Is the RNC going to continue to help fund his campaign?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is dumbfounding that we are at the point where people are rationalizing a 30 year old sexually molesting/touching a 14 year old girl.

Weinsten is a pig and he has no allegations of pedophilia.
Weiner is a pig, and he was texting, no allegations of touching.

But this is an Assistant DA who was luring and touching a 14 year old girl, and yet people are defending it.

Wake up.

You have absolutely no proof that this occurred besides the word of people who were approached by a newspaper who endorsed the accused opponent.

Why would so many people lie? Why would a 71 year old Republican mother lie?

How do you know she's a republican? Because she told the press?

Why did Brawley lie? Why did the UVA chick lie?

Is every woman who accuses a man a Tanya Brawley then in your mind?

You have to start out that way, yes. Otherwise, we are no better than a culture that beats a woman for being raped.

And this the reason you lost the last election. Because women are seriously friggn tired of not being believed at how often these sorts of sleazy scummy things happen to us every single day. Keep it up - it's good for our base.

Moore's defenders are ignoring the fact that legally, a 14 yo cannot consent to this.

And the guy talking about Joseph and Mary...Jesus Christ! What the hell is wrong with these people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, no blanket condemnation of Moore from the right?

Underaged girls aren't off limits?

Of course they are. Ask Anthony Weiner, Ed Murray, Jacob Schwartz, Robert Menendez, and of course - Jeffrey Epstein, just to name a few Democrats involved in underage sex scandals.

So, no blanket condemnation of all these men from the left?

JFC, I condemn ALL pediphiles and predators. Don't you? Or does it depend on their political affiliation? That's pretty crazy.

Of course. But it's always useful to remind Democrats of their own politicians' sex scandals. To hear you people talk about Republicans, one would think you guys are free of scandal. Right?

No. Humans are flawed, party aside. Plenty of democratic scumbags. Democrats, imo, don't compound their sins for the most part by also being hypocrites. They dont usually run on a platform of "family values" and "moral clarity" or whatever.

What is astonishing here (and with the Trump gross tapes) is that people are defending him, slandering the victim etc. I would have thought that you would rather be represented by a democrat than a pedophile but it's not the way the good people of Alabama seem to think.

Astonishing? No. Not in the era of Trump. He proved morality has no place in the GOP. Anything goes as long as it results in winning.

The girl was in 8th Grade. Moore plied a 14YO with alcohol. He allowed her to disrobe. He touched her inappropriately. He had her touch his penis. He was 32.

Nobody who knows him seems to doubt that this happened. They just think it’s no big deal because it wasn’t forcible rape. Depravity in action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stephen Colbert: Roy Moore's actions are so disgusting that voters will either remove him from the ballot or make him President.

Liberal voters did that with Clinton. Colbert must be confused.

Clinton molested a 14 year old???

Do you know for a fact that Moore did? Proof? Please provide photos, texts, etc.

Texts from 30 years ago?

30 independent corroborating witnesses attesting to Moore's pursuit of teenaged girls is enough evidence for me.

Exactly my point. We could prove Weiner did what he did. That might be enough evidence for YOU, but there are those of us who call into question that the newspaper breaking the story endorsed the opponent AND the fact that the paper was not approached, but instead did the approaching and investigating.

Why isn't a woman's testimony, backed up by her mother and friends, enough for you to believe?

And I would bet my house that if this woman had approached the paper first, you all would be saying "she's got an agenda!" and dismissing her BECAUSE she approached him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is dumbfounding that we are at the point where people are rationalizing a 30 year old sexually molesting/touching a 14 year old girl.

Weinsten is a pig and he has no allegations of pedophilia.
Weiner is a pig, and he was texting, no allegations of touching.

But this is an Assistant DA who was luring and touching a 14 year old girl, and yet people are defending it.

Wake up.

You have absolutely no proof that this occurred besides the word of people who were approached by a newspaper who endorsed the accused opponent.

Courts consider victim or eyewitness testimony to be evidence. True, the paper isn't a court and the witnesses here weren't under oath, but first-hand testimony is absolutely acceptable as evidence of a crime.

I would also bet that, if you or a member of your family were sexually assaulted and there were no text or photos, you would want the courts to believe them at their word.

Seriously. This is fucked up! You think no rape victim should get justice unless she snaps a selfie with the rapist?!?

Here's what I don't get. This is a thread about ROY MOORE's PEDOPHILIA. Anyone who wants to talk about anyone else's sex crimes should start a new thread. Weinstein, Weiner, Bill Clinton--they are completely unrelated to the topic of ROY MOORE's PENIS + a 14 YEAR OLD GIRL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stephen Colbert: Roy Moore's actions are so disgusting that voters will either remove him from the ballot or make him President.

Liberal voters did that with Clinton. Colbert must be confused.

Clinton molested a 14 year old???

Do you know for a fact that Moore did? Proof? Please provide photos, texts, etc.

Texts from 30 years ago?

30 independent corroborating witnesses attesting to Moore's pursuit of teenaged girls is enough evidence for me.

Exactly my point. We could prove Weiner did what he did. That might be enough evidence for YOU, but there are those of us who call into question that the newspaper breaking the story endorsed the opponent AND the fact that the paper was not approached, but instead did the approaching and investigating.

The fact that the paper did the investigating and tracked these women down make it more convincing. They didn't come out and accuse him on their own. What kind of evidence do you expect will exist beyond ALL the evidence the Post already dug up? 30 corroborating witnesses who were told of his actions long ago, proof that the mother and 14 year old were at the courthouse on the day the daughter said she met him, etc., multiple teenaged girls who did not know each other each with similar stories, etc.

What further "proof" would be sufficient for you? I'd be pretty suspicious of a text from 1982 personally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice to see different standards for Weinstein and Pig Moore. GOP values in action!

Yet another person who does not want to admit that Weinstein admitted guilt by checking himself into a sex clinic.

Yet another person willing to give the GOP a free pass on anything. All they need to do is deny, deny, deny. Keep up those values, folks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is dumbfounding that we are at the point where people are rationalizing a 30 year old sexually molesting/touching a 14 year old girl.

Weinsten is a pig and he has no allegations of pedophilia.
Weiner is a pig, and he was texting, no allegations of touching.

But this is an Assistant DA who was luring and touching a 14 year old girl, and yet people are defending it.

Wake up.

You have absolutely no proof that this occurred besides the word of people who were approached by a newspaper who endorsed the accused opponent.

Courts consider victim or eyewitness testimony to be evidence. True, the paper isn't a court and the witnesses here weren't under oath, but first-hand testimony is absolutely acceptable as evidence of a crime.

I would also bet that, if you or a member of your family were sexually assaulted and there were no text or photos, you would want the courts to believe them at their word.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is dumbfounding that we are at the point where people are rationalizing a 30 year old sexually molesting/touching a 14 year old girl.

Weinsten is a pig and he has no allegations of pedophilia.
Weiner is a pig, and he was texting, no allegations of touching.

But this is an Assistant DA who was luring and touching a 14 year old girl, and yet people are defending it.

Wake up.

You have absolutely no proof that this occurred besides the word of people who were approached by a newspaper who endorsed the accused opponent.

Courts consider victim or eyewitness testimony to be evidence. True, the paper isn't a court and the witnesses here weren't under oath, but first-hand testimony is absolutely acceptable as evidence of a crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is dumbfounding that we are at the point where people are rationalizing a 30 year old sexually molesting/touching a 14 year old girl.

Weinsten is a pig and he has no allegations of pedophilia.
Weiner is a pig, and he was texting, no allegations of touching.

But this is an Assistant DA who was luring and touching a 14 year old girl, and yet people are defending it.

Wake up.

You have absolutely no proof that this occurred besides the word of people who were approached by a newspaper who endorsed the accused opponent.

Why would so many people lie? Why would a 71 year old Republican mother lie?

How do you know she's a republican? Because she told the press?

Why did Brawley lie? Why did the UVA chick lie?

Is every woman who accuses a man a Tanya Brawley then in your mind?

You have to start out that way, yes. Otherwise, we are no better than a culture that beats a woman for being raped.

You're a pig. If any women liked you, you'd know just how many of us have been raped and assaulted and you would know what an atrocious dick you sound like when you approach CORROBORATED accounts of inappropriate sexual touching as if every victim is lying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stephen Colbert: Roy Moore's actions are so disgusting that voters will either remove him from the ballot or make him President.

Liberal voters did that with Clinton. Colbert must be confused.

Clinton molested a 14 year old???

Do you know for a fact that Moore did? Proof? Please provide photos, texts, etc.

Texts from 30 years ago?

30 independent corroborating witnesses attesting to Moore's pursuit of teenaged girls is enough evidence for me.

Exactly my point. We could prove Weiner did what he did. That might be enough evidence for YOU, but there are those of us who call into question that the newspaper breaking the story endorsed the opponent AND the fact that the paper was not approached, but instead did the approaching and investigating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, no blanket condemnation of Moore from the right?

Underaged girls aren't off limits?

Of course they are. Ask Anthony Weiner, Ed Murray, Jacob Schwartz, Robert Menendez, and of course - Jeffrey Epstein, just to name a few Democrats involved in underage sex scandals.

So, no blanket condemnation of all these men from the left?

JFC, I condemn ALL pediphiles and predators. Don't you? Or does it depend on their political affiliation? That's pretty crazy.

Of course. But it's always useful to remind Democrats of their own politicians' sex scandals. To hear you people talk about Republicans, one would think you guys are free of scandal. Right?

No. Humans are flawed, party aside. Plenty of democratic scumbags. Democrats, imo, don't compound their sins for the most part by also being hypocrites. They dont usually run on a platform of "family values" and "moral clarity" or whatever.

What is astonishing here (and with the Trump gross tapes) is that people are defending him, slandering the victim etc. I would have thought that you would rather be represented by a democrat than a pedophile but it's not the way the good people of Alabama seem to think.

We are defending the right to due process and speaking out against the press using their power to turn accusations into fact without due process.

Hey all, there is no point discussing this anymore. Seems like conservatives everywhere (DCUMer here, not just Alabama) will give their men a free pass to sexual assaults as long as there is no picture or tape to prove the act. No wonder they have elected a morally scumbag for their leader. What's the point of this debate when Alabama is going to elect Moore anyway. Conservatives admire the middle east kind of strong men moral values, as long as it is one of them does it. No woman should be believed when then they accuse a conservative leader, that is the message.

Lets move on.