Roy Moore

Trump Tacitly Endorses Roy Moore, Noting His Denials 12 Times

The president says he may campaign for the Republican Senate candidate, notwithstanding credible allegations of sexual assault.

|

Yesterday Donald Trump tacitly endorsed Roy Moore, distancing himself from prominent Republicans who called upon the Alabama Senate candidate to withdraw from the race after several women accused him of behavior ranging from creepy to criminal. Responding to reporters' questions about Moore, Trump criticized Moore's opponent and repeatedly noted—no fewer than a dozen times—that Moore had denied any sexual improprieties. He left open the possibility that he might campaign for Moore.

"He denies it," Trump said. "Look, he denies it. I mean, if you look at what is really going on, and you look at all the things that have happened over the last 48 hours, he totally denies it. He says it didn't happen. And, you know, you have to listen to him also. You're talking about, he said 40 years ago this did not happen."

After a reporter noted that Trump also had been accused of sexual assault and asked him what his "message to women" is, the president reiterated that "Roy Moore denies it," adding, "That's all I can say. He denies it. And, by the way, he totally denies it."

Asked if he believes Moore's denials, Trump repeated himself again. "Well, he denies," he said. "I mean, Roy Moore denies it. And, by the way, he gives a total denial. And I do have to say, 40 years is a long time. He's run eight races, and this has never comes up. So 40 years is a long time. The women are Trump voters; most of them are Trump voters. All you can do is, you have to do what you have to do. He totally denies it."

Trump was much less circumspect about Moore's Democratic opponent, Doug Jones. "We don't need a liberal person in there, a Democrat—Jones," he said. "I've looked at his record. It's terrible on crime. It's terrible on the border. It's terrible on the military. I can tell you for a fact, we do not need somebody that's going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad with the military, bad for the Second Amendment."

So will Trump campaign for Moore? "I'll be letting you know next week," he said. "But I can tell you, you don't need somebody who's soft on crime, like Jones."

Surely voters should be at least as concerned about electing an actual criminal, and that is what Roy Moore is if you believe the most serious allegations against him, which include sexual contact with a 14-year-old girl and forcible groping of a 16-year-old. Trump cannot dodge the gravity of those accusations by noting, over and over again, that Roy Moore denies them. On November 10, the day after The Washington Post published its story about the charges against Moore, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump "believes that if these allegations are true, Judge Moore will do the right thing and step aside." Apparently Trump also believes the corollary: that if Moore refuses to step aside, that means the allegations are not true.

That stance is reminiscent of Trump's reports about Vladimir Putin's response to evidence that the Russian government surreptitiously sought to influence voters in last fall's presidential election. I brought it up repeatedly, Trump says, and he denied it every time. Case closed.

Moore, like Putin, has a strong motive for lying, while the women accusing him do not (as Trump implicitly concedes when he notes that they do not seem to be politically motivated). I was never a fan of Moore, so maybe my impressions should be taken with a grain of salt. But his accusers seem credible to me, and I would say it is substantially more likely than not that they are telling the truth. That's not enough to convict Moore in a court of law, but it seems like a good reason not to vote for him, let alone campaign for him, even if you were otherwise inclined to do so.

Furthermore, contrary to what Trump said (three times), Moore's denials have been less than "total." He more or less admits that he dated teenagers when he was a local prosecutor in his 30s, and that in itself might be legitimately troubling to voters, insofar as it reflects on his judgment, his ethics, and the plausibility of the criminal allegations. In short, there are plenty of reasons for voters who like Moore's politics to have second thoughts about his character. But you have to do what you have to do.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

266 responses to “Trump Tacitly Endorses Roy Moore, Noting His Denials 12 Times

  1. Surely voters should be at least as concerned about electing an actual criminal…

    Let’s not pretend they’re not all criminals. Voters are going to look out for themselves and vote their individual interests.

    …Or straight party.

    …Or for the best haircut.

    1. I find the sentence funnier when you include this part: “Surely voters should be at least as concerned about electing an actual criminal, and that is what Roy Moore is if you believe the most serious allegations against him…”

      He is an actual criminal assuming one believes he is an actual criminal.

      1. Literally, maybe a criminal

        1. No, Literally, credibly may be a criminal.

          What the fuck does “credibly accused” even mean? Where did this talking point come from? Either you believe his accusors or you don’t. If you do, say so. If not, say that. Saying he has been “credibly accused” is just slandering the guy without taking responsibility for doing so.

          1. What the fuck does “credibly accused” even mean?

            You know it when you see it.

            1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

              This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

            2. My Whole month’s on-line financ-ial gain is $2287. i’m currently ready to fulfill my dreams simply and reside home with my family additionally. I work just for two hours on a daily basis. everybody will use this home profit system by this link………

              http://www.webcash20.com
              ======================

          2. It means, John, that the accusations sound believable, even if they have not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

            1. So what? Saying they “sound believable” is just as meaningless. Either you believe them or you don’t. If you don’t believe them, then they don’t matter. If you do, then say you think he is guilty. If you don’t know, then say that and explain why the accusations should somehow still matter.

              1. We’re not in a criminal trial, but it’s he-said she-said, and the “he” is running for senate while the “shes” have nothing to gain. And there are a lot of them.

                1. Yes, Tony, you believe the accusations because Moore is a Republican. We know that. While you are silly, stupid and ignorant, you are in your own way more honest than Sulumn here. You are at least honest enough to admit you believe the accusers, albeit for utterly stupid and partisan reasons, which is more than can be said for Sulumn.


                2. …while the “shes” have nothing to gain.

                  False. Recall that Congress has a special fund for these types of things. What do you use funds for? Payouts.

                  And that’s before all the book deals and speaking circuits.

                  1. Well they certainly fucked up on getting Congressional hush money by declaring it in a national newspaper.

              2. Let me put it as simply as I can.

                I do not believe Corfman is lying, i.e., intending to deceive, when she claims that Roy Moore groped her when she was 14. But I do not actually know what actually happened 40 years ago. It could be that Corfman’s memory is faulty. It could be that some other man groped her 40 years ago and she incorrectly remembers the man to be Roy Moore. That is a possibility. But if you go by a rough “preponderance of the evidence” standard, I think it is more likely than not that Corfman’s story is true.

                They still matter because the accusations have revealed Roy Moore to be, at a minimum, a creepy hypocritical lecherous old man. And they have ALSO revealed the modern Right to be even more tribalist than I thought they could be, as one of them after the other says “even if he did grope a 14 year old girl in the past, that isn’t as important as whether he will vote against abortion today”.

            2. So it means he’s been accused by convincing-sounding liars?

            3. So, if police say a dude should be arrested because he is black and blacks commit more crimes…that is OK, right?

              I don’t like Moore. His Democrat opponent is appreciably worse. Progs give no shits about what they lecture us about (Fen’s Law in effect).

              1. How many young girls did his opponent try to get into bed? How often was he ejected from his job for shitting on the constitution?

                Oh yeah, abortion. That’s it huh? We have to get the child fucker in order to force women to give birth against their will.

                I guess there is at least some consistency here. (Screw women, generally.)

                1. I guess there is at least some consistency here. (Screw women, generally.)

                  Democrats not grasping irony here.

            4. If the accuser would submit her “signed” yearbook to independent handwriting and ink experts, and the results are confirmed to be Moore’s handwriting signed in the 1970’s, then I will say she is a credible accuser. As long as she refuses, I will say she is lying. The timing of these accusations means that the accusers must prove their accusations beyond reasonable doubt, IMO.

              1. You don’t need to be an expert to see that the signature is remarkably like Roy Moore’s. It looks completely within the range of variability of an individual’s signature. I guess the Democrats *could* have persuaded her to give up her high school yearbook, found a forger who could do a convincing job, found a bunch of other women who were willing to state that they experienced similar behavior (including the girl who was in the courtroom just down the hall from Moore’s office in 1979), and a bunch of friends and family who stated that they were told about these event at the time, etc.
                BUT
                I don’t usually believe conspiracy theories, especially when Moore’s denials and rebuttals have been shown to be factually inaccurate (Gadsden being a dry county, the restaurant that supposedly didn’t exist in 1978, etc.), and this one is no less of a stretch of credulity.

            5. The Duke Lacrosse players were “credibly accused”.

              My question is who is holding on Trump “grab them by the &%$” tapes until after he is the nominee and waiting to publish these accusations against Moore until after he is the nominee. Sort reminds me of a state senator in Illinois spilling sealed divorce records of his opponent a week before the Senate elections.

          3. I do think government officials should be held to much higher standards in general, but some level of due process would be nice.

      2. This is getting beyond farce.

    2. Don’t call me Shirley.

    3. Roy Moore is an actual criminal, in my mind, because he was a drug war judge and prosecutor. If Germany had won their war, there would not have been any Holocaust criminals.

      1. And since they didn’t, we won’t be prosecuted for war crimes for carpet bombing Dresden or nuking Hiroshima, either.

        1. We? Damn, you old.

        2. Nor will the USSR, who were no better than the Nazis anyway.

      2. Blame Bush for stepping up the so-called “War on Drugs”. If a judge follows the law, they are not a “criminal”, as you call Moore – that is their job. In contrast, activist judges, such as those ignoring current immigration laws based on their own feelings, are, by definition, the real criminals.

    4. Mr. Sullum, you cannot have it both ways. If you want to label someone a “criminal,” then you must grant him the presumption of innocence and demand that the allegations against him be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Whatever else you may think about Moore, the allegations against him are subject to reasonable doubt, including some of the reasons Trump cited.

      If you concede that the allegations are not sufficient to prove a case in a court of law but are sufficient reason not to vote for Moore, fine. But you cannot use that argument to simultaneously insinuate criminality.

      1. That is an excellent point.

      2. Nope. Politicians are held to a different standard.

    5. …Or for the best haircut.

      I agree. We should impeach Rand Paul.

  2. Trump criticized Moore’s opponent and repeatedly noted?no fewer than a dozen times?that Moore had denied any sexual improprieties.

    Before the, um, cock crowed?

    1. Chocolate Jesus wept.

      1. Because he is melting.

  3. The story about the 14 yo sounds legit. The other story as told sounded off to me. That’s not saying it isn’t true, just that the details seemed a little contrived. Are convicted felons allowed to run for office after they served their time? Just curious given that this was 40 years ago. Has he demonstrated that he’s rehabilitated? Does it matter?

    1. If he had been convicted should he have gone to jail for life? If not, could he ever active redemption once released? Should he be banned from working and not be allowed to live within 50 miles of children? Just not sure what he is supposed to do here even if he was a total douchebag 40 years ago

      1. The thing that bugs me about all of the virtue signaling about this issue is that you know as well as I do the people doing it don’t mean it. They just don’t like Roy Moore’s politics and are turning that objection into an opportunity to virtue signal about the evils of child molesters.

        The proof of that is that everyone doing this would vote for Roy Moore given the right circumstances. Suppose Roy Moore was a Libertarian who held views reason liked and his opponent was a full on white nationalist who was calling for the internment and deportation of all Americans of non Aryan blood. Do you think Reason or any of the other jackwagons acting so concerned over Roy Moore being “an actual criminal” would not vote for him? Of course, they would. They would be fools not to do so.

        So, whether Roy Moore belongs in the Senate is not a simple question of whether he has been ‘credibly accused” whatever that means of doing this stuff. It is a complex question that is answered by some calculation of how credibility you find these accusations and what you think of the relative merit of Moore’s and Jones’ respective politics. And that is a calculation that really only the voters of Alabama are in a position to make. It is their Senate seat. Let them decide on election day and be done with it no matter what the result.

        1. Ad hominem much?

          1. That is not an ad hominem. An Ad hominem would be a justification to vote for Moore because of the nature of the people criticizing him. That is not what I am saying. I am attacking the people criticizing him. Read the last paragraph of my post. I say that whether you vote for more is a product of what you think of his politics and how credible you view these accusations. I make no assertion about what the right answer to that is. I only say that since he is running for Senate in Alabama, the voters of Alabama should get the final say on it.

            What I am saying is that the people claiming Roy Moore is disqualified don’t really mean it and are being hypocrites. That is a direct attack on them. It is not an ad hominem.

            1. Just because you leave your principles at the door when someone on your team is scrutinized doesn’t mean everyone else does. Mumble mumble red somebody mumble mumble.

              1. Just because you don’t know the meaning of words you use, doesn’t mean I don’t have principles. Either you didn’t understand what I was saying or you don’t understand what an ad hominem actually is. Either way, I just explained it to you and why I wasn’t engaging in it. There is really nothing else to say. If you don’t like it, fuck off.

                1. Struck a nerve I see.

                  1. No you didn’t strike a nerve at all. You are just wrong. And the proof of that is your total inability to explain why what I said was an ad hominem. You just threw it out there thinking you could get away with it. Well, sorry but I don’t play that way. Don’t use words unless you understand what they mean and use them appropriately. I am a real stickler for that and don’t let cheap shit like that go unchallenged.

                    1. It is an ad hominem in that you’re saying Moore’s detractors are hypocrites, and that means they’re wrong. Because of who they are, not what they say.

                    2. It is an ad hominem in that you’re saying Moore’s detractors are hypocrites, and that means they’re wrong.

                      They are wrong about what? I never said anything about whether they are right or wrong about the substance of these accusations. Look at the post again and read the last paragraph. I said they are hypocrites and would given the right circumstances vote for Moore even if the charges were true.

                      My point was that these accusations do not automatically disqualify Moore not that the accusations are right or wrong or that you must or must not vote for Moore. That is not an ad hominem. it is just not. You don’t have to agree with me. But don’t accuse me of engaging in ad hominem.

                    3. Whatever. As far as your accusation goes, it’s counterfactual. It can’t be proven either way. So it has no substance. And if that’s all you got, it’s some pretty weak sauce.

                    4. I cannot prove what they would do. But, it is pretty clear that if they would not vote for Moore under those circumstances, they are fools. So, the people saying this are either liars or fools and that is my point.

                    5. People who hold to their principles are often viewed as fools by those who are quick to abandon their own.

                    6. This is why I gave you the moniker “Red Tony.” Because you are quick to abandon your principles for the sake of your team. Your accusing others of being willing to do the same thing doesn’t make it true, nor does it make you look less unprincipled.

                      Carry on.

                    7. So we should surrender just because someone made an accusation?

                      Hey, sarcasmic molested me 30 years ago,

                    8. If you would refuse to vote for a politician who held reasonable views and would instead vote for a homicidal Nazi because of your “principles”, whatever they are, then you are an immature idiot or there is something deeply wrong with your principles.

                      I don’t know what else to tell you. If the extent of your moral reasoning is “what do my principles say” and nothing else, you are a pretty vacuous person. You want to call me unprincipled, I am going to call you an idiot with the moral reasoning skills and understanding of the reality of an earnest 14-year-old. If life were as easy as “living by your principles”, there would never be such a thing as a moral dilemma you fucking half wit.

                    9. If you would refuse to vote for a politician who held reasonable views and would instead vote for a homicidal Nazi because of your “principles”, whatever they are, then you are an immature idiot or there is something deeply wrong with your principles.

                      Where did I say who I would or would not vote for? And there is nothing easy about living by your principles.

                    10. If you are not saying that, then you agree with me. What the hell are you arguing with me for?

                    11. What the hell are you arguing with me for?

                      Because you are making baseless accusations against those who criticize Moore by claiming that they would not criticize someone on their own team for doing the same thing. And in doing so you’re attempting to minimize any criticism of the guy as pure partisanship.

                    12. Wait–you think this–

                      “they would not criticize someone on their own team for doing the same thing”

                      is baseless?

                      Gods above, there’s a whole other article on the site condemning people for jumping on one who’s actually DOING it right now.

                    13. Not everyone is a party shill.

                    14. John, if you mean I should vote for Jones just because he appears “reasonable” in carefully orchestrated TV ads, then sorry – I’m not. The fact that he will vote with Democrats against any conservative Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge seals the deal for me. I tend to take long-term views with my voting, instead of being blinded by Democrat-concocted, short-term smoke. I will be voting for Roy Moore on December 12th.

              2. “Just because you leave your principles at the door when someone on your team is scrutinized doesn’t mean everyone else does.”

                No, virtually everybody else does. All the time, every day. Somebody hasn’t been paying attention……..

        2. Normal people draw lines when we get to pedophilia. Sometimes well before we get there.

          1. You have never drawn a moral line in your life that didn’t involve politics Tony. And five years from now when sodomizing minors becomes the next civil rights crusade, you will be on here calling anyone who objects a bigot. So just go away.

            1. Sorry I don’t let defenders of child fucker tell me what to do with my time.

              1. No, you just support Rapist Former President and his Attacker of Rape Victim Wife.

                Don’t act all principled here, Tony, you wouldn’t recognize principle if it slapped you with both hands on the ass.

                1. Equating Clinton’s behavior with the child molester makes you a sleazy partisan hypocrite.

                  I never supported Bill Clinton for any public office. I do however refuse to attack his wife for his actions or for defending her husband from what was largely a decades-long cynical partisan farce.

                  1. Epstein Island…I bet Roy was excluded. You know who was included? There’s a list.

                  2. “I never supported Bill Clinton for any public office.”

                    Yes you did Tony. You defend Bill and you defend Hillary to this day.

                    Hillary is Bill’s wife. You don’t think she knows what and whom Bill does?

                    They are a team. Team do whatever the fuck they want to do and they protect each other.

                  3. “Equating Clinton’s behavior with the child molester makes you a sleazy partisan hypocrite.”

                    So forcible rape is cool because a child isn’t involved? It’s somehow less bad? Nope.

                    And I’m not a partisan. I hate both parties equally. And I can’t stand Roy Moore – didn’t like him before the teenager stuff came out because he apparently wants us to live in a Christian Theocracy, which I’d strongly prefer not to do.

                    And I think the allegations are substantially true. So no, pointing out your logical inconsistency does not make me a Roy Moore partisan. The asshole deserves every bit of the public humiliation he’s getting.

                    1. The only possible reason for you to bring up Bill Clinton is to offer some measure of absolution to Roy Moore. It is partisan and it is vile.

                    2. And Tony knows all about being partisan and vile.

                  4. “Equating Clinton’s behavior with the child molester makes you a sleazy partisan hypocrite.”

                    You’re right about their behavior not being equal. Even if Moore is guilty of all accusations, which is highly doubtful, they pale in comparison to Clinton’s 26 flights between 2001 and 2003 on child rapist Epstein’s “Lolita Express”, where he ditched his Secret Service protection on several of them, and had sex with numerous under-age girls. There’s no comparison at all.

              2. Sorry I don’t let defenders of child fucker tell me what to do with my time.

                Any thoughts on Clinton’s repeated trips to “Pedophilia Island”?

          2. Since Moore isn’t actually accused of fucking anyone at all, it seems a stretch to call him a pedophile unless you’re trying to normalize pedophilia.

        3. You use the word “proof” in quite an unconventional way. You appear not to have heard of write-in candidates. You hypothesize a scenario where either Roy Moore or a white nationalist is the Democratic nominee in Alabama. None of these things is the hallmark of a strong logical argument.

    2. Reason has always been strong supporters of felons right to vote. I have never seen them take a position on the rights of felons to hold office, but I really can see no reason why they would object in principle. Suppose Roy Moore was a Libertarian whose views reason endorsed and had an actual 40 year old conviction for taking liberties with a minor. Would reason declare him ineligible for office because he was an “actual criminal”? We will never know but I doubt it.

      So, how is Roy Moore disqualified on the basis of an unsworn allegation but Libertarian Roy Moore would be not ineligible had he been convicted of the crime found in that allegation?

      1. “You shouldn’t vote for a child molester” is not a controversial position to take.

        You’ve spent years trashing Democrats on moral grounds for much less. Sometimes for nothing at all.

        1. Yeah Tony. That is why you were up in arms about the Mayor of Seattle being a well-known molester of boys. You care so much. Just go away. No one cares or believes anything you say and you add nothing to the conversation.

          1. I believe that unlike you I have consistently been against child molesters holding public office.

            I realize that this isn’t a particularly interesting political position to hold. But I only have to articulate it because you do endorse child molesters for high office.

            1. So you were against Hillary Clinton? Her husband was a Lolita Express frequent flyer? Bill Clinton would have been living in the White House as First Husband. Hillary is clearly aware of Bill’s comings and goings. (i.e. Accessory after the fact).

              Allegations go both ways, there, socialist.

              1. Excuse me, when did Hillary Clinton molest a child?

                1. Aw, Tony, you cannot read? Bill Clinton fucked kids and Hillary knew what Bill was doing and where he was going.

                  1. Which kids were those?

                    1. So you admit there were kids and Bill Clinton was there? You just want to know there names?

                      Finally coming around Tony to seeing the lefties for the pieces of shit that they are.

                      What topic shall we move on to now?

        2. Okay, I promise not to vote for you, then, Tony.

        3. “You shouldn’t vote for a child molester” is not a controversial position to take.

          Wasn’t Jerry Studds of MA applauded in Congress as he turned his back on the reading of a censure of him for doing that? Wasn’t he re-elected for about 14 years after that?

          Or is it only bad if it is an underage girl, but OK if it is a boy?

          1. Wha wha whatabout Gerry Studds!

            Fucking pathetic child fucker apologists.

            1. Tony, didn’t you say you never defend child fuckers, but you defended Gerry Studds?

              1. I was still a Republican by the time Gerry Studds left office. I’ve never knowingly defended or supported a child molester for public office or any other office. I am confident on that count. Such a shame that the same can’t be said for you and some of your friends here. I’ll make sure to bring up your defense of the child fucker at every opportunity until the end of time, if you don’t mind.

                1. You….Tony… have never been a Republican nor a conservative.

                  Then you try and play the “I was on the other team” card. Horse shit.

                  You defended child fucker Bill Clinton just up a few threads.

                2. Roy Moore was a Democrat when these allegations supposedly took place. Does that make it right?

            2. Wha wha whatabout Gerry Studds!

              Fucking pathetic child fucker apologists.

              Just pointing out that Democrats have a track record — a long one, mind you — of electing child fuckers.

              1. Actual child fuckers, as opposed to someone who is accused of fucking zero people.

                Tony has been stealing this base a lot, I thought maybe it was time to point that out.

      2. It has been revealing these past few weeks to see a libertarian publication whose writers proudly support crucial legal rights such as due process, statutes of limitations, and assumption of innocence arguing that someone is disqualified for elected office based solely on unproven, decades-old allegations.

        I, too, get the feeling they’d be less outraged if Moore were pro-choice.

        1. Or if he was an atheist.

      3. I think it is relevant in this scenario that Roy has not yet served any punishment.

        If he had gone to prison, he would not have held the various offices that led him to the nomination for Senate.

    3. The story about the 14-year-old was completely debunked yesterday by investigators. The investigators gave the sources of their evidence. They invited the main stream media to view this evidence for themselves.

      Lying about an elected official’s sex crime is one of the few matters that is open for a lawsuit. If you want to lie about an elected official, lie about something that is job related.

  4. I’ve put on my aluminum foil logic hat, here goes:

    If Moore is being framed, then he is a victim.
    A victim of sexual harassment should always be believed until proven wrong.
    Trump is taking the victim’s word for now.

    That’s all I’ve got.

    1. He’s a victim alright. A victim of his own urge to fuck children.

      1. And poop on them!

        /Triumph

      2. By prog standards, 26-year-olds are still children, since they’re still on their parents’ health insurance,

      3. A 14-year-old is capable of deciding if sex is wanted. The legal age for marriage used to be 14 in most places. Hospitals deliver many babies to girls 14 and younger without any attempt at prosecution. Prosecutors have put kids as young as 12 on trial, as adults, for murder; they argue for their adult volition. The age of consent in AL is 16.

        1. And a 30-year-old trying to fuck my 14-year-old daughter is capable of having his testicles curb stomped.

          1. You would just be mad, because he is beating you to it.

            You are so brave. All those immeasurable legal marriages and sexual encounters for boys and girls 13-18 over the millennia. It would be nothing but stomped testicles, if you had your way.

  5. Well of course Trump endorses Moore. They are birds of a feather. What’s more, Roy Moore is the type of Republican that the modern right wants nowadays – more interested in “fighting the Left/RINOs/Establishment/Swamp” than in promoting any coherent set of policies. Roy Moore “makes the right people angry” and that’s that, child diddling is inconsequential.

    1. Trump doesn’t believe Roy Moore’s accusers. If you find that unreasonable, explain why. But spare us the “he must love child molesters” bullshit. If you don’t think Moore is guilty, then these accusations make no difference in your decision to support him. So explain why not just that you disagree with Trump but why not believing these allegations is unreasonable or shut the fuck up.

    2. Not a Moore fan and I do think that the accusations are, more likely than not, true. And he shouldn’t serve in the Senate. But, why are we talking about a senatorial candidate when we have a sitting senator who has been accused of the very same thing, with just as much corroborating evidence?

      Bob Menedez hired underage prostitutes and has been accused of embezzling taxpayer money. To his credit, though, he isn’t a bible thumper, which, let’s face it, is Moore’s real sin and that’s why certain ‘libertarians’ are focused on him.

      1. And the fact that you do believe Moore’s accusors doesn’t make someone who doesn’t a defender or excusers of child molesters. These accusations are 40 years old. It is hardly unreasonable to discount them.

      2. People are focused on Roy Moore because he’s a major party candidate in a pivotal upcoming election

        Points to you though for combining whataboutism with “I’m the real victim here.” It’s always nice to see novel concoctions of distracting bullshit.

        1. whataboutism (n.) def: a word employed by people when their hypocrisy is exposed

          eg: Hugh Akston declared ‘whataboutism’ when someone mentioned that Roy Moore was not the only senator being accused of underage sexual assault. When asked why Bob Menedez, who had currently gone on trial, was not topical, Akston made another asinine remark

          1. Roy Moore isn’t a senator. You…do understand how elections and the linear progression of time work, right?

            1. I understand that you think accusations against a senatorial candidate is more important than those made against a sitting senator. Well, if the accused are of the ‘wrong party’, that is

              1. Roy Moore is a candidate in a pivotal upcoming election. That’s why people are talking about him. Bob Menendez’s public corruption case ended in a mistrial, which is why people are also talking about him. But the Menendez story seems to be going nowhere for the moment, while Moore’s story is still up in the air.

                I find it very interesting that the same two posters gave nearly identical responses to my comments twice in a row. Quite the coincidence, that.

                1. Well, when you make a dumb comment, expect people to come up with the same obvious rebuttal.

                2. Team Blue really…really needs a win against Trump, so they will do whatever it takes to get an Alabama senator seat.

                  I guess the election in Virginia was not the referendum Team Lefties had hoped.

                  1. I guess the election in Virginia was not the referendum Team Lefties had hoped.

                    They sure are playing it that way though-just like the Tea Party did with Scott Brown when he won the senate seat in Mass. in 2010. Look how long he lasted…

                    If I was a betting man though, I would put money on Moore winning-Alabama is not, and will probably never be Virgifornia.

            2. Roy Moore isn’t a Senator. That makes the ones against Menendez, who is a Senator, much more relevant and important than these.

              1. You know, if Democrats didn’t circle the wagons wagons around every scumbag on their side, Trump might get some heat for standing by Moore.

                But they’re defending Franken. They covered up for Conyers. Spare me.

                1. And Mendenez has yet to resign.

          2. whataboutism (n.) def: a word employed by people when their hypocrisy is exposed

            Bingo. That idiotic made up word must be purged from the English Language.

            1. I would much rather discuss Howzaboutism and Whozajigawhatism.

              1. English is a wonderfully precise and descriptive language. I think one of the signs of our general intellectual decay is the growth of these sorts of made up phrases. People lack the vocabulary and imagination to describe their thoughts and are forced to resort to made-up words as if they were four.

            2. I kind of like the term, actually. It’s a simple way to describe something libertarians and other small government advocates encounter a lot.
              People will say, “what about the poor”, “what about drug addiction”? when libertarianism doesn’t have a policy in mind to “do something”. Well, what about it? We have those things now when we have all kinds of programs trying to fix the problems.

              There’s probably a better term for it. But ultimately, all words are made up. If people use it enough, it’s a real word.

              1. Whataboutism is a specific thing, but it’s a subset of a more exact thing. That thing being a Tu Quoque fallacy.

                As a matter of fact, it seems that the only thing Whataboutism specifically refers to is a Soviet era tu quoque fallacy so we’re all more or less using it wrong and in a way that is itself a fallacy since factually speaking the Soviet Union is no more, yet we’re all trying to imply someone else is somehow a Soviet by using this specific term when that is likely not the case.

                I’m just as guilty as everyone else on this too.

        2. Hugh, whataboutism is you signaling to the world you are a hypocritical moron. Whataboutism is nothing but a word stupid people use to excuse their hypocrisy and double standards. There is a difference between the right and wrong of an act and a person’s ability to apply that standard to the act. it is called moral authority. When you excuse misconduct and refuse to apply the rules to people you like you cannot then credibly claim that said standards should apply to people you do like. Pointing that out in no way says the actions of either side are right. It merely says that your hypocrisy and double standards mean you forfeit the right to try and apply the standards to the other side.

          1. I kinda like the word, but accusing people of “whataboutism” is kinda boring after a week and a dozen stories on Moore. It’s been enough time spent focusing on the guy that one can be forgiven for stepping back and considering broader issues like hypocrisy and bias.

    3. Well of course Trump endorses Moore. They are birds of a feather. What’s more, Roy Moore is the type of Republican that the modern right wants nowadays – more interested in “fighting the Left/RINOs/Establishment/Swamp” than in promoting any coherent set of policies. Roy Moore “makes the right people angry” and that’s that, child diddling is inconsequential.

      The Establishment said they’d repeal Obamacare if given Congress and the WH. They, of course, failed to even really try.

      The Establishment said they’d undo Obama’s illegal immigration policies. They, of course, failed to even really try.

      Cannot imagine why voters would want to support somebody opposed to an Establishment that has been lying to them for years,

  6. Jon Podhertz has an editorial in the Post this morning that uses the same meaningless talking point “credibly accused”. It really is like you people get orders from some central office. Do all of you have to use the same talking points at the same time? Can’t you mix it up a little?

    1. Journ-O-List is alive and well under a different name.

    2. Apparently criminal
      Rightly suspect

  7. “He more or less admits that he dated teenagers when he was a local prosecutor in his 30s, and that in itself might be legitimately troubling to voters, insofar as it reflects on his judgment, his ethics, and the plausibility of the criminal allegations. “
    Ah, the famous “more or less” standard.

    There is a big range relating to “teenagers”: 15 able to get driving learners permit, 16 legally able to marry and 18 to be age of consent.

    The 1980s were a different time and its she said/he said regarding any 14 your old messing around. Other than that, its up to Alabama voters and they will elect Moore.

    1. There is a big range relating to “teenagers”: 15 able to get driving learners permit, 16 legally able to marry and 18 to be age of consent.

      Don’t forget the age of: 14 able to be called out of trig class by a 32-year-old trying to figure out how to stick his dick in her.

      1. Sorry, got the senior and the freshman mixed up. Gena Richardson it looks like was 17 about to turn 18 when he tried to figure out a way to get his dick in her.

        1. At any rate, if some fucking 30-something pervert tried to contact my daughter at high school, what I would do to him would make American History X look tame.

          1. Funny, you Democrats were fine with underage marriage and slavery when it was you lefties doing it.

            1. Everybody who disagrees with Love Constipation is Lefty Democrat.

              1. Just YOU. If you walk like a socialist and talk like a socialist, guess what YOU are?

                You guessed it- a socialist.

      2. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

        1. Not yet. She’s starting to respond to simple commands now, so there’s hope…

          1. I highly recommend this. Mine got in line inside of a week. Responds very quickly to all sorts of commands now.

          2. And her moral is improving as well I bet.

  8. He more or less admits

    That is really slipshod logic and thinking. Does he admit it or not?

    1. Less is Moore

  9. Talking to someone the other day who claimed “Moore is unfit to fulfill his duties as a Senator because of these charges.” I said, “What about Bill Clinton?”, to be a dick. Answer: that isn’t relevant anymore. So I asked if Bill Clinton had, in her eyes, been a good president. Answer: Yes, he was terrific. Me: So being a rapist and intern diddler didn’t affect his ability to be a terrific president, so why would something Moore did 40 years ago affect his ability to be a good senator? No real answer was forthcoming except, well times have changed. Yeah – one has a D after his name and the other now sports an R.

    1. “So, Bill Clinton or Roy Moore?”

    2. People never bother to examine their own views. Assuming she likes Bill Clinton’s politics and thought he was a good President, it is totally rational for her not to care about Bill Clinton’s actions. There are different aspects of the character. Which aspects of a person’s character matter to you depends upon your relationship to them. Bill Clinton is a politician and President, not that woman’s husband. If he fulfilled his duties as President in a way she felt was better than the alternatives, why should she care that he was a lousy husband and a pretty lousy human being? She is voting for a President, not a husband or Pope.

      The woman’s problem is that she can’t understand that Moore’s supporters are entitled to make the same calculation. Why should they have to vote for a candidate who is totally opposed to their interests because Roy Moore may have dated teenagers 40 years ago? What difference should that make to them and why is it their job to suffer for some greater moral standard in society? It isn’t.

    3. Instead, say “What about Al Frankenstein?”

    4. I bet she was a Hillary Clinton voter too.

      Hillary Clinton enabled her rapist husband and threatened the women who he assaulted. Towards the end of this video interview, you can listen to the rape victim’s description of how Hillary suggested she remain quiet. Remember, as Hillary Clinton herself says: Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.
      YouTube: Juanita Broaddrick Relives Bill Clinton Rape & Hillary Intimidation

      Excerpt:
      BROADDRICK:
      I was completely dressed. I had a skirt and a blouse. He tore the waist of my skirt. And then he ripped my pantyhose. And he raped me. It was very vicious. I was just pinned down? I did not know what to do. I was so frightened. I was only 35 at the time. And it was horrible. I just wanted it to be over with. So he would go away.

      KLEIN: He got up?

      BROADDRICK: No, he held me down for a long time. And then he did it again. I was so ready for him to leave me alone. When he started raping me again. And it was very brief? And he did get up and he straightened himself. And my mouth was bleeding and it was hurting. And he just straightens himself and goes to the door.

  10. As I see it it’s pretty simple.

    Democrats make no claims on having a shred of morality. So when on of their own is accused of being a sexual deviant, it don’t matter. Morals shmorals. They don’t care.

    Republicans on the other hand claim to uphold morals. So when one of their own is accused, it’s time to step down until everything is sorted out.

    1. Yeah the one good thing to come out of this is Republicans don’t get to lecture anyone on moral values anymore. They’ve always been hypocrites on this count, of course, as the lecturing was always a cynical recruitment tool for religious idiots, but defending child molestation because it keeps a senate seat red should probably be a bridge too far.

      Republicans: we bravely draw the line at kid diddling. Except Trump and John.

      1. At least they draw a line, unlike your Team.

        1. My team had a president impeached over a consensual blowjob. Its next president had to be so personally virtuous that not only didn’t he send so much as a sideways glance to another women, his entire administration avoided criminality at an unprecedented rate, requiring the fatfaced rightwing retards to rely on made-up flotsam that only made them look like the idiots they are.

          The current president is one of the men with multiple accusers of sexual impropriety, including some accusations involving children. And he’s defending a child predator for senate. Tell me more about my team you fucking idiot.

          1. Clinton was impeached not for his adulterous acts, but for lying about them. Get your story straight.

            1. Disbarred too. But, the fact remains, had he not committed perjury, he may have lost his case with Ms. Jones.

          2. Tony that’s the stupidest thing you’ve said here. Clinton has gotten away with everything he’s ever done with the help from his party and the media.
            I will agree Roy Moore doesn’t need to hold public office whether he is guilty or innocent though.

            1. Being impeached and globally humiliated is getting away with it?

              1. You can’t humiliate someone who has no shame.

              2. Yeah, it is. The guy’s a sex predator who was vigorously defended by his team (see: MoveOn.org), didn’t lose his job, didn’t go to prison, is still widely respected, and is rich as hell.

                1. Meanwhile, Anita Broderick and Paula Jones were relentlessly smeered.

                  1. Juanita* damnit.

                2. Scores of liberal journalists and lawmakers are now revisiting whether we were too easy on Clinton, or whether in today’s environment he’d have gotten away with the accusations.

                  Whatever the case, Roy Moore remains the subject of conversation, and whatever Clinton did doesn’t make him less of a child molester.

                  But do keep trying! Maybe one day someone will buy it.

                  1. You’re the one who brought Clinton up, dipshit.

                  2. “Now we care after Bill Clinton is no longer a power player.” /Democrats and Media

              3. Globally humiliated means: receiving millions of dollars in “donations” from foreign governments and globalists. Got it.

          3. Your team gropes women when they’re asleep, fuckwit,

          4. He lied under oath. You know perjury, Tony? He was impeached for perjury, Tony.

            Bill Clinton is a liar Tony. His wife (Hillary) never divorced him.

            Bill Clinton was also a frequent flyer with a convicted child fucker, Epstein.

            You were right there pushing for a child fucker to be First Husband.

            1. Trump admitted to obstruction of justice and treason on live TV. I’ll be here to witness your breathless support for when he’s rightly booted out of office.

              1. I’d laugh my ass off if Trump was impeached. That arrogant fuck getting taken down like that would be truly hilarious.

                But that doesn’t change the fact that the “Clinton was impeached over a BJ” is a totally lame canard. Anybody who says that out loud shows themselves to be full of shit.

                Oh, and isn’t bringing up Trump in response to the Clinton impeachment stuff a way of engaging in “whataboutism”? Like any unprincipled political zealot, you decry whataboutism until it suits you and then you dust it off and use it.

                1. Anybody who says that out loud shows themselves to be full of shit.

                  Full of shit or mental midget. In Tony’s case I’ll take all of the above.

                2. This article is about Trump and Roy Moore.

              2. Tony|11.22.17 @ 11:07AM|#
                Trump admitted to obstruction of justice and treason on live TV. I’ll be here to witness your breathless support for when he’s rightly booted out of office.

                Aw, Tony, you really don’t know when you are lying anymore, do you?

                Look at you trying to make up stuff to defend Bill Clinton’s perjury. This just as you try and state in another comment that you NEVER defend(ed) Bill Clinton.

          5. Lois Lerner took the Fifth on the IRS scandal and continues to argue thst her testimony should be held secret. Obama’s administration was remarkable for how its corruption was ignored, not for how it did not exist

        2. In practice, neither tribe has “a line” anymore.

          Both tribes are willing to support downright disgusting behavior in their candidates if it means they will vote the correct way.

          I mean, look at how many on the Right had an orgasm when Kid Rock pretended to be running for Senate in Michigan. There is a guy who actually was convicted of assault in a court of law. But that didn’t matter as he was going to #MAGA or something. Look at the guy in Montana who actually did beat up a reporter. No one on the right gave a shit about that either.

      2. Yeah the one good thing to come out of this is Republicans don’t get to lecture anyone on moral values anymore.

        Tell me more on how serious sexual harassment allegations are when Democrats support any Democrat accused. Franken is getting MORE support as he gets MORE accusations against him. Sorry, but people adapt to the rules of the game.

        Republicans: we bravely draw the line at kid diddling. Except Trump and John.

        Has any Democrat demanded Menendez resign? Just asking.

  11. Someone’s lying. I’m sick up and fed of the liars. If I were the one not lying in this matter I would confront the other party with a camera crew. It would be readily apparent who was lying and who was not. So, why don’t the accusers or Judge Moore do just that? No lawyers are needed. Gloria Alred could take the day off. There’s no need for everyone to wonder who is lying. Hash it out like a man, on camera, so’s the rest of us can enjoy.

  12. “That’s not enough to convict Moore in a court of law, but it seems like a good reason not to vote for him, let alone campaign for him, even if you were otherwise inclined to do so.”

    If the charges were proven to the satisfaction of understandably-skeptical voters, then at best this would mean voting for one of the write-in candidates, one of whom is the Libertarian nominee. Of course, the LP nominee wants the ultimate form of child abuse – abortion – to be legal.

    So given that withholding a vote from Moore would encourage that form of child abuse known as abortion, what are the voters to do with these last-minute allegations against Moore?

    And that’s a key phrase – last-minute allegations.

    If you want to throw accusations against a candidate at the last minute, after the primaries are safely over so that the nominee’s party can’t replace him, then, yes, you need to persuade skeptical voters that these allegations are totally legit, and if you don’t have time to prove the allegations before the election, that’s on you, because you didn’t allow the voters enough time due to your eagerness to wait for the end of the Republican primaries.

    1. Better a child fucker than a baby killer, right?

      1. I don’t know if I’d go as far as the Democrats, who would literally rather have a woman-drowner in the Senate than a Republican.

        But if Moore is guilty and not the victim of smears, I am uncomfortable at allowing the Democrats to use this to punish the entire country by turning the Senate in the direction of their child-killing, woman-molesting party.

      2. Bet you voted for that rapist, Bill Clinton, twice,

        1. Andre Marrou in 1992, mostly because of how hot Nancy Lord was, Jesus!

          Didn’t vote for pres in 96.

          1. But 1996 was the Most Important Election of Our Lifetime!

    2. These people act like there is no such thing as a moral dilemma or no consequences to living by their beloved principles. Sadly, the world isn’t that simple.

  13. Weird how Reason seems a lot more worked up about Roy Moore than Al Frankenstein, isn’t it? Gee willikers, I wonder why that could possibly be!

    Especially when there’s way more proven hard evidence on the record that Frankeinstein is a sexual assaulter than there is that Roy Moore is a sexual assaulter.

    1. Reason didn’t write a single story about the Menendez trial. You would think some Congress creature on trial for bribery and corruption would have a Libertarian angle.

      1. Amazing. These con artists are such a complete joke.

      2. “Reason didn’t write a single story about the Menendez trial”

        https://reason.com/tags/bob-menendez

        1. The newest article there is from 2015 and talks about his indictment. Your search does not show a single article after 2015 and not a single article about the trial itself.

          Thanks for providing support for my point Stormy. I was a bit concerned that they might have written an article about the trial I hadn’t seen even though I couldn’t remember seeing one. Thanks for doing the search and confirming that my memory was correct.

          You are a very nice person sometimes.

          1. “They didn’t write about it”

            *shows articles*

            “I mean they haven’t written about it recently enough”

            Move them goalposts, John!

            You literally have no idea what Reason writes or doesn’t write bout, you just said it because you wanted it to be true, and that’s all that matters to a lying sack of shit like you.

            1. I said reason hasn’t written a single thing about the Trial. And they haven’t. They talked about the indictment but dropped it like a rock as the trial has gone on. I would think the trial and the facts that come out of it would be of some interest to Libertarians. Your search proves exactly what I said. I assume that is why you put it up here. Again, thanks for proving my point.

              Don’t we agree about this? I said thank you. Sometimes I really don’t understand people on this site. Even when you agree and are nice about it, they still bitch. Very odd.

              1. Well, asswipes like him gotta asswipe.

            2. He was obviously referring to the corruption trial, halfwit. Context never means a damned thing to asswipes like you.

            3. I said “Trial” Stormey. I didn’t say “case” or “affair” or any other more general term. Words have meaning and they are used for a reason. I said “tria”l for a reason because I meant exactly that. I knew they had covered Menendez but they had not written anything about the trial and the rather interesting facts that have come out in it.

      3. The reason they focus on Moore is that everyone is focused on Moore. I’d like it if they wouldn’t follow the mainstream news narrative quite so closely with what they choose to post in H&R, but they seem to have decided to mostly just follow the regualr news cycle.

        1. That is a pretty weak defense Zeb.

          1. Not a defense (you may note that I said I would prefer that it be otherwise), just an observation.

    2. I think it is the age of the ‘victims’ that keeps Moore’s story extra creepy and rolling along.

  14. Watching the Democrats rally around Franken…I would have a hard time recommending Republicans condemning Roy Moore.

    If Dems don’t care about it and feminists adore them…why should the Republicans they hate do differently?

    1. Playing by Marquess of Queensbury rules while your opponents play by biker gang rules is a recipe to lose every time,

    2. Like Alinsky said, make the enemy play by their own book of rules. The Republicans are so hung up over sexual morality, so accuse their candidates of sexual immorality – and if voters in Alabama would rather take a chance on Moore than let the Senate seat fall into the hands of a Democrat, then people in Massachusetts get to look down their noses as Alabama.

      Have I “driven home” the point enough?

    3. Because Republicans claim to have morals. Democrats openly mock morality.

      1. Are you of all people conflating hypocritical Christian moralizing with actual morality?

        1. Morality is relative. But I’d trust someone who tries to live by “hypocritical Christian moralizing” than a leftist like you who has no sense of morality at all.

          1. Billions dead at the hands of socialists can’t be morally wrong.

            /says every lefty ever

          2. Democrats claim to completely agree with and abide by feminist dogma. They still do this. So, again, the party that claims to abide by feminism and is supported by feminists should be held to this standard. The party that doesn’t claim to take feminism seriously should not.

            1. And as far as I can make out, feminism (as in the Vagina Monologues before they edited it out) means adult women can screw teenage girls and it’s a sexual awakening, not criminal or creepy.

              So feminist consistency may mean something different than one might think.

              1. You mean “underage”, I think. Many teenagers are over the age of consent in every state.

                1. Doesn’t keep people from slagging Moore for dating them.

    4. And this, folks, is why Moore will be the next Senator from the Great State of Alabama.

      Not because Alabama voters support sexual assault, but because the obvious double-standards used by the Media and the Democrats when it comes to these allegations.

      If All Franken and John Conyers are worthy to be in Congress, then Roy Moore is, too.

      1. Old Right: “We’re better than the Left! We have principles and they don’t!”
        New Right: “Vote for us, we’re just as bad and unprincipled as the Left!”

        1. That argument died the day Trump was elected.

        2. Sorry Jeff, but it was the Democrats who created the standard 25 years ago that allegations of sexual harassment, assault and even rape were not enough to disqualify someone from holding elected office. Don’t get all butthurt now that the Republicans have said “screw it” and started playing by their rules.

          If the Democrats want to Make Chastity Great Again then they need to clean out their own filthy house. But considering how quickly they have circled the wagons around Franken and Conyers — and how they continue to protect Hill and Bill — that ain’t happening anytime soon.

          1. So, you can’t call out Republicans for adopting the standard that they used to consider morally bankrupt?

            1. Sure, you can call them out all you want. Just don’t be surprised when they ignore you.

              For the past quarter century the Republican Party insisted on playing the Left’s Moral Outrage Game, even when the Dems refused to follow their own rules, on the hope that somehow losing virtuously would guilt the Dems into regaining a sense of decency.

              Trump said “bag this” and played to win, instead of being a loveable loser like Romney. Now that the Republicans refuse to play the suckers at the county fair suddenly our Republic is under threat of collapse.

              1. I’m never surprised when people who don’t know I exist ignore me.

      2. And this, folks, is why Moore will be the next Senator from the Great State of Alabama.

        I think it’s mostly because they don’t want to elect a Democrat.

    5. What amazes me is that they rally around Franken when there is no risk of losing the seat.

      Do they really see him as a future president?

  15. The best part of reading Reason’s panicking over Roy Moore has been seeing their hypocrisy on display. Every time some grown woman is caught fucking a 14 year old they scream “consenting people!” “Who are you to punish them!”

    But now that someone is accused–not convicted, and never will be convicted because there is absolutely zero evidence and all allegations are past the statute of limitations–they start panicking and having a fit.

    Principals are more important than principles… right?

    1. Every time random women start making up stories a year or 2 later about “this guy I was with raped me!” Reason sides with the accused, saying “hey, innocent until proven guilty” but again, what do we see here:

      “Surely voters should be at least as concerned about electing an actual criminal, and that is what Roy Moore is if you believe the most serious allegations against him”

      All that’s changed is that this guy is a known republican who holds political views that are antithetical to Libertarians.

      1. Arguably the fact that he was booted from the court because he took a shit on the constitution is even more relevant to his unfitness for high office than his child diddling. How nice that we have so many reasons to pick from.

        1. And yet Tony, that is the least important thing according to all coverage he’s getting here and elsewhere. Kind of telling about the people criticizing him, IMO.

          There’s plenty of stuff to not like Moore about. And if you believe his accusers, like John has stated, then that’s a reason–for you. But I really don’t trust you on the topic of child molesters in office because we saw your reaction to me bringing up Menendez being accused of fucking underage girls just the other day. It’s fine if they’ve got a (D) next to them, it’s not fine if they have an (R).

          1. As far as I know that accusation has no evidence to back it up. You do have to be extra careful about these things because of the habit the right-wing media has of just making shit up. But I don’t care about Menendez and have never voiced support for him.

            1. Aw, Tony, you support every lefty, for any reason, at any time.

              I cannot wait until 2018 elections for more lefties to lose their Congressional seats and then 2020 when Trump wins reelection by an even bigger margin than 2016.

              Are you emotionally ready for that Tony? Election 2016 hit you pretty hard. You lefties have been trying for a win….any win since then.

              1. What I’m mostly feeling is sadness that you’re so pathetic, dim-witted, and tribal that you find yourself defending a child predator because of the letter after his name.

                1. We just all see through the lefty lies and motivations, Tony.

                  Be honest. The most frustrating thing for you lefties is that your lies are not working anymore?

                  1. The most frustrating thing for me is that people as abysmally stupid as you vote.

                2. Tony, you’re the one who is defending the child predator with charges serious enough they went to trial.

            2. Tony, I don’t know if Menendez actually did have sex with kids any more than I know if Roy Moore did. None of us do. I do know that the Prosecutors are still asserting that he did.

              1. The difference is I am perfectly capable of saying we should boot Menendez from office and let the chips fall where they may in his replacement elections. I’d prefer his successor to be a Democrat, but if he really did fuck children, let it be a Republican. It would seem fair.

          2. And I will reiterate my position that every time one of you cretins inserts a Clinton or a Menendez into this conversation, that is tantamount to a defense of Roy Moore’s attempted rape of a 14 year old. So keep doing that, please.

            1. Since you are blatantly lying about Moore “raping” and “child fucking”, it is fun to keep everyone aware of the child fuckers Bill Clinton and Menendez.

              At least when you said diddling and molesting, that was accurate to the accusations. You have clearly gotten to a foaming at the mouth stage, so you are now saying Moore fucked kids and raped them.

              1. Cops in Gadsden were instructed to keep Roy Moore away from cheerleaders at the high school functions he regularly attended.

                But let’s make sure to get the phrasing right. Because somewhere between child fucking and merely finger raping a 14 year old is “Senator!”

                1. You have a link for that, right Tony. I mean some proof. A nice letter signed by the chief of police or something?

                  Moore will be elected as Alabama’s senator, Tony.

                  What is the next lefty agenda item after Moore wins the election?

                2. Tony always gives credence to any rumor-mongering, as long as it’s about an (R).

            2. And I will reiterate my position that every time one of you cretins inserts a Clinton or a Menendez into this conversation, that is tantamount to a defense of Roy Moore’s attempted rape of a 14 year old. So keep doing that, please.

              No. It does, though, kinda belie your whole “WE SHOULD NOT SUPPORT KID FUCKERS!!” mantra…you know, given that your side specifically does so and has done so for years.

        2. Tony, you don’t care about the Constitution. You also don’t care about kids. You have supported child fuckers and child murders.

          Admit that you just don’t like that Moore would not let you lefties further your agenda under his watch. Now Moore will tip the Senate even more in the conservative court to counter the RINOs Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins.

          Especially after sexual assaulter Franken loses his Senate seat.

          1. Other people did bad things, thus I have to support the Republican constitution shitting child fucker for Congress or I’m a hypocrite.

            Damn, the RNC should hire you.

            1. No thanks. I am a Libertarian who defends everyone from lefty political lies and attacks because being a socialist is a disease of the mind.

              “or I’m a hypocrite”.
              Glad you finally admitted that you are a hypocrite.

              You literally have brain damage Tony. You might want to get that checked out before you support more child fuckers like Bill Clinton.

              1. You know, one of those pro-holocaust “Libertarians”.

            2. No Tony, you don’t have to support him or be a hypocrite. You just have to admit that your opposition to him has zilch to do with these allegations, and that you are opposed to him because he’s a Republican, and you’re a Democrat, and you obviously don’t like his policies.

              See how hard that is? No hypocrisy. Just honest criticism of someone you wouldn’t stand to be in office under any circumstances.

              1. No Tony, you don’t have to support him or be a hypocrite. You just have to admit that your opposition to him has zilch to do with these allegations and that you are opposed to him because he’s a Republican, and you’re a Democrat, and you obviously don’t like his policies.

                All of that. And it is amazing how something that simple could be so hard for some people.

                1. Well, it is Tony we’re talking about here.

              2. I’m opposed to him because a Republican. That’s at least the third most important reason I oppose him. The first being kiddie fucking, the second being that he’s theocrat who hates the constitution.

  16. One of Trumps slanders toward Doug Jones was that he’s soft on crime.

    Doug Jones was the US District Attorney responsible for Eric Rudolph’s conviction for bombing the New Woman All Women Health Care Center and Thomas Edwin Blanton Jr. and Bobby Frank Cherry’s convictions for bombing the 16th Street Baptist Church.

    Apparently Trump doesn’t consider blowing up abortion providers or black churches to be crimes.

    1. You mean he prosecuted criminal cases? Nobody who’s soft on crime would ever do that!

      /sarc

    2. But I don’t think someone prosecuting cases of actual bombings as being “tough on crime” as much as “doing the bare minimum of the job”. To tell if he’s tough on crime, we’d have to look at plea deals he offered. Especially to powerful or wealthy people. That would be a good place to start. We’d need to see if there were cases he regularly wouldn’t prosecute despite having ample evidence. That would be “soft on crime”.

    3. Doug Jones was the US District Attorney responsible for Eric Rudolph’s conviction for bombing the New Woman All Women Health Care Center and Thomas Edwin Blanton Jr. and Bobby Frank Cherry’s convictions for bombing the 16th Street Baptist Church.

      So prosecuting murderers is what now passes for being “tough on crime”. Tell me Stormy, who isn’t tough on crime by that standard? Is there some “let the bombers, terrorists, and murderers go free” wing of the Prog movement that I have not heard about?

      1. So prosecuting murderers is what now passes for being “tough on crime”. Tell me Stormy, who isn’t tough on crime by that standard?

        All the Alabama politicians who let Blanton and Cherry run free for 40 years because they don’t care if the good ol’boys were killing minorities in the 60s?

        1. So everyone but a few old guys in Alabama are “tough on crime”? And you think that is some kind of meaningful comment on Jones?

          Are you trying to convince people to vote for Moore here?

          1. Funny how demanding justice for minorities “convinces people to vote for Moore”.

            Says a lot about Moore and Republican voters.

            1. Funny how your standard of behavior and morality consists of “not thinking it is okay to bomb shit” and you can’t figure out how saying Jones meets that isn’t really a compliment.

            2. Funny how you and Reason are endorsing the same standards of due process that the Scottsboro Boys got.

        2. All the Alabama politicians who let Blanton and Cherry run free for 40 years because they don’t care if the good ol’boys were killing minorities in the 60s?

          Those politicians were called “Democrats”

  17. Moore will win because: (1) this is Alabama (2) its not like other politicians are shining examples of morality and the voters know this (3) after the election, nobody is going to give a shit…

    1. I suspect you are correct. if he does win, watching Senators of both parties explain why he should not be seated but Franken and Menendez should face nothing more than a years long and meaningless “ethics inquiry” should be very entertaining.

    2. The PredictIt Markets are optimistic for him.

      I had forgotten to check his odds. If I’d been paying attention I’d have bought when he got below $0.40.

      1. And if he loses, I suspect the democrat will be another Scott Brown who gets voted out when his term ends, but that won’t stop the proggies from jizzing themselves.

        1. Jones is an empty suit who will go to Washington, vote exactly like Chuck Schumer, and lose by 20 points in 2020.

    3. As long as someone didn’t find some hidden skeletons in Doug Moore’s closet. I spotted these articles from Fox News and Breitbart. But at these rate, they’re now more credible from CNN, lol.

      1. I mean Doug Jones, sorry for the typo. ^^; I wish they could have an edit function. ^^;

      2. Even as I’m inclined to oppose Jones, the information in those links shows a lawyer who defends his clients and even has a somewhat reasonable defense. It might show him to be a bit hypocritical and possibly a little short on morals. Neither aspect is bad enough to really be objectionable to me

  18. Trump is handling this perfectly. He doesn’t state any personal assumptions or beliefs. He simply says that Moore denies it.

    If and when Moore is convicted of something, Trump can take the high road and call for his resignation. He can then be replaced by a republican.

    Honestly, this is the cleanest play in the context of actual criminal charges. Vote on the basis of his presumed innocence and then remove him if he is guilty.

    If he were accused of something legal, then it would be both a different story and also unpersuasive.

  19. The national GOP has only two actions to take to protect its brand: cut off national funding, which it has done, and refuse to seat Moore. The election is in the hands of the people of the great and sovereign state of Alabama. I realize that Reason writers don’t march in lockstep but it seems silly for it to be coming out in favor of secession on one “page” and keeping states from running their own elections on another…

  20. At the very least the women are unpatriotic cowards to have never alerted their fellow Alabama citizens of such career ending facts over all these decades and elections .

    I saw a YouTube last night by several of his long time friends and associates who presented very credible contradictory evidence .

  21. Their stories are falling apart. No one remembers the waitress working there or seeing Moore in there. The other was being turned over to her father because of bad behavior when she allegedly met Moore and moved away 12 days later.

  22. Thank you, Jacob, for revealing your and Reason’s explicit endorsement of false accusations. Hopefully, one of Emily’s disciples has you in her sights.

    http://tinyurl.com/yal88p9m

    “Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.