If I were a resident of the state of Alabama, and given what we currently know about the accusations and denials concerning Roy Moore, I would vote for him in the upcoming special election for the U.S. Senate. Here are some of the reasons.
I take it as a given that if he is guilty of the criminal act alleged, then he is not qualified to serve in the Senate—not only for the crime back then, but for lying about it now. If he is guilty, and he is not elected, then he should make a full confession and retire from public life to reflect on the mercies of God. If he is guilty, and he is elected nonetheless, then after being sworn in he should make a full confession, and resign his newly acquired office.
NB: The previous paragraph is included because there are a handful of people, whose condemnation is just (Rom. 3:8), who like to maintain that I consistently take the side of perpetrators over victims. Some people like to molest little kids. Others molest the truth, while yet another class does both. All of them have the same problem, which is hatred of God’s law.
If guilty, and if elected, a well-timed resignation would enable the next special election to be one that presents the voters of Alabama with an opportunity to choose someone who actually represents their convictions—so they wouldn’t be maneuvered into deciding between a molester and a pro-abort shill. Keep in mind that what Jones publicly affirms and is proud of is far worse than what Moore denies. Remember that Jones stands for the continued legal dismemberment of children in the womb.
All that said, here are some scattershot thoughts, a loose thread of observations to help you understand why I would vote for Moore, as things now stand.
Roy Moore denies any sexual misconduct whatever. He flat denies it. When you have a high stakes he said/she said situation, as we have here, the presumption of innocence certainly needs to be maintained, even though the story is not unfolding in a formal court setting. Our culture has become so hyper-partisan that we think that to grant the presumption of innocence is tantamount to accusing the accusers of lying. But that is not the way it is at all—if we were to accuse them of slander, say, then they would need to have the presumption of innocence also. That is as it should be. What the presumption of innocence does is reserve judgment, leaving the accused in the same judicial category he was in to begin with, that category being innocent. And when you reserve judgment, you do not do this by laying down penalties in the meantime. The demand that conservative voters abandon Moore as a matter of conscience is just such a penalty.
If a significant number of people change their voting plans on account of these accusations, then what they are actually voting for is even dirtier tricks next time. Whatever else they think they are doing, if this attack works, that fact will reinforce what is most despicable about modern electoral politics.
The allegations had a transparently partisan motive. They were made when it was too late to replace Moore on the ballot, and when there was inadequate time to investigate the accusations thoroughly. And the cries from all over the GOP for Moore to step down were instantaneous and pretty obviously choreographed. Whatever else it might have been, this was at the very least a partisan hit. This should make us all a tad suspicious.
Speaking of a tad suspicious, there are two stories going on here. One is the question of whether Moore is guilty, the presumption of innocence, etc. That is not a minor concern. But the other story—invisible to most of the people who are driving it— is just how detested the hypocritical establishment is by red state voters. Moore might be elected because a number of people concluded he really should be treated as innocent, but he might also be elected because the media establishment is so loathed and despised. Or it may be a combination. In either case, I would encourage people to start preparing themselves for the possibility that Moore will still win this election handily. This is not an impossibility. Allegations aside, I think that this latter reality is going to be the main story.
At the same time, even though there has not been a lot of time to examine them, the allegations are not holding together as tightly as some accusers might have hoped. The yearbook has not yet been released for independent examination. If Moore’s signature there is forged, as now seems likely, the credibility of all the accusations takes a hit. For another example, Leigh Corfman, who accused Moore of molesting her when she was 14, told the Post that this set her on a course of self-destructive behavior. But court records show that she had lots of problems of that nature before the alleged incident. This does not make the allegations automatically false, but it does say that some of the contradictory details are starting to invite non-partisan cross-examination. Again, here is the verse. “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” (Prov. 18:17, ESV). For those who have stated flatly that these accusations are credible on their face (seems right), the question is this: Are the charges credible because the truth resonates there, or are they credible because some who are credulously partisan are stuck in the first half of that verse?
And then, in a divine sense of humor thing, the allegations against Moore came right at a time when a flurry of other allegations of a similar nature, and of much more recent provenance, have been falling on the heads of many of our other poohbahs. One of Moore’s accusers said that he grabbed her butt in 1991. If he is elected, and the Senate decides to make “a thing” out of whether to seat him, one of the men sitting in judgment on Roy Moore will be Al Franken. So then. We have a photo of Franken doing his thing, and Moore denies doing anything like that, and no photos. If the sanctimonious solons of Washington think they have the raw material here for a successful show trial, I have some sad news for them. Various dignitaries often have an opportunity to throw the first pitch. Al Franken should most certainly be given the honor of casting the first stone.
It is likely that we are at the very beginning of a cascade of allegations. This helps explain why there will be a fierce battle to prevent the first accused politician from resigning his office over it. If one resigns, and 25 similar cases then bubble up, then we have set a precedent, have we not?
I am not playing around with whataboutism. The standard should be the same for everybody. Franken should step down because we have that photo and because he acknowledged his guilt, kind of. And to the extent that he didn’t acknowledge real guilt, he should step down over the lameness of his apology. Certain women failed to infer from his butt-grabbing that he is just a “huggy” kind of person, and for their denseness and misunderstanding of him Franken is deeply apologetic. But Conyers denies wrongdoing, and so it is that he should get the same presumption of innocence that Moore should get. It shouldn’t matter if you are on the right or on the left. When the accused pleads not guilty, there should be a process, and it should be followed for everyone.
The president, who supported Moore’s opponent in the primary, has been coming out in pretty strong support for Moore, and it is obvious that he has only been able to do this because of the massive amounts of squid ink in the water. And by squid ink, it should be clear I intend to mix my metaphors. I am referring to what is being called the “sexual harassment apocalypse,” or more recently, the “pervnado.” In another era, this hit on Moore would have been far more effective, but he has been saved (thus far) by a context dominated by leftist lusts.
Speaking of leftist lusts, by my rough estimate, while this kind of trouble is manifest in both parties (remember Dennis Hastert), the ratio of accusations does appear to be running about 80/20. But if we are committed to due process, this shouldn’t ultimately matter, right? The division should not be left/right, or Democrat/Republican, or my guy/your guy, but rather guilty/not guilty.
We should not fail to notice that we are well into the second act of a high farce. Trump said during the campaign that his Access Hollywood conversation was just “locker room conversation,” which I don’t believe for a minute. I put that in the same evidentiary category as the FrankenFoto. And yet, Trump was elected despite that, and is now in the cheap seats, heckling Franken and throwing popcorn.
The issue in all this is not what the president is doing, or what Nancy Pelosi is doing, or what the RNC is doing, or what the DNC is going, or what the media establishment is doing. My amazement is over what God is doing.
Earlier I dealt with the hypothetical that concerns Moore being guilty and surviving this. But what if he is innocent and he survives it? I have a hard time imagining that possibility without also anticipating that he will be fully vindicated. Now if he is publicly vindicated, if the story told by his accusers comes completely apart, what effect will that have? This leads to the next point.
In the production of this high farce, there has been one group that has been striving mightily to maintain a moral purity of principle, despite the surrounding mayhem. This group has been made up of the #NeverTrump conservatives (e.g. David French, Jonah Goldberg), and they have been trying to demonstrate their consistency by being as hard on malefactors of the right as they have been on the left. Unfortunately, this has resulted in them jumping the gun, injudiciously condemning someone who was not their kind of conservative. The credibility of Moore’s accusers was a function of their defensiveness on behalf of their center/right secularism, which they saw threatened by Moore. But the fact that you don’t like Moore’s views on religious tests and church/state relations does not mean that he tried to feel up a teen decades ago.
And so this is what happens when God takes a proud empire, sets us up before the watching world, and then proceeds with an operation of divine pantsing. Nobody in our public life is virtuous. Nobody has a right to be proud. Nobody is clean. We are all complicit. We should be grateful for the treatment—God set Pharaoh up in order to destroy him. “And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth” (Ex. 9:16). In our case, God has set us up in order to make fun of us.
In short, if we take a quick glance at those Ten Commandments that Roy Moore refused to remove from his courthouse, we will quickly discover that no one is righteous, not even one. And I will end it there, lest this turn into a sermon.
The credibility of the mainstream news media reminds me of those descriptions of what it’s like to fall into a black hole, and the gravitational gradient becomes so intense that you get pulled into atoms on your way down. I would not trust the MSM if they told me my own name and spelled it right. The reason the hit on Moore is failing is because the people reporting it are not to be trusted. They might be telling the truth, and might not, but one thing’s for sure: Nobody is going to take their word for much of anything.
The bottom line is the WaPo–which has endorsed Doug Jones and done these kind of 11th hour stories before–came to a small town with an agenda. They managed to find people who made nasty accusations against Moore, and the majority of them are Obama voters/Trump haters (based on the ones I’ve found on social media).
We still don’t know what’s true or not, but it’s pretty much all hearsay this many decades later.
You are now claiming “the majority of them are Obama voters/Trump haters” based on exactly how many people you found on social media? About 10% of the total?
Of course it’s not surprising that there are Democrats among the accusers – why would any Trump supporters go to the media with dirt about Moore even if they had it? Yet there are Trump voters and conservative activists among the accusers too.
Someone being a Democrat doesn’t mean their accusations are false. And the fact that ANY of Moore’s accusers have been conservatives looks really bad for him.
Can you give a single example in Washington Post history where multiple reporters and the paper itself engaged in a conspiracy of the magnitude that would have been necessary to create these false accusations?
Or where multiple other newspapers willingly engaged in that conspiracy?
When Clinton held his trim the government conference in the Rose Garden, he said that as a cost trimming measure he was going to reduce the number of cattle guards in the Western states. That statement was immediately covered up and all the news networks said he didn’t utter those words. However, those of us who watched the actual broadcast knew that he did say it. When Clinton used the tunnels in D.C. to visit various paramours, the news flatly stated that there were not tunnels under D.C. However, those of us who have been in those very same tunnels… Read more »
This is amazing – Dave is taking an old internet joke, given it a new setting, and claiming that his made-up version of reality is something he witnessed personally and anyone who doesn’t agree to it is being tricked by the media. Dave, Clinton not only never uttered those words, certainly not in that setting, and the original joke didn’t even have anything to do with the setting you describe. To slander the media, and insult my faith, because you have incorporated an internet joke into your personal reality says much more about you than about me. I encourage ANYONE… Read more »
Finally, Jonathan is showing his true colors that cannot be denied by his keyboard. Jonathan, without investigation, believes an accusation brought forth from 40 years ago against Judge Moore; yet, he doesn’t believe an eye witness account from a brother. Now, that is high hypocrisy deserving of a huge belly laugh. I watched Clinton’s live broadcast from the Rose Garden and when he said he was going to reduce the number of cattle guards in the Western US, C-Span immediately cut away to the studio. The reporter said: We’re not sure what the President meant with his remarks and put… Read more »
I encourage any serious poster on this board with the slightest bit of integrity to correct Dave’s wild claims, and his constant attacks on me based on now ever-more-wild claims. The following paragraph I am quoting from Dave is false, from beginning to end. ANYONE can verify that it is completely and utterly false. I do not know where Dave came up with all of it, and he refuses to provide his evidence like has refused to support many other false claims he has made in the course of his months-long campaign against me. “I watched Clinton’s live broadcast from… Read more »
Jonathan, you refuse to address issues. I told you what I saw on a live broadcast and you say that it is false. Did you watch the broadcast? I did and it happened as I described. Have you been in the tunnels under D.C.? I have been. How many posters have you called liars? How many posters have you told to seek medical help for their conditions? How many times have you called posters names because they disagreed with your reams of typing? Is that the response of a strong Christian man? Jonathan, as a young man, my Christian mentors… Read more »
Dave, I CAN’T have watched a broadcast that didn’t exist. If such a broadcast did exist, there would have been numerous right-wing outlets mocking him the very next day. Check that, the very next minute. It would have been all over right-wing radio that very night and in local Western papers the next morning. Where are they? PLEASE tell me when this supposed broadcast occurred, and give me the earliest dated example you can find of it being directly referred to by anyone at all. My refusal to believe the easily verifiable falsehoods that you keep proclaiming does not make… Read more »
Jonathan, let’s think about this for a minute. You asked for an example where media covered up an event. I gave you two examples and you fired off for the moon like a Saturn V rocket using a fact checker. Isn’t the point of something being covered up to provide disinformation of the actual event? I watched the Clinton episode on live TV, yet you claim I am lying because you found a fact checker to meet your needs. Are you not concerned about the eye witness of a Christian brother? How many posters have you called liars? How many… Read more »
Dave, you claimed to have witnessed a national broadcast which millions of eyes would have seen. It is easy to verify that what you claimed to witness didn’t happen. You don’t even need a fact-checker, you can simply look at the complete absence of any record of such an event from the time period. Not just absence in the media, but absence among ANY sources. Everything you’re saying about the “eyewitness of a Christian brother” and all that is only diminishing your own credibility, As far as your implications that I have called some large number of posters “liars” and… Read more »
I’ll have to let Dave and Jonathan sort this one out. I would point out that Dave didn’t say that Clinton wanted to “fire” or “retrain” cattle guards. Dave said that Clinton was “going to reduce the number of cattle guards in the Western states”. Cattle guards do have to be maintained, and Bill Clinton did sign legislation that restricted grazing on federal lands. Perhaps that explains the context for reducing their number? Dave will have to clarify. In any case, I couldn’t find any transcripts of Bill Clinton speeches that referred to cattle guards. Regarding the Washington Post’s news-shaping… Read more »
Katecho, a president announcing that the was going to restrict grazing on federal lands by claiming he would “reduce the number of cattle guards” would be nonsensical. They wouldn’t say it that way. And it’s clearly not what Dave is claiming either. Dave claimed that when Clinton said it, C-Span immediately cut away, acted confused about what Clinton had just said, and then switched to a different pre-recorded programming. Dave’s claim never happened, and no other plausible pseudo-explanation of it happened either. You can’t let him off with any claims that this was some innocent event. None of that happened… Read more »
And I’ve never denied that certain people within the Washington Post are liberal, or that stories don’t often come out with a liberal bent. My opinion on the Washington Post is exactly the same as conservative Quin Hillyer’s: “First, many Moore defenders say that just because the story ran in the “liberal” Washington Post, it therefore cannot be believed. This is nonsense on steroids and amphetamines at the same time. Many news outlets may have a liberal bias, but ones as prestigious as the Post also have very high professional standards, and many stages of review. Post reporters and editors… Read more »
With that kind of counterfactual, you have to ask the question “Who has the resources to go behind the WaPo or other major newspapers/magazines and interview all of the same people, do the required fact-checking, etc.” I’m not aware of a huge conspiracy that was exposed, but who would uncover it?
While I haven’t read it, there are books like The Smear by Sharyl Attkisson that talk about how the media shapes narratives and repeats ideas until they’re accepted, whether true or not.
Also, here’s an example of a highly-inaccurate “fake news” AP story that was pulled when CNN published something that invalidated it:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/28/very-fake-news-associated-press-retracts-false-article-claiming-steve-bannon-would-not-campaign-for-roy-moore/
It’s not a “widespread conspiracy,” but shows how the MSM is constantly trying to shape the narrative.
That’s a great example. ONE reporter made a false claim based on sources within Bannon’s operation. It’s unclear whether the reporter made up the claim, his sources in Brietbart purposely fed him false information to embarrass him, or if there was legitimate disagreement within Bannon’s circles that the reporter than misinterpreted. But whatever the source, when the reporter’s poorly-sourced article it, it was debunked and ridiculed immediately by OTHER MAINSTREAM MEDIA, and the AP had to retract it just a couple hours after it hit. Your examples keep proving my point. There are tens of thousands of reporters out there.… Read more »
Why wouldn’t Breitbart have those resources? Doesn’t the article you just posted state that Breitbart immediately dispatched three reporters to the region the day after the Washington Post piece hit? What is keeping them from doing that fact-checking? Isn’t there many millions of dollars in right-wing and/or unbiased and/or neutral media? If someone like James O’Keefe can dedicate staff to spend weeks on end lying to the Washington Post to try to make a fake story, aren’t there hundreds of outlets with a lot more resources than O’Keefe who might try to use some of those resources on a real… Read more »
Jonathan, Your question: Can you give a single example in Washington Post history….? Yes: Right off the front pages, the entirety of the Trump “dossier” was fake news from the start, and it continued to be reported in most of the leftist media long after it was completely exposed in conservative media. In addition, the claims about Trump campaign collusion with the Russians have been shown to be baseless while, at the same time, it is known in the public record that the Clinton Foundation took money from Russian entities involved in a uranium deal which required Hilary’s approval as… Read more »
“the entirety of the Trump ‘dossier’ was fake news from the start” You just made that up, and it’s false. Several claims in the dossier have already been verified, others remain unverified but are likely true, others have been debunked (and were debunked in the mainstream media, by outlets like Newsweek, from early on). There’s no there there. If it was “fake news from the start”, then why did US intelligence agencies report the details of the dossier to Trump himself long before the media knew what was in the report? And claiming that “claims about Trump campaign collusion with… Read more »
I notice that Jonathan didn’t bother to respond to the Russian donations that the Clinton Foundation failed to properly disclose around the time of the uranium deal. That’s probably because mainstream media has already moved on. Also notice that Jonathan doesn’t differentiate between Russian dealings by Trump associates, and actual collusion by Trump himself. For example, the indictment of Manafort pertains to money laundering and his activities in relation to Ukraine, and is unrelated to campaign collusion and Trump. Regarding the “dossier”, none of the Russian sources are named, and the one meeting that contained an actual name, time, and… Read more »
Katecho, hiring a company that contracts out some of its work to foreigners isn’t in any way controversial. Much of Fusion GPS’s opposition work on Trump was originally funded by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative media group. Foreign groups like Cambridge Analytica were a big part of the Trump campaign. Employing a foreigner like Steele is not the issue. However, I don’t know where you get your claim that Russians were paid for dirt on Trump. The Fusion GPS co-founder has testified before Congress that Steele did not pay his sources. If Fusion GPS isn’t aware of Russians being… Read more »
As far as Uranium One, it’s a made-up Brietbart scandal. I’m never going to defend the financial integrity of the Clinton Foundation or Hillary Clinton herself, but this particular “scandal” appears to be little more than a desperate attempt by Trump to deflect.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/15/fncs_shep_smith_hillary_clinton_had_nothing_to_do_with_uranium_one_sale.html
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/360371-fox-news-shepard-smith-hits-trump-for-inaccurate-claims-on-uranium-one-deal
Yes Johnathan I can……..read about Brentwood Academy in Brentwood TN(Nashville). The WaPO , the Tennessean , the Huff Po all use the exact same strategy to destroy Christian excellence .
https://tinyurl.com/yax2odmw
Robert I Masters from the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert, I am aware of the allegations of sexual assault by some students at Brentwood Academy. I am unaware of any allegations that the Washington Post or anyone else engaged in a conspiracy against Brentwood Academy, made up witnesses, published false claims, or anything like that.
Can you point me to the article where the Washington Post created a conspiracy against Brentwood Academy? Can you highlight the false claims they made or the false witnesses they created?
Amen! I ditto everything you said, Doug!
Doug, you forgot about Ben Shapiro as well. He’s been a high and mighty purist against Moore, even more so than David French.
His site also ran a story about Moore being an anti-constitutionalist for him having insisted on the ten commandment monument. A misreading of the constitution glaring enough I would expect Ben to know better. Granted the article wasn’t by Ben himself, as a big Shapiro fan I was more than a little disappointed he let it through final edit.
Wilson continues to say “reserve judgement” when none was given at the time of the assaults on the girls and none will be. His mistake is thinking that he can simply wait. We are past waiting. That’s the whole point of these things. There will be no judgement, there will be no justice and men like Wilson ensure this by siding until death with men that more likely than not, with a wealth of corroborating evidence (as much as could possibly complied against crimes like this given the timeframe) denied. But notice Wilson’s language, he couches his denial in the… Read more »
Matt, “… a wealth of corroborating evidence ….” At least in the case of the accusations by Beverly Nelson, it appears to me that the “wealth of corroborating evidence” belongs to the Moore camp. Reading Moore campaign attempts to discredit Beverly Young accusations (this source does not appear to be right-wing), you will find that there are two waitresses and one regular customer who say they never saw Roy Moore at that restaurant, along with a number of other items casting great doubt on the credibility of Nelson’s allegations. I suspect the same would be true if the other allegations… Read more »
Demo has suggested this article (by a conservative writer) is on point.
http://yellowhammernews.com/featured/allegations-roy-moore-look-credible/
“Wilson continues to say “reserve judgement” when none was given at the time of the assaults on the girls and none will be. ” Because not reporting until decades after the fact makes proving the case an insurmountable task. “There will be no judgement, there will be no justice and men like Wilson ensure this by siding until death with men that more likely than not, with a wealth of corroborating evidence (as much as could possibly complied against crimes like this given the timeframe) denied.” As much as can possibly be compiled given the time frame is not a… Read more »
Funny you don’t care about there being “two or three” witnesses in this case.
That’s because they are just women. The word “witness” refers to actual people, meaning men you happen to like. The witness here said he didn’t do it, so that settles it.
That doesn’t settle it. It just means we need a more orderly and conspicuously just settlement than you get when an accuser is backed by a mob. And that’s true, by the way, even if the accused is guilty.
don’t you have something else to do instead of waiting to throw everything that Pastor Wilson writes off the cliff?
MeMe likes to talk about how poor she is. If that’s the case, it seems like it would be much wiser for her (a grandma with apparently few other responsibilities) to be working somewhere or running a business than blogging and trolling other blogs. But hey, this internet thing is addictive, right?
john You are mistaken, you need at least 2 or 3 witnesses to accuse or condemn. That is you must not do so on the testimony of 1.
This does not mean that having 2 or 3 witnesses automatically proves the accused guilty.
Also, more than one accuser isn’t the same thing as more than one witness. Each accusation requires 2 or 3 witnesses to accuse or condemn.
It’s also worth keeping in mind that one of the Ten Commandments is: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” [Exo. 20:16 NASB] Apparently, lying in order to harm another has been a problem for a very long time.
Am I mistaken, or do they not have two or three witnesses to an accusation, but two or three accusations that themselves need witnesses?
What is the matter with a sermon? I happen to like sermons.
I do too. Especially Catholic ones which average 11 minutes in length including the terrible introductory joke (Looking for an ark? I noah guy), But I also like listening to them on Youtube, especially Baptist ones that feature Bible stories not covered in catechism class.
With banjo music? ????
“The previous paragraph is included because there are a handful of people, whose condemnation is just, who like to maintain that I consistently take the side of perpetrators over victims.” You do. That observation is fair and accurate. Those who have been hurt by your words and biases are well documented, too. I voted for Trump, needing to set aside my own biases so he could drain the swamp. About five years before the election he was tweeting about sex trafficking, perversion, and pedophilia, and corruption. So far he has done exactly what I had hoped for. The stagnant water… Read more »
MeMe,
Ten days ago, you said: “I’m going to throw in the towel and let go of my hope that I can ever have a fruitful discussion with you or any of your red pill followers. […] From now on I’ll post my complaints about your harmful and damaging theology on my own blog and facebook.”
If you don’t do what you say you will do, why should anyone believe anything you say?
This has no reason or argument to it. You are in effect saying you don’t have any answer to her logic, you just want her to stop making you uncomfortable.
Malik,
Unless you have followed this blog for longer than I think you have, you have little idea what she is like. See those 12 upvotes on my comment? The 6 downvotes on her comment? The lack of response? There are many reasons for that and it’s not because she makes any of us uncomfortable. In fact, one of them is that “her logic” is generally based on irrational premises. If you don’t see that yet, either you will see it in the future or you two have a commonality.
It is unfortunate that people are still in doubt about if Moore is guilty. He was banned from a mall for being a creeper, and cops were told to keep him away from the cheerleaders at football games. I don’t want that person in any public office. There is a picture of Franklin, but there is also plenty of strong evidence against Roy Moore.
Any hard evidence (documentation) for those claims? Or is this more “he said she said”?
Lol no I’m afraid there isn’t documentation. But we can know things outside of documentation. Otherwise how do you try a criminal who didn’t document what he did.
That’s not how justice works, but okay.
That has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You don’t ban someone from a mall, nor do cops follow orders…based on hearsay. I’ve seen a few people (who don’t look incredibly reliable IMO) say he did this or that 40 years ago. If that’s all we need to convict someone, I can put an ad on Craigslist and get people to say whatever I want for a small fee.
I see what you are saying. These people said though that it was common knowledge. Common knowledge is decent evidence. Another thing that I would point out is that I think it would be highly unlikely for a girl to falsely claim that they were molested or anything of the kind. Lastly if you have watched Moore’s defence then you probably also find it extremely unconvincing. “He asked all their mothers” great but that definitely doesn’t make it right, and he “Doesn’t remember dating young girls”. I am very unconvinced by his demeanor. You could almost feel him looking at… Read more »
“Common knowledge is decent evidence. ”
This may be the most absurd thing I’ve seen someone say on purpose.
It does sound very unacademic, I have heard much worse though, note bdash. Think about it though, if everyone in a community knows something it tends to be true.
Malik,
In case you haven’t noticed, no one around here seems to give much credence to what bdash says. Not a very good standard to use for your comments.
Of course, but he said it was the most absurd thing he has heard.
Careful. Everyone in the village knew the old lady was a witch.
Fair point.
“Otherwise how do you try a criminal……?”
Scooby doo and the mystery gang?
????
Love Scooby Doo.
But then there’s that psychedelic painted Chevy van… who knows what goes on in there.
Um……..Al Franken groping for the truth? ????
Ruh-Roh!
“Al Franken groping for the truth?”
Define “groping”…Uncle Al would say he was merely hugging and feels bad the gropee took it the wrong way…sort of, kind of, maybe.
And Al Franken would have gotten away with it too!
If it wasn’t for those meddling kids! ; – )
Somewhere on the internet, someone just announced:
It’s like Hitler’s mustache. As if God is mocking us.
Malik, I keep looking for trustworthy corroboration on any of these stories. So far, I’ve not seen anything that gets above the level of separate individuals claiming separate things, albeit all with the same general drift. If we reach the point where two or three people make basically identical claims about a particular event (same place/time/act), then I think even the media skeptics like me would take a harder look. That hasn’t happened, at least not where I could see it. Most of us have been on the receiving end of phony accusations before, and given the sorry state of… Read more »
I see what you are saying, but I am convinced without the collaboration. Partly because of Moore’s defence. If I saw nothing but his defence, I would be convinced that he did it, it was pretty bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCkxN7A2PUg
Bro. Steve, where do you feel this writer goes wrong?
http://yellowhammernews.com/featured/allegations-roy-moore-look-credible/
Jonathan, The writer didn’t offer any new evidence. He just tried to argue that the common objections to the story are not all that strong. That won’t satisfy people who are hard-headed enough to insist on facts as a basis for their judgments (a principle the mainstream media appears to have forsaken in pursuit of Democrat victory). FWIW, I don’t think Moore was a good choice for Alabama aside from these allegations. Politics is a team sport, and Moore is famously not a team player. The big problem with the GOP in Washington is that they have just enough disloyal… Read more »
I hate the idea of politics being so team oriented rather than moral based. “Put some points on the board,” what happened to doing the right and helpful thing rather than just “getting points.”. This idea is way too central to the GOP. Moore not being a team player is one of the few things I like about him.
It’s too late to wonder who started this. It’s there. If you want to have a Constitution, you’ll need a big team to resist those who want an authoritarian state. I don’t expect Moore to help with that any better than Ryan and McConnell, although for greatly different reasons.
Malik wrote:
Those two concepts aren’t mutually exclusive.
I can understand why Malik would want to see a break away from the current establishment swamp, but that is not an argument that lone rangers are generally better for politics than those who can work together to improve and strengthen the wording of new legislation.
Bro. Steve, what counts as a “fact” when a man hits on teenagers at the mall, pursues high school girls in multiple venues, or touches a 14-year-old inappropriately in a private setting? There are a great number of facts detailed in Hillyer’s article. For example: “all the descriptions of the alleged incidents, from all 30 sources – all told independently without the sources being able to compare notes with each other – were remarkably similar in their descriptions of Moore’s behavior. And for an alleged sexual deviant, Moore showed quite idiosyncratic tendencies (according to the sources). Yes, they said, he… Read more »
Lol, you got a downvote and no answer, I guess you have good points. ????????
Malik,
Or maybe most readers have decided there is no reason to waste their time, as there is no significant new allegations or refutations. I am content to wait and see what, if anything, happens after the election.
I think the fact that the Moore campaign keeps being caught in falsehoods is meaningful.
There are people who are desperately hoping that just one of the 40-odd people who have spoken about Moore’s pursuit of high school girls can be caught in a falsehood. The implication, often stated outright by many, is that if one accuser can be shown to be lying, it will cast doubt on the credibility of them all.
Meanwhile, the Moore campaign appears to be getting caught in one falsehood after another…how much is enough before his credibility suffers?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/roy-moore-campaign-refuses-to-substantiate-claims-about-accuser/2017/11/22/e9d89f20-cfa6-11e7-81bc-c55a220c8cbe_story.html?
Any hard evidence for christ? Any hard evidence for the jews wandering in the desert? Any hard evidence for the garden of eden and the fall? Or just he said, she said?
Is not Mathew’s own account- the very sermon on the mount (the bedrock of the game) oral history passed down 50 years after the fact? You win the irony award.
Accusations can be credible based on many factors: corroboration, patterns, good reporting etc. All of which are in play here in abundance.
Randall, you are just too funny! – “Accusations can be credible based on many factors: corroboration, patterns, good reporting etc. All of which are in play here in abundance.” Evidence that Lefty’s care not a wit about women can be seen in the “scandal” that forced Herman Cain out of the 2012 Presidential race. If those accusations were true why did the media completely drop and forget about them the moment Cain dropped out? Either it is because they could give a rip about the women, …or far more likely they knew it was all a lie to begin with,… Read more »
We aren’t talking about Cain. Or ‘lefties’. What-about-ism.
We are talking about Moore. Electing a pedophile. Whether the accusations against Moore seem consistent and credible and what that constitutes. And what it means that supposed christians proudly support him..
You brought up “patterns” and “good reporting” but I guess you didn’t want to use those categories when they are exposed as “patterns of lies” and “good reporting of fake news.”
Show me a credible source of news that debunks the WP’s reporting on this matter.
What is the pattern of lies?
I have not heard that anyone has accused Moore of being a pedophile — assuming you know what the word means.
Clearly moral clarity re the election of Moore who was credibly accused of fondling a 14 year old and having her touch his penis pales in comparison to the need to play apologetics with pedophila and ephebophilia. What’s next? Tissue or Kleenex? Or will it be my spellink?
soylentg wrote:
I recall similar media amnesia regarding the allegations against Ted Cruz.
RandMann,
Your perception of reality is different from mine. Don’t expect good results on the final exam.
Indeed it is. I choose to see reality as testable is rather than via divine revelation. I experienced my final exam before I was born- as did you. We cared the same did we not?, Which is to say not at all. This life is the one we have. Don’t waste it.
randallmanntoo wrote: This life is the one we have. Don’t waste it. Why can’t we waste it? Who says? Will the sky police punish us for wasting it? In randallmanntoo’s atheism, life is an arbitrary, accidental result of an ancient explosion. In order for life to be wasted, it would have had to have had some value, or purpose, or meaning to begin with. There would also have to be some prescription against wastefulness. His materialistic atheism supports none of these things. Now randallmanntoo may declare that he ascribes his own meaning and value to his life, but that would… Read more »
Did I mentioned punishment? Your spiritual trauma is showing katecho.
And as always, your job is ahead of you. Similar to you trying to prove the negative of there not being a basis for me to have morality, looks like you as ever are back in your same corner on the issue the origin of value and purpose.
If there is no consequence for wasting one’s life, then what reason is there not to waste it? By refusing to answer, it seems randallmanntoo is acknowledging that he has nothing to appeal to beyond his own private, accidental preferences. In other words, he is just conceding my point. So much for that “testable reality”. Randallmanntoo seems to have given himself permission to invent values and expectations for himself that can’t be tested, or even provoked by skeptical questions, apparently.
“Any hard evidence for the jews wandering in the desert? ” I always find this demand by atheists particularly amusing. Both Isreal *and* Egypt agree that it happened. Egypt has even tried to sue the jews for the gold they carried on their way out, both in an ancient Roman court and in modern times. Why they question universally accepted history just to try and spite Christians I have no idea. As for “hard evidence for christ”, there’s quite a bit actually. I could suggest some books if you’d like. Though that doesn’t really get to the heart of the… Read more »
Not an actual demand. I personally don’t care. As it is however, there is no actual evidence for the Exodus- as great of a origin story as it is. Nor is there ‘hard evidence’ fo r christ. We have more ‘hard evidence’ of the cargo cults. Anyway, the point is made. I have read Lewis btw. My youth pastor loved to put to me the “JC , not an insane maniac therefore son of god ‘ argument. It was a silly false-alternative argument to me then and remains more so now. A better reading of that is how Douglas Wilson’s… Read more »
“As it is however, there is no actual evidence for the Exodus- as great of a origin story as it is.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEm-ovpMM5c
Seriously?
“Seriously?” Is that suppose to be a serious refutation?
What YHVH Ministries deserves.
I don’t know anything about YHVH, but am familiar with Rohl’s research, who is an agnostic. Have you considered Rohl’s research?
Yes I have. He is a revisionist who is not highly regarded. That he is or is not an agnostic is not of interest to me. Mainstream history and archaeology consider the exodus never to have happened.
YHVH are the sponsors of your video link.
Yes, I know YHVH is the sponsor of the link, are you suggesting that because of the source, the information cannot be trusted? Have you actually looked at Rohl’s research or just parroting what the “authorities” have said. Of course, the mainstream rejects it, it doesn’t fit their narrative.
randallmanntoo wrote:
Straight from the horse’s mouth.
This is a very clear confession from yet another atheist that it’s not about the evidence.
Scripture indicates that atheism is a heart issue.
What I meant by ‘not an actual demand’ is that it is clear from the absence of evidence that there is evidence of absence. So I do not need to think about it until such time as there is. Clearer for you? Hope so, though it is likely harder to mischaracterize. Sorry about that…
randallmanntoo wrote:
Logical fallacies such as this are why randallmanntoo doesn’t have any credibility when he pretends to evaluate the condition of our evidences.
Good reporting, huh Randman? Would that be the same “good reporting” that made Dan Rather a nobody? Would that be the same “good reporting” that brought us the UVA rape hoax? Would that be the same “good reporting” that convicted the Duke lacrosse players of rape in the court of public opinion before the truth finally came out? Would that be the same “good reporting” that let Bill Clinton off the hook for sexual shenanigans in the Oval Office? Would that be the same “good reporting” that duped you into stupidly asserting Hillary Clinton (she of “bimbo eruption” fame) would… Read more »
Really strange of you to use the UVA case, when it was the “good reporting” of the Washington Post that exposed the accusations as fraudulent within days of their being made.
The story hadn’t even been out for three weeks by the time that the editor of the Washington Post stated that every person involved in the Rolling Stone story should be fired.
In fact, the Rolling Stone (not considered a bastion of high journalistic standards by anyone) was roasted up and done, both in the specific and in the general, for their poor reporting on the article.
Jonathan, before anyone “roasted up” Rolling Stone, there were plenty of media outlets that picked the story up and ran with it, such as Jezebel, Time, and Slate, and journalists who furthered the hoax, such as Dena Takruri (Al Jazeera), Ben Adler (Grist), Nicole Beemsterboer (senior producer at NPR), Paul Glader (Forbes, Business Week, and the New Yorker), Mark Moford (SF Chronicle), Erin McPike (CNN), Paul Danahar (BBC) and others. They ran with it because it fit their prejudices, not because of any journalistic integrity. Would you call what they did good reporting? My point stands. Speaking of bastions of… Read more »
FP, it is a logical impossibility for every media outlet to devote investigative journalists to every story in the world. Thus media outlets often pick up the stories of other outlets before they are able to do the work themselves, because doing all the work themselves is simply impossible for anyone. If they are doing it correctly, rather than stating the allegations as fact they instead state, “The Rolling Stone has reported….” or other such language in their report is in the news section. In fact, that is exactly what many outlets did, until enough time went by that those… Read more »
Thus media outlets often pick up the stories of other outlets before they are able to do the work themselves… In other words, lazy journalism. Doesn’t invalidate my point. The National Enquirer doesn’t care as much as journalistic integrity (see the Ted Cruz example), so it can print accusations much quicker than serious media would. Neither does Rolling Stone, which, according to you, are “not considered a bastion of high journalistic standards by anyone“, which would presumably include all the “serious” journalists and outlets I mentioned above. Yet that didn’t stop any of them from taking the UVA rape hoax… Read more »
It’s ridiculous to call that “lazy journalism”, FP, It is a financial impossibility for any newspaper to do investigative journalism on every story. If it wasn’t for what you call “lazy journalism”, we’d have to peruse every newspaper in the country to get the basic news. For stories uncovered by one paper’s journalists to be reported, with qualifications, in other newspapers is the only reasonable way for investigative journalism to be disseminated. Can you point me to your preferred news source that fails to engage in what you refer to as “lazy journalism”? Any news source that only uses news… Read more »
Let me get this straight: Major media outlets, such as Time, take the UVA rape hoax from a rag that is known for low journalistic standards and spread it as truth, because they don’t have the resources to vet the story. How much do you suppose the average journalist in New York makes, where Time is headquartered? Would you guess $78,190 per year? Given that it took around a month for the truth to come out about the UVA rape hoax, and the average wage of a journalist in NY, it would have cost about $6,500 to have a journalist,… Read more »
Psst! Hey Jonathan, don’t look now, but get a load of this headline I just saw from Newsweek, which is a very respectable, very serious media outlet that really cares about journalistic integrity:
“Ivanka Trump plagiarizes one of her own speeches in India”
Yes, that was their actual headline. And yes, they changed it, hoping no one would notice.
Just another case of Good Reporting™, huh Jonathan?
That’s a dumb story and an even dumber headline.
Has literally nothing to do with a discussion of newspapers engaging in far-flung conspiracies to create fake witnesses and make up false accusations though.
Quin Hillyer’s opinion on the credibility of the Washington Post and other mainstream media outlets basically matches mine. He’s a conservative, and he knows a great deal more about journalism than you or I do.
http://yellowhammernews.com/featured/allegations-roy-moore-look-credible/
OF COURSE it’s dumb, Jonathan. The fact that a serious news outlet would even publish a story with a headline like that is not helpful for their credibility, nor the credibility of any other “serious” news outlet.
Which has everything to do with my point. I know you’re obtuse, Jonathan, but plumbing the depths of your gormlessness isn’t exactly my idea of a good time.
Fake news, malik. Think P.T. Barnum.
mailk, I have no idea whether he is guilty, and he could well be.
But we must be cautious of rushing to believe those who hate the truth. And by that I mean the newspapers, not the accusers.
People seem to accuse any news organization who does not agree with them or who reports on something unfavorable for them as fake news.
“A king who sits on the throne of justice Disperses all evil with his eyes.” Proverbs 20:8 Unfortunately, today’s Christians lack discernment and the ability to see dirty work for what it is. Malik, solid investigations bring out the truth. Newspapers bring out gossip and not truth. TV brings out gossip and not truth. The touted evidence against Moore unravels as it is looked at carefully and investigated. Individuals knowing the accusers for years are saying that the charges put out in the newspapers are false. Why does Allred put conditions on examining the yearbook? If it were true, normal… Read more »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCkxN7A2PUg
Malik,
Please have the decency to state the purpose of your hyperlink. For myself, I decided a long time ago that “The Young Turks” are a waste of time.
Yeah, Malik would probably be better off watching this Young Turks though I still don’t recommend it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ41hqlV0Kk
To give some context, that video (1981) came 4-5 years after Moore’s alleged indiscretions. We’re going waaaaayyy back here.
It was a long time ago, that doesn’t change whether or not he did it, only means he can’t be charged thanks to the statute of limitations. No matter how long ago it was I’d rather someone who did these things not be in charge of anything. I wouldn’t want Moore running a McDonald’s, much less being elected to a position in public life.
Also if there were allegations all the way back then you can’t claim that these new ones are just people attacking him to block his election. The longer people have been claiming it the more credible it is
Malik, the earth is flat has been claimed for centuries — does that make it more credible now?
It’s worth noting that Malik has posted that link 3 times now, twice with no comments. I think that qualifies as spamming.
“You don’t want to make these charges and be proven wrong.” From your Turk link, which is exactly why the charges were made in the newspapers and on TV instead of following a legal course of action. Gossip and lies before an election are more effective than the truth. There have been years for investigations to be completed, yet your boy Turks forgot that small item. If the charges were in fact true, they would go to the police or a private investigator (that’s PO leeece in Alabama talk) for an in-depth investigation. But, the statute of limitations has expired… Read more »
Just out of curiosity, why is no one addressing the highly suspicious fact that when confronted with the accusations, although Moore denied them, he also “doesn’t remember” if he had a relationship with a 14 year old while in his 30’s?
Very true.
There is a powerful connection between girls being sexually exploited at a young age and abortion. If one has been treated like a meaningless clump of cells, one is more likely to perceive themselves that way, and by extension their own offspring. So those who fight for a pro-life agenda, but fail to stand up against abuse are really cooking their own goose.
So buying into every 40+ year old sex allegation = being pro-life? I think there are better ways to support the cause.
I’d ask that you be specific in pointing to who here is “failing to stand up against abuse” and how you came to that conclusion. Do you define that as “anyone who claims they’ve been abused, has been abused?” How do you reconcile that with Biblical standards of evidence?
Justin, You know MeMe is not going to engage in reasonable discussion, so why bother?
Habit mostly. You’re not wrong.
I like the “pervnado” reference but suspect the magnitude is more in the realm of a “pervicane.” (As in “Pervicane Weinstein.”)
“Pervstrom” also comes to mind, but is a bit obtuse for the general public.
I think an excellent case could be made for “pervnami.”
Pervaggedon works too! ????
Pervocolypse? Seems like end times for that ilk.
Franken would still non-apologize for his pervman behavior. As we saw over the weekend he’d double-down on his “feeling bad” if those he fondled “felt uncomfortable”…it appears he’s imPERVious to the reality that fondling a gal during a photo-op or while she’s sleeping makes one a letch.
Franken needs to be sent as far north of Bemidji as possible for the Winter with only a pocket knife to rethink his priorities (and sans Stormy Kromer or dead-animal hat).
“Franken would still non-apologize for his pervman behavior.”
I stand corrected, after at least a week of mincing words and evading truthfulness, etc, etc…Franken finally caved to the pressure and did the political mea cupla “apology”. Sounded staged and hollow.
Bonus points for Al Franken ???? being:
“ImPERVious”! ????
He says he’s “going back to work”…on what still remains to be seen once the media gives him a free pass as one of their own. “No honor among thieves” is still PERVasive.
Nobody in our public life is virtuous- so let’s proudly support a credibly accused child molester who while in his 30’s, geographically isolated a 14 year old, disrobed her, fondled her, and encouraged her to touch his penis. One who attempted to physically force another teenager into oral sex in his truck parked in the dark next to a dumpster behind the diner where she worked. Wilson would have proudly voted for him. Empty these foul pews people.
To condemn all such things if he did them is not the same thing as acknowledging that he did them. Defending someone accused of a foul crime IS NOT THE SAME THING as defending the foul crime itself.
Exactly…although that presumes intellectual honesty by those who like to blur the lines.
Nearly everybody during this debacle seems to either not get this simple truth or just doesn’t care to get it because they’re too committed to the narrative they’ve decided to plant their flag, regardless of whether or not it’s true or false.
What I love is hearing people say [about the accusations] “These are facts.” That word “facts” is among the fast-growing trend of words that people would fail 6th grade English in misuse. Simply stating something is now a fact, regardless of origin. (altho in Franken’s case the picture does show factual truth of his 8th grade mentality.)
To use all of the abilities of reason at our disposal to determine credibility and defend children from sexual predators is ‘not the same thing’ as defending aged pervs who hide behind religion and the willing pastors who will defend them using biblical jailhouse lawyering.
Pro tip for the faithful moving forward: try believing credible accusers and solid reporting over child-molesters hiding behind the skirts of the bible.
Randall, Why should we? From your above comment I take it you don’t believe the Biblical story; do you have another god to ground your moral preaching? Why not defend pervs? Why believe credible accusers? I guess you are the great determiner of morality? Go ahead and get your hands of the righteousness which comes from our worldview. No one forces you to be a fool; but if you choose so, at least be man enough to suffer the philosophical consequences.
Yes, the tiresome claim that without god I cannot clam a sense of morality. Firstly what moral ground can you claim that I cannot? The bible is not responsible for ‘Do unto others’. So what morality do you have access to that I do not after that that umbrella of group altruism? And no, I do not believe the bible. Or in your god or any other supernatural creature. I will not however say that the existence of your deity cannot be proven because that would put me in the position of trying to prove the negative. I will say… Read more »
“Yes, the tiresome claim that without god I cannot clam a sense of morality. ”
Do you genuinely not understand the claim, or like so many atheist heroes do you simply pretend not to so you can answer a much easier accusation than the one that is made?
Nobody is saying you can’t claim a sense of morality. They’re saying that under your worldview, the concept of “morality” is meaningless, nothing more than a chemically generated emotional response.
“They’re saying that under your worldview, the concept of “morality” is meaningless…”
Rand is implying, quite rightfully, that the alleged Christian conservative worldview is not anymore moral than an atheist’s.
When you grow up watching prominent members of the church sexually abuse children, observe Christians still rationalizing and excusing atrocities and sin, that’s a logical conclusion to make. It’s very challenging to convince atheists to give the Body of Christ a chance when their own sense of morality has deemed us all perverse hypocrites and liars.
Now that you mention it Randi, “Group Altruism” among primates, does appear to involve a lot of groping. Perhaps that is the attraction for some? ; – )
Happy Thanksgiving bud! I’m sort of glad you are back. When you are gone too long, I worry.
Pro tip for the faithful moving forward: try believing credible accusers and solid reporting… Okey-dokie. I hereby believe all the accusers of the following people, based on their (the accusers’) credibility and solid reporting: John Conyers Kevin Spacey George Takei Charlie Rose Mark Halperin Al Franken Louis C.K. Al Gore Ben Affleck Brett Ratner Ed Westwick Eric Massa Glenn Thrush Andrew Kreisburg Harvey Weinstein Andy Dick Hamilton Fish Steve Jurvetson John Singleton Lockhart Steele Mel Reynolds Michael Oreskes Oliver Stone Richard Dreyfuss Rick Najera John Besh Leon Weiseltier Knight Landesman Bob Menendez Bob Filner Raul Bocanegra And last, but certainly… Read more »
They are all men.
Clay, they are all progressive, left-leaning, enlightened men.
But then again, I’m pretty sure you deliberately left that part out.
No bonus points for you.
Time to add Matt Lauer to the list now…
Another left-leaning, enlightened progressive bites the dust.
I think “quilty” was a Freudian slip there. Someone who gets enraged by any man suggesting standards for female modesty…secretly wants all women draped in quilts.,,especially those who are wearing yoga pants but really shouldn’t be.
How long must we listen to these tirades? Whatever faint amusement value they might have had has long since disappeared. Even hunting for the inevitable logical fallacies has lost its charm. Perhaps MeMe could just issue a standard objection at the beginning of every post: :”The men here and the sell-out women who support them are graceless control freaks who do not know the Lord as He has revealed Himself to me. “And that goes double for Pastor Wilson!”
I agree. I’m all for banning MeMe, but it hasn’t happened yet. I probably shouldn’t have replied. I think the best thing is to paste her “final comment” like OKRickety did when she comments…or at least once on every post on which she comments. If the regulars here simply don’t respond to her, then newer people will, and won’t know the history.
I’ve lost the interest too. If Justin is no longer provoked by your trolling, it truly has lost all meaning. I am a sucker for trolling every time.
“The division should not be left/right, or Democrat/Republican, or my guy/your guy, but rather guilty/not guilty.” The problem with this sort of basic bro boomer conservatism is that you don’t care at all about winning. Do you really think the left has any desire to play by these rules? Of course not. What happens if one team plays by the rules and the other doesn’t, especially when the (((elite))) in charge of enforcing the rules are on our opponent’s side? Does it matter whether Moore is guilty? In my opinion, since he’s our guy, we shouldn’t entertain even the possibility… Read more »
Of course I care about winning. But the main thing I don’t want to lose is my soul. If I knew Moore was guilty, I wouldn’t support him. In the meantime, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
I’m not sure where all these victims are lurking, crying softly into lace hankies as they read Wilson’s cruel and heartless words. Do they call you up and tell how how each new post has brutally ripped the scabs from their deepest wounds? Do they say that as long as one Christian pastor doubts the word of one unknown accuser anywhere in the world, they can never be healed? How tragic. But, MeMe, you can help these women. Urge them to flee from this website, shun the writings that rend their hearts, and shake Wilson’s dust from the soles of… Read more »
Jill,
Or perhaps “I was abused years ago and now it’s convenient to say so” dot com.
“That is why victims are so hurt by your words. That is also why so many reject the church outright and your rather distorted perception of patriarchy and complementarinism.”
Pastor Wilson, I hope you take this as the compliment that it is. It seems your influence on the Christian world i absolutely MASSIVE.
Ben, rather than the use of the triple parentheses, why not be brave enough to say Jewish?
For anyone who hasn’t encountered this before, Wiki explains as follows: “The use of triple parentheses or triple brackets, also known as an (((echo))), is an antisemitic symbol that has been used to highlight the names of individuals of a Jewish background…The triple parentheses have been adopted as an online stigma by antisemites, neo-Nazis, and white nationalists to identify individuals of Jewish background as targets for online harassment…”
You evidently hang with some very fine people.
Jill, this is true of the original meaning of the triple parentheses, but there was a concerted effort by primarily #NeverTrump Conservatives and supporters of Israel (who aren’t Jewish) that decided to put triple parentheses around their names as a show of solidarity to the persecuted Jews and to potentially confuse the anti-semites as to who exactly is Jewish.
I know, and I applaud that. But Ben’s previous comments about Jews lead me to believe he is using the parentheses in the original sense!
I thought it looked like a dashboard symbol when the emergency brake was left on. {[:-)
I agree. I mainly just wanted to make sure that there are people who used the triple parentheses in a noble or honorable way.
Virtue signaling with punctuation?!
What ever happened to virtue signaling by sending me cash?????
Why am I not consulted on these things?
What’s dishonorable about merely pointing out a Jew or an institution/group comprised of Jews?
I didn’t know that. I had assumed it was shorthand for calleing someone a cuckservative (which seems to be a modern term for RINO).
It’s just a way to point out coincidences, that’s all. What’s the big deal?
The editor over at The Right Stuff explains the triple parentheses as follows: “The inner parenthesis represent the Jews’ subversion of the home [and] destruction of the family through mass-media degeneracy. The next [parenthesis] represents the destruction of the nation through mass immigration, and the outer [parenthesis] represents international Jewry and world Zionism.” Of course, you didn’t know that, did you? You thought it was an inane form of punctuation used to point out coincidences. And, of course, to identify people as Jews in case anyone wants to harass them on social media or merely to find like-minded anti-Semites. As… Read more »
I hadn’t actually seen that quote before, but I like it. It’s a simple, easy-to-remember way of explaining the Jewish Question to normies. I think I’m going to start using it. Thanks Jill!
What is a person Loke you doing on a site for people who worships the God of Israel?
Like you, not Loke you
Ben,
Don’t assume Moore will vote with constitutional conservatives.
Just a FYI… I don’t think Ben is a constitutional conservative…..whatever that is.
demosthenes1d
A constitutional conservative is a guy who thinks all three branches of government should abide by the constitution.
That is distinction from the kind of guy whose opposition to change means cementing in place whatever destructive policies were enacted yesterday.
There seems to be a branch of alt-right that is simply the other side of the same progressive coin. They view the Constitution as an obstacle, as much as any other progressive.
Pastor Wilson, I am really confused by the position you have outlined in this piece. I feel as though it begs so many questions… 1. In a “he said she said” one would assume that HE would be expected to say something more than the equivalent of the 5th amendment. So far Moore hasn’t addressed any of the accusation’s specifics. If you were adjudicating this case, I assume you and your other elders would expect answers to questions like, “do you know any of these women” and “did you date any of these women”. Moore hasn’t answered those questions. So… Read more »
All good points. I second the question – what does “burden of proof” mean in a trial-by-media?
Someone made an allegation. Then their alleged friend from 40 years ago, between their 4th and 5th beers at Ye Olde Watering Hole (not to be confused with Ye Old Watering Hole, which shut down in 1983), kinda sorta corroborated it. Done. 100% sound journalism.
I am far from granting the premise that what one reads in print is necessarily true. But there are now rumors floating around that suggest something at least unusual, perhaps unseemly, and a denial that is… at least not so straightforward as one might wish. What do you do with that?
The degree of corroboration is much stronger than that. For instance, the most serious accusations by the 14-year-old were not only confirmed to have been related to two of her friend s at the time, but also to her mother, who was able to describe the initial meeting with Roy Moore in meaningful detail.
I think this writer’s analysis can be taken seriously.
http://yellowhammernews.com/featured/allegations-roy-moore-look-credible/
Jonathan, What are “the most serious accusations”? I will suppose you are referring to the alleged sexual molestation. You seem to interpret the statements in the WaPo article much differently than I do. It says (emphasis mine): “Two of Corfman’s childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore. Wells says her daughter told her about the encounter more than a decade later, as Moore was becoming more prominent as a local judge.” If you read carefully, the article provides only two details that… Read more »
OKRickety, you apparently either didn’t read the full article or didn’t remember it, because the account of Betsy Davis, Corfman’s friend, is much more substantial than you say: “Betsy Davis, who remains friendly with Corfman and now lives in Los Angeles, says she clearly remembers Corfman talking about seeing an older man named Roy Moore when they were teenagers. She says Corfman described an encounter in which the older man wore nothing but tight white underwear. She says she was firm with Corfman that seeing someone as old as Moore was out of bounds.” And this is the mother’s account:… Read more »
Jonathan, I did not reread the entire article and did not remember that part, so I did miss it (I presumed that related information would be together in the article, rather than widely separated). Now that I have reviewed it, I see a difference in the recollection of the relating of the incident to her friends. In the paragraph prior to the part you quoted, it says: “She [Corfman] says that at some point during or soon after her meetings with Moore, she told two friends in vague terms that she was seeing an older man.” So, the alleged victim… Read more »
These posts where Doug trots out the presumption of innocence raise more qustions than they answer. I agree that the timing on these accusations seem rotten, but no matter how much time there is accusations like these won’t be tried except in the media and court of public opinion. It isn’t ideal, but, after all, we are deciding whether to vote for the guy, not incarcerate him. Also, as you have pointed out Moore’s defense has been lame, he definitely comes across as a guy who was a small town power out trawling around for highschool girls. That’s pretty weird.… Read more »
It’s also handy when the MSM is so biased it compares Trump to Charles Manson. After some exposure and protests, they changed the article–see addendum.
http://www.newsweek.com/how-murderer-charles-manson-used-language-gain-followers-717399
The original article was titled “How Murderer Charles Manson and Donald Trump Used Language to Gain Followers.” You can’t make this stuff up…and it’s hard to know how far they’ll go to support their candidates.
Discussiona about the “mainstream media” are seldom useful. There are many individual reporters, who have their own strengths and weaknesses, and there is much diversity in the outlets and the level of fact checking they perform and the ethics they uphold.
linking an article from Newsweek and taking it as a synecdoche for the “MSM” is like linking an Andy Stanley sermon as proof of the vapidity of church.
I should note that since WaPo was purchased by Bezos it’s quality has declined and it’s activism has increased. And it wasn’t that great to begin with.
I think it’s safe to lump the major networks, Newspeak (I mean Newsweek), Time, CNN, Yahoo News, etc. into one big MSM conglomerate. It’s been clearly biased since at least the 1960s, but hit rock bottom in 1994 and has only fallen further since. That’s when Peter Jennings said the following about the Republicans doing so well in the mid-term elections: “The voters had a temper tantrum last week….Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.” Although I was young, I followed the news closely back then, and saw similar… Read more »
“…hit rock bottom in 1994 and has only fallen further since.”
Not disagreeing with you, just wondering how that is possible.
Demo, you said:
Ever hear of JournoList?
Absolutely. I have read some of the discussions with great interest. I’m not sure what bearing a few dozen active members of a self selected online forum has on my comments.
It wasn’t merely a “few dozen”, Demo. It was over 400.
The point is that, counter to your assertion, there really isn’t diversity in the mainstream outlets. Therefore, it is useful to discuss the mainstream media, as they are near-monolithic in tone, reportage, party affiliation (over 90% Democrat) and even word choice.
I’ve lost count of how many times Rush Limbaugh has done his media montages, playing clips of different talking heads spouting the same talking points, almost verbatim.
” You can’t make this stuff up…”
Exploding heads running rampant, worse than a zombie apocalypse. But, hey, it’s Cyber Monday so prepper food is on sale.
Two people are actually quarreling over Manson’s estate and the right to make the decision where to bury him.
He has an estate to be argued over? Can’t imagine how weird that arbitration session would be. I do have a huge manure pile they could put him under, but even that would be too good. He’s in God’s hands now.
His “art” sold for quite a lot of money, but the proceeds from those sales have to be distributed among the relatives of the victims. I expect his minor possessions will be auctioned off. Even by the end, Manson was receiving tons of mail every week, and there is a huge market for anything he has touched. This is a very sick world.
I wouldn’t want him in any cemetery I operated. It will be constant battle between pilgrims and vandals.
“Run from evil”…seems the Bible is pretty clear, yet this shows that far too many are still lost if anyone is enamored by this guy.
I’m still waiting for the example of the Washington Post ever having engaged in a conspiracy of the kind necessary to have created all these accusations. Or for anyone to post a credible account as to how Roy Moore has attracted so many accusers from his own extremely conservative hometown, and so few defenders who are willing to rebut the general claims about his behavior. Something the mainstream media appears to have uncovered is that Roy Moore clearly targeted high school girls for romantic and/or sexual relationships. And now he’s lying about that. If there’s another explanation for how 40+… Read more »
Without knowing how to best approach this topic, the timing seems (is) partisan, but then accusations of real abuse (when these accusations are late) are probably more likely to appear around the time of political events; I wish to make a couple of comments on innocence and the talion. It has been said that one of the marks of the intelligent is that they withhold judgment about topics that they are not fully informed about. They are willing to say I don’t know and have essentially no opinion. Applying this to justice it is a situation of being disinterested (in… Read more »
You ???? voters are a brave lot!
Just learning not to waste too much time on those who only come here to insult the host.
So Clay, what’s it like to be the “Navy SEAL” of blog commenters?
????
Jessie Ventura was a Navy Seal…and a politician…and a pro wrestler (if you can distinguish the latter two).
Jesse Ventura is just about the lowest scum ever to ooze across the earth. Goes to court to sue the grieving widow of an American hero just because he knocked Ventura off his chair for insulting the military. And then there was his gay partner Adrian Adonis…. with both of them partial to feathered boa’s it made it tough to guess who did what in that relationship.
BTW, I in no way want to infer that any of my comments about Ventura have anything to do with adad0’s comment; I just can’t let a chance to disrespect Ventura pass.
No disrespect taken soylent green, Ventura was the Navy SEAL of Minnesota politicians, not blog commenters.
Sort of like how Al Franken is the “Bill Clinton” of Minnesota Senators! ; – )
In any case “Weiner for Precedent!” ; – )
Keyboard warriors at their best, Clay. They think a down vote somehow changes the truth of the words people speak.
So what do you call a keyboard warrior who can’t even keep their word?
“I’m going to throw in the towel and let go of my hope that I can ever have a fruitful discussion with you or any of your red pill followers. […] From now on I’ll post my complaints about your harmful and damaging theology on my own blog and facebook.”
MeMe – earlier in November 2017
Thank you for writing this
Having frequently been treated worse than a pedophile in the court of public opinion on your very blog, Pastor Wilson, I’m going to point out that you have never given a victim the benefit of the doubt, nor have you ever presumed them innocent until proven guilty.
That is precisely what your critics take note of, why victims often find your words so painful, and why so many of us call your theology poisonous.
I marvel at your mind-reading ability, Meimi, and your comprehensive knowledge of the two decades or more of blog posts that Pastor Wilson has put up here. How on earth do you know that Pastor Wilson has NEVER given a victim “the benefit of the doubt”? You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. I don’t think it means believing the accuser just because she is female, or marginalized, or claims to have had horrible things done to her. All those may be true, but they may not. The accused may be… Read more »
” better 100 innocent men have their lives ruined than a single guilty one go free.”
Yep, horrifying, but it’s been going on in some workplaces ever since the Clarence Thomas debacle. There are often little to no repercussions for women making false harassment claims
” I’m going to point out that you have never given a victim the benefit of the doubt,”
He’s never given an *accuser* the benefit of the doubt, as he’s obligated not to. If the accuser is lying, the victim is the accused.
You know Memi, while men can not compare to Jesus, that Jesus was known to hang out with tax gatherers, annnd prostitutes. Is that not suspicious behavior? One time that Jesus even let a prostitute wash His feet with her tears, then she dried His feet with her hair, and then, she wasted all that money dumping some perfume on His feet! Also, that Jesus, down at the temple mall, caused some sort of ruckus with the sheep and bulls! I wonder if He had an unhealthy interest in sheep and bulls? Then Jesus got “banned” from the temple mall,… Read more »
“Then Jesus got “banned” from the temple mall, although when He showed up at the temple mall again, somehow the mall cops could not bring themselves arrest Him.”
Just gross, Adad. Utterly disgusting. Jesus as a persecuted pedophile cruising the mall? I actually feel ill reading such things.
MeMe,
“Jesus as a persecuted pedophile cruising the mall? I actually feel ill reading such things.”
Gross? You are the one who is being so gross as to read adad0’s comment to mean adad0 is saying Jesus was a persecuted pedophile! adad0 did not say that. Your behavior brings to mind the scripture that the mouth speaks that which fills the heart. [Luke 6:45] If you feel ill reading such things, I’m saying the problem lies in your heart and your interpretation, not in the actual words. Until that is resolved, you should not be here.
Take THAT, adad0, for trying to be nice and diplomatic!
Proverbs 24
10 If you falter in a time of trouble,
how small is your strength!
11 Rescue those being led away to death;
hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
12 If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,”
does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who guards your life know it?
Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?
Jesus has more invested in Memi than I do, so how could I do any less?
Still, feel free to help if you can Clint! ; – )
John 7 32 The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering such things about him. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him…………… 45 Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn’t you bring him in?” 46 “No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards replied. 47 “You mean he has deceived you also?” the Pharisees retorted. 48 “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse… Read more »
adad0, it appears you are equating Jesus’ ministry to Roy Moore’s proclivities. Please explain.
No Clay, false accusation is the topic. What was Jesus accused of?
What charge was Jesus “tried” for?
It’s unlikely Moore will be put on trial for anything. It looks like Moore has two main accusers with growing credibility problems. One with “evidence” that, if examined honestly and immediately would likely prove exculpatory.
To put it another way, Jesus allegedly associated with prostitutes, Moore allegedly associated with teenage girls.
What are the respective proclivities of Jesus and Moore?
Moore’s proclivities: dating 15-17 year-olds
Jesus’ proclivities: taking away the sin of the world
You see the difference, don’t you?
Again Clay, the topic is false accusations, what proclivity was Jesus accused of? Temple destroying?
What were the public sentiments about Jesus associating with prostitutes?
You sure are going to great lengths to defend Roy Moore. Good luck with that.
This from a guy who actively defends and associates himself with MeMe, but says nothing about her constant personal attacks, hatefulness, strawmen and trolling. Amazing.
Isn’t it, though?
Well , Jesus did defend a woman, allegedly “caught in the act”, Jesus then asked the first sinless guy to cast the first stone. Luckily, there were no Al Frankens around!
The mob somehow did not come up with the alleged guy either.
Sounds like Jesus is big on the requirement of witness, for serious offenses.
We could all stand to be more like Jesus, could we not, Clay?
That’s it bud, put the stone down.
adad0, so a woman making the claim that Judge Moore, as Mr. Wilson so delicately put it, copped a feel in the front seat of his car when she was 15 needs to provide a corroborating witness? How does that work?
The same way it worked for Paula Jones. There was witness that they were both in the same place, and Clinton’s mo was known at the time. I believe Jones reported Clinton at the time. By comparison, Moore had no known mo at the time, and people who worked at the restaurant in question don’t recall the girl working there. SS records could establish the girl’s employment history. I know my SS records go back to 75 or 76. Homework for you Clay. Did Moore drive a car or a truck at the time in question? I have heard both.… Read more »
You cannot have a victim without a conviction. The person who makes the accusation is not a victim but the accuser. That is all. Taking the side of the defendant is not siding with the guilty but the accused. Your claim that Wilson never gives a victim the benefit of the doubt is wrong-headed on its surface because there IS NO VICTIM. There is only an accuser, and no…he does not give the accuser the benefit of the doubt, because that would be ungodly. Un-Christian. Unjust.
Think. Don’t emote. Think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCkxN7A2PUg
“This helps explain why there will be a fierce battle to prevent the first accused politician from resigning his office over it. If one resigns, and 25 similar cases then bubble up, then we have set a precedent, have we not?”
Ummm,..Anthony Weiner already resigned, and hence has set, what should obviously be called:
“The Weiner Precedent”. ; – )
Clearly this issue requires a “Weiner for Precedent” public relations campaign!
(Where is Jonathan when you really need him?) ; – )
“Where is Jonathan when you really need him?”
I’m pretty sure he’ll show up. He called Moore a “sexual molester” the nanosecond the news came out, so he feels the need to pile on as much evidence as he can. Convict first, then present your case or something like that.
Heard someone in the media call Moore a pedophile, a massive jump over the sexual crime crevasse in order to double-down. Words mean nothing to the rabid left, the end justifies the means for them.
JP,
Jonathan did eventually make something of an apology that you can read
here. He does still insist that he did not say that Moore was a “sexual molester” although he clearly did. I think it’s possible he did not intend to do that, but he did and he ought to admit it.
There is one thing I know with absolute certainty: this thread would not exist if Roy Moore had lost the primary election. That fact in itself speaks volumes, and answers many questions posed above.
You threw a few stones yourself Doug Wilson. I’m still waiting for you to confess all of your sexual sins for the last 50 years and make public repentance, so we can decide if you are worthy to be a public spokesperson for Christianity. Isn’t that what you called on Moore to do in a previous blog? Fairs fair, isn’t it?
It’s not “he said she said” if there are multiple witnesses. It’s “he said THEY said.” And at what point do you get enough eye witnesses that the case is made to the potential voter? If five witnesses isn’t enough, would ten be? There are now over 40 witnesses to the account that Roy Moore is lying about his targeting of high school girls for romantic relationships – how does that play in? And why have there been so few people who knew Roy Moore during that period who are willing to defend him on that count? “The yearbook has… Read more »
“The other accusations were vetted by serious journalists in an extended process” This is the main assumption Jonathan relies on. While we don’t have full details or transcripts, or know exactly how they corroborated everything, he assumes it’s done in some highly objective, scientific fashion. This is especially faulty when you’re dealing with human biases and people’s memories from 40 years ago. We’re not talking about something truly objective, like Bitcoin/block-chain technology (to use one example), where many completely unrelated machines solve problems and verify transactions. We’re relying on flesh-and-blood sinners, who lean strongly to the left (per many surveys)… Read more »
CHer, if you imagine that he only did what you suggest, you still have to deal with the fact that he is lying publicly and repeatedly right now. The behavior is already a real issue, the public lies and tainting of the character of the people he engaged in such behavior with is a second issue.
Then you have to deal with the degree of corroboration of the witnesses, and the believability of their stories.
http://yellowhammernews.com/featured/allegations-roy-moore-look-credible/
you still have to deal with the fact that he is lying publicly and repeatedly right now.
That appears to be the bigger issue here.
I’m not actually sure which is the biggest issue, but that’s the hardest one to dispute at this point. Also, it appears that Roy Moore’s campaign has made yet another false attack against one of Moore’s accusers. I haven’t counted up all of them, but this is certainly at least the third time that Moore, his wife, or his official campaign representatives have spread an attack on the credibility of the accusers which was later proven to be a false attack. How many false claims that Moore’s campaign make in this effort to damage the witness’s credibility, before we admit… Read more »
Think what you like but Alabama voters – as polled thus far – are ignoring the outsider’s interference, Moore is looking to win. But that doesn’t stop the same folks who want him to fail from saying “Moore MUST be guilty because a bunch of [un-vetted] woman and a Mall cop said so.” This entire deal has been carefully orchestrated by the haters under the guise of politics. How bad can it get? I suspect much worse. Witness the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid media who are now saying Trump is a racist and bigot for standing in front of an Andrew Jackson… Read more »
I think the accusations are credible because: 1. The number of different, unrelated people who have made them. 2. The other people they related the incidents to at the time, who have affirmed that they knew of these incident years before the controversy had any political purpose. 3. The fact that the accusers did not go to the press, but were reluctantly willing to share 4. The way that the stories resonate, that they aren’t the kind of stories false accusers would tend to make up, as even some Moore defenders have admitted in previous posts. (Of course, with the… Read more »
Jonathan, I’m afraid your logical exposition will have little or no effect on the True Believers™.
Jonathan, “Here is an example at how easily the Washington Post uncovers false accusations:” If the WaPo is part of a conspiracy against Moore, then it would be reasonable for them to want to control the dialogue. Assuming the link you provided referred to Jaime Phillips (the link is now [20 minutes after your link] “page not found”), it makes sense that the WaPo would determine the truth of the claim. When they found it was untrue, of course they reported it as it helps their narrative because it is negative to Moore and his supporters. That fits with the… Read more »
Sorry about the link, I deleted something off the end that seems to have broken it. This one should work:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic–and-false–tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?
So far as the Washington Post and Beverly Nelson goes, my assumption is that they have not yet published because they don’t have enough to publish yet. If they discover that the story is false, then they will publish as quickly as they can, since someone else will publish the same sooner or later anyways, and being the ones to expose it will enhance their own credibility and the credibility of their stories. But it is likely that such things are not exposed quickly. It took the Post three weeks to publish the Jaime Phillips refutation, even though they had… Read more »
“I am not saying there is a conspiracy, but it seems reasonably possible to me. If there is one, I doubt the public will ever know.” Really, this is the greatest difference between us. If your think an unprecedented and unknowable option is more reasonable than the obvious matter-of-fact option, then what could ever change your thinking? As Chuck Colson is fond of saying, Nixon couldn’t keep a dozen of the most powerful men in Washington D.C. from spilling the beans left and right, but we’re supposed to believe that the WaPo can involve dozens of Gadsden seniors in a… Read more »
See what I mean?
Clay,
So, why does Jonathan continue to repeat himself here? I would think it would be logical and intelligent to, after making an attempt or two to correct their thinking, let the ignorant “True Believers™” (I actually like that, but I doubt it’s original) believe what they want to believe.
Personally, while I have my doubts about the allegations of sexual misconduct against Moore, I retain an undecided opinion on his guilt or innocence. From the same allegations, many have determined that Moore is guilty.
As for you, it appears you are mostly here as a cheerleader and general pot-stirrer.
OKR, you’ll have to ask Jonathan why he continues to make his case for believing the women who have come forward with their accusations instead of the good judge. Perhaps he thinks that if he can turn one person from their folly it is worth the effort? If one is voting, why not err on the side of caution? All Moore has to loose is a seat in the Senate. Alabamans and the rest of the country stand lose a lot more if he is elected and the allegations later prove true. Why would he not bow out and spend… Read more »
I think most of the True Believers are immovable. There are some that are CERTAINLY immovable, under all circumstances, and who know it. There are others who think they are being open but in reality appear very far from that.
However, I’m not really writing for either of those groups, I’m write under the assumption that there are lurkers who are less ideologically committed to believing a certain outcome and who read both sides looking for the better case.
I think one of the concerns is that people find the Washington Post unreliable. That is, even when they do print the truth, not one knows that they are because they are not fundamentally honest.
That said, these same people could be interviewed by someone more objective.
bethyada,
It would be interesting to see if “these same people” could be found and be willing to be interviewed by someone else. Of course, it would be impossible to find those who were unwilling to be named or undivulged sources, and likely quite difficult to find those described, for example, as “one of the concession workers” who “whispered to us later that it was Roy Moore”.
Divine pantsing alone is worth the price of admission.
and what about the times he violated the united states constitution? he was unfit before the large chorus of assault victims were heard.
Pastor Wilson, do you have any objective way to justify that 80/20 claim you made? I’ve never noticed any particular tendency for one party to face sexual abuse/harassment allegations more than the other. Right now the Republicans are dealing with Roy Moore, Joe Barton, Tim Murphy, and Donald Trump. We can leave Moore off for the time being because he’s not actually in office yet….but who are the 12 corresponding Democrats in office facing allegations? In recent history (say the 2010s), we’re also talking Dennis Hastert, Vance McAllister, Scott DesJarlais, Chris Lee, and Mark Souder. So are there 32 Democrats… Read more »
Ooops, looks like I left off Blake-Farenthold. That’s 9 in-federal-office Republicans since 2010, raised to 10 if Moore gets elected.