Let's get one thing straight about Roy Moore

[hadit]

He may win the popular vote in Alabama, but the jury will be the entire senate. 42 R's have already said he should not continue his pursuit for the seat, and most D's will vote against his acceptance too.

There is one thing a Senator or Member of the H. puts before their party, and it is their job.

If the Senate refuses to seat him we are no longer a democratic Republic. They cannot usurp the people's vote. As loathesome asI judge the Judge to be, that doesn’t mean iI️ Support authoritarianism in the Senate.

Of course they can. It is written in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

My point is purely political. Go down this path and we are essentially going nuclear. You are correct that the Congress can expel a member but one that hasn’t yet served seems to be pretty spectacularly un American. Just my opinion.

I understand your point, Dim Bulb; it is very concerning when the Senate or any other elected body reverses the democratic will of the people. However, in this case, I think it is Moore who has gone "nuclear" by putting his ambitions and pride above the needs of his party and the reputation of the Legislature. It seems pretty evident that SOMETHING untoward happened and the decent thing to do would be step aside before it smears the entire Republican score card and the Senate as a whole. The stink and foment of one bad apple stains the entire bushel.

If the people of Alabama say....We want a known child molester to represent us

Who is the Senate to say No?

If the people of Alabama say let's not destroy a man's career until we know for sure he's done something worthy of it, who is anyone else to say no?

 

[jc456]

He may win the popular vote in Alabama, but the jury will be the entire senate. 42 R's have already said he should not continue his pursuit for the seat, and most D's will vote against his acceptance too.

There is one thing a Senator or Member of the H. puts before their party, and it is their job.

If the Senate refuses to seat him we are no longer a democratic Republic. They cannot usurp the people's vote. As loathesome asI judge the Judge to be, that doesn’t mean iI️ Support authoritarianism in the Senate.

Of course they can. It is written in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

My point is purely political. Go down this path and we are essentially going nuclear. You are correct that the Congress can expel a member but one that hasn’t yet served seems to be pretty spectacularly un American. Just my opinion.

I understand your point, Dim Bulb; it is very concerning when the Senate or any other elected body reverses the democratic will of the people. However, in this case, I think it is Moore who has gone "nuclear" by putting his ambitions and pride above the needs of his party and the reputation of the Legislature. It seems pretty evident that SOMETHING untoward happened and the decent thing to do would be step aside before it smears the entire Republican score card and the Senate as a whole. The stink and foment of one bad apple stains the entire bushel.

I think those in government need to set a standard and hold all officials to it. We've had decades of looking the other way when "one of our own" gets caught in sexual impropriety. JFK was a notorious womanizer, but that was ignored. Bill Clinton had multiple allegations of harassment and even rape, but was celebrated. Heck, his wife, who later claimed that such women should be heard and believed, took an active role in destroying his accusers. Barney Frank's boyfriend ran a brothel out of Frank's home and he suffered no consequences.

Its no wonder that Moore's supporters get frustrated at the manufactured outrage about him when they see politicians routinely excused and even celebrated for or in spite of sexual impropriety. All should be held to the same standard or none should.

If allegations are really enough to derail a political career, as some out here are saying, Washington would be a very lightly populated city.

Well basically, if you don't need evidence to support a claim of sexual encounters, it's a fking open market on everyone. hmmmmmmmm

 

[jc456]

and his jury is the voters. so we will see how they vote.

He may win the popular vote in Alabama, but the jury will be the entire senate. 42 R's have already said he should not continue his pursuit for the seat, and most D's will vote against his acceptance too.

There is one thing a Senator or Member of the H. puts before their party, and it is their job.

If the Senate refuses to seat him we are no longer a democratic Republic. They cannot usurp the people's vote. As loathesome asI judge the Judge to be, that doesn’t mean iI️ Support authoritarianism in the Senate.

Of course they can. It is written in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

My point is purely political. Go down this path and we are essentially going nuclear. You are correct that the Congress can expel a member but one that hasn’t yet served seems to be pretty spectacularly un American. Just my opinion.

I understand your point, Dim Bulb; it is very concerning when the Senate or any other elected body reverses the democratic will of the people. However, in this case, I think it is Moore who has gone "nuclear" by putting his ambitions and pride above the needs of his party and the reputation of the Legislature. It seems pretty evident that SOMETHING untoward happened and the decent thing to do would be step aside before it smears the entire Republican score card and the Senate as a whole. The stink and foment of one bad apple stains the entire bushel.

whoa wait, are you saying Roy should choose party over country and constituents? weren't you one of the ones stating that isn't acceptable? which is it? still unclear what an accusation from almost 40 years ago has to do with governing today. hmmmm me thinks you all are crazy indignant s

 

[jc456]

Poor poor Roy

His poqliqqtqqical career is collapsing

It's not that different from being banned from the Gadsden Mall, other than there being no Sean Hannity at the Mall..

obsession like yours isn't healthy.

 

[Marion Morrison]

then why aren't you demanding this scum get lost? if it were a dem you would be.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED....A CRIME NEEDS TO BE PROVN TO HAVE HAPPENED.

Snowflakes....meh....

But in this case the trial is an election. There will be no court case. As you said above, let the people decide in Alabama. (Unless that paraphrasing makes me a liar a snowflake or stupid).

correct, meaning the people get to decide. just like in a court room. what is it you're afraid of?

no one is afraid... we're disgusted by the loons who think sexual predators are fine and dandy.

and I don't seem to recall the deplorables saying wait til Anthony weiner was convicted or wait for harvery Weinberg to be convicted.

you're suck hacks.

Thus saith the hackiest sack if ever there were dudes that gather in circles playing Hackie Sack.

 

[jillian]

then why aren't you demanding this scum get lost? if it were a dem you would be.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED....A CRIME NEEDS TO BE PROVN TO HAVE HAPPENED.

Snowflakes....meh....

But in this case the trial is an election. There will be no court case. As you said above, let the people decide in Alabama. (Unless that paraphrasing makes me a liar a snowflake or stupid).

correct, meaning the people get to decide. just like in a court room. what is it you're afraid of?

no one is afraid... we're disgusted by the loons who think sexual predators are fine and dandy.

and I don't seem to recall the deplorables saying wait til Anthony weiner was convicted or wait for harvery Weinberg to be convicted.

you're suck hacks.

Thus saith the hackiest sack if ever there were dudes that gather in circles playing Hackie Sack.

again, orange sociopathic sucking losers are funny.

 

[jc456]

then why aren't you demanding this scum get lost? if it were a dem you would be.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED....A CRIME NEEDS TO BE PROVN TO HAVE HAPPENED.

Snowflakes....meh....

But in this case the trial is an election. There will be no court case. As you said above, let the people decide in Alabama. (Unless that paraphrasing makes me a liar a snowflake or stupid).

correct, meaning the people get to decide. just like in a court room. what is it you're afraid of?

no one is afraid... we're disgusted by the loons who think sexual predators are fine and dandy.

and I don't seem to recall the deplorables saying wait til Anthony weiner was convicted or wait for harvery Weinberg to be convicted.

you're suck hacks.

those two individuals were proven guilty using evidence. I'm still waiting for yours for Roy.

 

[jc456]

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED....A CRIME NEEDS TO BE PROVN TO HAVE HAPPENED.

Snowflakes....meh....

But in this case the trial is an election. There will be no court case. As you said above, let the people decide in Alabama. (Unless that paraphrasing makes me a liar a snowflake or stupid).

correct, meaning the people get to decide. just like in a court room. what is it you're afraid of?

no one is afraid... we're disgusted by the loons who think sexual predators are fine and dandy.

and I don't seem to recall the deplorables saying wait til Anthony weiner was convicted or wait for harvery Weinberg to be convicted.

you're suck hacks.

Thus saith the hackiest sack if ever there were dudes that gather in circles playing Hackie Sack.

again, orange sociopathic sucking losers are funny.

saith the butthurt hitlery loser.

 

[Marion Morrison]

But in this case the trial is an election. There will be no court case. As you said above, let the people decide in Alabama. (Unless that paraphrasing makes me a liar a snowflake or stupid).

correct, meaning the people get to decide. just like in a court room. what is it you're afraid of?

no one is afraid... we're disgusted by the loons who think sexual predators are fine and dandy.

and I don't seem to recall the deplorables saying wait til Anthony weiner was convicted or wait for harvery Weinberg to be convicted.

you're suck hacks.

Thus saith the hackiest sack if ever there were dudes that gather in circles playing Hackie Sack.

again, orange sociopathic sucking losers are funny.

saith the butthurt hitlery loser.

Over a year later, and still

Suck it up, buttercup, he is your president. Where do we go from here?

I doubt he'll do something like release 5 terrorist leaders from Guantanamo in exchange for a traitor. That makes me feel kinda warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[hadit]

If the Senate refuses to seat him we are no longer a democratic Republic. They cannot usurp the people's vote. As loathesome asI judge the Judge to be, that doesn’t mean iI️ Support authoritarianism in the Senate.

Of course they can. It is written in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

My point is purely political. Go down this path and we are essentially going nuclear. You are correct that the Congress can expel a member but one that hasn’t yet served seems to be pretty spectacularly un American. Just my opinion.

I understand your point, Dim Bulb; it is very concerning when the Senate or any other elected body reverses the democratic will of the people. However, in this case, I think it is Moore who has gone "nuclear" by putting his ambitions and pride above the needs of his party and the reputation of the Legislature. It seems pretty evident that SOMETHING untoward happened and the decent thing to do would be step aside before it smears the entire Republican score card and the Senate as a whole. The stink and foment of one bad apple stains the entire bushel.

I think those in government need to set a standard and hold all officials to it. We've had decades of looking the other way when "one of our own" gets caught in sexual impropriety. JFK was a notorious womanizer, but that was ignored. Bill Clinton had multiple allegations of harassment and even rape, but was celebrated. Heck, his wife, who later claimed that such women should be heard and believed, took an active role in destroying his accusers. Barney Frank's boyfriend ran a brothel out of Frank's home and he suffered no consequences.

Its no wonder that Moore's supporters get frustrated at the manufactured outrage about him when they see politicians routinely excused and even celebrated for or in spite of sexual impropriety. All should be held to the same standard or none should.

If allegations are really enough to derail a political career, as some out here are saying, Washington would be a very lightly populated city.

Well basically, if you don't need evidence to support a claim of sexual encounters, it's a fking open market on everyone. hmmmmmmmm

That's my point in a nutshell. Well said. The timing of this whole thing, close to the election so as to be very difficult to defend, makes it fishy.

 

[jc456]

Of course they can. It is written in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

My point is purely political. Go down this path and we are essentially going nuclear. You are correct that the Congress can expel a member but one that hasn’t yet served seems to be pretty spectacularly un American. Just my opinion.

I understand your point, Dim Bulb; it is very concerning when the Senate or any other elected body reverses the democratic will of the people. However, in this case, I think it is Moore who has gone "nuclear" by putting his ambitions and pride above the needs of his party and the reputation of the Legislature. It seems pretty evident that SOMETHING untoward happened and the decent thing to do would be step aside before it smears the entire Republican score card and the Senate as a whole. The stink and foment of one bad apple stains the entire bushel.

I think those in government need to set a standard and hold all officials to it. We've had decades of looking the other way when "one of our own" gets caught in sexual impropriety. JFK was a notorious womanizer, but that was ignored. Bill Clinton had multiple allegations of harassment and even rape, but was celebrated. Heck, his wife, who later claimed that such women should be heard and believed, took an active role in destroying his accusers. Barney Frank's boyfriend ran a brothel out of Frank's home and he suffered no consequences.

Its no wonder that Moore's supporters get frustrated at the manufactured outrage about him when they see politicians routinely excused and even celebrated for or in spite of sexual impropriety. All should be held to the same standard or none should.

If allegations are really enough to derail a political career, as some out here are saying, Washington would be a very lightly populated city.

Well basically, if you don't need evidence to support a claim of sexual encounters, it's a fking open market on everyone. hmmmmmmmm

That's my point in a nutshell. Well said. The timing of this whole thing, close to the election so as to be very difficult to defend, makes it fishy.

my whole thing is why would a reporter at the WAPO have a need to go after Roy Moore in Alabama? without any names? No accusations, nothing. tells me all I need about it being faked. truly angry individuals seek out reporters, not the other way around.

 

[hadit]

He may win the popular vote in Alabama, but the jury will be the entire senate. 42 R's have already said he should not continue his pursuit for the seat, and most D's will vote against his acceptance too.

There is one thing a Senator or Member of the H. puts before their party, and it is their job.

If the Senate refuses to seat him we are no longer a democratic Republic. They cannot usurp the people's vote. As loathesome asI judge the Judge to be, that doesn’t mean iI️ Support authoritarianism in the Senate.

Of course they can. It is written in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

My point is purely political. Go down this path and we are essentially going nuclear. You are correct that the Congress can expel a member but one that hasn’t yet served seems to be pretty spectacularly un American. Just my opinion.

I understand your point, Dim Bulb; it is very concerning when the Senate or any other elected body reverses the democratic will of the people. However, in this case, I think it is Moore who has gone "nuclear" by putting his ambitions and pride above the needs of his party and the reputation of the Legislature. It seems pretty evident that SOMETHING untoward happened and the decent thing to do would be step aside before it smears the entire Republican score card and the Senate as a whole. The stink and foment of one bad apple stains the entire bushel.

whoa wait, are you saying Roy should choose party over country and constituents? weren't you one of the ones stating that isn't acceptable? which is it? still unclear what an accusation from almost 40 years ago has to do with governing today. hmmmm me thinks you all are crazy indignant s

How many times did we hear that the accusations of sexual harrassment and rape against Bill Clinton were so old they were irrelevant, that they had nothing to do with his ability to govern, that it was all just his private sex life and we should just butt out?

This is why Moore's supporters are frustrated. They see politicians like Clinton and Barney Frank (had a brothel run out of his home) routinely not only get away with sexual impropriety, but be celebrated, but Moore is supposed to crawl away in shame because of allegations.

Either all should be held to a standard or none should.

 

[hadit]

My point is purely political. Go down this path and we are essentially going nuclear. You are correct that the Congress can expel a member but one that hasn’t yet served seems to be pretty spectacularly un American. Just my opinion.

I understand your point, Dim Bulb; it is very concerning when the Senate or any other elected body reverses the democratic will of the people. However, in this case, I think it is Moore who has gone "nuclear" by putting his ambitions and pride above the needs of his party and the reputation of the Legislature. It seems pretty evident that SOMETHING untoward happened and the decent thing to do would be step aside before it smears the entire Republican score card and the Senate as a whole. The stink and foment of one bad apple stains the entire bushel.

I think those in government need to set a standard and hold all officials to it. We've had decades of looking the other way when "one of our own" gets caught in sexual impropriety. JFK was a notorious womanizer, but that was ignored. Bill Clinton had multiple allegations of harassment and even rape, but was celebrated. Heck, his wife, who later claimed that such women should be heard and believed, took an active role in destroying his accusers. Barney Frank's boyfriend ran a brothel out of Frank's home and he suffered no consequences.

Its no wonder that Moore's supporters get frustrated at the manufactured outrage about him when they see politicians routinely excused and even celebrated for or in spite of sexual impropriety. All should be held to the same standard or none should.

If allegations are really enough to derail a political career, as some out here are saying, Washington would be a very lightly populated city.

Well basically, if you don't need evidence to support a claim of sexual encounters, it's a fking open market on everyone. hmmmmmmmm

That's my point in a nutshell. Well said. The timing of this whole thing, close to the election so as to be very difficult to defend, makes it fishy.

my whole thing is why would a reporter at the WAPO have a need to go after Roy Moore in Alabama? without any names? No accusations, nothing. tells me all I need about it being faked. truly angry individuals seek out reporters, not the other way around.

Yes, this certainly looks like a fishing expedition.

 

[rightwinger]

If the Senate refuses to seat him we are no longer a democratic Republic. They cannot usurp the people's vote. As loathesome asI judge the Judge to be, that doesn’t mean iI️ Support authoritarianism in the Senate.

Of course they can. It is written in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

My point is purely political. Go down this path and we are essentially going nuclear. You are correct that the Congress can expel a member but one that hasn’t yet served seems to be pretty spectacularly un American. Just my opinion.

I understand your point, Dim Bulb; it is very concerning when the Senate or any other elected body reverses the democratic will of the people. However, in this case, I think it is Moore who has gone "nuclear" by putting his ambitions and pride above the needs of his party and the reputation of the Legislature. It seems pretty evident that SOMETHING untoward happened and the decent thing to do would be step aside before it smears the entire Republican score card and the Senate as a whole. The stink and foment of one bad apple stains the entire bushel.

whoa wait, are you saying Roy should choose party over country and constituents? weren't you one of the ones stating that isn't acceptable? which is it? still unclear what an accusation from almost 40 years ago has to do with governing today. hmmmm me thinks you all are crazy indignant s

How many times did we hear that the accusations of sexual harrassment and rape against Bill Clinton were so old they were irrelevant, that they had nothing to do with his ability to govern, that it was all just his private sex life and we should just butt out?

This is why Moore's supporters are frustrated. They see politicians like Clinton and Barney Frank (had a brothel run out of his home) routinely not only get away with sexual impropriety, but be celebrated, but Moore is supposed to crawl away in shame because of allegations.

Either all should be held to a standard or none should.

Moore is horn dogging young girls

Different than some guy trying to get laid in a bar

 

[rightwinger]

I understand your point, Dim Bulb; it is very concerning when the Senate or any other elected body reverses the democratic will of the people. However, in this case, I think it is Moore who has gone "nuclear" by putting his ambitions and pride above the needs of his party and the reputation of the Legislature. It seems pretty evident that SOMETHING untoward happened and the decent thing to do would be step aside before it smears the entire Republican score card and the Senate as a whole. The stink and foment of one bad apple stains the entire bushel.

I think those in government need to set a standard and hold all officials to it. We've had decades of looking the other way when "one of our own" gets caught in sexual impropriety. JFK was a notorious womanizer, but that was ignored. Bill Clinton had multiple allegations of harassment and even rape, but was celebrated. Heck, his wife, who later claimed that such women should be heard and believed, took an active role in destroying his accusers. Barney Frank's boyfriend ran a brothel out of Frank's home and he suffered no consequences.

Its no wonder that Moore's supporters get frustrated at the manufactured outrage about him when they see politicians routinely excused and even celebrated for or in spite of sexual impropriety. All should be held to the same standard or none should.

If allegations are really enough to derail a political career, as some out here are saying, Washington would be a very lightly populated city.

Well basically, if you don't need evidence to support a claim of sexual encounters, it's a fking open market on everyone. hmmmmmmmm

That's my point in a nutshell. Well said. The timing of this whole thing, close to the election so as to be very difficult to defend, makes it fishy.

my whole thing is why would a reporter at the WAPO have a need to go after Roy Moore in Alabama? without any names? No accusations, nothing. tells me all I need about it being faked. truly angry individuals seek out reporters, not the other way around.

Yes, this certainly looks like a fishing expedition.

Looks like they caught one

 

[boedicca]

My point is purely political. Go down this path and we are essentially going nuclear. You are correct that the Congress can expel a member but one that hasn’t yet served seems to be pretty spectacularly un American. Just my opinion.

I understand your point, Dim Bulb; it is very concerning when the Senate or any other elected body reverses the democratic will of the people. However, in this case, I think it is Moore who has gone "nuclear" by putting his ambitions and pride above the needs of his party and the reputation of the Legislature. It seems pretty evident that SOMETHING untoward happened and the decent thing to do would be step aside before it smears the entire Republican score card and the Senate as a whole. The stink and foment of one bad apple stains the entire bushel.

I think those in government need to set a standard and hold all officials to it. We've had decades of looking the other way when "one of our own" gets caught in sexual impropriety. JFK was a notorious womanizer, but that was ignored. Bill Clinton had multiple allegations of harassment and even rape, but was celebrated. Heck, his wife, who later claimed that such women should be heard and believed, took an active role in destroying his accusers. Barney Frank's boyfriend ran a brothel out of Frank's home and he suffered no consequences.

Its no wonder that Moore's supporters get frustrated at the manufactured outrage about him when they see politicians routinely excused and even celebrated for or in spite of sexual impropriety. All should be held to the same standard or none should.

If allegations are really enough to derail a political career, as some out here are saying, Washington would be a very lightly populated city.

Well basically, if you don't need evidence to support a claim of sexual encounters, it's a fking open market on everyone. hmmmmmmmm

That's my point in a nutshell. Well said. The timing of this whole thing, close to the election so as to be very difficult to defend, makes it fishy.

my whole thing is why would a reporter at the WAPO have a need to go after Roy Moore in Alabama? without any names? No accusations, nothing. tells me all I need about it being faked. truly angry individuals seek out reporters, not the other way around.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy: Politics.

Moore is running for a Senate seat. The Dems want that seat in order to shift the balance of power. WAPO is a highly partisan rag owned by Bezos, who is a Dem Ally.

 

[jc456]

I understand your point, Dim Bulb; it is very concerning when the Senate or any other elected body reverses the democratic will of the people. However, in this case, I think it is Moore who has gone "nuclear" by putting his ambitions and pride above the needs of his party and the reputation of the Legislature. It seems pretty evident that SOMETHING untoward happened and the decent thing to do would be step aside before it smears the entire Republican score card and the Senate as a whole. The stink and foment of one bad apple stains the entire bushel.

I think those in government need to set a standard and hold all officials to it. We've had decades of looking the other way when "one of our own" gets caught in sexual impropriety. JFK was a notorious womanizer, but that was ignored. Bill Clinton had multiple allegations of harassment and even rape, but was celebrated. Heck, his wife, who later claimed that such women should be heard and believed, took an active role in destroying his accusers. Barney Frank's boyfriend ran a brothel out of Frank's home and he suffered no consequences.

Its no wonder that Moore's supporters get frustrated at the manufactured outrage about him when they see politicians routinely excused and even celebrated for or in spite of sexual impropriety. All should be held to the same standard or none should.

If allegations are really enough to derail a political career, as some out here are saying, Washington would be a very lightly populated city.

Well basically, if you don't need evidence to support a claim of sexual encounters, it's a fking open market on everyone. hmmmmmmmm

That's my point in a nutshell. Well said. The timing of this whole thing, close to the election so as to be very difficult to defend, makes it fishy.

my whole thing is why would a reporter at the WAPO have a need to go after Roy Moore in Alabama? without any names? No accusations, nothing. tells me all I need about it being faked. truly angry individuals seek out reporters, not the other way around.

Yes, this certainly looks like a fishing expedition.

If the allegations are indeed false, him backing off implies his guilt. So he should not back out or give into bullishit

 

[hadit]

Of course they can. It is written in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

My point is purely political. Go down this path and we are essentially going nuclear. You are correct that the Congress can expel a member but one that hasn’t yet served seems to be pretty spectacularly un American. Just my opinion.

I understand your point, Dim Bulb; it is very concerning when the Senate or any other elected body reverses the democratic will of the people. However, in this case, I think it is Moore who has gone "nuclear" by putting his ambitions and pride above the needs of his party and the reputation of the Legislature. It seems pretty evident that SOMETHING untoward happened and the decent thing to do would be step aside before it smears the entire Republican score card and the Senate as a whole. The stink and foment of one bad apple stains the entire bushel.

whoa wait, are you saying Roy should choose party over country and constituents? weren't you one of the ones stating that isn't acceptable? which is it? still unclear what an accusation from almost 40 years ago has to do with governing today. hmmmm me thinks you all are crazy indignant s

How many times did we hear that the accusations of sexual harrassment and rape against Bill Clinton were so old they were irrelevant, that they had nothing to do with his ability to govern, that it was all just his private sex life and we should just butt out?

This is why Moore's supporters are frustrated. They see politicians like Clinton and Barney Frank (had a brothel run out of his home) routinely not only get away with sexual impropriety, but be celebrated, but Moore is supposed to crawl away in shame because of allegations.

Either all should be held to a standard or none should.

Moore is horn dogging young girls

Different than some guy trying to get laid in a bar

How is trying to score in a bar the same as a sitting president being accused of rape or a Senator allowing a brothel to be run in his home? If allegations alone are the new standard, let's hold all of them to it.

 

[hadit]

I think those in government need to set a standard and hold all officials to it. We've had decades of looking the other way when "one of our own" gets caught in sexual impropriety. JFK was a notorious womanizer, but that was ignored. Bill Clinton had multiple allegations of harassment and even rape, but was celebrated. Heck, his wife, who later claimed that such women should be heard and believed, took an active role in destroying his accusers. Barney Frank's boyfriend ran a brothel out of Frank's home and he suffered no consequences.

Its no wonder that Moore's supporters get frustrated at the manufactured outrage about him when they see politicians routinely excused and even celebrated for or in spite of sexual impropriety. All should be held to the same standard or none should.

If allegations are really enough to derail a political career, as some out here are saying, Washington would be a very lightly populated city.

Well basically, if you don't need evidence to support a claim of sexual encounters, it's a fking open market on everyone. hmmmmmmmm

That's my point in a nutshell. Well said. The timing of this whole thing, close to the election so as to be very difficult to defend, makes it fishy.

my whole thing is why would a reporter at the WAPO have a need to go after Roy Moore in Alabama? without any names? No accusations, nothing. tells me all I need about it being faked. truly angry individuals seek out reporters, not the other way around.

Yes, this certainly looks like a fishing expedition.

Looks like they caught one

Let's get people under oath and find out.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Damn straight I call that weak. What, does Mike Pence go around raping every woman who's not his wife, and therefore they're banned from the table? How is that NOT weak?

That's monumentally stupid. He's not doing it because he doesn't trust himself in those situations, he's doing it to prevent degenerate morons from having any more made up crap to throw, and to honor his commitment to his wife. She'll never have to read a hit piece in the paper and ask him what the heck he was doing at dinner with that women who is now getting paid six figures to spout off about it. You're not weak if you refuse to get in the snake pit.

If you're married to an insecure freak who's going to grill you about every meal, you're trapped in a failed relationship.

So if that's what you're saying as a rationale, yeah maybe you have a point. I personally don't know him -- but neither do you. I do however know what the social norms are, and this is way abnormal.

You know, if Bubba Clinton had that kind of common sense, he could have avoided a lot of problems. Obviously, he didn't.

When your argument fails ---- change the subject altogether.
You lose.

But just to feed the red herring momentarily ---- I'm not aware of anyone named "Bubba", whatever that means, getting in hot water for who he sat down to dinner with.

You lose twice.

Wow, touchy little freak, aren't you? Maybe a little guilty?

Hey I ain't the one who just painted his own point into a corner, and now can't find a way out, am I "Bubba"?

Sucks to be you, loser.

Pence obviously values his wife, his marriage, and his integrity. Naturally, that makes him a target for hateful little freaks. You should remember Bubba, his wife just ran for president after trashing a bunch of women who accused him of sexual harassment and rape. You know, the stuff that Moore is supposed to step aside for because he's being accused of doing. No corners around here. Are you sure you're not looking in a mirror?

President Bill Clinton is not an elected official, nor is he relevant to the topic. His victims, if you want to believe they were victims, were all adults. And, neither Clinton has been convicted of any criminal activity to date. Millions of dollars have been spent by the Republican Party investigating them, to no avail.

The hypocrisy of you and other Clinton haters, Obama haters, and haters of every citizen who objects to the authoritarian regime currently running our country is despicable - defending a likely sexual predator is beyond belief even for a trumpanzee.