Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF this works, the MSM and DNC have their template for the next few years: SMEAR and CHARACTER ASSASINATION CAMPAIGNS galore against any opponent, truthful or not.

Oh, I forgot to say that the idea of either party hand-choosing a candidate for the people of a state is appalling and should alarm anyone who believes in fairness of our elections.

But this is very similar to what Clinton did to Sanders - what the DNC allowed to happen.

They can't "hand pick" a candidate. If Moore wants to continue running, there is nothing they can do. And they also could not stop multiple would be write in candidates. However right in campaigns tend to be expensive (you need to let everyone know to vote for you, you won't get ANY votes from people seeing your name on the ballot) and they can decide whom, if any, to contribute party funds to.

What reform would prevent a party from deciding what to do with its funds?

Seems McConnell says he can.

Please quote exact wording, with link. All McConnell has said is that Moore "should" step down. And that he is considering supporting a write in campaign. Nothing to indicate he thinks he can hand pick a candidate, beyond deciding who he will support.

Read the link I posted from the L.A. Times please.

He said Republicans are looking at a write-in option in Alabama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF this works, the MSM and DNC have their template for the next few years: SMEAR and CHARACTER ASSASINATION CAMPAIGNS galore against any opponent, truthful or not.

Oh, I forgot to say that the idea of either party hand-choosing a candidate for the people of a state is appalling and should alarm anyone who believes in fairness of our elections.

But this is very similar to what Clinton did to Sanders - what the DNC allowed to happen.

They can't "hand pick" a candidate. If Moore wants to continue running, there is nothing they can do. And they also could not stop multiple would be write in candidates. However right in campaigns tend to be expensive (you need to let everyone know to vote for you, you won't get ANY votes from people seeing your name on the ballot) and they can decide whom, if any, to contribute party funds to.

What reform would prevent a party from deciding what to do with its funds?

Seems McConnell says he can.

Please quote exact wording, with link. All McConnell has said is that Moore "should" step down. And that he is considering supporting a write in campaign. Nothing to indicate he thinks he can hand pick a candidate, beyond deciding who he will support.

From that LA Times article:

"He said Republicans are looking at a write-in option in Alabama."

If only liberals would read.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good encapsulation of the rise of Roy Moore. A poor student at West Point. An asshole in Vietnam. A failed lawyer who was run out of town.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/10/roy-and-his-rock/304264/

Poor student at West Point? Compared to some, perhaps. However, there were approximately 180 in his class of 800 that graduated below him in standing.

That puts him near the top of the bottom 25%. That's a poor student?

Doesn't excuse his behavior--but you are insulting those who graduated below him. Getting into West Point is not easy. And, FWIW, there are many who do not graduate.

Yes. Yes it does.

The bottom 25% of one of the top schools in the country? Really? And, please note, there were over 300 who entered and did not graduate--most for academic reasons, although some may have had health issues or code violations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McConnell knows there are more under-aged girls who were molested by Moore. Why do you think they pushed for Luther Strange so hard?

The GOP isn't dumb. They have plenty of money and opposition researchers to vet candidates.

I have heard this also from a friend on the Hill - that the GOP knows more about this issue than is publicly known.

I doubt it stops at molestation.

I suspect there's a reason he abruptly decamped for Australia in the early 80's.

Alabama only has a three year statute of limitations for statutory rape.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The girls were legal. Furthermore, someone who is concerned enough to actually ask the parent (customary then) does not square with a man who would deliberately abuse a girl behind her mother's back.

Yet he denied ALL their statements, and many of his defenders have attacked one of the "legal" girls for being a Dem.

There are currently two defenses going around - A. Its all lies B. Well its true he dated teenagers, legally, but the molesting the 14 year old thing is false.

These stories are mutually contradictory. They detract from each other.

Not just a Dem. A dem with ties to Biden and Clinton, who also works on Jones' campaign AND is an activist to boot

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McConnell knows there are more under-aged girls who were molested by Moore. Why do you think they pushed for Luther Strange so hard?

The GOP isn't dumb. They have plenty of money and opposition researchers to vet candidates.

I have heard this also from a friend on the Hill - that the GOP knows more about this issue than is publicly known.

They pushed for Luther Strange because he's an establishment candidate they can control.

Listen...I honestly have no dog in this fight. A GOP insurrection is music to my ears. But if I am an "establishment" GOPer or any sort of GOPer, Moore has too much baggage. If the people of Alabama want to elect him based on principle or any other reason, that is their right. I cannot see him getting much done as a Senator. Very few people are going to work with him or even be associated with him and that was true even before these allegations hit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McConnell knows there are more under-aged girls who were molested by Moore. Why do you think they pushed for Luther Strange so hard?

The GOP isn't dumb. They have plenty of money and opposition researchers to vet candidates.

I have heard this also from a friend on the Hill - that the GOP knows more about this issue than is publicly known.

I doubt it stops at molestation.

If only horses could talk...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McConnell knows there are more under-aged girls who were molested by Moore. Why do you think they pushed for Luther Strange so hard?

The GOP isn't dumb. They have plenty of money and opposition researchers to vet candidates.

I have heard this also from a friend on the Hill - that the GOP knows more about this issue than is publicly known.

I doubt it stops at molestation.

I suspect there's a reason he abruptly decamped for Australia in the early 80's.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF this works, the MSM and DNC have their template for the next few years: SMEAR and CHARACTER ASSASINATION CAMPAIGNS galore against any opponent, truthful or not.

Oh, I forgot to say that the idea of either party hand-choosing a candidate for the people of a state is appalling and should alarm anyone who believes in fairness of our elections.

But this is very similar to what Clinton did to Sanders - what the DNC allowed to happen.

They can't "hand pick" a candidate. If Moore wants to continue running, there is nothing they can do. And they also could not stop multiple would be write in candidates. However right in campaigns tend to be expensive (you need to let everyone know to vote for you, you won't get ANY votes from people seeing your name on the ballot) and they can decide whom, if any, to contribute party funds to.

What reform would prevent a party from deciding what to do with its funds?

Seems McConnell says he can.

Please quote exact wording, with link. All McConnell has said is that Moore "should" step down. And that he is considering supporting a write in campaign. Nothing to indicate he thinks he can hand pick a candidate, beyond deciding who he will support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McConnell knows there are more under-aged girls who were molested by Moore. Why do you think they pushed for Luther Strange so hard?

The GOP isn't dumb. They have plenty of money and opposition researchers to vet candidates.

I have heard this also from a friend on the Hill - that the GOP knows more about this issue than is publicly known.

I doubt it stops at molestation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McConnell knows there are more under-aged girls who were molested by Moore. Why do you think they pushed for Luther Strange so hard?

The GOP isn't dumb. They have plenty of money and opposition researchers to vet candidates.

I have heard this also from a friend on the Hill - that the GOP knows more about this issue than is publicly known.

They pushed for Luther Strange because he's an establishment candidate they can control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF this works, the MSM and DNC have their template for the next few years: SMEAR and CHARACTER ASSASINATION CAMPAIGNS galore against any opponent, truthful or not.

Oh, I forgot to say that the idea of either party hand-choosing a candidate for the people of a state is appalling and should alarm anyone who believes in fairness of our elections.

But this is very similar to what Clinton did to Sanders - what the DNC allowed to happen.

They can't "hand pick" a candidate. If Moore wants to continue running, there is nothing they can do. And they also could not stop multiple would be write in candidates. However right in campaigns tend to be expensive (you need to let everyone know to vote for you, you won't get ANY votes from people seeing your name on the ballot) and they can decide whom, if any, to contribute party funds to.

What reform would prevent a party from deciding what to do with its funds?

Seems McConnell says he can.

Please quote exact wording, with link. All McConnell has said is that Moore "should" step down. And that he is considering supporting a write in campaign. Nothing to indicate he thinks he can hand pick a candidate, beyond deciding who he will support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McConnell knows there are more under-aged girls who were molested by Moore. Why do you think they pushed for Luther Strange so hard?

The GOP isn't dumb. They have plenty of money and opposition researchers to vet candidates.

I have heard this also from a friend on the Hill - that the GOP knows more about this issue than is publicly known.

I doubt it stops at molestation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF this works, the MSM and DNC have their template for the next few years: SMEAR and CHARACTER ASSASINATION CAMPAIGNS galore against any opponent, truthful or not.

So you're having difficulty reconcile the fact that Moore is a pedophile? Or you think all four public victims are lying? Or what he did was totally okay and you'd be fine with your 14 year old going on date with a 32 year old? I mean, which is it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF this works, the MSM and DNC have their template for the next few years: SMEAR and CHARACTER ASSASINATION CAMPAIGNS galore against any opponent, truthful or not.

Oh, I forgot to say that the idea of either party hand-choosing a candidate for the people of a state is appalling and should alarm anyone who believes in fairness of our elections.

But this is very similar to what Clinton did to Sanders - what the DNC allowed to happen.

They can't "hand pick" a candidate. If Moore wants to continue running, there is nothing they can do. And they also could not stop multiple would be write in candidates. However right in campaigns tend to be expensive (you need to let everyone know to vote for you, you won't get ANY votes from people seeing your name on the ballot) and they can decide whom, if any, to contribute party funds to.

What reform would prevent a party from deciding what to do with its funds?

Seems McConnell says he can.