Roy Moore the Pedophile

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Half the posters here fooled around with older men as teenagers -- consensually. Who is kidding whom?

And really, how do we know that girl was 14? She may be mis-recollecting. She could easily have been 16-17. Kind of hard to say 40 years later.

I see that you are in the "believe the allegations but don't think Moore did anything wrong camp". I'm not sure if that is better or worse than the "lies, all lies" camp. But, in regard to your question about age, they know the date that Moore picked her up because they found the court records of the hearing. They know the woman's date of birth and presumably they can do math.

I am sorry -- you may be able to tie one date to a hearing. But you don't know when they went out, and frankly after this much time neither of them may know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Half the posters here fooled around with older men as teenagers -- consensually. Who is kidding whom?

And really, how do we know that girl was 14? She may be mis-recollecting. She could easily have been 16-17. Kind of hard to say 40 years later.

So it's just kinda questionable if the girl was 14, but perfectly acceptable to ask a 16 or 17 year old to undress and touch your erection.

You people should just stop. I can't tell if you're genuinely amoral or trying hard to solidify the Trump supporter stereotype. Both are nauseating.

And a reminder that this sh*t Moore did happens all the time.

A lot of 17 year old girls have kissed older guys. Certainly guys in their twenties --- that just is.

[Anonymous]

Here's what I don't get: Even if your logic is purely partisan and your politics purely tribal, denouncing Weinstein while defending Roy Moore means you're basically taking the word of the famous Hollywood women but not the small-town Republican women.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Half the posters here fooled around with older men as teenagers -- consensually. Who is kidding whom?

And really, how do we know that girl was 14? She may be mis-recollecting. She could easily have been 16-17. Kind of hard to say 40 years later.

I see that you are in the "believe the allegations but don't think Moore did anything wrong camp". I'm not sure if that is better or worse than the "lies, all lies" camp. But, in regard to your question about age, they know the date that Moore picked her up because they found the court records of the hearing. They know the woman's date of birth and presumably they can do math.

I am sorry -- you may be able to tie one date to a hearing. But you don't know when they went out, and frankly after this much time neither of them may know.

He took her to his house "days later" after they first met.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I don't get: Even if your logic is purely partisan and your politics purely tribal, denouncing Weinstein while defending Roy Moore means you're basically taking the word of the famous Hollywood women but not the small-town Republican women.

No -- I am sorry. Weinstein accused credibly of non-statutory rape, i.e. non consensual sex. Weinstein accused of trapping women in his room. Weinstein accused of luring women to room under false pretenses. Weinstein accused of really weird masturbatory stuff.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Half the posters here fooled around with older men as teenagers -- consensually. Who is kidding whom?

And really, how do we know that girl was 14? She may be mis-recollecting. She could easily have been 16-17. Kind of hard to say 40 years later.

I see that you are in the "believe the allegations but don't think Moore did anything wrong camp". I'm not sure if that is better or worse than the "lies, all lies" camp. But, in regard to your question about age, they know the date that Moore picked her up because they found the court records of the hearing. They know the woman's date of birth and presumably they can do math.

I am sorry -- you may be able to tie one date to a hearing. But you don't know when they went out, and frankly after this much time neither of them may know.

He took her to his house "days later" after they first met.

Ok, if you think she's assuredly accurate in her recollections -- that's fine. In my experience, timelines can get hazy decades later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Half the posters here fooled around with older men as teenagers -- consensually. Who is kidding whom?

And really, how do we know that girl was 14? She may be mis-recollecting. She could easily have been 16-17. Kind of hard to say 40 years later.

So it's just kinda questionable if the girl was 14, but perfectly acceptable to ask a 16 or 17 year old to undress and touch your erection.

You people should just stop. I can't tell if you're genuinely amoral or trying hard to solidify the Trump supporter stereotype. Both are nauseating.

And a reminder that this sh*t Moore did happens all the time.

A lot of 17 year old girls have kissed older guys. Certainly guys in their twenties --- that just is.

Nobody wants to deny this. The gravamen of the charge is the girl was 14. I am just saying, maybe she wasn't.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Half the posters here fooled around with older men as teenagers -- consensually. Who is kidding whom?

And really, how do we know that girl was 14? She may be mis-recollecting. She could easily have been 16-17. Kind of hard to say 40 years later.

I see that you are in the "believe the allegations but don't think Moore did anything wrong camp". I'm not sure if that is better or worse than the "lies, all lies" camp. But, in regard to your question about age, they know the date that Moore picked her up because they found the court records of the hearing. They know the woman's date of birth and presumably they can do math.

I am sorry -- you may be able to tie one date to a hearing. But you don't know when they went out, and frankly after this much time neither of them may know.

He took her to his house "days later" after they first met.

Ok, if you think she's assuredly accurate in her recollections -- that's fine. In my experience, timelines can get hazy decades later.

It's possible that the "days later" was perhaps a week or a couple of weeks. It is very unlikely that it was years. She was 14. Even months would not have made much of a difference.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Half the posters here fooled around with older men as teenagers -- consensually. Who is kidding whom?

And really, how do we know that girl was 14? She may be mis-recollecting. She could easily have been 16-17. Kind of hard to say 40 years later.

I see that you are in the "believe the allegations but don't think Moore did anything wrong camp". I'm not sure if that is better or worse than the "lies, all lies" camp. But, in regard to your question about age, they know the date that Moore picked her up because they found the court records of the hearing. They know the woman's date of birth and presumably they can do math.

I am sorry -- you may be able to tie one date to a hearing. But you don't know when they went out, and frankly after this much time neither of them may know.

He took her to his house "days later" after they first met.

Ok, if you think she's assuredly accurate in her recollections -- that's fine. In my experience, timelines can get hazy decades later.

It's possible that the "days later" was perhaps a week or a couple of weeks. It is very unlikely that it was years. She was 14. Even months would not have made much of a difference.

Ok, look, I am not going to convince you. I've seen witnesses -- all of whom think they are telling the truth -- be way off in terms of timelines five years ago, let alone decades.

[Anonymous]

Anyway, look, the only defense for Moore -- assuming this woman isn't nuts and I don't think she's nuts or lying -- is that her timeline is off. I think there's a reasonable chance that it is.

[Anonymous]

More validation of the claim

https://twitter.com/LaurenWalshTV/status/928785872958492672

[Anonymous]

I hope Moore sticks to his tiny little gun and takes this thing all the way to an election win.

It's a boon to Democrats and the Republican Senatorial Committee knows this.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/10/roy-moore-sexual-assault-allegations-condemned-by-growing-number-republican-lawmakers.html

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Anyway, look, the only defense for Moore -- assuming this woman isn't nuts and I don't think she's nuts or lying -- is that her timeline is off. I think there's a reasonable chance that it is.

More collaboration:

https://twitter.com/LaurenWalshTV/status/928785872958492672

Mike Ortiz says he dated Corfman (Roy Moore’s accuser) for 2 years around 2009.
He says during that time, she told him about a sexual encounter w/ Moore when she was young.

Also video at the link.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anyway, look, the only defense for Moore -- assuming this woman isn't nuts and I don't think she's nuts or lying -- is that her timeline is off. I think there's a reasonable chance that it is.

More collaboration:

https://twitter.com/LaurenWalshTV/status/928785872958492672

Mike Ortiz says he dated Corfman (Roy Moore’s accuser) for 2 years around 2009.
He says during that time, she told him about a sexual encounter w/ Moore when she was young.

Also video at the link.

He's really not corroborating her age at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anyway, look, the only defense for Moore -- assuming this woman isn't nuts and I don't think she's nuts or lying -- is that her timeline is off. I think there's a reasonable chance that it is.

It was still non-consenual sexual assault no matter how old she was. That’s disqualifying unless you are president.