My initial thoughts on the current Judge Roy Moore controversy
Late last week The Washington Post released an article concerning Judge Roy Moore who is running for Senate in Alabama as a Republican. The article indicated there were possible sexual harassment claims against Roy Moore. These claims were from more than 30 years ago. The time frame is relevant, but before I go into that here are some things to keep in mind.
The GOP Establishment spent millions and backed Luther Strange as the GOP candidate and Roy Moore won the nomination, and that is why he is now the choice versus the Democratic candidate. Luther Strange had evidence (not allegations) of corruption in the past. This is why the "establishment" wanted him. Trump even came out for Luther Strange as he was directed he should, though he was angry about that advice later. You see, Roy Moore will support a lot of the things that Trump has promised and why he was elected, but they are things the establishment has NOT been supporting. Roy Moore is an example of getting rid of establishment RINOs and putting someone who seems to actually represent their claims in their place.
Roy Moore was doing quite well, when this Washington Post article came out. It should be noted that the Washington Post wrote and article about him when he was running against Luther Strange as well claiming that Roy Moore didn't pay his taxes on a particular transaction. It turns out the article was a LIE. There was no money made on the transaction in question, so there are no taxes on an income of $0. They lied then. Could these allegations without evidence also be lies?
Here are some things that have come out. It is alleged that over 30 years ago Roy Moore asked to speak with, and date young women anywhere from 15 to 19 years of age in the various allegations. Many of these it is reported the arrangement was even made through the parents of the young women. Back then DATE did not mean have sex with, or anything like that. It was a form of courtship. He wanted to get to know them. Were they young? Yes. Did he have sex with them? No, that is not the allegations.
Another reason that 30 years ago is relevant is that what we consider sexual harassment today WAS NOT sexual harassment 30 years ago. In fact, what Roy Moore did was old fashioned even 30 years ago and seemed to go back to older traditions that were even more formal, and less likely to be as sexual in nature as was even somewhat normal back then.
The behavior, and approaching the parents as well as the claims being made do not really support the conclusions the article and allegations seem to want people to draw from the information. Furthermore, the allegations that have been made were not actually a crime 30 years ago.
You could tell a woman she was pretty, without it being sexual harassment.
You could ask a woman out on a date, without it being sexual harassment.
These days a lot of things are sexual harassment that were not before. It makes it very dangerous for people to try to get dates unless they do so digitally through some dating service. Any other approach these days could be considered sexual harassment.
Here is an important thing about LAW. You cannot charge someone for breaking a law and committing a crime by applying laws that are here today, but WERE NOT present during the time of the alleged events. This is unjust.
So if they want to go after Roy Moore for this they need to present something that was a crime even 30 years ago and they better have some provable evidence. If they can do this then even those on the right will support going after Roy Moore.
However, this is not even CLOSE to what has occurred. Instead allegations that are not crimes of the time have been made. There are other allegations that some of those making the allegations were paid to do so. That too is unproven.
Yet, there are calls for Roy Moore to step aside and not run based upon these allegations.
Do you realize how stupid that is?
That means all we have to do is CLAIM (aka make allegations) against anyone we don't want to run and whether the allegations are true or not does not matter. We can stop ANYONE from running just by making claims without evidence, proof, etc.
Stupid.
Then to show you the hands of the Republican "establishment" we have people like Romney coming out and saying Roy Moore should step down and "innocent until proven guilty does not apply in politics". Yet, Romney himself is someone who has been a target of allegations that ended up being false. I guess he should have just stepped down back then too. Oh, wait, he didn't. Is there a name fore that? Yes. It is called hypocrisy.
If you look the attempted misdirection, character assassination, and motives for these attacks seems pretty blatant. These guys are getting pretty sloppy.
The problem is some people don't care about truth, facts, evidence, etc as long as the target is someone they perceive as an enemy. This is a problem.
Truth, facts, and evidence matter whether the target is considered friend or foe. A double standard is not justice.
- Why evangelical voters are unlikely to bail on Roy Moore - The Washington Post
- Moore threatens to sue Washington Post over report - CNN
- Roy Moore disrupts U.S. Senate race in Alabama — and prepares for new level of defiance in Washington - The Washington Post - September 21st
- ‘Take the Bible…’: And thus began the worst defense of Roy Moore - The Washington Post
Keep in mind, The Washington Post is the outlet that lied in the primary against Luther Strange. They are also the outlet that released these allegations.
He married his wife after all of that and has been with her the entire time since then. There are no allegations that come after his marriage. So it seems very much like old school courting as he was seeking a wife.
All these supposed "sexual harassment" dating back to the era of Adam are likely the vanguard of a new "political correct" offensive of the Left to silence any opposition to their sordid agenda. Currently, mere accusation has the power to destroy political and economic well-being of any US resident. The drones no longer care whether the accusations have legitimacy. Any public figure can now be character assassinated with just the mere phrase " I was sexually harassed."
Maximilien Robespierre had to lop-off heads and justify his accusations with overlong speeches and rationalizations to silence his opposition. What he wouldn't give for the power now at the hands of Leftist shills!
Easiest prediction ever: Roy Moore will not be the next Senator from Alabama.
Oddly, so many of those who presume his innocence until proven guilty don't extend the same benefit of the doubt to anyone name Clinton.
Clinton has plenty of evidence against her so she has been PROVEN guilty in many cases. Yet they treat her unlike anyone else I know of. I mean that literally ANYONE. She is allowed to get away with things when they have the evidence, while they will hang anyone not her for far less.
So comparing Clinton to ANYONE else that may have done things on accentuates how messed up the system is. She is likely the most corrupt political figure I have ever encountered. I have researched her extensively. I used to like her. Until I did research of my own. I also think it'd be cool to have a woman as president, but I don't consider gender a good reason to elect someone. It might be a good tie breaker if a man and a woman were neck and neck. I'd go for the woman then just because it hasn't been done. Yet, if it were not a tie then Gender doesn't mean anything to me and I see it as a very poor reason to elect anyone. That includes being a man.
Yet Clinton very much reminds me of a mafia Don. She is smart. She practices the Rules of the Radical by Saul Alinsky very well. This is not surprising since he was one of her mentors. One of their rules is to blame your opposition for the things that you do. It's in the book.
As to Roy Moore. I kind of doubt he will be Senator for Alabama either. It is a sad state when all a person do is make a claim without any evidence, or proof and that is all that is required. This is NOT the case with Clinton. The evidence is overwhelming. It is not just opinion. It is not just allegations. They have acknowledged the evidence. They just don't do a damn thing to her.
I just don't buy it.
Let's assume for the moment that Hillary Clinton has indeed committed a litany of felonies and that there exists copious actual evidence of said crimes.
Trump has a long history of throwing people (including close associates) under the bus.
We have a President who's led crowds in chants of "Lock her up! Lock her up!"
A President who's made it quite clear that all Federal employees are his to command.
An Attorney General who has a history as a junk yard dog. And a bevy of United States Attorneys appointed by Trump, every one of them an aggressive prosecutor. Has there ever been a U.S. Attorney who wasn't ambitious? Prosecuting and convicting Clinton would be a huge prize for anyone's career. Fame and fortune, at a minimum.
Even if Clinton was a mafia Don, so what? The DOJ has a long history of crushing mafia Dons.
If Clinton is even possibly as guilty of as many crimes as folks on the right claim, in what possible universe would she not be indicted? Trump, Sessions, and dozens of ambitious prosecutors have zero reason to give her a pass.
They don't deny it. Much of it was in the wikileaks email release. They don't deny the contents of those emails. They just focus on how it was leaked in the first place.
That is common these days. If a leaker reports a crime. Shoot the messenger.
You don't have to buy anything just do the damn research. Dig deep into Hillary and there is nothing to BUY. She get's away with tons of stuff that NO ONE else does that I can find.
Really? That's why he hasn't forced Jeff Sessions to do anything.
Do you really buy into Slate and Talking Points Memo propaganda?
I have a suggestion for you. Ditch that type of outlet for awhile. In fact ditch ANY outlet. Go research yourself. That is what I did. Go all the way back to Watergate and work forward if you want to go back to around where I did. So during the time of Richard Nixon. Work your way forward in time.
Then you may actually have the background where we can at least discuss it. Slate, and Talking Points Memo clearly have not done this. In reality, most people haven't.
OFCOL. Trump could fire Sessions in a heartbeat and replace him with someone who's even more of a toady.
As I said, assume that Clinton is guilty and that all of your research is spot on. Indicting her and convicting her might well hand Washington to populist conservatives for a generation. If so, I cannot imagine a scenario where Trump and Company would have any reason to not indict her.
No he can't. Look what happens any time he fires or talks about replacing anyone. Those sites I mentioned are all over it.
He could fart and they'll write about how he looked awkward or didn't position his butt cheeks properly.
As to why Clinton isn't prosecuted. She isn't the only one involved. A lot of these things impact a lot of other people in BOTH parties. It is one of those things if people truly go after her who will get caught up right along with her.
That seems to be the most likely reason she has not been indicted. Those that would have to go after her would very possibly get caught up in it. This is certainly true of both Comey and Mueller.
Like I said... don't guess, don't assume, don't let outlets do your thinking for you. Research with no opinions but your own. Though it is really noisy out there so getting to info past all the noise is a lot tougher than it was a few years ago when I really dug. So it can be a challenge to find the information when it is buried among so many other news stories from ALL sides.
Yet going all the way back to Watergate you'll find her technically committing crimes.
Why isn't she indicted?
That is easy. There is a double standard. She isn't the only one not indicted for crimes, she is just one of those that has the most crimes I am aware of to be indicted for.
There are a lot of people getting away with things.
Many of those people are targeting Trump for things that are pretty petty when you put it side by side with what they themselves have done.
Trump has his hands tied pretty heavily by the propaganda machine and dirt slinging. Fire Sessions in a Heartbeat. That is bullshit. Look what happened when he fired Comey. Suddenly we have a Russian Collusion Investigation and Obstruction of Justice and MILLIONS of dollars spent following it. Honestly he should have fired Comey long before that.
At this point I'd say he should fire Sessions if all Sessions is going to do is recuse himself and go after marijuana.
He could fire Sessions today. Of course those sites would complain. So what? Republicans control the White House, both chambers of Congress, and the Supreme Court.
I just don't buy the supposed double standard assertion. Conservatives have everything to gain and nothing to lose from sending a Clinton to a Supermax. That they are not doing so speaks volumes.
Yeah I don't really care if you buy it or not. I also don't care about Appeals to the Stone such as OFCOL.
I gave you my recommendations. If you only listen to media outlets and you form your opinions based upon what they tell you and you decide some are not worth viewing and others are not then you've already BOUGHT someone else's line.
My advice was to throw those all aside and go do some research of your own.
Until you do that then you may not BUY what I said. Yet, you clearly have BOUGHT something.
EDIT: And I don't care if you buy what I say. I do care that you have an informed opinion if you wish to discuss it. So far I've seen assumptions and repetition of things I often hear that I completely disagree with.
Here is a challenge for you.
Show me an actual CRIME committed by Trump that is more than opinion and allegations with no evidence.
I've looked. So far haven't seen it.
That doesn't mean I agree with everything Trump does. I didn't vote for him.
Yet, I know opinions and speculations do not make things factual and are not evidence.
In the meantime... Hillary HAS committed crimes. She was not indicted for doing more than other people have spent years in jail just with her email issues alone.
As to Watergate... look into the documents she took home, and then told the courts they did not exist. ;) That was back in Richard Nixon's time... that is the oldest CRIME that I know of... she just expanded her skills from there.
She is also very good at the rules Saul Alinsky penned to paper.
Also it is not just the sites complaining. Mueller and his many million dollar witch hunt was justified due to Trump firing Comey. So you are deluded if you think he could fire Sessions without similar outcomes.
There are really four groups in the government.
There are the "establishment" which are people that have been there regardless of which party the president is in. Many of them more than 30 years in office. This is a problem with no term limits. These established people really don't act all that different from each other regardless of party. Neither of them actually tends to do what they run for office to do. They just keep the establishment going. They really are Republican or Democrat in NAME ONLY.
Then the other two are actual Republicans or Democrats.
Then there are third party or independents of which there are not many.
The problem is that while in LABEL the Republicans Control the government. In reality, the Establishment controls the government.
That is very clear if you pay attention and it crosses party boundaries.
Many Many first have happened since November 8th, 2016 (some before then) and they were not just from Trump. Look at the unheard of things that people are getting away with.
You call that "control"?
I've always liked Roy Moore. Unfortunately, I've become more and more of a political athiest. I think the swamp is too thick and full to be drained. Even Ron Paul couldn't get anything done. Check out www.definingthemachine.com for why I'm not expecting any change from the people in Washington, D.C., no matter how well intentioned they are.
Hell. I consider myself an Anarcho-Capitalist. I'd like for there to be no government, and simply free market, and contracts. Yet that is not something I believe is realistic to implement at this time. So I am best described as a Libertarian.
Though really there are some things such as JUSTICE and DOUBLE STANDARD that can be addressed REGARDLESS of political affiliation.
Laws should not be okay for one party, and not the other.
Things done by one should not be okay, when they are wrong for the other.
Evidence is required. Opinion is not evidence.
These are things I can embrace regardless of the candidates.
I actually voted Libertarian or other Third Party in most cases in November of last year. When forced to pick between GOP or DEM I kind of did 50/50. I voted for some of both.
Now, I'd be hard pressed to vote for a DEM. It's not likely with how their party is acting, the hypocrisy, and the corruption of which the evidence is there. Furthermore, I'd likely not vote for an ESTABLISHED GOP. I'd be more interested in a GOP candidate that is not part of the establishment, and I'd seriously look for ACTIONS to make decisions about who to vote for instead of WORDS.
Though there are WORDS that will make me not vote for someone. Diversity is one such word. If ANY candidate mentions the word diversity I'll not vote for them. I believe in meritocracy not artificially enforced diversity.
Also I am a huge Ron Paul fan. Was a delegate for him in 2008 and 2012. :)
Not anything new anymore, even Jesus would be labeled a sexual predictor now days just for laying his hands on to heal!
Nice work , i wished if you started your post about introducing Judge Roy Moore.
Rep./Dem. same bird....
The problem I see is that apox 50% do not vote. Of those that do according to a Gallup poll,31% Dem,and 24%Rep.vs 42% ind. So we have 55% Rep/Dem and majority along with a 50% majority that do not vote.
I know a lot can not vote because they are felons,what sad is that they can run for office and get elected despite not being able to vote.... :-(
Maybe if we all voted for a different bird we could change things.
Same thing every year, turkey or ham.... happy thanks giving same thing same results,pass Me the venison! please and thank you!
Time for a change in the menu!
Namaste!
Which is why I voted for a third party when I had the option. Though right now REP has two clearly different groups. (could argue more than two). The establishment that is pretty much same as DEMs just different label, and those against the establishment (doesn't mean good).
Thank you! for being part of the vocal minority,we are the only one's who change anything!
As history shows.
;-)
The mass's see nothing wrong w/ doing nothing... and it is destroying the world!
Namaste for being!
That describes Angelo Carusone and Media Matters for America to a "T" - the tactics being used to destroy Moore (whose guilt or innocence has not been determined) echoes Hitler's intimidation of his German opposition. Ironic that these Brownshirted thugs call themselves "anti-fascists."It's a political hit job.
One of the whores...er...I mean women who lied about him worked for Hilliary's campaign.
Yep. So I've been hearing.
Yet, they are totally okay with the drag queen festivals that are involving children in various places around the world today.
That is okay?
Yet 30 years ago going through a non-sexual courtship is not... they want Judge Roy Moore to step down, yet they think politicians supporting that crap should stay in office. Disturbing.
I don't find it disturbing.
I find it to be encouraging.
They're panicing.
Trump was right...again.
Not to mention that this girl has a history of drug and alcohol abuse as well as a VERY hard time with any type of "normal" interpersonal male/female relationships. There are a few other items mentioned in several articles I've read such as coming from a broken home and some other things I don't put any stock in... I think it's a setup myself, this guy is a threat to the deep state. I admit to being a bit biased- I supported him when he refused to remove the 10 Commandments.
If any of this is true there will be plenty of witnesses.... this is kind of funny was just released today, claiming he was banned from the local mall in the 80's for harassing young girls http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/roy-moore-banned-ala-mall-targeting-teen-girls-article-1.3630623
Interesting. We'll need to see what actually pans out. 30+ year old, and he has had other controversies where they attacked him. It is kind of interesting this stuff is only JUST NOW popping up.
The dirt only gets dug out of the closet when it's important to do so. Why would any group or person go to all the trouble involved in exposing the dirt, real or not, on someone when there's no reason to do so.
You only attempt to wreck the career of someone when it appears to be important to the opponents to do so.