If Roy Moore Isn't Rock Bottom for Republicans, What the Hell Is?

[Jacque67 7,328]

Sean Hannity breaking with Roy Moore: "For me, the judge has 24 hours. You must immediately and fully come up with a satisfactory explanation for your inconsistencies... You must remove any doubt. If you can't do this, then Judge Moore needs to get out of this race."

19 minutes ago

Brian Stelter

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

5 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

Sean Hannity breaking with Roy Moore: "For me, the judge has 24 hours. You must immediately and fully come up with a satisfactory explanation for your inconsistencies... You must remove any doubt. If you can't do this, then Judge Moore needs to get out of this race."

19 minutes ago

Brian Stelter

seems fair enough

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Still no proof.  Several women lined up to say Clinton raped them 

I never said it was proof. We aren't talking about a mounting court case where proof needs to be confirmed beyond a burden of doubt.

 

A reasonable person would look at what is mounting against him, compare it to his "word", and realize that whether we have proof or not there is enough there to clearly determine that he needs to withdraw.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

16 minutes ago, bcking said:

I never said it was proof. We aren't talking about a mounting court case where proof needs to be confirmed beyond a burden of doubt.

 

A reasonable person would look at what is mounting against him, compare it to his "word", and realize that whether we have proof or not there is enough there to clearly determine that he needs to withdraw.

I am a reasonable person and have said repeadtly I think he is guilty.

 

Do you think Clinton should have resigned when a list of women said he raped and assaulted them 

[Jacque67 7,328]

48 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

seems fair enough

Yeah, he's just worried about advertisers leaving him. Trenton R Garmon JD MA doesn't seem too smart thank goodness. Mispelled "it's" on first page of his letter.

 

The Simpsons:

 

Sorry we're late. Could we have the money now?

Marge: The answer… is no.

Fat Tony: I'm afraid I must insist. You see, my wife, she has been most vocal on the subject of the pretzel monies. "Where's the money? "When are you going to get the money?" "Why aren't you getting the money now?" And so on. So please, the money.

---

Fat Tony: You have 24 hours to give us our money. And to show you we're serious… you have 12 hours.

[Dashinka 24,871]

8 hours ago, bcking said:

I never said it was proof. We aren't talking about a mounting court case where proof needs to be confirmed beyond a burden of doubt.

 

A reasonable person would look at what is mounting against him, compare it to his "word", and realize that whether we have proof or not there is enough there to clearly determine that he needs to withdraw.

So all those folks that voted for Bill Clinton were unreasonable?  I agree.  As to Moore, I already stated at the very beginning he should step down, Bill Clinton should have done the same thing.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

So all those folks that voted for Bill Clinton were unreasonable?  I agree.  As to Moore, I already stated at the very beginning he should step down, Bill Clinton should have done the same thing.

It's been a long time for me...

 

What was known prior to the first Clinton campaign? What about the second?

[bcking 3,157]

In reality though...

 

Bringing up Clinton is only a sorry excuse at distraction. It is trying to argue that actions now can be justified, despite being morally wrong, because they mirror actions taken 20 years ago.

 

Whether we were right or wrong when electing Clinton has really no bearing on what we should do now. We can't just say "well because we elected someone with a history of sexual misconduct in the past, we should be justified in doing it again".

 

If you wanted to use that argument there is a far far more recent example you could use from just last November...

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

35 minutes ago, bcking said:

In reality though...

 

Bringing up Clinton is only a sorry excuse at distraction. It is trying to argue that actions now can be justified, despite being morally wrong, because they mirror actions taken 20 years ago.

 

Whether we were right or wrong when electing Clinton has really no bearing on what we should do now. We can't just say "well because we elected someone with a history of sexual misconduct in the past, we should be justified in doing it again".

 

If you wanted to use that argument there is a far far more recent example you could use from just last November...

From my unique vantage point in the middle of the road,  I can see only what a truly unbiased person can see.

 

Actually it's not. It points out the abject hypocrisy of all those leaders on the left who gave Clinton a free pass , when it was clear what he did. The majority of the right is condemning him as more info has come out.

 

I have condemned him from the very start and posted the first article here.

 

I am going to point our the hypocrisy of the Democrat party who fully supported Clinton and even nominated his enabler for President 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Nature Boy Flair

[bcking 3,157]

26 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

From my unique vantage point in the middle of the road,  I can see only what a truly unbiased person can see.

 

Actually it's not. It points out the abject hypocrisy of all those leaders on the left who gave Clinton a free pass , when it was clear what he did. The majority of the right is condemning him as more info has come out.

 

I have condemned him from the very start and posted the first article here.

 

I am going to point our the hypocrisy of the Democrat party who fully supported Clinton and even nominated his enabler for President 

  (You're always good for a laugh)

 

Alright great, you can talk about what leaders did 20 years ago. We could also have a discussion about whether or not Clinton (Bill) would have been elected in 2016, but that would just be speculation and somewhat pointless.

 

I'd rather talk about what leaders are doing now, or even just within the last year. In the "relay race" of promoting sexual predators, the baton has VERY clearly been passed to the right. Did the left have it in the 90's? Sure, but they've clearly handed it over.

Edited November 15, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

  (You're always good for a laugh)

 

Alright great, you can talk about what leaders did 20 years ago. We could also have a discussion about whether or not Clinton (Bill) would have been elected in 2016, but that would just be speculation and somewhat pointless.

 

I'd rather talk about what leaders are doing now, or even just within the last year. In the "relay race" of promoting sexual predators, the baton has VERY clearly been passed to the right. Did the left have it in the 90's? Sure, but they've clearly handed it over.

Roy Moore will be a rest view mirror by sun set on Thursday. 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

Roy Moore will be a rest view mirror by sun set on Thursday. 

We both clearly agree on our opinion of Roy Moore, which is great.

 

Baton is still in the right's court though. They took it over last year.

[Dashinka 24,871]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

In reality though...

 

Bringing up Clinton is only a sorry excuse at distraction. It is trying to argue that actions now can be justified, despite being morally wrong, because they mirror actions taken 20 years ago.

 

Whether we were right or wrong when electing Clinton has really no bearing on what we should do now. We can't just say "well because we elected someone with a history of sexual misconduct in the past, we should be justified in doing it again".

 

If you wanted to use that argument there is a far far more recent example you could use from just last November...

I don't think so as it shows that neither side can claim the moral high ground which is definitely the case.

[CaliCat 3,957]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I don't think so as it shows that neither side can claim the moral high ground which is definitely the case.

 

In other words, you're saying there was no reason for anyone not to vote for Clinton. 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I don't think so as it shows that neither side can claim the moral high ground which is definitely the case.

It isn't about claiming moral high ground. It is about applying the right criteria to the issues at hand. If the democrats have a candidate for Senate next year in a similar situation, we can have the same discussion. Discussing the active issues right now are of more importance than talking about elections from 20 years ago. I actually think it is an interesting question to ask whether Clinton (Bill) would still be elected in today's world under the same circumstances from the 90's. But that would just be speculation.

 

I'm glad to see many Republicans in Congress taking a stand against Roy Moore. While I'm glad they are doing it now, it does make me wonder what change has occurred since 2016 when similar accusations didn't seem to bother them. 20 years is plenty of time to change. 1 year is pretty quick. Will be interesting to see if they remain consistent.