Who has done any of this? Who has proposed “extrajudicial punishment” or “ignoring due process”?
What the hell are you talking about, in other words?
What the fuck punishment are you talking about? The only punishment anyone is advocating here is voting for his opponent–and when in the history of our goddamn country has that required a trial first?
Your posts are bizarre, man.
Does anyone know if a plurality is enough or if there would be a run-off?
AL doesn’t have run-offs in the general election.
Cite that anyone is arguing for jail time without a trial? You keep saying people are punishing him with a partisan mob, and yet everyone is saying he shouldn’t be elected, not thrown in jail with a 300 pound man named Bubba.
Well, sure, but you shouldn’t really punish someone for being accused. You punish them for being guilty.
I read the article, and know accusers didn’t seek out media. What I mean is that he’s not someone up for his first high-profile position. It would make sense for someone who’d remained silent against an actor or businessman or even small-scale politician to remain silent until the politician ran for a bigger seat, and then feel like they just had to speak out. But Moore has run for Governor before, and so on (when he would have been investigated by media), so it’s a bit odd it never came up until now (at least as far as I’m aware of).
On a separate note, I noticed the allegations are all from the same time period (ish - exact years not given). Did he just stop (or get more secretive) when he met his wife? See he married her in 1985, but don’t know when they met.
The fact that you don’t keep up with thread before getting angry is what’s bizarre. Removing someone from his spot is not a form of punishment? Furthermore, it seems you are suggesting that people consider unproven accusations with equal weight to facts when casting a vote.
What the hell are you talking about? Who has advocated any kind of punishment without trial? We’re talking about an election and whether or not this info will affect the results. You are arguing against a position that as far as I can tell zero people have taken.
You can certainly be elected to the Senate with a plurality (e.g., Lisa Murkowski in 2010). I don’t know whether there are any state laws in Alabama that would preclude this.
Who is being removed from anything?
Are you saying that it’s wrong for people to consider whether accusations are credible or not when deciding who to vote for? If not, then again, what the hell are you saying?
No clue if our eight-armed friend has actually read the article but I have to say, it is pretty much a nightmare piece of reporting for a politician. Named sources, detailed timeline and individuals who back up the four women saying they were told about it years ago, before Moore was a prominent person in the state. I think looking at it objectively would make the allegations difficult to dismiss for any reasonable person regardless of their political stance.
It’s hard to prove or disprove this type of allegation, even in court. All we can do is listen to what the allegations are, see if they’re consistent with what others are saying (they are), and decide if we want to withhold our vote.
Some will, and some won’t. Some people didn’t vote for Hillary because she didn’t support the women accusing her husband of misconduct. Some people didn’t vote for Trump because of allegations he groped women. The “weight” you assign to this type of allegation may vary, and for someone like Moore, it might not take much weight to tip the scales against him.
Are you seriously suggesting that people don’t consider unproven allegations when casting a vote? Really?
cough Benghazi cough
cough Birtherism cough
Or are you saying its only inappropriate when the allegations are against a Republican?
I think one of the most damning things is actually how much news I’m seeing of GOP politicians saying for him to step down (even though it’s too late for him to be replaced on ballot, as I understand it). I wonder if they know something I don’t, even though he hasn’t actually been in D.C. with these folks, so they wouldn’t know him or his proclivities personally.
My google-fu is pretty weak today, but I can’t find any source of **octopus **defending Anthony Weiner or Harvey Weinstein against partisan attacks. He sure seems to get up in arms to defend Republican molesters, though.
It depends on the state. I recall that Georgia had at least one runoff election because they require a majority win, for example.
Oh, and speaking of Lisa Murkowski:
I can imaging that Murkowski (and Collins, and any of the others whose votes aren’t completely in the bag) relish the prospect of the GOP majority getting a bit razor-thinner… 
I suspect that the prospect of the stink clinging to the party generally has generated some belly-Akin among the leadership.
According to the Post, their reporters heard hints about his past behavior and started pursuing leads and tracking down the women involved. I find it easy to believe that earlier reporters hadn’t heard such hints, didn’t take the time to track them down if they had and that the current cultural environment makes it more of a story “worth” pursuing than earlier where the response from up high could have been “Leave it alone, we’re not doing some he said-she said story about feeling up teenage girls thirty years ago, no one cares.”
This is a bizarre way of processing the facts. Why would you discount the corroborated accounts of four women who don’t know each other in favor of a bunch of men who know nothing about the facts?
Can we call him Roy “Nine Commandments” Moore now?