she say that Moore digitally penetrated her? No. Did she say she gave Moore a handjob? No.

All of these would be terribly damaging to his campaign. Instead, she tells the reporter about the mundane details: being approached while sitting in the courthouse hallway, being asked for her number, speaking with Moore in the telephone from her bedroom, being picked up around the corner from her house and driven to a home out in the woods, being given alcohol and then disrobing as he kissed her, being touched and having him put her hand on his penis through his underwear, being uncomfortable and wanting it to just end. The best part of her scheme, however, was to travel back in time to 2009, just to tell her then-boyfriend about this encounter do that he could corroborate her story 18 years later when a reporter showed up at her door because Moore was the Republican candidate for the US Senate.

This. If the Post set out simply to slander Moore, wouldn't they have included even harsher details, for example about rape etc? Not that the story isn't bad enough but if you are making things up why not make up something even more salacious?

Not enough has been made of this. If she was going to make something up, why not go big? She knows it's her word against his. Why not say he raped her? Why not say he raped her and she got pregnant, and he made her get an abortion?

Because that would be less believable.

Exactly. The truth is way better than making stuff up.

[Anonymous]

How many people here defending Moore would be cool with a man in his thirties 'dating' their underage daughters?