MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Harder It Is to Believe Roy Moore, the Cozier He Gets With the GOP

Trump's endorsement and the RNC's renewed support coincide with a crescendo of self-contradiction.

C-SPANC-SPANThis week Donald Trump's implicit endorsement of Roy Moore became explicit, the Republican National Committee resumed its financial support of Moore's campaign, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell switched from saying Moore should drop out of the race to saying Alabama's voters should decide whether they want him to represent them in the Senate. Meanwhile, Moore's responses to the women who accuse him of behavior ranging from creepy to criminal have never been harder to believe. The denials that Trump cites to justify his support of Moore cannot possibly all be true, because they contradict each other.

In his November 10 interview with Sean Hannity, Moore said he remembered Gloria Deason and Debbie Gibson, who told The Washington Post he had dated them when they were teenagers and he was a local prosecutor in his 30s. Although he did not recall dating them, Moore said, "I'm not going to dispute anything." He described Deason, who said she dated him when she was 18, as "a good girl." He said he knew "her parents, her mother in particular." He denied her account that he gave her wine in restaurants before she turned 19, then the minimum drinking age in Alabama, claiming (falsely) that it was not possible because Etowah County was dry at the time. Regarding Gibson, who told the Post she dated Moore when she was 17, he said, "I know her, but don't remember going out on dates. I knew her as a friend. If we did go out on dates, then we did."

Last week, in two separate campaign appearances, Moore changed his story. "The allegations are completely false," he said on November 27 in Henagar. "They are malicious. Specifically, I do not know any of these women." He repeated that blanket denial on November 29 in Theodore: "I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women, and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone."

Deason's lawyer, Paula Cobia, responded on Monday with a statement that noted the inconsistency between what Moore told Hannity and what he said last week. "No matter what lies Roy Moore may choose to tell now," Cobia said, "the truth was the first thing out of his mouth when it came time to remembering Gloria." In contrast with Moore's shiftiness, the details of Deason's story—in particular, that he flirted with her at the Gadsden Mall, that she was proud of her relationship with him, and that the physical aspect of it "did not extend beyond kissing and hugging"—ring true. "Deason has nothing to gain by telling anything but the truth," Cobia said, "and certainly no motivation to lie."

Gibson responded to Moore's recent denials by sharing with the Post memorabilia that she says corroborate her relationship with Moore, including a graduation card he signed and a scrapbook in which she had noted one of their dates. "He called me a liar," she told the Post. "Roy Moore made an egregious mistake to attack that one thing—my integrity." Gibson, a Republican, said that until recently she held Moore in high regard and remembered their relationship fondly. But his new insistence that he does not know her "changed my perspective," she said, because "I knew he was a liar."

This is the problem for Moore. He could have admitted dating Deason and Gibson (as he more or less did in his interview with Hannity) without admitting that he did anything criminal. Both girls were above Alabama's age of consent, and neither woman alleges any sort of assault. It may seem weird that he would have dated girls that much younger than he was, but it is morally and legally distinct from assaulting Beverly Nelson when she was 16 or groping Leigh Corfman when she was 14, the two most serious charges against him. By gratuitously lying about Deason and Gibson, he invites the inference that he is also lying about Nelson and Corfman.

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.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    So many left liberal Obamatard heads at Reason Dupont Circle headquarters are going to explode when Moore wins in a few days. I wish I could be a fly on their wall the next morning.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    These GOP Taliban Aborto-Freaks win practically every election in Dixie, you dumbass.

  • Jerryskids||

    "Taliban Aborto-Freaks"? You know Torquemada wasn't a Muslim, right? I think you're confusing "Islam" and "Inquisition".

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Sons of Abraham cut from the same cloth.

  • Finrod||

    Only to the room-temperature IQ types like yourself.

  • BYODB||

    What actual claim to Abraham did Mohammed have, again? Oh, right, it's because he said so. Seems legit, and clearly Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have identical faiths without any meaningful differences.

    Obviously, they have all been around for the same length of time.

    /sarc

  • damikesc||

    I love how people will happily comment on the, uh, rather intriguing story of the founding of Mormonism --- but so few look at how idiotic Islam is.

    Some random dude claims to be a prophet and every single time he asks God for his opinion on an issue, he sides with the dude EVERY SINGLE TIME.

    Sounds totally legit.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, and God himself did a total 180 as soon as Mohammed got banished. Surprise, surprise.

  • PTSD||

    Slicing and dicing the various sons and daughters of Abraham is a fool's errand. Anybody who believes in religion of any sort is a gullible, irrational fucktard. Talking snakes, burning bushes, superstitious rituals, ascending to heaven, rising from the dead -- who comes up with this shit? Religion is one of the few venues where talking about how old an idea is somehow supposed to make up for it being batshit crazy. And the fact that most Republicans publicly admit to ascribing to this nonsense is a national embarrassment. Trump is clearly an anti-Enlightenment douchebag who wants nothing to do with reason or evidence, but you have to admire him for not giving any credence to the prevailing Republican hocus GOPus.

  • PTSD||

    This ^

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Why would it make heads explode? It's just confirmation of what people always suspected of Republicans.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    To Mikey the real enemy of liberty is the Reason staff.

    His vendetta against Reason will never end. Because they do not worship the new white nationalist GOP.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    You JournoList scumbags handwave away and ignore every allegation that gets made against your democrat butt-buddies like Bill Clinton, Al Frankenstein, and all the rest of them. At least until the point where there's enough hard evidence to put one in prison like Weiner.

    You shameless, lowlife creeps have absolutely no credibility whatsoever on this topic with your highly selective faux outrage.

  • mortiscrum||

    So you admit then that sexual harassment or assault allegations against a politician are serious?

  • Lester224||

    Umm... Al Franken just resigned buddy. Roy Moore is a shameless lowlife creep for things he *admits* to.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Confirmation that lefty Democrats are so horrible that even someone accused of completely legal behavior in the 1970's would not lose?

  • Tony||

    It wasn't legal to fondle a 14 year-old you disgusting pig.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are assuming that I believe the accusation. I don't. But who knows.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Of course you don't.

  • BYODB||

    If you can't prove something empirically, what is left other than belief?

  • BillEverman||

    You moved the goalposts. You said he was "accused of completely legal behavior." Whether you believe the accusation or not doesn't change the fact that the behavior in question is illegal, and was illegal at the time he was accused of engaging in it.

  • Tony||

    And it wasn't OK for a 30-something to date teenagers, even if it was legal, you fucking odious moral relativist slimebucket.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Of course, its gross for that behavior but that is different than the legality in Alabama.

    In 1880, Alabama had an age of consent at 10. By 1920 it was 16.

    I would still rather have Moore who is accused on this behavior and him get impeached in the Senate than have a lefty Democrat in the Senate.

  • Tony||

    I know you would. That's why I called you a "fucking odious moral relativist slimebucket."

  • Finrod||

    So you were called that enough times that you finally remembered how to spell it all?

  • BYODB||

    But Tony, you are also an actual moral relativist. You have literally made that claim dozens of times on these very boards. What makes one moral relativist better or worse than another, unless you're now claiming there is in fact moral truth which, ironically, puts you right in line with the theocrats you so despise.

    Truly, you fail at any sort of philosophical consistency. Other than, I suppose, utilitarianism.

  • Tony||

    You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

    Touching little girls is wrong. I believe that whether you can prove it or not. Call me a fire-breathing moralist.

  • BYODB||

    So there we have it, you are a utilitarian which means that 'touching little girls' could very well be right for you tomorrow. It's wrong today because it's a hammer you can hit a disfavored politician with. Tomorrow, you'll give full throated defense to a pedophile.

  • MJBinAL||

    And since you look in the mirror every morning when you shave (or not), you certainly can spot a "fucking odious moral relativist slimebucket.".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw, Tony and his moral outrage when lefties want a Senate seat but complicity when its Bill Clinton riding Lolita Express and hanging with pedophile Epstein.

  • Tony||

    But you've made it plainly clear that you're OK with child fucking, so what are you bitching about?

    You could try something that's not completely made up, but the question remains.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sorry, but I am not okay with child fucking or all the fantasy kid stuff you like or sweep under the rug for people like Bill Clinton.

    I just beat down all the lefty outrage comments with facts about historical AoC and what the probable motivations behind going after Moore are.

    You are full of shit and want Team Blue to steal a Senate seat. This is because you hate Trump so much and all other methods of stopping him are failing. The Senate is a desperate attempt to do something to save the lefty cause.

  • 68W58||

    Tony-do yourself a favor and google Gerry Studds, then see if you apply the same standard you espouse here to his case.

  • Tony||

    I do.

  • 68W58||

    The voters of Massachusetts disagreed-six times. The point is, there's nothing unprecedented going on here. Personally, I don't care whether any of this brings down Moore, or even Trump, but it is nice to finally see those on the left forced to live by their own standards. BTW-remember a few month ago when the media was making an issue of Vice President Pence's policy of not dining alone with any female? Doesn't look so silly now.

  • PTSD||

    Actually, it does. Having dinner alone with a woman doesn't mean you have to grab her pussy or date her 14-year old daughter. That Pence doesn't understand the difference demonstrates that he either doesn't trust himself, which is a little scary, or he has a pretty warped understanding of relationships between men and women. I would guess the handful of people on this board who have actually had an opportunity to be alone with a woman know that Mike Pence is being Puritanical. And we all know what high-quality people the Puritans were . . .

  • RodgerMitchell||

    There are two pillars in today's conservatism: Family values and deficit reduction.

    That's why they elected the lying wife-cheater Trump, support the lying rapist Moore, and passed a $trillion dollar deficit tax bill.

  • Lajaw||

    Rape? Has Moore been accused of rape?

  • Presskh||

    Agree completely.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The allegations are completely false," he said on November 27 in Henagar. "They are malicious. Specifically, I do not know any of these women."

    Out of context quotes about "these women" compared to comments a month ago. Because "these women" always refers to exactly the same women anytime anyone uses the phrase.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    For the first time, a party's support of a candidate seems to be more about the seat and its vote than about the man's character. What has this nation become.

  • sarcasmic||

    I know it. This is so unusual in politics. I've never seen this happen before. Ever. I mean, like, totally, you know?

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    You earned your name right there.

  • JFree||

    Defn of success for a political party: We select only dog turds and elect them too.

    Defn of failure for a political party: We select only Jesus and can't elect him.

    94% of American voters prefer the dog-turd - split evenly (and vehemently) by what flavor they prefer.

  • Anomalous||

    She was just seventeen, if you know what I mean...

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    How could he dance with another@

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    When he saw her derrière

  • sarcasmic||

    Winger sucks! Oh, wait. Sorry. I was off by a generation or two.

  • lafe.long||

  • Mitsima||

    I so wish I could care, but Montgomery is 1,500 miles as the crow flies.

  • chemjeff||

    But if he admitted that he did date those girls/women, then he wouldn't be able to use his MEDIA LIES!!! narrative to gin up his base. If he wins, it will only be because Alabama voters hate the Washington Post (and "the media") more than they like him, and Roy Moore would have engineered that outcome.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    The way you can spot a compulsive liar is if they lie when it's obvious they're lying, i.e. obvious facts contradict their statements, or, in Moore's and Trump's case, they contradict their own previous statements. Both Moore and Trump feel confident their own voters are so dumb that they can literally contravene what they've previosuly said, and the idiot supporters will just shrug and continue marching. And it looks like they're right. Moore can admit that he knew the women, and without so much as a pause, turn around and categorically deny that he ever met them. Similarly with Trump, who denied that the Hollywood Access tape is him, even though he admitted it earlier, calling it "locker room talk."

    It's true what Einstein said about lying and trust:

    People who fail to regard the truth seriously in small matters, cannot be trusted in matters that are great.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    People who fail to regard the truth seriously in small matters, cannot be trusted in matters that are great.

    Applies to the Con Man in Chief most of all.

  • sarcasmic||

    Another way to tell if someone is a compulsive liar is by their occupation. Politician, lawyer, CEO, cop, etc... Liars gravitate towards certain professions.

  • PTSD||

    Exactly. Plus plumbers, contractors, HVAC guys, farmers, teachers, doctors, nurses, secretaries, laborers, baristas, porn stars, IT nerds, athletes, artists, Hollywood people, Bollywood people, truck drivers, fast food workers, real estate agents, those in the trades, middle management, and those with corner offices.

  • PTSD||

    Oh, and you can also tell by their color: Whites, blacks, browns, yellows, reds, pinks, albinos, and those who are "swarthy."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It will be so funny when Moore wins his Senate seat in Alabama.

    Your calibrated human lie detecting acumen, while at the same time forgiving every lie told by lefties, is why nobody believes lefties anymore.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    It doesn't take an inordinate amount of acumen to recognize a pathological liar, especially when he starts arguing with statements he himself made just days ago.

    But it's apparently more than you've got, Love Constipation.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Says the media, ammirite? The same lying media hacks that accuse people of things and then are doing the same thing? The same media that spins lies from crap?

    Luckily, Moore will win his Senate seat and then any accusations against him can be properly investigated outside lefties trying to steal an Alabama Senate seat out of TDS desperation.

    Hating the constitution the way you do must take real effort and devotion to socialism.

    You misspelled constipation. Its spelled DEATFBIRSECIA.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Says him, you idiot. Just days ago. When a pathological liar is contradicting himself all the media has to do is report what he says.

    Love Constipation, you need to try and pull Trump's dick out of your ass so you can finally excrete all of that shit that's been poisoning your tiny brain.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Prove it dip shit. Stop being the douche that you are and do some work.

    Cite something that Moore said and what he says later that contradicts himself proving how guilty he is.

    Please discuss how this proves you right.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Love Constipation, since you're too fucking stupid to read the actual article that you're commenting on, I'll reproduce Jacob Sullum's summary from the top of this page:

    In his November 10 interview with Sean Hannity, Moore said he remembered Gloria Deason and Debbie Gibson, who told The Washington Post he had dated them when they were teenagers and he was a local prosecutor in his 30s. Although he did not recall dating them, Moore said, "I'm not going to dispute anything." He described Deason, who said she dated him when she was 18, as "a good girl." He said he knew "her parents, her mother in particular." He denied her account that he gave her wine in restaurants before she turned 19, then the minimum drinking age in Alabama, claiming (falsely) that it was not possible because Etowah County was dry at the time. Regarding Gibson, who told the Post she dated Moore when she was 17, he said, "I know her, but don't remember going out on dates. I knew her as a friend. If we did go out on dates, then we did."

    Last week, in two separate campaign appearances, Moore changed his story. "The allegations are completely false," he said on November 27 in Henagar. "They are malicious. Specifically, I do not know any of these women." He repeated that blanket denial on November 29 in Theodore: "I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women, and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Since you're too dumb to argue your own points and want to stick with the stupidity that Jacob printed, then so be it.

    The girls say Moore knows them intimately. He didn't fight the allegations of knowing the girls as "good girls" but denied dating the girls during the Nov 10 interview. This does not mean that he knew the girls intimately. He says they were friends, whatever that means. Maybe he fucked the girl's Moms. You cannot tell from that statement that he is lying his ass off.

    As to the changed story- the media, including Jacob, are trying to insinuate that Moore not remembering what happened with Deason and Gibson and not fighting the statements that he dated the girls as an admission of doing something illegal and sexual in nature. Moore never admitted he did anything sexual with Gibson, or Deason in the stuff you copied from Jacob.

    Then when Moore flatly denies knowing these women in an intimate manner and/or sexual crimes he is contradicting himself?Knowing who girls are because of parents or that they are "good girls" and knowing what they look like naked are two totally different things. I don't know if Gadsen was a small town but church people tend to "know" each other too.

    In political speak what Moore said "I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women, and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone." can still mean that he only fucked these women when they were legal and never went to dinner ("dated") with them.

  • JFree||

    Or perhaps he only fucked their poodles and then went out for a celebratory ice cream with the girls afterward and just can't remember the ice cream cuz he was still thinking about the poodles.

    Damn media is just confusing him and preventing a better recollection of what happened.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Moore never admitted he did anything sexual with Gibson, or Deason in the stuff you copied from Jacob.

    The question was whether he lied about knowing them. He did. You were wrong.

    So to recap: The miserable Trump-straddling cock socket known as Love Constipation tried to argue that Moore didn't lie, got his ass handed to him, and is now trying to move the goalposts.

    I think we're done here. You can go back to straddling Trump's cock now, you pathetic moron.

  • PTSD||

    His small cock.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, everyone is a lefty, that's the only reason anyone could possibly think Moore is a compulsive liar.

    And where exactly is Mr. DEATF... forgiving lies told by lefties?

    Sometimes you seem like a reasonably smart person, but you are suffering from some weird mirror version of TDS.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Can you point to an instance where Love Constipation has appeared "reasonably smart?" In every post I've read he sounds like a walking traumatic brain injury.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw, poor DEET cannot read well, so of course all comments that go after socialists or are Libertarian supporting are "dumb" to him.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Love Constipation, like I said above, you need to try and pull Trump's dick out of your ass so you can finally excrete all of that shit that's been poisoning your tiny brain.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw poor DEET is lazy and stupid.

    He has resorted to calling his betters names.

    Come on DEET. Do some work and cite all Moore's statements of guilt.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    You honestly haven't heard Moore first say that he knew some of these women, and later that he didn't know any of them?

    Seriously?

    I take back what I said, then, about Trump's cock being up your ass. It now appears that you've got your head up his ass so far that you can see the plaque on the back of his teeth.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Come on dipshit. Put up or shut up.

    Lets see what you think are contradictory statements from Moore that show he is guilty.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Love Constipation, since you're too fucking stupid to read the actual article that you're commenting on, I'll reproduce Jacob Sullum's summary from the top of this page:

    In his November 10 interview with Sean Hannity, Moore said he remembered Gloria Deason and Debbie Gibson, who told The Washington Post he had dated them when they were teenagers and he was a local prosecutor in his 30s. Although he did not recall dating them, Moore said, "I'm not going to dispute anything." He described Deason, who said she dated him when she was 18, as "a good girl." He said he knew "her parents, her mother in particular." He denied her account that he gave her wine in restaurants before she turned 19, then the minimum drinking age in Alabama, claiming (falsely) that it was not possible because Etowah County was dry at the time. Regarding Gibson, who told the Post she dated Moore when she was 17, he said, "I know her, but don't remember going out on dates. I knew her as a friend. If we did go out on dates, then we did."

    Last week, in two separate campaign appearances, Moore changed his story. "The allegations are completely false," he said on November 27 in Henagar. "They are malicious. Specifically, I do not know any of these women." He repeated that blanket denial on November 29 in Theodore: "I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women, and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone."

  • Finrod||

    Deason and Gibson didn't make any allegations of sexual misconduct, you dumbfuck.

  • DesigNate||

    But he did admit to possibly dating them.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    The issue is whether he lied. He did.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    DEET is a moron who cannot even properly review Jacob's stupid statements implying Moore lied.

    The people who want Moore to go down want the words "know" and "dates" to always mean having sex with the girls. Moore uses "know" tin two ways and he uses "dates" to not necessarily mean sex.

    1) Know as in casually know people but don't fuck them. "I know her, but don't remember going out on dates. I knew her as a friend. If we did go out on dates, then we did."

    2) Know as in having sex with them. "I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women, and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone."

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    You really think he was using "know" in the biblical sense?

    That's almost as bad as Bill Clinton trying to re-define the word "is."

    You're fucking pathetic.

  • JFree||

    Know as in casually know people but don't fuck them.

    Ah. So he knows the girls but just can't remember them now because who would remember casual acquaintances from 40 years ago.

    Know as in having sex with them.

    So he knew the girls 4-5 year old (entirely age appropriate in dog years) poodles - but not the girls. And the poodles consented. And if not, well none of them have ever made accusations and aren't making them now.

    So Moore is absolutely correct. Vote for Moore.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Zeb, not everyone is a lefty. If you cannot tell who is the lefty in the room....

    He is saying the lying media is telling the truth this time about what Moore says or doesn't say.

    DEET made the comment that Moore is contradicting himself, so he needs to cite it.

    I don't follow what most politicians say but I do look at the motivations for what lefties say and do. Lefties want Alabama's Senate so bad they will use any method. Then, I predict that when Moore wins his Senate seat, the lefties won't discuss Moore anymore.

  • Mithrandir||

    I call it Trump Dicksucking Syndrome personally.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw poor Mithrandir is trying to take his Trump Dicksucking Syndrome behavior and spin it like the progressives did with the term Liberal.

    Funniest thing is you have been sucking Trump's dick without even knowing it. Its why your mumbling doesnt make sense and you are so angry. Your mouth is full of the guy who beat Hillary and your angry about it.

  • Mithrandir||

    Nice word salad. How do you like being the Red version of Tony? You guys are perfect for each other.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw poor Mithrandir cannot read either, so he cut and pasted a phrase like word salad.

    You go owned and that is clear by you resorting to little passive aggressive name calling.

  • Mithrandir||

    Yeah I sure "go owned". You're the best

    *rolls eyes*

    You are way too stupid to waste anymore time on. Later moron.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Glad you admit it moron.

    Get back to your TDS moves and maybe someone will let you get away with it.

  • DesigNate||

    It's always possible that they aren't stupid (shocking I know) and voted for Trump, or plan to vote for Moore, for purely partisan reasons or because they hate the media that much.

    Then again, it IS Alabama.

  • Rhywun||

    The only state that wouldn't (re)elect the likes of Moore or Conyers is Utah.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Alabama voters would have an easier time voting for Moore and then pushing for the Senate to impeach him and then get another special election than voting for the Democrat who they would be stuck with.

  • damikesc||

    And how dumb are the Democrats that they couldn't find a competent candidate to run?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats have not had a competent candidate in my lifetime. The Democrat machine for getting those hacks elected no matter what is breaking down.

  • Presskh||

    Impeach him for 40 year old allegations? Pure leftist dreaming.

  • retiredfire||

    "People who fail to regard the truth seriously in small matters, cannot be trusted in matters that are great."
    So how does that apply to someone, who lies about the matters that are great?
    "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. This will save you $2,500 a year in premiums."

  • MJBinAL||

    So, based on this standard, all of Moore's accusers are lying. Hmm, that makes things difficult doesn't it?

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm guessing the fact that it was 40 years ago may have something to do with the voters apathy over it. The timing of the accusations politicized them, and that also may be a factor. Interestingly, I read a story on BBC about the accusations last week and they did not mention at all how long ago it was.

  • DesigNate||

    40 years ago, last week, what difference at this point does it make?

  • retiredfire||

    Maybe the number of "accusations" that have fallen apart upon scrutiny, too.
    Like Gloria Allred's yearbook "proof", that is an obvious forgery.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Moore shouldn't be voted for based on allegations alone. They are still allegations at this point. I wonder when the proven list of #metoo culprits will be discussed here. I can't wait to see the article condemning Stuart Smalley for retaining his seat.

  • Just Say'n||

    Moore did what he's accused of. There is no way that so many women would come forward in Alabama to attack a man who is a cartoon version of what New York liberals imagine conservatives to be.

    And, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Reason to discuss Al Franken and the sixth accuser that came forward today.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    That's a fair point. I hope Reason devotes at least one piece to defending Franken's decision to remain in the Senate in defiance of this right-wing smear campaign.

  • Just Say'n||

    ^ Bacon, is this you? If so, I tip my hat to you

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    My name is not "Bacon." It's OpenBordersLiberal-tarian, or OBL for short. I appreciate the hat tip in any case.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Lol I don't play the sock game. That would ruin my snark rep yo.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    I think it's either a PB sock or MIke M playing as a tulpa sock ...can't tell.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't think so. I don't know who it is, but I don't think it's PB as he's too polite and consistent in how the character is represented. My guess is he's someone parodying Reason itself, maybe Eidde as I haven't seen him around much lately.

  • BYODB||

    Don't know, and don't care. It's amusing either way. Whomever it is, it's someone patient enough not to break character.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I agree, it's an entertaining character. Another strike against the theory that it's PB.

  • Presskh||

    Just say'n, if they would release the "signed" annual for professional authentication (and it turns out to be an authentic signature from 1977), then I would be more inclined to believe that he may be guilty. The fact that they won't release it absolutely means it's a fraud and blows a hole in all of their accusations.

  • retiredfire||

    But there has only been two, who accused him of anything illegal and one of those has been proven to have tried to use a forged yearbook as evidence.
    So, you are left with one case of "he said, she said" from 40 years ago.
    Hardly the type of proof to render him unelectable, when the alternative is someone the people of Alabama wouldn't elect, except for the last-minute charge made against Moore, after multiple opportunities for this woman to have come forward, when he stood for election, before.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Why shouldn't voters judge him based on allegations they find credible? At what point are they morally allowed to take it into consideration? And, the more interesting question to me, why should their view change according to what a jury decides (assuming the standard is that it be 'proven' in a court of law)?

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, those are fair and correct points. I think Bacon and others are just lamenting the bias in this reporting. Everyone seems to be focusing on a Senate candidate and ignoring sitting representatives who have just as credible accusers. And it's pretty obvious why some accusations are relentlessly covered and others are ignored.

  • BYODB||

    This.

    I wouldn't feel that it's necessary to point out that Moore deserves the benefit of a doubt if so many other politicians weren't given one. It's clearly guilt based on party affiliation from top to bottom, so I try to give all of them that benefit without actual evidence to the contrary.

    I know, it's pretty old fashioned to consider someone innocent until proven guilty. And no, I'm not perfect. I jump to conclusions just like anyone else.

    Any word on the handwriting in that yearbook yet? No? How odd. Why drag your feet on getting evidence that helps prove your case?

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Like I said in my first sentence...I agree that he shouldn't be voted in.

  • Zeb||

    You know, I don't even care anymore. Seems like Moore and Franken and probably most of Congress are terrible people and even worse political leaders. If voters want to put them in office, that's their deal. If the Senate wants to remove them, that's their deal too. There is no qualification for office besides age and citizenship. So it's not my business and not my problem.

    And if there were a candidate that reflected my views and values, and if I voted, I'd vote for him even if he was a creep in his personal life. SO I can't really blame Alabama Republicans if they elect him, even though I think Moore is a nutjob and not particularly a friend to liberty.

  • PTSD||

    It's not mutually exclusive. One can vote for a person who reflects your views and values who is also a creep. I think that's part of the problem. Creeps electing creeps, all the way around.

  • Jerryskids||

    Speaking of inconsistencies, there's Corey Lewandowski and some other dickhead on Fox slamming Jeff Flake for writing a check to Doug Jones' campaign, claiming he's doing what's best for Jeff Flake rather than what's best for the country and the party and he's a sad, contemptible loser for doing so. There seems to be a collective amnesia going on in the studio because nobody seems to remember that there's another Republican in Washington - even more prominent than Jeff Flake - who wrote multiple checks to Hillary Clinton and dismissed his doing so as "just business".

  • ||

    It is amazing that a guy who donated to Hillary, Schumer and Pelosi as recently as 2008 won the Republican nomination 8 years later. It is also crazy that Hillary, Schumer, and Pelosi claim how racist/sexist/misogynist Trump is but still took his money only 8 years ago. Nothing matters. There is no moral or intellectual integrity anymore. Just tribalism fueled by media bias, "fake news", years of hypocrisy on both sides and an actual swamp that is known as Washington D.C.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    *Jumps on stage and throws mic down for JP88*

  • BYODB||

    Indeed. It's truly baffling that Republicans elected Trump, but I think the most likely scenario is simply that Democrats went too far left and engaged in too much identity politics and forgot that their base included blue collar white guys at all.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I wonder, has the Washington Post or anybody else ever explained why these 40 year old sins weren't reported until after the primary? It seems to me that if the press has pertinent information regarding the fitness of a candidate for office, they have a duty to the public to make that information available when it can be acted on by the voters rather than timed to help one particular political party.

    Sorry, but the coastal press has no business acting all butthurt if the voters in Alabama refuse to believe these reports. The press damaged their own credibility by timing the release to help the Democrat candidate. They should have made the information available when Republican primary voters could have chosen a different candidate than Moore. Now some voters just see the reports as political skulduggery.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    They did, in the opening paragraphs of the original story.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Hmm, apparently the Post story I'm looking at isn't the original one? Do you have a link to that story?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Looks like it's been updated a few times. I thought the background info was mentioned earlier in the story, but here it comes after the allegations and some of the reactions:

    [Corfman] says she thought of confronting Moore personally for years, and almost came forward publicly during his first campaign for state Supreme Court in 2000, but decided against it. Her two children were still in school then and she worried about how it would affect them. She also was concerned that her background — three divorces and a messy financial history — might undermine her credibility.

    "There is no one here that doesn't know that I'm not an angel," Corfman says, referring to her home town of Gadsden.
    [...]
    Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post. While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore's Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls. Over the ensuing three weeks, two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore. The women say they don't know one another.
  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    That last para was in the report I looked it. The timing could be a coincidence but I think it's pretty thin. It doesn't really answer the "why now" question. I still think some voters in Alabama are going to see this as just another dirty trick.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    *shrug* What would satisfy you? Looks above board to me. Moore is running for a national seat in a special election, so there's more press looking for stories. A couple WaPo journalists heard what is apparently an open secret and did the work following up on it, getting these women to go on record. I don't see why it's hard to believe that this didn't happen before. It's not a coincidence, it's an effect of his primary success.

    Regardless, so what? What's important about the "why now" question? Of course a bunch of the voters will dismiss it as a trick. It sounds like many of them support him even if the allegations are true.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    It's just a credibility issue. That's all my point was, and I don't understand why some people are getting their panties in a bunch over it.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Well, no, your point was that WaPo was sitting on this information for months and decided on a 'timed release' to help the D candidate. Coming out the gate with that kind of accusation, and not merely questioning credibility (whose? the accusers? WaPo's?), is sure to get some panties twisted.

    Along with accusing them of lying about their timeline, you have to think WaPo is pretty stupid to do a timed release over a month before the election. The Access Hollywood tape was released closer to the election than that, and look what good that did. If it was a timed release by hacks willing to sacrifice their newspaper's credibility for good, they'd have released it in the last few days.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Hearsay: I have connections to Gadsden and that time period. The word is that Moore was widely known to be a creep. A powerful creep in a small town. Hence the silence to outsiders.

  • BYODB||

    So basically the women are saying it wasn't important enough to come forward when Moore was running for an office that had way more power over their lives than the one he's seeking now. And that they only did come forward after reporters hounded them to come forward. That seems pretty legit, actually.

    I assume that no one bothered to look into Moore, even when it was common knowledge that he's apparently a predator, while running for supreme court because Alabama wanted a supposed molester in the supreme court?

    It can't be an 'open secret' and a 'secret secret' at the same time, can it?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Well there you have it. It's either a conspiracy of silence or a conspiracy of lies. Pick yer poison.

  • Tony||

    Can't you just, like, not defend this one Republican, this one time? You're supposed to be anti-partisan. Why can't you actually be that just this once? Just in the case of child vagina touching? Please?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I'm not defending him. I think he did it. If I were a citizen of Alabama I wouldn't vote for him.

    What does that have to do with my point?

  • Tony||

    Instead of just saying maybe a child molester shouldn't be a senator you're concocting a stupid conspiracy theory, which even if true doesn't change the fact that he's a fucking child molester.

    I hate all of you.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Bullshit. (Except for the "I hate all of you", I'm sure that's the truth.)

    If you really are so concerned about the possibility of a child molester becoming a U.S. Senator, you'd agree that the press had a duty to get that to the voters as soon as possible. But you're not, you fucking fraud.

  • Tony||

    He's still a child molester even if the news breaks at an inconvenient time for his election campaign, you irredeemable douchebag defender of child fuckers.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Well, I'll admit you've got me embarrassed now. See, even though we disagreed about most everything, I had a little respect for you. That was very stupid of me.

    Yeah, Tony The Ultimate Pragmatist is now handing out morality lectures. Give me a fucking break. If Moore had a D behind his name you'd be out campaigning for him right now. You fucking fraud.

  • Tony||

    Also, I'll be searching the archives for your red-faced outrage over the timing of the Comey reports.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    There is something special about Tony calling someone else out on contradictory reasoning.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Tony simply hates partisanship except for his own. Advocate for Hillary despite her unconscionable defense of her husband, hate Moore because he's on the other team. In his alternative reality, it's perfectly logically consistent.

  • Tony||

    So you're now in plain English equating Roy Moore's serial child predation with Hillary Clinton's defending her husband's affairs (with adults).

    This is why we can't have nice things.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw, Tony. Bill Clinton loved riding that Lolita Express and hanging with pedophile Epstein.

    I am sure they were just discussing family like Bill was with Loretta Lynch.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Tony, if you rip their pantyhose, bloody them up, and hold them down on the bed while you do your business, that's not an affair. That's rape. It's a crime too.

    Not to even mention all of Bill's trips on the so-called "Lolita Express".

    Roy Moore is scum. Bill Clinton is scum. John Conyers is scum.

    The difference between you and me is that I refer to scum as scum no matter what team they're on. You only do it to one side.

  • I can't even||

    "neither woman alleges any sort of assault"

    So why are we talking about stuff that happened in the 70's that weren't even criminal?

  • Rhywun||

    Because if he lied about not knowing those two, it proves he assaulted two other people. Or something.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Because he's a walking Amber Alert?

  • ||

    What happens in the 70s, stays in the 70s!

  • Mcgoo95||

    Because this is 2017 and a woman's word is now irrecusable. If a man behaved badly 40 years ago you damn well better believe her. Why would she lie?

  • sarcasmic||

    Rush has been dethroned as the best Canadian band ever.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrpUZZoN7oc

    Fuck you Neil!

  • sarcasmic||

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Awesome! Thanks for that.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Triumph?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I like how the beginning of the video made me think of a 90s era Reel Big Fish video.

  • KDN||

    There are other types of Reel Big Fish videos?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    They are still around. I have seen them as recently as 2011. It's a hard life they've chosen.

  • ||

    The irony is that this is the same sort of defense people give of Roman Polanski, but usually it's the liberals defending Polanski and the conservatives attacking him.

    Everyone wants to fuck young girls. It was the 70s, and people's attitudes about sex were different back then. She looked like she could have been 18 or 25, you can't really tell with girls that age.

    I''m curious as to whether Roy Moore had a hard life, so it was okay to blow of steam by assaulting young girls.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It's assault now? I thought it was molesting, according to the lefty media?

    Wow, you lefties just keep escalating scary sounding accusations.

    Luckily, the voters of Alabama will decide to give Moore the Senate seat and even then, the Senate can impeach Moore if they wanted to for conduct they find wrong.

    The main thing is not to reward lefty tactics to take a conservative Senate seat.

  • Tony||

    How does it feel to have lost all your credibility points till the end of time?

    That's the rules. Defend a pedophile, and nobody ever has to listen to you again.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Unlike, you I don't defend pedophiles. Moore might or might not have molested a 14 year old. Just like Bill Clinton might or might not have molested kids on Lolita Express. Who knows. Bill's friend Epsetein plead guilty to molesting kids, so there's that.

    I defend the right of Alabamans to vote Moore into the Senate base on what they think is true. I defend the presumption of innocence.

    You have long been outed as a liar and lefty partisan who will do and say whatever it takes to further Team Blue.

    If Moore did something criminal and the Senate feels they should impeach him for behavior 40 years ago, then good for the Senate.

    I don't particularly believe the accusations of molestation of a 14 year old but who knows.

  • Finrod||

    Tony has to ask, because Tony never has had any credibility whatsoever.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Everyone wants to fuck young girls."

    Not true. Some like young boys.

    Seriously, though, not everyone is a sicko- just those people in power.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Everyone wants to fuck young girls."

    If I remember correctly, the (alleged?) episode with the 14 year-old happened in 1977, which happened to be the year in which I turned 20.

    Even as idiot 20 year-olds in college, my friends and I at that time knew damn well that we needed to keep our hands off the high school girls. There were some instances of older guys in their 30s hanging around trying to pick up the same colleges girls that we were hitting on, and we considered those guys to be creepy old weirdos. A 30+ year-old hanging around the local high school trying to hit the talent would have been considered weird beyond description. Seriously, had we seen that we may have beaten the shit out of him to do our part to stop child abuse.

    Moore is a dishonest, sick bastard, who uses faux Christianity induce people to support him. I wouldn't want him driving through my neighborhood, much less serving in a position of power.

  • lap83||

    Polanski was convicted of drugging and raping a minor. Roy Moore is alleged, decades after the fact, to have kissed, groped, and hit on teenagers. Totally the same thing

  • lap83||

    Not that I think Moore is a stand-up guy, but he doesn't have anything on him that is as bad as Polanski. He is sketchy at worst.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    One thing that's not particularly worthwhile is making an equivocation at all. I feel like it's a very human thing we do, to say "X > Y". We do this in almost everything, not just in ranking moral failings. I don't know why we do that, maybe it's just because it helps us make sense of a world so complex that we can't really grasp it in any real way. Still, one doesn't really need to do it.

    We can say Moore is bad, not mention anyone else. We can say Polanski is bad, not mention anyone else. No ranking required.

    This might sound like I'm criticizing your comment, please don't read it as such. This is me just discussing an orthogonal topic as I am want to do.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    I think this is the right way to look at it. Moore is objectively bad. Polanski is objectively bad. Whether one is worse or better than the other is just squabbling over opinions and minutia.

    The issue is that while Polanski is sitting in France, Moore is about to be elected to a position of power in our government.

    I mean, Ted Bundy was objectively worse than OJ Simpson, but I wouldn't want either one of them dating my daughter.

  • ||

    My point is not that Moore and Polanski are equivalent , but that the rhetoric used by their defenders is equivalent. They're both making these morally debased claims that the behavior in question is excusable because of the low moral standards with respect to rape and sexual harassment of the time. I could throw Bill Cosby into the mix here, as well. Apparently "It was the 1970s, she looked 18" is a universal defense of everything from grooming young girls for sex to drugging women so as to rape them while they were incapacitated. Might as well say "Whatever, we were all too coked up to know what the fuck we were doing!"

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think another issue is that everyone wants to see things in black and white. Bill Cosby is a great example of this, his rape is a horrible thing and not only casts a shadow over everything he did, but completely invalidates everything he may have done, good or bad.

    If this is the standard we hold, then all shall fall. Nobody is perfect now, and as morals change over time, everyone in the past will inevitably fall if we can only view people as perfectly good or shit. It is hard to deal with these complexities, particularly for people we don't really know in any meaningful way like politicians and other celebrities. But that is probably how we should. Humans are not perfect creatures.

    Also, not enough people focus on how shit Moore's actual politics are. He reads like some damn authoritarian jackass.

  • lap83||

    This might sound like I'm criticizing your comment, please don't read it as such.

    I will read it however I want!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    WELL FUCK YOU

  • Kivlor||

    Yeah, except Polanski wasn't just accused 40 years later, he was accused almost immediately after the alleged incident took place. I mean, Moore is actually denying that any of these events happened, while Polanski actually admitted it, and said "she didn't say she didn't enjoy it". And he plead guilty to having sex with a child under the age of 14. And then he fled the country rather than serve his sentence...

    But totally the same.

    (unless you're only referring to the additional 10 accusations against him, which would be more akin to Moore's situation. But that would ignore the above case, which is the truly relevant one)

  • ||

    I'm not making a direct equivalence, just comparing the similarity of the justifications the defenders of it are making. At least denying it ever happened is reasonable.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Jeff Flake is such a tool. He is a Mormon, so him trying to take the moral high ground about anything relating to child dating or marriage is laughable.
    Jeff Flake sends check to Democrat in Alabama
    Jeff Flake would rather a lefty Democrat win under this type of dirty campaigning.

  • GILMORE™||

    moores a scumbag, but so are most of the people in washington dc.

    i find it hard to give a shit about this effort to fall over one's self denouncing everyone's historical sexual infidelities. some people are creeps and should lose their jobs. some people are creeps and wont'. Fulminating about it isn't really very interesting. its just playing stupid culture war games. which used to be what this place avoided, at least it seemed that way.

  • Tony||

    You're defending a child molester with false equivalence. Is that how you teach your children to approach morality?

  • GILMORE™||

    you're an idiot.

  • Tony||

    Perhaps. Guess what I'm not? (A defender of child molesters.)

  • sarcasmic||

    You're still an idiot.

  • DesigNate||

    Something tells me that if had a (D) after his name, Tony wouldn't be showing up in these threads.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    He'd hem and haw*, and then say that at least DMoore would protect these teenagers' right to birth control and an abortion, which is more respect than any R would show them, and his vote against the tax bill and for more Medicare spending will save millions of lives.

    *OK, I'm being generous

  • Rhywun||

    teenagers

    He does like to play word games with the accusers' ages, doesn't he.

  • Tony||

    If he had a (D) after his name he wouldn't be endorsed by the president and the entire Democratic party, he'd be escorted quickly into obscurity.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bill Clinton did and he has a (D) after his name.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anthony Wiener has a (D) after his name.

  • damikesc||

    If he had a (D) after his name he wouldn't be endorsed by the president and the entire Democratic party, he'd be escorted quickly into obscurity.

    Studds wasn't...

  • Finrod||

    Like Al Franken, you fucking idiot?

  • Finrod||

    Tony is a liar, since he defended Bill Clinton, just for starters.

  • retiredfire||

    And he probably would have defended Ted Kennedy.

  • GILMORE™||

    *if there's any interesting story-angle to this whole "Gropeageddon"/'exposure of historical sexual improprieties by powerful people'-thing... its the congressional slush fund - yes, slush fund, Snopes - used to pay out settlements to accusers

    contra snopes, i don't think simply because it was *legal* (and, interestingly, created around the same time as the Lewinsky scandal, which makes one wonder about its origins) that it was therefore nothing to be outraged about using taxpayer $ to pay-off victims. if anything, it makes it worse. everyone in congress knew about it, and yet when exposed, everyone pretends to be just as surprised as the public.

    moore's 'grass on the field, play ball' habits of the 1970s, by contrast, strike me as ... trivial. Sure, if your only goal is to go, "ah ha! SEE!! GOP HYPOCRITES!" then sure. But its a fools game.

  • Tony||

    I wish Roy Moore's hell existed so you fucking vile defenders of pederasty could burn there.

  • GILMORE™||

    im sure you do, tony.

    what was the age of consent in Alabama when all this 'completely voluntary romancing' happened, btw? I'm just curious. I really haven't given enough of a shit to look it up. Could you do that for me?

  • Tony||

    Older than 14, scum.

    I want you to say that it's OK for a Democratic politician to date teenagers when he's in his 30s.

  • GILMORE™||

    I want you to say that it's OK for a Democratic politician to date teenagers when he's in his 30s.

    What i personally feel is "ok" in 1970s alabama from my pov in 2017 has little/nothing to do with what people actually thought *was* ok at the time.

    i think if people in AL were outraged, they wouldn't elect him. its none of my business what they think.

    people re-elect scumbags all the time. both parties are full of them.

    if you're interested in a more-entertaining rationalization of adult/youth romantic relationships, try this

  • Tony||

    Eat shit and die pedo defender.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, you're gonna eat shit and die for being a pedo defender of Bill Clinton?

    Good for you bud.

  • retiredfire||

    What's the bet Tony supports NAMBLA.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's not a moral high ground anymore if you have to twist what someone's saying to take it.

  • GILMORE™||

    oh, boo. Fixed link here

  • lap83||

    What i personally feel is "ok" in 1970s alabama from my pov in 2017 has little/nothing to do with what people actually thought *was* ok at the time.

    It's funny to see progressives conveniently decide that moral absolutism is "in" again whenever it involves Republicans and icky southern states.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These is the same Democratic Party that ran the South and created many of these young AoC laws, along with Jim Crowe laws and the KKK.

    Moral high ground is not the Democratic Party's strong suit.

  • ||

    What i personally feel is "ok" in 1970s alabama from my pov in 2017 has little/nothing to do with what people actually thought *was* ok at the time.

    And in Hollywood in 1970s, people thought it was ok for famous people to drug and rape people, including 13 year old girls. (Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski, Weinstein).

    Should we apply the standards about sexual behavior of the 1970s to who we elect today?
    Does what happens in the 1970s stay in the 1970s?

  • BYODB||


    And in Hollywood in 1970s, people thought it was ok for famous people to drug and rape people, including 13 year old girls. (Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski, Weinstein).


    That's not really true enough, because it was illegal to do so.

  • damikesc||

    I want you to say that it's OK for a Democratic politician to date teenagers when he's in his 30s.

    Moore wasn't a Republican at all until about age 45.

  • GILMORE™||

    Moore wasn't a Republican at all until about age 45.

    lol

  • lap83||

    "Moore wasn't a Republican at all until about age 45."

    Wait, why are we focusing so much on his past? Come on guys, water under the bridge /Tony's sudden change of heart

  • juris imprudent||

    If you aren't doing what Tony is doing, you know - shitting on the floor, rolling around in it while screaming and jerking off - you are obviously defending someone you can't even vote against.

  • Tony||

    But I suppose Roy Moore's hell is only full of gay people, not fuckers of children. Do you agree with this moral distinction as you likely must considering you're going out of your way to defend the sleazy dirty fingerer of little girls?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    He isn't a pederast, and a 16-year-old isn't a child.

    Stop trying so hard, stupid.

  • Tony||

    16 is a child, and so is 14, and you're a fucking defender of pedophiles.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Sure!

    You are such an idiot.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, in 1880s Alabama, the age of consent was 10.

    History is always so cruel to lefty contemporary outrage.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    16 is the age of consent in, like, half the US and all of Canada. As well as a very large portion of the world. You can moralize against it, for sure, but I'm not sure you're going to get much outrage over 16.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Age of Consent in Georgia was 14 until 1995 and then it went to 16.

    In Alabama, the AoC from 1880s to 1920 was 10.

    Its all relative. Marriage of teenagers was common 100 years ago as the life expectancy was lower, so people had to pop out more kids earlier.

  • BYODB||

    Amusing to see yet another moral absolutist argument come out of Tony's backside when he claims the mantle of moral relativism all the time.

  • chemjeff||

    "But I suppose Roy Moore's hell is only full of gay people"

    And Muslims. Don't forget the Muslims.

  • Tony||

    Well Muslims are so bad to women and gays don't you know.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, wasn't Muhammed a pedophile?

    How do you support the Muslim religion when it is founder practiced pedophilia?

  • damikesc||

    That 8 year old, though, was totally asking for Mohammad's cock.

  • Tony||

    I don't support the Muslim religion you moronic hillbilly.

  • Tony||

    And between us you're the only one supporting a pedophile.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw, poor Tony has pedo all on the brain and supports pedos like Bill Clinton.

    "Well Muslims are so bad to women and gays don't you know." This must have been sarcasm then? Couldn't tell because you support Muslim policies at every turn.

  • BYODB||

    Not to mention that the modern Muslim faith encourages incest. In fact, it's so prevalent in some nations genomes that more than half of their population suffer from genetic diseases related to incest.

    True story.

  • Tony||

    The sad thing is we'll never have a reasonable opinion on this disgusting pervert from the likes of John. Because he has an (R) after his name, that means all is forgiven. If he had a (D) after his name, he'd be Benghazi^10 for the next billion years.

  • GILMORE™||

    like clinton. sure.

  • Tony||

    I'm making a list and checking it twice. Whoever defends the child fucker will be reminded of it, by me, until the end of time.

  • GILMORE™||

    no one's defending him because i really don't even care if he does or doesn't get elected.

    if he did something illegal, im sure there's some law that should apply.

  • Tony||

    Yes you are. You typed the words and everyone can see them.

    What a fucking hill to die on, I swear. Roy Moore? He was a horrible human being before you knew that he diddled 14 year-old girls.

  • GILMORE™||

    What a fucking hill to die on

    im not dying on it at all because i really don't give a flying fuck either way.

    by contrast, your moral credibility has died a thousand deaths on these boards over the past decade+, and no one has ever taken you the slightest bit seriously.

  • Tony||

    Oh yes I endorse universal healthcare. Pretty much the same as you endorsing the forced touching of little girls by US senators.

  • DesigNate||

    You full throatedly call for the execution of your political rivals and defend every Democrat who ever walked the face of the earth.

    Go fuck yourself.

    (Oh, and that's not a defense of Moore either, just so we're clear.)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, except Bill Clinton touching little kids on Lolita Express. Bill Clinton you still adore.

    And Hillary, who surely knows about said "indiscretions". Aiding and abetting pedo Bill.

    The funny thing is that most people on here face his Alabama voters, accusers, and the system. If he has done something wrong, then he could be impeached. You and your lefty comrades want that Senate seat so bad that you push lies to further agenda while ignoring sexual crimes by Conyers, Weiner, Bill Clinton, etc.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony|12.6.17 @ 11:31AM|#
    Oh yes I endorse universal healthcare. Pretty much the same as you endorsing the forced touching of little girls by US senators.


    Tony, finally you admit that Moore will become the next US Senator from Alabama.

  • Tony||

    You say that as if it reflects well on Alabama.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I personally think Alabama is a shit hole. On that note, I still want Moore to beat another Democrat attempt to take over government and stop Trump rolling back lefty policies.

    The after he becomes a Senator, let the Senate impeach him or police charge him with a crime. He is not my Senator, so I really cannot do anything about what he is being accused of. Just like I cannot do anything about Conyers, if he stayed in the House, or Bill Clinton being a pedo.

    I can continue to collect tears from lefties like you and reply to your lefty comments for the bullshit they are.

  • MJBinAL||

    Tony,

    Are you a real person? It get's hard to imagine that a real human could be as obtuse as you appear to be. My current best thought is that you are a paid agitator living in .. maybe New Jersey?

  • Finrod||

    And we'll keep reminding you of Bill Clinton and the Pedophile Express, you fucking imbecile.

  • Tony||

    So it's bad when Bill Clinton does it but OK when Roy Moore does it?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Of course, its bad if true. We will never know about what is true with Bill Clinton because of lefties like you who protect him.

    You already supported Bill Clinton no matter what was said about him and now want people to believe you have integrity and actually care about kids?

    Luckily, Moore will win the Senate seat and then if accusations are true, he can resign or be impeached.

  • Tony||

    I never once supported Bill Clinton for any political office.

  • Finrod||

    Begging the question: the only sport Tony plays.

  • retiredfire||

    The actual child "fucker" is your hero Slick Willy.
    The most Moore has been accused of is slight touching, which ended when she objected - and that is far from being proven, while Clinton's accomplice has admitted that he did it.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Hey well
    I'm a friendly stranger prosecutor in a black sedan
    Won't you hop inside my car.
    I got pictures, got candy
    I'm a lovable man
    And I can take you to the nearest star.
    I'm your vehicle baby
    I'll take you anywhere you want to go.
    I'm your vehicle woman
    But I'm not sure you know
    That I love ya
    I need ya
    I want ya,
    Got to have you child,
    Great God in heaven you know I love you.
    Well if you want to be a movie star
    I'll get a ticket to Hollywood.
    But if you want to stay just the way you are
    You know I think you really should.
    I'm your vehicle baby
    I'll take you anywhere you want to go.
    I'm your vehicle woman
    But I'm not sure you know
    That I love ya
    I need ya
    I want ya,
    Got to have you child,
    Great God in heaven you know I love you.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Tony||

    Reason exclusive: why do so many libertarians think it's OK to rape a 14 year-old as long as the raper has an (R) after his name? A self-reflection. Coming the neverteenth of Nevervember.

  • DesigNate||

    Please copy and paste all of these people saying it's ok to rape a 14 year-old (wasn't it groping a few posts ago?).

  • sarcasmic||

    Did you make a post in bold-caps that said it's wan't OK? No? Well then, that means you approve.

    /Tony logic

  • Rhywun||

    He's saving it for later. By then, the age of the accuser will be knocked down to infant, I assume.

  • BYODB||

    Tony is a true Southerner. Every time he tells a tale, it gets a little taller.

  • MJBinAL||

    Tony can't be a southerner. I'm thinking he lives in New Jersey maybe?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony keeps changing what the accusations are to fit his outrage.

    He has yet to admit that him and his lefties really only want the Senate seat by any means necessary.

  • Kivlor||

    Tony, you're on the wrong website. I've gotten the distinct impression that most libertarians here would abolish most AoC laws, or push them back to something drastically lower than they are today.

  • Tony||

    Then most libertarians are sick fucks.

    I am usually on board with their more liberal attitudes toward drugs and sex. But they're defending child molestation because the molester is a Republican. I would try to figure out if the partisan hypocrisy or the disgusting perversion is worse, but I don't care.

  • Kivlor||

    See, here ya go again. It's not about him being a Republican, Tony. For the libertarians here that have "defended" him it's about him--something I doubt there's many of--it's about 1) opposing the AoC laws--which basically means they dismiss you outright-- and 2) saying that we really can't trust someone who comes forward at the tail end of an election, to make character assassinating accusations about something that allegedly happened 40 years ago.

    I'm pretty sure that most people, if they 1) believe in AoC laws and 2) think Moore did it, will oppose him. The problem is when you reject one or both of these items.

  • Rhywun||

    Well, I don't oppose AoC laws. I do think 16 or 17 which is common in most states is too high, though.

    My problem with this whole song and dance is the complete abdication of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

    Tony's accusations that we're all defending "child molestation" are just part of his usual trolling schtick, and not to be take seriously.

  • Kivlor||

    Well, I don't oppose AoC laws. I do think 16 or 17 which is common in most states is too high, though.

    My problem with this whole song and dance is the complete abdication of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

    I'm actually fine with AoC, and I don't mind 16 or 17 being the AoC (with some Romeo and Juliet caveats) but my primary issue has always been this whole "40 years later" mixed with "listen and believe" is absolutely horrifying to me.

    Only Tony thinks that Age of Consent only relates to sex.

    Tony is so socialist in mentality that he does not even know that AoC applies to other things like: minors entering into contracts, military service, smoking, drinking alcohol, owning property, etc.

    This seems like a solid argument that AoC should be 18. Or even older. With Romeo and Juliet caveats. Not really a fan of sending 16yo kids to war.

  • Zeb||

    No reason there can't be different ages of consent for different activities. We as a society seem to have decided that full adulthood starts somewhere between 18-21. But it's clearly natural and normal for people to start being sexually active earlier.

    It's all pretty arbitrary. Different people mature at different rates. But the line's going to be drawn somewhere.

  • BYODB||

    One thing I would like to see is the age of drinking lowered to the same age where you can legally decide to go off to war and get shot to death in service to the country.

    It's always struck me as odd that you need be older to drink than you need to be in order to volunteer to die. (Or, alternatively, conscripted against your will and sent off to die by the state. Remember that the draft is still on the books.)

  • Kivlor||

    OOPS I put that one in the wrong place lol. Should have replied under myself. -_-

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Only Tony thinks that Age of Consent only relates to sex.

    Tony is so socialist in mentality that he does not even know that AoC applies to other things like: minors entering into contracts, military service, smoking, drinking alcohol, owning property, etc.

  • MJBinAL||

    Tony, 40 years ago it was common for 16 year old women to get married. Do you think they waited until after they got married to date?

  • chemjeff||

    Honestly, I think the correct approach to Age of Consent laws is just to create a legal standard for adulthood that is not necessarily tied to a person's age. So if a person can meet a few criteria - pass a test of basic knowledge that every citizen ought to know, for instance - then that person should be declared an "adult" and have all rights and privileges thereto. If smart kids can do it at age 14 then they are "adults" and if slow kids can't do it until the age of 20 then they aren't adults until then.

  • BYODB||

    Well that's certainly one way to disenfranchise low IQ people and legitimize the removal of basic rights from swaths of the population.

  • Finrod||

    Why does Tony beg the question like he's holding a cardboard sign by an interstate off-ramp?

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    I wouldn't say it's ok to rape a 14 year old. But I'd still rather vote for a child molester than a Democrat.

  • MJBinAL||

    There is not one since bit of evidence that Roy Moore raped anyone of any age. And the unsupported 40 year old accusations come from a woman who has a, let's say "bad" history, and is challenged by other people who knew her at the time.

  • Tony||

    Particularly galling was that cross-eyed hillbilly defending the Trump administration's endorsement of the disguising child molester on the grounds that, sure, maybe he molested children, but at least he isn't a (moderate) Democrat!

    Brought to you by the same people who bitch all the time about how Democrats refuse to join them on legislation.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Did someone forget to give Tony his meds?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony and his lefty comrades REALLY want this Senate seat in Alabama. So expect the insanity to reach fever pitch until next Tuesday's special election.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    And then get even worse when Moore wins.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I doubt it. The lefty M.O. is to pants shit to get what they want and when they lose a minor election they move on to the next pants shitting agenda.

    I find it funny that most people would never even care about this election if it were not for lefties making such a big deal about it.

  • MJBinAL||

    When has Tony ever taken his meds?

  • Kivlor||

    You know, what really sucks about this is how far we have polarized. The left has moved so far away from the old center that there may be people on the right who would consider voting for someone they think has done something they'd normally hang a man for.

    Consider that Tony. You and those like you have reached so far, that you've created a situation where people who would normally consider lynching a man like Roy Moore for what he's accused of, are willing to overlook it just to protect themselves from more of your policies. That says something terrifying, if you can mull it over without letting your emotions get the best of your thoughts.

  • Tony||

    Roy Moore's extremist politics and his party's embracing of a pedophile is the fault of the left. Got it.

    Maybe you should all just drink cyanide and do the universe a favor.

  • Finrod||

    It's Team Blue that thinks there are too many humans on this planet, shithead.

    Go swallow a .45 barrel and pull the trigger already.

  • Kivlor||

    Instead of emoting, think on what that means for society at large buddy. If you took any one of these people and asked them what should be done with pedophiles, they would almost certainly be in favor of EXECUTION. And they are willing to ignore him if he'll keep you and your kind at bay--if we are to take your assertion as true.

    Seriously think about this for a bit. Consider what that means for these people. How much they must despise your policies, and fear for the erosion of their way of life. They would take any help, even from someone they would on any normal day sanction giving a torturous death.

    Jesus Christ man, maybe it's time to bury the fucking hatchet, reach across the aisle, and treat your political opponents like humans, and recognize their concerns. Maybe it's time to slow down, and give them some time to adjust.

  • chemjeff||

    "The left has moved so far away from the old center that there may be people on the right who would consider voting for someone they think has done something they'd normally hang a man for."

    Why is this the fault of anyone on "the left"?

    Is it the job of "the left" to tell Republican voters "no, don't vote for someone who gropes 14-year-olds"?

  • DesigNate||

    You see that up there? That's his point going right over your head.

    It's not that anybody has to tell them that. It's that Democrats policies are seen as such cancerous bullshit that those people are willing to overlook what he might have done (innocent until proven guilty is still our modus operandi right?) in order to keep the Democrats from picking up a senate seat.

  • Lester224||

    Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for putting someone in jail, not for someone losing his job (or not getting a job). For civil issues the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" and for someone getting fired from a job it's usually "if it makes the employer look bad".

  • KDN||

    Mainstream ("moderate") Democratic policies are no longer in the Overton window of Republican leaners and vice versa. Both parties at the national level have moved too far away from each other for a member of one to be viable at the state level in most of the country. It's the California problem writ large.

    Not to dispense blame for that reality, but according to polling date the median Clinton voter was significantly further left of center on an absolute basis than the median Trump voter was from the right on both cultural (by a small amount) and economic (by a mile) issues. That fact and the left's position as the gatekeeper of what can be considered right-thinking attitudes is assuredly driving some of what we're seeing.

  • BYODB||

    This seems pretty accurate to me.

  • Kivlor||

    Satellites, Chemjeff. Satellites.

    What do they have to do with this conversation, you might ask?

    Well, they, like my previous comment, are flying way, way above your head.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Nice Kivlor.

  • damikesc||

    Particularly galling was that cross-eyed hillbilly defending the Trump administration's endorsement of the disguising child molester on the grounds that, sure, maybe he molested children, but at least he isn't a (moderate) Democrat!

    What, PRECISELY, makes Jones "moderate"?

    I ask because I've LITERALLY never heard a Progressive label a Democrat anything other than "moderate" or "conservative".

  • Mickey Rat||

    He is marginally to the right of Stalin.

  • FatDrunkAndStupid||

    There is no contradiction. In his first interview he made the mistake of addressing things that aren't really "accusations" and thus falling in to the Left Wing trap. Subsequently, he stopped doing that and just issued blanket denials to the "accusations". That is the smart thing to do. After the election, Moore can easily say that the "them" he didn't know were the women who actually accused him of doing anything wrong, not the of age women he may of went on a date with and by all accounts behaved as a perfect gentleman around.

    There are only two women who have actually made true accusations against Moore. One has already been completely discredited by the forged Yearbook and the other one apparently has a long track record of false accusations and deceit. No reason for Moore to get bogged down in details when the underlying accusations against him are so weak. It only lends credibility to his attackers.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Fat, drunk, stupid, and gullible.

  • Lee Russell||

    You're incredibly misinformed or you're a liar.

  • Finrod||

    You're both.

  • MJBinAL||

    No, FatDrunkandStupid is exactly correct. Facts ladies and gentlemen, try them some time.

  • chemjeff||

    "and the other one apparently has a long track record of false accusations and deceit"

    Like who? Leigh Corfman? Link please?

  • chemjeff||

    "One has already been completely discredited by the forged Yearbook"

    We know the yearbook is forged how?

  • Tony||

    Laura Ingraham pulled the possibility out of her ass and thus it became fact.

  • Finrod||

    Because there's a DA after his signature in the yearbook.

    Every time that appeared after his signature on official paperwork (which we know the accuser has a copy of) it was put there by his assistant.

    So either the assistant signed the yearbook or the yearbook is a forgery.

  • BYODB||

    Last I heard they were going to have a handwriting expert take a look at the yearbook, but since I haven't heard a single thing about it yet I'm going to assume that either they haven't done the analysis yet (and why wouldn't they?) or they did and it was found to be not his and the media quietly let that die.

  • retiredfire||

    They didn't even use the same colored ink to add some of the things that are supposedly alongside Moore's signature.
    These people aren't even smart enough to do that right - and they won't allow it to be submitted for forensic examination.

  • Lee Russell||

    Moore and anyone in public office accused in such a manner should put his hand on the bible and answer questions under oath. That's the least we should expect from the people whi control our public offices. The lying means something once the people are put under oath. Moore, Trump, Franken can say anything now. Put the accusers under oath. Let's try the case.

  • Rhywun||

    In a court of law? Sure, have at it. Otherwise it's still a witch-hunt.

  • Ron||

    when both parties put forth scum to vote on then the fall back issue is not about their sins but about the party, disgraceful as that is but this is why many don't vote at all. I live in California so i see no reason to ever vote again since no party even libertarian have it right

  • NoVaNick||

    ^THIS^

    I live in California so i see no reason to ever vote again since no party even libertarian have it right

    I feel much the same way in Virginia-I say every election I vote in will be my last, but so far haven't been able to break the habit. I vote for the libertarian candidates usually if for no other reason than to boost their numbers, but even that is becoming too much of a bother when, at best, they might get 5%...

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    None of this blah blah blah changes the fact that Roy Moore is a ridiculous man who believes ridiculous things and thinks he's above the law because he's an instrument of YHWH, or something.

  • chemjeff||

    This right here. I wouldn't have voted for Roy Moore even if he hadn't groped any girls. But that he did, and Republican voters STILL are tripping all over themselves to vote for him, just shows the depravity that Team Red has fallen into.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    It certainly show the moral emptiness of political christianity. I've been in some backwater AL churches and heard the sermons dripping with fear and politics. They're afraid because their religion is mutating, or worse, dying. Politics and power is the route they've chosen for revival.

  • BYODB||

    Christianity isn't dying in the United States, all religions of all sorts are being eroded to the point where it's becoming illegal to practice religion. All you're allowed to do is say you believe things, and increasingly even that is being eroded into nothingness.

    The only permissible religion to be a part of the United States, at least in the 'mainstream' view, is State sponsored secularism. We see how well that's worked out for France.

    Note that I'm not a religious type, either, even while I've taken classes in religion. I find it to be a useful companion to philosophy, if nothing else.

    It certainly show the moral emptiness of political [sic] christianity.

    This, however, I would absolutely agree with. Christianity was never intended to be political at all.

  • retiredfire||

    No, all religions are not being eroded.
    Try to say something, even marginally, critical of "the religion of peace" and you will be attacked, verbally, and very likely physically, with full government condemnation of your "islamophobia".

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    P.S.
    I don't know what Roy really believes. It's entirely possible he's just posturing to get back on the public teat.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Yarp. Alabamans shouldn't vote for him (and should not have voted for him) because of his ridiculous and terrible views, regardless of what his behavior 40 years ago.

  • NoVaNick||

    Apparently Alabamans do not find his views to be so ridiculous or terrible or he wouldn't have made it this far and still be ahead in a number of polls.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Painting with a broad brush there, aren't you? RCP avg has him at +2.3. Not everyone in Dixie is a mouth breather.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Yes, I know. And?

  • Bubba Jones||

    I dated girls in high schools (for weeks) whose names I no longer remember. Hell, I had forgotten them within a year.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Were you in your 30's at the time?

  • NoVaNick||

    By gratuitously lying about Deason and Gibson, he invites the inference that he is also lying about Nelson and Corfman.

    A politician who lies? I am shocked I tell ya! Simply shocked!!

    Not that I want Moore to win-I honestly don't give a shit anymore. What surprises me is that people still expect politicians to be honest when, in fact, they obviously almost never are.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    "The Harder It Is to Believe Roy Moore, the cozier the GOP gets with him"

    There, corrected.

  • mchughjj||

    Once upon a time, I had a vote in Alabama. I don't now.

    I voted against Roy Moore as the Ten Commandments judge, because 'this dude is crazy'. I've been a conservative in many ways, because my principles have historically aligned better with Republicans. However, as a self-defined libertarian, I'm rooting strongly for Moore to lose.

    Alabamians have a decision, and I fear they will do it wrongly. Policy should be aside in this vote. Character!

  • RodgerMitchell||

    The two pillars of conservatism: Family values and deficit reduction.

    That's why they elected the lying wife-cheater Trump, support the lying rapist Moore, and passed a $trillion dollar deficit tax bill.

  • JoeB||

    Yep, I remember every detail of my life from 40 effing years ago. Who are you guys, the FBI?

  • Zero||

    This is why Roy Moore supporters, especially "libertarian" Roy Moore supporters, are bags of Republican partisan shit. Let's say for the sake of argument that Roy is completely, 100% innocent of all of the charges against him. Fine. You're still supporting a man who thinks that homosexual conduct should be illegal. That is, that mutually consensual sexual activity between adults in the privacy of their own property should fall under the control of the police, that instances of it should be disrupted and punished by with threat or implementation of violence and time forcibly spent in a cage, and that he has the right to use the force of the government to impose his religion on the public of Alabama.

    You can further infer from that that Roy, like Rick Santorum, doesn't believe in robust privacy rights (How could you if you believe that a government's influence should reach that far into the private sphere?), and we already knew from the past that he's a-okay with taxpayer dollars, stolen from non-Christians and Christians alike, being spent on building and maintaining monuments to his personal religion in taxpayer-funded property. Roy is an anti-libertarian.

  • XM||

    You can still believe that a candidate is innocent (or entitled to due process rights) and not vote for him. The nuns, Muslims, cake shop owners who don't want to be forced into participating in gay marriages (because they find homosexuality abhorrent) are all defended by libertarians on principle.

    Obama executed an American citizen without trial and overhauled the healthcare market....... and some libertarians voted for him anyway.

    If Roy Moore orders his state to cancel all gay marriages, then we'd have a problem. Chances are, he won't. That aspect of the culture war is settled.

  • Zero||

    "You can still believe that a candidate is innocent (or entitled to due process rights) and not vote for him. The nuns, Muslims, cake shop owners who don't want to be forced into participating in gay marriages (because they find homosexuality abhorrent) are all defended by libertarians on principle."

    I oppose attempts to force private individuals to accept LGBT anything on libertarian anarchist grounds; the right to act in accordance with one's moral beliefs absent harm to others is absolute... also I don't vote. (Furthermore, as a gay man, I think it's just bad strategy to try to force bigots to accept us.) I never at any point in my comment even implied otherwise, so I don't know why you'd just assume that I would defend those lawsuits just because I hate Roy Moore.

    "Obama executed an American citizen without trial and overhauled the healthcare market....... and some libertarians voted for him anyway."

    And they were as foolish to do so as they'd be to vote for Roy Moore.

    "If Roy Moore orders his state to cancel all gay marriages, then we'd have a problem."

    He already tried doing that during his second stint as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. That's why he lost that job. Roy is a hardcore believer in the idea that the state should be used to maintain the social dominance of Christians and the cultural dominance of Christianity. There's no ignoring that or getting around it.

  • Presskh||

    This election is not about who is the more pious between Moore and Jones - it's only about how they will vote once elected. The odds are much greater that Moore will vote for conservative Supreme Court and federal judges, as well as voting for Trump's vision for the country a greater percentage of time. Hands down, Moore wins if you also want these outcomes. The rest of the media smoke is just last minute bullshit put out by the left to keep the focus off real voting issues. Remember, in the end, all that matters is their vote.

  • Zero||

    "The odds are much greater that Moore will vote for conservative Supreme Court and federal judges, as well as voting for Trump's vision for the country a greater percentage of time."

    Trump's vision for the country? Since when have libertarians ever concerned themselves with helping to impose ANY presidents' vision "for" them on themselves? The whole point is creating a world where people can pursue their own vision for their own lives, not serving as cogs in the magnificent and grandiose plans of wanna-be social engineers. Leave that shopping around a vision shit to the Republicans and Democrats.

  • AngelaM||

    Denying he knew girls who have written proof that he did, in the form of yearbook he signed and the card he sent, just make all his other denials suspect.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    This story did a good job of bringing out the foaming Trump cock-gobblers from their usual hiding places at The Federalist and Brietbart.

  • MJBinAL||

    It is not difficult to believe Roy Moore at all.

    He is accused of two things. One 40 years ago, dating young women under 18, 16 and 17 specifically, when he was about 30 years old. This may be news to some of you, but that wasn't actually all THAT uncommon at the time. First of all, women fairly frequently married at 16. (my own mother, graduated high school at 16 and promptly married my father in his mid 20's) As further demonstration, the young women's parents were aware they were dating.

    The more serious accusations are so riddled with problems is only hard to doubt them if you are trying hard not to. One young woman fails to mention such things as Moore sending her brother to jail as motive and "misremembers" where she lived among other items. The other young woman has had her stepson call her a liar, a boyfriend at the time of she accused Moore of pressing himself on her outside a restaurant, says he does not remember her even working there. The yearbook signature is clearly a forgery as it matches the style not of Roy Moore at the time, but rather the style of his administrative assistant when the woman appeared before Moore in her divorce case. Where the admin would sign Moore's name to the final documents with the admin's initials (DA) under and after it.

  • MJBinAL||

    I know this is enough to make liberals head explode, but I do not "believe the women".

  • MJBinAL||

    I know this is enough to make liberals head explode, but I do not "believe the women".

  • tlapp||

    One can only hope that if he wins the investigation continues and any credible evidence gets him removed from office.

  • Azathoth!!||

    So I keep seeing variants on these passages--

    In his November 10 interview with Sean Hannity, Moore said he remembered Gloria Deason and Debbie Gibson, who told The Washington Post he had dated them when they were teenagers and he was a local prosecutor in his 30s. Although he did not recall dating them, Moore said, "I'm not going to dispute anything." He described Deason, who said she dated him when she was 18, as "a good girl." He said he knew "her parents, her mother in particular." He denied her account that he gave her wine in restaurants before she turned 19, then the minimum drinking age in Alabama, claiming (falsely) that it was not possible because Etowah County was dry at the time. Regarding Gibson, who told the Post she dated Moore when she was 17, he said, "I know her, but don't remember going out on dates. I knew her as a friend. If we did go out on dates, then we did."

    con't

  • Azathoth!!||

    and

    Last week, in two separate campaign appearances, Moore changed his story. "The allegations are completely false," he said on November 27 in Henagar. "They are malicious. Specifically, I do not know any of these women." He repeated that blanket denial on November 29 in Theodore: "I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women, and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone."

    But I never see the connector that makes it clear that Moore is referring to Gibson and Deacon along with the women who've alleged criminality. I never see the connector that makes it clear that Moore is now saying that he doesn't know two women he freely admitting knowing.

    Quite frankly, this looks a LOT like the media is deliberately misconstruing this for the sole purpose of creating fakenews when we need REAL news.

  • JWatts||

    Yes, this whole thing seems idiotic. To be fair I saw it happen with President Obama, where he said things that if viewed strictly according to the text were a "lie", but that any reasonable person knew that he was talking in general terms.

    It looks as if Moore is either a complete idiot and doesn't remember his interview on Hannity from two weeks ago; OR he was referring to a specific group of women. Come on Reason, would it be too hard to send an email asking for clarification on the issue?

  • Wolf 359||

    There's plenty of evidence out there to convince me that Moore is a dirtbag not just in his personal life, but a bad judge too. I say he should get elected just so it gets in line for the 'chipper.

    Is it me or does the chipper seem too slow for the amount of dirtbags in the DC area. Any chance we can just push them into a volcano?

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    What would Reason's position be if Roy Moore was a Libertarian?

  • Matdarat||

    No good choices in this mess...even if you believe Moore. A vote for Moore is a vote for a Republican replacement as opposed to electing a Democrat. Let the system work and prove the allegations.

  • Zero||

    It's government. There's never a good choice.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online