WWTBAM Bored

Perhaps this extremely well sourced and well researched story from the Washington Post will persuade Alabama voters (particularly "values" voters) to take a closer look at the December special election for the United States Senate. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Perhaps this extremely well sourced and well researched story from the Washington Post will persuade Alabama voters (particularly "values" voters) to take a closer look at the December special election for the United States Senate. --Bob

Page Not Found

We're unable to locate the page you requested.

Typical Democratic platform.

Here's real Republican values

McConnell calls on Moore to step aside if report on relations with teenagers is true

Did any Democratic leadership call for Bill Clinton to step aside when allegations, much fresher ones than those here, were made?

And yet Bobbie still voted for, and to this day, supports Bill Clinton....idolizes Bill Clinton.

I missed any allegations of an adult Bill Clinton having relations with women under the legal age of consent.

BackInTex wrote:Here's real Republican values

McConnell calls on Moore to step aside if report on relations with teenagers is true

Did any Democratic leadership call for Bill Clinton to step aside when allegations, much fresher ones than those here, were made?

Is Bill Clinton running for something and I missed the memo?

I'm glad to see that a lot of Congressional Republicans are speaking out, and that Governor Ivey has declined to endorse Moore. But the first question is what Alabama voters will do. Given their previous willingness to vote for Donny, I'm less hopeful than I'd like to be that this conduct is career-ending. (See also Vitter, David.)

If they do elect him, will the Senate decline to seat Moore? (Exclusion can be done by a majority of the Senate, whereas expulsion requires a two-thirds vote.) --Bob

ghostjmf wrote:I missed any allegations of an adult Bill Clinton having relations with women under the legal age of consent.

You must not see anything wrong with sexual assault, at least by Democrats.

Bob78164 wrote: But the first question is what Alabama voters will do

Probably not the same thing you did, vote for an accused sexual predator.

That's all we have here, and less credible than the accusations made against your hero, that you went ahead and voted for.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: But the first question is what Alabama voters will do

Probably not the same thing you did, vote for an accused sexual predator.

That's all we have here, and less credible than the accusations made against your hero, that you went ahead and voted for.

The details in the Post story make the charges extremely credible. From the paper's work to confirm the time and place of a 38-year-old court hearing and the location of Moore's office at the time, to the fact that none of the four women in the story came forward on their own, to a host of other facts laid out in excruciating detail in the story, the paper has laid out a quite compelling case that these events actually happened. Admittedly, it's not quite as good as having the candidate himself on tape bragging about his ability to get away with grabbing women by the genitals. But it's not that far removed.

And if these allegations are false, I'm sure that Moore will file a slander lawsuit against the women any time now. (I'm not holding my breath.) Because if all four of them, and their friends, are lying, he surely has the mother of all defamation suits. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Admittedly, it's not quite as good as having the candidate himself on tape bragging about his ability to get away with grabbing women by the genitals.

Repeating (and adjusting) this lie so many times is not making it true.

He said, "they let you." He never claimed that he had done it, nor bragged that he had gotten away with it.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Admittedly, it's not quite as good as having the candidate himself on tape bragging about his ability to get away with grabbing women by the genitals.

Repeating (and adjusting) this lie so many times is not making it true.

He said, "they let you." He never claimed that he had done it, nor bragged that he had gotten away with it.

I guess we need to go back to the tape.



--Bob

There's another real problem if Roy Moore steps aside -- he can't be replaced on the ballot per Alabama law.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/1 ... ult-widget

He'll stay on the ballot, and likely get elected.

Bob78164 wrote: And if these allegations are false, I'm sure that Moore will file a slander lawsuit against the women any time now. (I'm not holding my breath.) Because if all four of them, and their friends, are lying, he surely has the mother of all defamation suits. --Bob

Did I miss the defamation suit brought by Clinton against Jones, Broaddrick, and Willey? I didn't miss the $850,000 Bill paid to Jones.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:There's another real problem if Roy Moore steps aside -- he can't be replaced on the ballot per Alabama law.

Yes, the timing of the allegations is purely coincidental.

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Admittedly, it's not quite as good as having the candidate himself on tape bragging about his ability to get away with grabbing women by the genitals.

Repeating (and adjusting) this lie so many times is not making it true.

He said, "they let you." He never claimed that he had done it, nor bragged that he had gotten away with it.

I guess we need to go back to the tape.

Try to put aside your post-election insanity and listen to it yourself for once. He said (and didn't say) exactly what I said he did. I got that from the tape. I don't know what you are hearing, but it's not there in reality.

BackInTex wrote: Did I miss the defamation suit brought by Clinton against Jones, Broaddrick, and Willey? I didn't miss the $850,000 Bill paid to Jones.

The chances of the President of the United States, whether Clinton, Trump, or anyone successfully bringing a defamation suit against a private individual are virtually non-existent. As for the settlement, the best way to read that would be a strategic movie in preparation for his impeachment proceedings.

BackInTex wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:There's another real problem if Roy Moore steps aside -- he can't be replaced on the ballot per Alabama law.

Yes, the timing of the allegations is purely coincidental.

So, what should the newspaper do, wait until after the election is over?

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:There's another real problem if Roy Moore steps aside -- he can't be replaced on the ballot per Alabama law.

Yes, the timing of the allegations is purely coincidental.

So, what should the newspaper do, wait until after the election is over?

If you haven't done so already, read the story in its entirety. The sourcing and level of detail are utterly convincing.

This happened. Notwithstanding BiT's innuendo, I'm pretty confident that the Washington Post published as soon as they could consistent with responsible journalism, but whether I'm right about that or not, it happened, and that should be all that matters. The only question now is what will the Alabama electorate do about it? We'll learn the answer to that question in about a month. --Bob

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Perhaps this extremely well sourced and well researched story from the Washington Post will persuade Alabama voters (particularly "values" voters) to take a closer look at the December special election for the United States Senate. --Bob

Page Not Found

We're unable to locate the page you requested.

Typical Democratic platform.

I've fixed the link. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: it happened, and that should be all that matters. Bob

They've already had a trial?! That was quick.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Yes, the timing of the allegations is purely coincidental.

So, what should the newspaper do, wait until after the election is over?

This allegedly happened in early 1979...over 14,000 days before Sept. 27th, the cutoff for names on the ballot. This guy has been a thorn in the liberals for many many years. The research had likely been done and ready for a while.

It gets reported 43 day past the cutoff. Bobbie may be that gullible but I'm not.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Yes, the timing of the allegations is purely coincidental.

So, what should the newspaper do, wait until after the election is over?

This allegedly happened in early 1979...over 14,000 days before Sept. 27th, the cutoff for names on the ballot. This guy has been a thorn in the liberals for many many years. The research had likely been done and ready for a while.

It gets reported 43 day past the cutoff. Bobbie may be that gullible but I'm not.

And the reason that none of Moore's primary opponents broke the story, if the information was so readily available?

Read the story. The Post discusses the efforts it required to track the story down. The recent change in national attitude (as exemplified by the fate suffered by Roger Ailes and then Harvey Weinstein) may have encouraged previously unwilling women to step forward now.

And as for him being a thorn in the side of liberals, it was Republicans who, twice, threw him off the Alabama Supreme Court for being unwilling to follow the Constitution. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:
Read the story. The Post discusses the efforts it required to track the story down. The recent change in national attitude (as exemplified by the fate suffered by Roger Ailes and then Harvey Weinstein) may have encouraged previously unwilling women to step forward now.

The recent sex cases are informative. The first accuser against Kevin Spacey waited 30 years to go public, but once he did, the floodgates opened. Nobody wants to go first. But there are two things these stories show.

1) People in the business know. They may not have proof but they know. Even if Harvey and Kevin kept up a good front with the public, people in Hollywood knew about them, which is one reason the condemnations came fast and furious when it finally got out in the open. So if Moore did this, people in Alabama politics know about it.

2) Once someone comes forward, if there's something to it, more people do. I'd be surprised if these are the only four women who go on record now. If they are, then there may be something to the claim that this is a hatchet job.

Bob78164 wrote:And the reason that none of Moore's primary opponents broke the story, if the information was so readily available?

Did I say it was readily available? No. The Post is not in the back pocket of his primary opponents. They would not make this research available until he was the party's candidate. Just like all the stuff, mostly fake stuff paid for by the Democratic Party, that came out about Trump after he secured the Republican nomination. That information was in the media's hands before, but they thought they could secure a victory for Hillary if 1) Trump got the nomination over more qualified Republican candidates and 2) they could trash Trump with fake made up lies. Today is the 1 year anniversary of them being proven wrong, a great day by the way. And nothing has changed.

BiT: Can't do quotes on this tablet.

So where did I say "I don't see anything wrong with sexual assault (or any other kind of assault, for that matter)"?

I asked you for evidence Bill Clinton had assaulted a minor-aged child, which is what Roy Moore is accused of.

I'm not talking consensual relations, however tacky, between adults.