The *gerrymandered *state legislatures, specifically.
Yeah, their own guns.
Nobody pointed a gun at them and said, “you must try to secede, or I shoot.” They did that themselves.
After their rebellion was defeated, but before their full rights as states in the Union were restored, Constitutional amendments they didn’t like were ratified by the states that stayed.
Sucks to be them, but they did it to themselves.
Wasn’t ratification of those amendments one of the conditions for them to be restored?
Well, after they tried some shenanigans, yes.
So, if I’m reading between the lines, if we unratify the amendments, we also reseceed the confederate states? Damn, that’s a tough call on which way to lean.
No. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in the 19th Century that secession was illegal in the first place.
However, keep in mind that if the 12th Amendment is repealed, then Hillary Clinton becomes the Vice-President, since she had the second-most electoral votes.
Speaking of the Constitution, here’s something to consider: the Senate has the final say over the result of the Alabama Senate election. If the vote is close enough but for Moore, could enough Republican Senators who don’t want Moore team up with the Democrats to force as many recounts as it takes to get one where Jones ends up ahead, and then declare that the result? There is precedent for this; see Frank McCloskey’s 1984 House election.
The GOP has started up the Fake news machine again:
Sorry, it’s not a forgery then. It’s an annotation. Even though this “annotation” was presented as original. I might have thought that someone operating in good faith would have admitted they themselves “annotated” the original; it’s usually good practice to admit such things when presenting an original document. This lady had consulted a lawyer, a very well paid lawyer at that. None of the annotation stuff came out at the press conference, or any of the(I assume) dozens of communications with the press soon afterwards.
I eagerly await the results of any independent examination; an examination that could have very easily taken place by now. I seem to be one of the very few on here calling for an independent analysis. I think we all know why. If someone is holding evidence back they are usually doing so for a reason.
Specifically the annotation, or just as a general reference to the whole?
Because if the latter, I’m inclined to think that they thought the difference between the annotations and the rest of the writing was so starkly obvious that they didn’t see a need to mention it.
So you tell us. If this independent examination concludes that Moore authored that yearbook message, will you join us condeming the man? Or will you move goalposts so you can continue to attack his accusers?
The cynical side of me thinks that the Fox News poll showing Jones up by 10 pints is just a ploy to dampen the Democratic vote.
It’s funny, but my cynical side thought the exact opposite (that they’re trying to get out shaky Republicans who might otherwise just sit it out) - the reasoning being that if you’re a Democrat in Alabama, you are never going to believe you have a statewide election in the bag until the election’s over, regardless of what the polls say.
The election will be won or lost on turnout, it seems.
Look, if the whole case rested on this one point, sure. But there have been mutiple accussers and Moore even admitted that he dated young girls “with the permission of their mothers”.
"Moore has also given contradictory statements on whether he knows his accusers. On November 10, Moore acknowledged knowing and remembering Debbie Wesson Gibson and Gloria Thacker Deason, but said although he could cannot remember “specific dates” between him and Gibson, “If we did go out on dates then we did.” He said that he did not “remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother.” However on November 27 and 29, Moore declared, “I do not know any of these women”, “did not date any of these women and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone.”
There’s alsoLeigh Corfman, who was only 14, several others and many eyewitness accoutns that Moore was dating underaged girls.
Snopes has weighed in:
You need to play multi-dimensional chess to figure this stuff out. FOX doesn’t really want Moore to win because it would be bad for Democrats, so you they are trying to discourage those borderline voters who might be thinking about voting for him. Why bother what with all the cold weather and he’s gonna lose anyway. Let’s go Christmas shopping instead!!
Ahem: the WHITE south, and even then, not all of the white south.
But yeah, the white southerners in charge were scum of the earth.
Setting aside Moore’s fundamental unfitness for the job based on his casual disregard for the rule of law, to get banished from the local mall on the basis of trolling for kids had to take some doing, even 40 years ago. That it happened is a verifiable fact.
How much more does one need to make a determination of someone’s character?
Whoops! Missed your post, The Tooth!
(But it probably bears mentioning more than once, anyway.)
If Moore had admitted his guilt, apologized and explained that he gave up such behavior decades ago, I think the could make the ethics charges almost disappear. What is his most recent incident in that department-- it is decades ago, right? He chose not to do that, though. But we’re still left with, as you say, someone who is fundamentally unfit for the job based on his casual disregard for the rule of law. Or to use the more technical term: a complete whack job.
I should have been clear, my mention of his disregard for the rule of law had to do with his ignoring a judge’s order to have his 10 Commandments monument removed, and his order to probate judges to disregard federal court rulings on the ban of same sex marriage. In my mind, that makes him unfit as a threshold issue. Also, he’s a birther.
As for his proclivity for pedophilia, I’m not sure an apology quite covers behavior as extensive as Moore’s. This is a man with a problem, even if it occurred decades ago. You probably wouldn’t want to peruse his browser history.
I can certain go with your more technical term: A complete whack job, for sure.
Yes, that’s exactly how I understood it.
All his interactions with teens were 30 - 40 years ago. If there are more recent allegations, they should be put on the table. I have no idea what is in his browser history-- I’m just saying he could have handled the accusations a lot better and maybe gotten a pass from a lot of folks since he has not continued that pattern of behavior. People can change.
What? No, that’s what you would do if you were trying to dampen the ***GOP ***vote.