Difference between revisions of "Talk:Roy Moore"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Ann Coulter on Roy Moore: add)
(did he win?)
Line 64: Line 64:
  
 
Check it out: "[http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-12-06.html Jerry Seinfeld Endorses Roy Moore?]" Coulter recounts the Foley story. Foley's tawdy email got so much play nationally that it become a significant factor in 2006 midterms. Meanwhile, Dem congressmen who pursue teens are damn proud of it: "More than 20 years earlier, a Democratic congressman, Gerry Studds, who had actually buggered a 17-year-old page, indignantly defied his House censure and proudly stood for re-election. His outraged Massachusetts constituents elected him six more times." As for Moore: "The media say that Republicans support Moore just because they want another GOP vote in the Senate. I support Moore just because I hate the media." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:53, 7 December 2017 (EST)
 
Check it out: "[http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-12-06.html Jerry Seinfeld Endorses Roy Moore?]" Coulter recounts the Foley story. Foley's tawdy email got so much play nationally that it become a significant factor in 2006 midterms. Meanwhile, Dem congressmen who pursue teens are damn proud of it: "More than 20 years earlier, a Democratic congressman, Gerry Studds, who had actually buggered a 17-year-old page, indignantly defied his House censure and proudly stood for re-election. His outraged Massachusetts constituents elected him six more times." As for Moore: "The media say that Republicans support Moore just because they want another GOP vote in the Senate. I support Moore just because I hate the media." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:53, 7 December 2017 (EST)
 +
 +
==Special election==
 +
 +
So did he win the 2017 special election, despite the recent flood of character attacks, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:57, 7 December 2017 (EST)

Revision as of 09:57, 7 December 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)

Accusers

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)

Although I've seen a lot of heat by the Left and establishment toward this article, it is really good with explaining by it is OK to vote for the lesser of the two evils (all people are evil and sinful, and it's impossible to vote for a "good" candidate).[6] That said, Roy Moore is not the "lesser of the two evils" in the sense that most people think of the term -- he's a great candidate and would be a great Senator. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2017 (EST)
Some good responses to the article I posted above, due to it getting a lot of heat: [7][8] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:58, 1 December 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)

Is it any surprise that the three major AL newspapers endorsed Doug Jones? Here is the title of their editorial for their 2016 presidential election edotorial: "Endorsement: We're with Hillary Clinton. Frankly, Donald Trump's dangerous." --1990'sguy (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2017 (EST)
I'm not touching this site with my personal opinion on the matter with a 30-foot pole, but I can say that Moore's accusers waited quite a long while beyond the statute of limitations before accusing him of anything.--Pious (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2017 (EST)

How Roy Moore can still win

Things have started to look grim for Moore with the latest poll showing Jones eight points ahead.[9] But The Amercian Spectator has a brainstorm to turn it around. Moore can offer to resign his senate seat as soon as Bob Menendez and Al Franken are expelled. What happens to Menendez is anyone's guess, but Franken is unlikely to ever get expelled. What better way to appeal to southern voters than to blame it all on misbehaving Yankee senators? PeterKa (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Breitbart has criticized the Fox News poll for its small sample size and for oversampling Democrats. The poll may be accurate, but I see room for doubt. Personally, I think Moore could still win if he energizes his base without seeing the Democrats energized. If the Democrats think this will be an easy victory for Jones, many of them will decide to stay home, and because Moore's voters are very loyal, they would bring him to victory. Either way, I'm just glad that these allegations were "revealed" four weeks before the election, rather than one week, and I'm also glad that Moore is very strong and refusing to let politicized sexual misconduct allegations from about 40 years ago ruin his career. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2017 (EST)
I think the best defense of Moore is that he was looking for a wife, not a victim or a good time. Several of the accusations are not consistent with that, but they come from accusers with credibility issues. Liberals have apparently decided to dump Weinstein and Clinton. But they've rallied to protect Franken. So I guess we as a nation are settling on a "Franken standard". That is to say, a politician can be as creepy as Franken and keep his job. Just don't take it to the Weinstein-Clinton predator level. Moore passes this standard with flying colors. Franken has been quite a creep in public for a long time, and unashamedly up to this point. His "comedy" act was to pull girls from the audience, dance with them, and repeatedly grab their asses: "Shall We Dance, Al Franken? What About That Time in Montana?." PeterKa (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Does Conservapedia have a single position on the accusations against Moore?

I ask because the article and talk pages here and elsewhere on Conservapedia continue to equivocate between several positions, in decreasing order of acceptance: 1) The accusations are all false. 2) The accusations of criminal activity are false, while the others are just descriptions of behavior that was acceptable at the time, if not still acceptable. 3) Moore has not been found guilty at trial (truth of claims is unknowable until then). 4) The accusations only represent a misdemeanor, or were from too long ago to be relevant, or are not as bad as things that others have done. 5) Moore has redeemed himself through his subsequent career and actions. 6) Moore is still a better choice than his opponent. Only positions 1 and 2 deny the criminal charges in the accusations; 3 withholds all judgement until after a criminal trial; the rest in effect concede that they are "true, but..." with that last position seeming to accept the accusations on their face without excuse. Moore himself appears to take position 2, in that he denies inappropriate or illegal activity but does recall appropriate courting of young women with their parent's permission(s), which is the essence of most of the 'accusations'. Different individuals who post here seem to have different beliefs about the matter, which continue to be reflected in the article and I feel that causes confusion. Moore himself continues to deny any illegal or morally inappropriate behavior, so I don't see why so much of the discussion seems to be of the "true, but..." variety. Given Andrew Schlafly's continued active support of Moore and interest in the matter, I wonder if there is or should be a single Conservapedia position represented here that does not undercut Moore's statements?--Brossa (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Honestly, I think all those points are true, at least to an extent. It is true that these are still claims, and nothing's been proven -- thus, we shouldn't jump to judgment on this like the establishment and Dems have been doing. At the same time, there are serious holes and problems in the accusers' stories -- such as the whole yearbook signature thing; the fact that one of the accusers who said she didn't see Moore since the 1970s actually saw him when he took her divorce case in the 1990s and apparently had no problem with it; the fact that these accusers (who call themselves "Republicans" and "Trump supporters") have only been going to liberals like WaPo and leftist Democrat Party activist Gloria Allred, neither of whom have any respect/credibility from real conservatives; and the fact that many women and others who knew Moore even since the 1970s and before have spoken up defending him (of course, the MSM won't report this), etc.
In addition, these allegations are clearly politicized. They were reported only 1 month before the election, and all the accusers ran to left-wingers who clearly oppose Moore and/or other strong conservatives. Allred has a history of bringing alleged victims in front of cameras when a politician is running for office and threatens to sue (Swartzenegger, Trump, now Moore), but then acting like the allegations never happened after those candidates win their elections (Allred also was a delegate for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democrat convention). How can we believe these claims when they are clearly politicized? And how can we think clearly on these claims when they are politicized? Honestly, it could very well be that Moore pursued young women when he was younger -- but there's nothing inherently wrong with doing so so long as you don't abuse them. The fact that he apparently asked their parents shows he adhered to chivalry, something the Left has thrown out the window. These are all valid points, but they are distorted and mischaracterized in our politicized environment.
The double standards in these allegations are obvious -- even if these allegations were true, Moore still would be one of the most moral people in Washington. Simply pursuing young women isn't inherently wrong, even if it's distasteful and taboo (and it's also true that in some places in the South, it's not taboo). What matters is if you honor God when doing so. Some of these allegations very clearly are sinful. However, how many Representatives and Senators are also guilty of sexual misconduct equal to or worse than Moore? More than you'd expect: [10][11][12] Why is Moore getting all the condemnation for claims that aren't even proven, while nobody in Congress is getting the same treatment, even Al Franken, who admitted to his actions when confronted with photographic evidence (and Republicans are more OK with Democrat Franken than one of their own candidates)? And why are we only talking about allegations of rape, attempted rape, and groping? How many members of Congress have committed adultery? How many have had premarital sex? How many have gotten divorced? How many swear and blaspheme God? These are all terrible sins, but why are none of these people resigning, even though it's painfully clear who these people are? These people are doing these things now, while Moore did these things 40 years ago. It's double standards.
And yes, it's true that Moore is conservative. He's hated by McConnell and the establishment -- they would love to replace Moore with a worthless establishment crony who makes a few conservative-sounding statements during campaign years but nothing else. There is no reason to replace a great candidate with another crony simply upon unproven allegations which (for the most part) are not even that serious *if* true. All these positions you mentioned, Brossa, are valid and overlooked points, and that's why I essentially repeated them again in my long explanation. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2017 (EST)
To me, it's all about getting a majority in the senate and using it promote liberty, free markets, and a godly nation. Moore obviously did pursue and date high school girls, and he isn't helping himself with his non-denial denial. There's nothing illegal about that and it wasn't so long ago that it was an accepted practice. Pre-Weinstein, liberals told us that the real sin was hypocrisy. So a Dem who was an out-of-the-closet pervert like Franken was untouchable. What Conservapedia's position is up to Andrew Schlafly. PeterKa (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2017 (EST)

Doug Jones

It might be a good idea to create an article about Moore's Democrat opponent. I am planning on doing this, and I am placing the sources that I likely will use here: general--[13][14], presidential candidates he voted for--[15], newspaper endorsements--[16][17], hypocrisy--[18][19][20], immigration--[21][22][23][24], guns--[25][26][27][28][29], ObamaCare--[30], abortion--[31][32], homosexuality--[33], religious liberty/hypocrisy--[34], education--[35] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2017 (EST)

The Buckley rule

William F. Buckley told conservatives to support the most conservative, viable candidate.[36] It's too bad so many of today's conservatives have forgotten this excellent rule. Congress isn't getting much done in terms of legislation. But the federal judiciary hangs in the balance. Justice Kennedy is expected to retire soon and there are plenty of lower court vacancies. Liberals could support Ted Kennedy and later Bill Clinton without getting distracted by allegations far more serious than those leveled against Moore.
Biblically speaking, political leaders are not expected to be moral exemplars. David found comfort in the arms of another man's wife, Jesus did not go into politics, and Moses was banned from the promised land when his faith in God failed him at crucial moment. PeterKa (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2017 (EST)

Ann Coulter on Roy Moore

Check it out: "Jerry Seinfeld Endorses Roy Moore?" Coulter recounts the Foley story. Foley's tawdy email got so much play nationally that it become a significant factor in 2006 midterms. Meanwhile, Dem congressmen who pursue teens are damn proud of it: "More than 20 years earlier, a Democratic congressman, Gerry Studds, who had actually buggered a 17-year-old page, indignantly defied his House censure and proudly stood for re-election. His outraged Massachusetts constituents elected him six more times." As for Moore: "The media say that Republicans support Moore just because they want another GOP vote in the Senate. I support Moore just because I hate the media." PeterKa (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2017 (EST)

Special election

So did he win the 2017 special election, despite the recent flood of character attacks, or what? --Ed Poor Talk 10:57, 7 December 2017 (EST)