Roy Moore the Pedophile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I need proof.

So you never believe any woman or girl who says she was molested or harassed because you need proof other than her word, which would be what in your view?

I feel sorry for any daughter or sister you have. Can just hear you telling them "sorry I need proof" if they came to you with a claim of sexual assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I need proof.

Besides to woman who just told her story, and had the yearbook he signed. And was very clearly telling the trust if you listen to her. Who told several people at the time. And besides the other 4 women, and the 30 people who corroborated their claims?

So proof would be.... ? An NSA wiretap?

This is enough corroboration to convict Moore beyond a reasonable doubt, in any court.

He was 30. He drove a 15-16 year old to a private place and tried to rape her. please tell me you don't have an excuse for that too.

NP. Got handwriting analysis on that? Plenty of people forge signatures. You can't tell if she was telling the truth. You can only assume.

Media said the same about the Atlanta Bomber. About Martin. About Brown. About the UVA frat guys. About the Duke Lacrosse players. You were wrong about all those. Why should we believe media now? And how many times does Allred have to make an a$$ out of herself?

Why do I have the feeling you were chanting "lock her up" sometime in the last 18 months?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I need proof.

Besides to woman who just told her story, and had the yearbook he signed. And was very clearly telling the trust if you listen to her. Who told several people at the time. And besides the other 4 women, and the 30 people who corroborated their claims?

So proof would be.... ? An NSA wiretap?

This is enough corroboration to convict Moore beyond a reasonable doubt, in any court.

He was 30. He drove a 15-16 year old to a private place and tried to rape her. please tell me you don't have an excuse for that too.

NP. Got handwriting analysis on that? Plenty of people forge signatures. You can't tell if she was telling the truth. You can only assume.

Media said the same about the Atlanta Bomber. About Martin. About Brown. About the UVA frat guys. About the Duke Lacrosse players. You were wrong about all those. Why should we believe media now? And how many times does Allred have to make an a$$ out of herself?

Tin Foil Hat Brigade reporting for duty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
NP. Got handwriting analysis on that? Plenty of people forge signatures. You can't tell if she was telling the truth. You can only assume.

Media said the same about the Atlanta Bomber. About Martin. About Brown. About the UVA frat guys. About the Duke Lacrosse players. You were wrong about all those. Why should we believe media now? And how many times does Allred have to make an a$$ out of herself?

Hmm, how your standards have changed since "lock her up" and Loretta Lynch. DJT himself accused BHO of lying about his birth certificate. Was evidence important to you then?

Look, I don't want Roy Moore sent to prison without a full trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is not a criminal trial, its a decision about an election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP. Got handwriting analysis on that? Plenty of people forge signatures. You can't tell if she was telling the truth. You can only assume.

Media said the same about the Atlanta Bomber. About Martin. About Brown. About the UVA frat guys. About the Duke Lacrosse players. You were wrong about all those. Why should we believe media now? And how many times does Allred have to make an a$$ out of herself?

Hmm, how your standards have changed since "lock her up" and Loretta Lynch. DJT himself accused BHO of lying about his birth certificate. Was evidence important to you then?

Look, I don't want Roy Moore sent to prison without a full trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is not a criminal trial, its a decision about an election.

This is silly. The statute of limitations has run. At most Moore could be subject to expulsion by the Senate, which uses a clear and convincing standard. I hope that he’s truly dumb enough to sue the WaPo so it all comes out (subject to protection of anonymous sources).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the deal: Everyone knows Moore will not be able to serve--unless the accusers are discredited. And, right now, there are only two accusers. The three others are troubling--but no accusations of sexual assault and they were not under the age of consent. I'd believe the second woman more if Gloria Allred were not her lawyer. That will not go unnoticed in Alabama.

So, here is the dilemma: The people of Alabama now have to choose between a man that has been accused of sexual assault of a minor and a man who will most definitely not support their beliefs. Doug Jones is a good man. That is unquestioned. However, he is supported by Planned Parenthood and supports abortion until birth. That will not sit well in Alabama.
He will also likely vote against any Trump judicial nomination--this also will not sit well in Alabama.
He will likely vote against Trump initiatives. That also will not sit well in Alabama.

It is highly ikely that Moore, if elected, will not be seated. The people of Alabama will accept that if a Republican is put into his seat.

Can all of this be orchestrated by the December election? Unknown.

My guess: it will be very close. Many will not vote. Jones may win. He will be in the Senate until 2020. Then, he will lose.

"Only two accusers."


How many in your opinion would be enough?

P.s. There is no such thing as "abortion up until birth." If a woman needs to be delivered of a pregnancy that is going to kill her at a point at which the fetus is viable then she is induced or has a c-section. I should know because it

pre-eclampsia l happened to me at 34 weeks. Women don't go about aborting late term pregnancies willie nillie and you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And plenty of 13-14 year olds sending pics over their phones, and more including having Clinton sex. If they aren't running a con on you, or if you aren't being very naive, the girls you describe sound stunted, boys are icky?, in the modern world.

What Moore did was wrong on many levels but does not qualify him as a pedophile.

That is your sick, twisted opinion. The law, even in Alabama, views that behavior as a crime. If a 32 year old man made my daughter fondle his erect penis against her will and fondled her breasts, the way Moore did to the 14 year old girl, I would want him behind bars for life.

What part of what qualifies a person as a PEDOPHILE do you NOT understand? Obviously all of it. I am NOT defending him nor am I saying what he did wasn't wrong and even criminal but he is NOT a pedophile. If you don't understand that then STHU until you can get your definitions and laws straight.

Is this a quibble on pedophile vs ephebophile? Are you from NAMBLA?

Your last question easily qualifies you as an ignore but will acknowledge that ephebophilia, while unheard of by the vast majority, is more appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the new defense is that Roy the Molester isn’t a pedo because it was just two little girls?

Acknowledging he isn't a pedophile isn't a defense.

[Anonymous]

"Only two accusers."


How many in your opinion would be enough?

The WAPO article counts four accusers--but, only one was assaulted according to the story. The others were over the age of consent (legally). The accuser today has also accused him of assault.

What PP meant was that it was not the number of accusers that people are talking about.

And, FWIW, the accusers should be believed--until proven otherwise. Right now, these are brand new accusations. If true, Moore IS a pedophile.

I just find it hard to believe that this was kept secret for so long. These women were not looking to get a job like those with Harvey Weinstein. Moore was not in a position of power over them for the last forty years. (He definitely was in a position of power when they were teens.) In small town Alabama, I just find it hard to believe that it did not go out the boundaries of Gadsden.

The other three women in the WAPO article are much more credible. But, they are not accusing him of assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I need proof.

So you never believe any woman or girl who says she was molested or harassed because you need proof other than her word, which would be what in your view?

I feel sorry for any daughter or sister you have. Can just hear you telling them "sorry I need proof" if they came to you with a claim of sexual assault.

NP. I would encourage my daughter to go to the police right away. End of. The burden of proof usually sits with the victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"Only two accusers."


How many in your opinion would be enough?

The WAPO article counts four accusers--but, only one was assaulted according to the story. The others were over the age of consent (legally). The accuser today has also accused him of assault.

What PP meant was that it was not the number of accusers that people are talking about.

And, FWIW, the accusers should be believed--until proven otherwise. Right now, these are brand new accusations. If true, Moore IS a pedophile.

I just find it hard to believe that this was kept secret for so long. These women were not looking to get a job like those with Harvey Weinstein. Moore was not in a position of power over them for the last forty years. (He definitely was in a position of power when they were teens.) In small town Alabama, I just find it hard to believe that it did not go out the boundaries of Gadsden.

The other three women in the WAPO article are much more credible. But, they are not accusing him of assault.

Why do you assert that it did not? How do you suppose the reporter got wind of the story in the first place? Because people were talking about Moore's taste for young girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP. Got handwriting analysis on that? Plenty of people forge signatures. You can't tell if she was telling the truth. You can only assume.

Media said the same about the Atlanta Bomber. About Martin. About Brown. About the UVA frat guys. About the Duke Lacrosse players. You were wrong about all those. Why should we believe media now? And how many times does Allred have to make an a$$ out of herself?

Hmm, how your standards have changed since "lock her up" and Loretta Lynch. DJT himself accused BHO of lying about his birth certificate. Was evidence important to you then?

Look, I don't want Roy Moore sent to prison without a full trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is not a criminal trial, its a decision about an election.

To me? The merit of an individual lies on whether or not he/she will morally convict another individual on something others said, but could not prove.

[Anonymous]

Why do you assert that it did not? How do you suppose the reporter got wind of the story in the first place? Because people were talking about Moore's taste for young girls.

No one is denying he dated teens. One of them worked on HRC's campaign. My guess is that she planted the seed to WAPO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Only two accusers."


How many in your opinion would be enough?

The WAPO article counts four accusers--but, only one was assaulted according to the story. The others were over the age of consent (legally). The accuser today has also accused him of assault.

What PP meant was that it was not the number of accusers that people are talking about.

And, FWIW, the accusers should be believed--until proven otherwise. Right now, these are brand new accusations. If true, Moore IS a pedophile.

I just find it hard to believe that this was kept secret for so long. These women were not looking to get a job like those with Harvey Weinstein. Moore was not in a position of power over them for the last forty years. (He definitely was in a position of power when they were teens.) In small town Alabama, I just find it hard to believe that it did not go out the boundaries of Gadsden.

The other three women in the WAPO article are much more credible. But, they are not accusing him of assault.

Why do you assert that it did not? How do you suppose the reporter got wind of the story in the first place? Because people were talking about Moore's taste for young girls.

I believe that he liked younger legal girls, like a lot of men. But the Post could not convict him on that, so made one of them two years younger. And then when the people of Alabama questioned her story, they trotted out some has-been lawyer who Wikileaks has already exposed with another underage 'victim'. Forgive me for my cynicism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I need proof.

So you never believe any woman or girl who says she was molested or harassed because you need proof other than her word, which would be what in your view?

I feel sorry for any daughter or sister you have. Can just hear you telling them "sorry I need proof" if they came to you with a claim of sexual assault.

NP. I would encourage my daughter to go to the police right away. End of. The burden of proof usually sits with the victim.

When the accused is the District Attorney in a small town I'm sure that goes real well.