Difference between revisions of "Talk:Roy Moore"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by Jim Morrison (talk) to last revision by SamHB)
(Thoughts: people can change: innocent until proven guilty)
Line 24: Line 24:
P.S. -- here's an article I found interesting: [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/roy-moore-and-jeff-sessions-two-problems-and-a-solution/article/2640460] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:24, 12 November 2017 (EST)
P.S. -- here's an article I found interesting: [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/roy-moore-and-jeff-sessions-two-problems-and-a-solution/article/2640460] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:24, 12 November 2017 (EST)
==Trial by media==
Whatever happened ''[[innocent until proven guilty]]'', as in the [[14th Amendment]]? This used to be a sacred principle in U.S. law. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:13, 17 November 2017 (EST)

Revision as of 07:13, 17 November 2017

"(T)hese accusations mirrored the Access Hollywood recording The Washington Post released one month and two days prior to Donald Trump's election." The wording of this appears unfortunate, in that nobody disputes the truth of the Access Hollywood tape, just its implications vis à vis Trump's purported sexism. The wording here suggests that the accusations against Moore are also true (in the same way that Trump did engage in locker-room talk), but that their truth should not be read as a disqualifying failure of character, as with Trump. Moore says that the accusations are false, while Trump's position was that his comments were taken out of context and blown out of proportion, but not falsified. This problem is compounded in my opinion by the later sentence "Moore, like Trump before him, stayed strong and refused to step down" in that it draws a parallel between a true but overblown report in Trump's case, and a denied report in Moore's case. I doubt that it is Conservapedia's intention to imply that Moore did engage in the reported contact, but that said contact does not represent a disqualifying failure of character - but then again there is the statement here that three of the accusations "did not even involve lewd acts", which implies that even if they were true (which Moore denies), they are immaterial in Conservapedia's view. "Moore says that the accusations are false" should be sufficient. If you wish to draw a parallel to some other accusation against a politician, it would be better to choose a known false accusation rather than an accusation that was true in its particulars but overblown in its interpretation.--Brossa (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2017 (EST)

You're right, I have no intention of-of implying that these *accusations* are true. When I compared the two events, I was also thinking about the many accusations of sexual assault that popped up against Trump around the same time (interesting that they've all disappeared now).
However, even when just including the Access Hollywood tapes, there are several similarities that make this story against Moore very suspicious:
  • Both stories were released by The Washington Post, which endorsed Moore's far-left Democrat opponent
  • This story was released 1 month and 3 days before the special election (by contrast, the Access Hollywood tape was released 1 month and 2 days before the presidential election -- coincidence? I don't think so)
  • Both stories are accusations of sexual misconduct that did not involve intercourse (but yes, one is true and on tape, while the other is unproven)
I doubt that this story is true because of the timing and source, but even if it does happen to be true, it would not change my vote if I were an Alabama resident. Not only are these accusations 34 years ago -- when Jimmy Carter was still president -- but they are significantly less serious than what we've been seeing in Hollywood in the past few months (and those actors have admitted to their acts). Also, even if this story is true, Moore would still be one of the most moral people in Washington D.C. (and how do we know he was already a Christian back in 1979?). More importantly, Moore is still the most conservative candidate with excellent political views facing off against a candidate who is very left-wing even by national Democrat standards. These leftists, including the GOP establishment, hate Moore and are trying to bring him down, just like they tried to bring Trump down. The RINOs are even OK with losing AL's Senate seat to accomplish this. I have zero sympathy for those RINOs (including McCain, McConnell, Romney, and Kasich).
Still, I will try to improve the article based on your constructive criticisms. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2017 (EST)
Also, I encourage everyone to watch Sean Hannity's segment last night on this story, the first 24 minutes of this video. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2017 (EST)
I had my suspicions straight away the moment the accusations came out, as they appeared well-timed and very convenient (coinciding with the Alabama Senate seat Moore is running for and looks to be on the verge of winning). This whole thing reeks of Democrat/RINO/liberal media collusion to me (and, considering what is now being exposed about the Democrats and those in the entertainment industry and the liberal media associated with them, makes the Democrats and their confederates hypocrites). Northwest (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2017 (EST)


One of Moore's accusers happens to be a Hillary Clinton campaign worker who is also associated with other well-known Democrats and opposes Trump.[1][2][3][4] If I'm correct, another accuser has stated she is a Republican that voted for Trump. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2017 (EST)

Thoughts: people can change

Not only is the leftist media jumping to conclusions and already condemning him for acts that are currently unknown whether he did or not (and most of the accusations are not even that serious--several people I've spoken to don't see how *most* of these examples are that big a deal if true), but the media also is trying to portray Moore as a hypocrite for doing these things despite his beliefs. However, they miss the fact that people can change -- just because someone is a biblical Christian today doesn't mean they always were. I don't know when Moore was saved (assuming he's saved), but let's remember that these alleged incidents happened before he moved to Australia in the 1980s to essentially find himself and be mentored by a Christian if my knowledge is correct. People change -- and Moore is still the conservative candidate in the race.

P.S. -- here's an article I found interesting: [5] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2017 (EST)

Trial by media

Whatever happened innocent until proven guilty, as in the 14th Amendment? This used to be a sacred principle in U.S. law. --Ed Poor Talk 08:13, 17 November 2017 (EST)