Can the Democrats win the Alabama senate special election in December?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Party before Country personified.

[RTFirefly]

@Ulfreida

If there is not more to come I’d be very surprised.

I agree. If he hit on as many as four girls in that age range, it’s a good bet that these aren’t the only four, and more will come forward now that this story is in the news.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@RTFirefly

I agree. If he hit on as many as four girls in that age range, it’s a good bet that these aren’t the only four, and more will come forward now that this story is in the news.

And Fox News will lead the charge against all of them. “ENEMIES OF THE PARTY!”

[wonky]

@RTFirefly

I agree. If he hit on as many as four girls in that age range, it’s a good bet that these aren’t the only four, and more will come forward now that this story is in the news.

It’s so funny to watch people react to it. The story came out around 1 and I’m seeing reactions like “Why aren’t they finding anyone more recent, huh? Why hasn’t anyone else come forward?”

I guess Alabamans are supposed to have psychic powers. I did not know that.

[iiandyiiii]

@octopus

Attacking the women? That’s nonsense and more hypocrisy. And even if I were attacking the women it’s perfectly ok. Remember, all that matters is that someone alleges something. Facts obviously don’t.

It’s not okay. It’s wrong to attack people for nothing more than making allegations of mistreatment, always. It’s hurting society and people and making it less likely women will come forward in the future.

Why would you want to contribute to that? It doesn’t mean you have to embrace every allegation. You don’t have to say anything at all. Just don’t attack them – it’s always wrong.

And what’s this nonsense about accusers of a crime being given the benefit of the doubt? The presumption is one of innocence until evidence is brought forth. Why are women given special treatment?

What are you talking about? I have no problem with presumption of innocence, which is a legal term about criminal court cases of criminal conduct.

This isn’t about criminal court cases of criminal conduct.

Now, if Moore is guilty of this, that’s a pretty big strike against his character. But I think the time to have dealt with this is when there was evidence of the crime and the when the police could have done something about it.

Who says anything about police, or even crime? This is about women coming forward and saying they were mistreated. That’s always okay, and it’s never okay to attack women for doing that, barring evidence of dishonesty.

People make false allegations all the time. Look at that nonsense at the Air Force academy with the false hate speech. This is why evidence is necessary before action.

What “action”? What the hell are you talking about? Are you seriously saying that if (for example) a woman came forward with a video of Moore assaulting her as a teenage girl 30 years ago, past the statute of limitations, you would think it’s wrong to take this into consideration for one’s vote? Are you saying that ONLY CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS can reasonably be taken into account in terms of personal character and behavior?

If you’re not saying this, then what the hell are you saying?

If you are saying that, then that’s utterly ridiculous.

Moore can be judged based on his positions now. Stuff that happened or may not have happened 40 years ago and is conveniently being discussed now doesn’t seem that relevant.

I’m judging him on his positions now as well, including how he’s reacting to women coming forward with allegations against him. It’s also perfectly appropriate to consider allegations from the past.

If you’re saying it’s unreasonable to consider allegations of past conduct, then that’s totally ridiculous and I reject it utterly.

TLDR version: the women may very well be telling the truth of events from 40 years ago. We don’t know if they are and it will be very difficult to confirm. Wanting proof or evidence is not an attack.

You didn’t just ask for “proof or evidence”, you attacked them for coming forward now. That’s wrong, always.

And where were you iiandyiiii when James Carville was attacking the women accusing Bill Clinton?

I was probably about 12. If he attacked those women for nothing more than coming forward with allegations of misconduct, then he’s guilty of the same sin you are. It’s always wrong.

And shame on you again. Yet another example of how society and culture make it difficult for victims of sexual misconduct to come forward and tell their stories, and you’re helping to make it more difficult, in a small but real way.

[JohnT]

@octopus

As much sense as you make in physics I’m surprised politics and reading perplexes you. Letting a woman drown, allegedly, didn’t sink Ted Kennedy’s career. Why is that? Is it because people think actual proof should matter or was it pure partisanship?

It’s truly sad the low standards people have on this board with regards to making a decision based on allegations. Allegations that anyone can make. Why didn’t these ladies make these allegations when he was a judge or running for other office?

:rolleyes:

*They are. *

Got any more brilliant rebuttals?

[octopus]

iiandyiiii, asking for evidence of a serious crime is not an attack. People have been lynched based on allegations. So forgive me if I demand a higher standard of evidence.

[octopus]

@JohnT

:rolleyes:

*They are. *

Got any more brilliant rebuttals?

:rolleyes:

Actually they aren’t. “Other” means not this.

[JohnT]

So, you’re whining about “Why did they have to pick this election?”

You be you, little man.

[Chronos]

Quoth octopus:

Letting a woman drown, allegedly, didn’t sink Ted Kennedy’s career. Why is that? Is it because people think actual proof should matter or was it pure partisanship?

You’d have to ask the people of Massachusetts. I’m sure that some of them did vote against him because of Chappaquiddick, and I consider that a perfectly reasonable decision. In fact, I can think of a number of other good reasons to vote against Ted Kennedy, too. I’ve never been all that fond of him (though I suppose that must come as a shock to those who think that the Democrats are a single unified hive-mind who reflexively defend their own).

[Chronos]

People have been lynched based on allegations. So forgive me if I demand a higher standard of evidence.

Then protest against the lynchings. We don’t have nearly enough evidence to hang the guy, but then, that’s why nobody is suggesting we should hang him. We’re just suggesting that we should not vote him into high office, a fate that he shares with hundreds of millions of other Americans.

[JohnT]

"A meaningful % of the GOP are insisting nothing is real in a carefully research story with four on the record statements from victims.

In related news, a meaningful % of the GOP believed Hillary Clinton was part of a child cannibalism and sex ring in a pizza restaurant."

Rick Wilson

(With minor changes)

[AlsoNamedBort]

@octopus

iiandyiiii, asking for evidence of a serious crime is not an attack. People have been lynched based on allegations. So forgive me if I demand a higher standard of evidence.

Let’s say there’s people in Alabama who are 50/50 between Moore and Jones right now. If they decide to vote Jones because of this, are they wrong?

[iiandyiiii]

@octopus

iiandyiiii, asking for evidence of a serious crime is not an attack. People have been lynched based on allegations. So forgive me if I demand a higher standard of evidence.

You said they should have come forward earlier. That’s not asking for evidence. Reserving judgement until more evidence comes forward is fine, but that’s not what you did - you asked why they didn’t come forward earlier, this implicitly attacking their credibility for coming forward now.

Shame on you and anyone else who attacks women for nothing more than coming forward.

[Thing_Fish]

Comment on the tweet JohnT linked:

“But Gorsuch, though,” murmured Mitch McConnell, staggering slightly, his fingers dirty and raw from digging through the radioactive ruins of Old Seattle for potable water. “Gorsuch.”

[bobot]

“Why didn’t they say anything sooner” is a completely irrelevant question that does only 1 thing- point the finger at the victim. Kudos, iiandyiiii for not letting it slide.

[Procrustus]

@octopus

iiandyiiii, asking for evidence of a serious crime is not an attack. People have been lynched based on allegations. So forgive me if I demand a higher standard of evidence.

Testimony is “evidence.” People have been convicted of all sorts of crimes based on only the testimony of a victim who says it happened. What “standard of evidence”are you expecting? Even if this (somehow) went to trial, all there would be is the accounts of these women and the denial of Mr Moore.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Perhaps these women did not say anything sooner because they knew that many, many citizens of Alabama think that it’s perfectly OK of a man in a position of authority does whatever he likes to any woman or girl he wants. Many Republicans believe, even now that it’s OK if Roy Moore grabbed them by their genitals without asking. That lots of people would even find this acceptable for the President of the United States, AS LONG AS HE IS A REPUBLICAN. Even now, many say that they would vote for Moore, and support Moore, EVEN IF HE WAS GUILTY OF RAPING LITTLE GIRLS, just because he is a Republican.

So, you see… It was pretty reasonable of them not to have come forward with these charges in the past. They would have known that they would have been in for a shit-storm.

[ricksummon]

Even if Moore wins the election, could the Senate immediately vote to expel him with a 2/3 majority? If so, do they have to do the whole special election again?

[Bijou_Drains]

Manson or Hitler could win in Alabama if they had a R next to their name.