• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Roy Moore campaign refuses to substantiate claims about accuser

Oh, not at all.

Kodak manufactured film (e.g. 126, 110) dedicated for compact, inexpensive cameras going at least as far back as the 60's. 110 cameras were popular and widely available in the 70's. You could even buy little $1 cameras in the supermarket toy aisle that were basically plastic shells that snapped onto the film cartridge, with a button for the shutter and a rotary dial to advance the film.

OK. Fair enough. The research I found showed me differently.

Still doesn't justify sexual assault, which is what you guys are trying to do.

"She never took pictures, so she must be guilty."

Conveniently, no one commented on where I mentioned that young girls who date older men are not going to plaster their pictures all over the place. I'm sure Mom and Dad would have a problem waking into a teenager's room and seeing a picture of a 32 year old district attorney on the girl's mirror.

Having pictures would do nothing but cause trouble for the girls (and even more for Moore).

Ever stop to think that, seeing as how we are in fantasy land, questioning the photographic habits of 14 year old girls -- maybe Moore wouldn't allow them to take pictures with those cameras that they allegedly had, and carried around all the time? The cameras that they hid in their aprons at the restaurants they worked at? The cameras that they hid in their pompoms? Maybe he was smarter than that, knowing that photographic evidence would not look too kindly on him.
 
Thirty years ago, most teenagers didn't even own a camera, let alone carry one around in their pocketbook.


Edit: Never mind. I see you have already been appropriately schooled on the issue. :)

Who said teens carried cameras with them?
 
Who said teens carried cameras with them?

You did.

Considering how much teenage girls like to take pictures, you would think there would be at least one picture of Moore with one of these girls out there. I mean at least one.

You replied that teenagers in the 1970's had the same ability to snap instant selfies with pocket-sized smart phones that the teens of today have, 30-40 years later, and the fact that there were no photos somehow proved that they were lying. Guess what? There wasn't any internet back then, there wasn't any facebook back then, there weren't any smart phones back then.

Therefore, they weren't, and they aren't.

Flail harder; you're drowning.
 
OK. Fair enough. The research I found showed me differently.

Still doesn't justify sexual assault, which is what you guys are trying to do.

"She never took pictures, so she must be guilty."

Conveniently, no one commented on where I mentioned that young girls who date older men are not going to plaster their pictures all over the place. I'm sure Mom and Dad would have a problem waking into a teenager's room and seeing a picture of a 32 year old district attorney on the girl's mirror.

Having pictures would do nothing but cause trouble for the girls (and even more for Moore).

Ever stop to think that, seeing as how we are in fantasy land, questioning the photographic habits of 14 year old girls -- maybe Moore wouldn't allow them to take pictures with those cameras that they allegedly had, and carried around all the time? The cameras that they hid in their aprons at the restaurants they worked at? The cameras that they hid in their pompoms? Maybe he was smarter than that, knowing that photographic evidence would not look too kindly on him.
No, I wasn't trying to imply one way or the other whether there should have been pictures, etc. Just correcting the record on cameras.
 
OK. Fair enough. The research I found showed me differently.

Still doesn't justify sexual assault, which is what you guys are trying to do.

"She never took pictures, so she must be guilty."

Conveniently, no one commented on where I mentioned that young girls who date older men are not going to plaster their pictures all over the place. I'm sure Mom and Dad would have a problem waking into a teenager's room and seeing a picture of a 32 year old district attorney on the girl's mirror.

Having pictures would do nothing but cause trouble for the girls (and even more for Moore).

Ever stop to think that, seeing as how we are in fantasy land, questioning the photographic habits of 14 year old girls -- maybe Moore wouldn't allow them to take pictures with those cameras that they allegedly had, and carried around all the time? The cameras that they hid in their aprons at the restaurants they worked at? The cameras that they hid in their pompoms? Maybe he was smarter than that, knowing that photographic evidence would not look too kindly on him.


I am just asking for some proof of any kind, not justifing anything at all.

Don't jump to conclusions.
 
You did.



You replied that teenagers in the 1970's had the same ability to snap instant selfies with pocket-sized smart phones that the teens of today have, 30-40 years later, and the fact that there were no photos somehow proved that they were lying. Guess what? There wasn't any internet back then, there wasn't any facebook back then, there weren't any smart phones back then.

Therefore, they weren't, and they aren't.

Flail harder; you're drowning.

You make quite a jump there.

I say teenage girls like to take pictures and you say I said they lug cameras around.

I never said anything about a selfie. You do know how a camera works, right?

Two people stand in front of it, and another person snaps the picture.

Who said anything about a selfie?
 
I am just asking for some proof of any kind, not justifing anything at all.

Don't jump to conclusions.

9 accusers plus 40+ credible sources to back up Moore's behavior is proof enough to launch an investigation.

You guys like investigations, remember?
 
You make quite a jump there.

I say teenage girls like to take pictures and you say I said they lug cameras around.

I never said anything about a selfie. You do know how a camera works, right?

Two people stand in front of it, and another person snaps the picture.

Who said anything about a selfie?

So how else are these teenage girls who love to take pictures going to take pictures? They have to lug cameras around.

When you are in a hole, you should stop digging. You made a stupid comment, and are now struggling to defend it.

Just walk away. :lol:
 
I lost any and all faith in any and all people who's ambition has landed them in to powerful places of high office. Ever since as I watched Frank Underwood kiss that dude in the back stairwell, politicians have turned my stomach.

Seriously, I shudder to think what is in the closets of our elected leaders. Something about those kind of people that leads them towards freakdom.

I got no time for their perverted asses.

I have fish to catch. Deer to hunt. Stages to rock. Galaxies to defend.

Well you should shudder. We have not EVEN begun to talk about Trumps accusers, that one is a coming.
 
One word will explain why he will never file suit: Discovery. Same reason Trump hasn't filed suit, despite the fact that he said he would do so the moment he became president.

Guess he's too busy passing laws and ****. Oh wait....

Exactly!
 
No, he hasn't done it because he's in the middle of a US Senate race, so he's not going to do it right away. I asked someone else on here the exact same question I'm going to ask you (with updated information), but he didn't answer the question and I want to see if you even will (I doubt it, but I hope I'm wrong):

Let's say instead of Roy Moore, it was you, same deal. You're running for a political office during a special election. Now, you win your party's nomination and have started to run against the opposing party. All of the sudden, a woman comes up and says you had groped her when she was younger, and then a group of other women started to accuse you of the same thing. One of them says at the place that she worked and the other says at the place that YOU work. The media, the opposing party, and some within your own party that were never for you to begin with, start exploiting the situation to the point, and want you to drop out. Now, just for this example, you didn't do any of what you're accused of and you begin to deny all the allegations that have been brought against you. The same people that are anti-you bring forth what they calling evidence to try and convince others that you did the dirty deeds. One of them is an activist lawyer who says she has a yearbook claiming she has your handwriting in it, and another woman who is also making the same claim. However 2 things:, the lawyer has been called to release this yearbook but doesn't do it for reasons unknown. The other woman said that she forged notes into her yearbook, one of which she inserts the date and the place she worked at, but still is claiming the rest of the writing is you (but has yet to reveal it to authorities for closer inspection on proving if the writing is legit). Now, given everything brought against you, knowing full well you didn't do it but haven't filed anything yet against these people, do you want your innocence to be proven by authorities so the accusers, the opposing party, the media, and members of your own party stop coming after you, or do you just simply let it happen, knowing what these people are saying is a lie and you have to live with it the rest of your life?

Forget politics for a moment because this case has nothing to do with it. We should all be living by innocent until proven guilty. No one knows what happened in this case. Not you nor me, or anyone else on here. Whatever we think, we still have to leave the possibility open that the opposite happened. So you think Moore's guilty as sin, which is fine and dandy (I don't agree with your assessment at all), but you should leave the possibility open that he didn't do anything. And vice versa with me. But it's foolish just to assume because X, Y, and Z without the authorities proving anything. I've seen good people get accused and burned over something someone else said they did, but they never did it. So that's why I'm saying further proof needs to be presented and proven by authorities. Otherwise you could be condemning an innocent person who didn't commit the crime. So what's your answer.

Your assumption is that the accusations are all a political ploy. Anyone paying attention knows that there are too many accusations and that the Leigh Corfman accusations were backed up by people who she told at the time and her mother and they are very credible.

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the court proceedings. This isn't a trial in court.

You choose to believe Moore, and I don't. Neither do any decent Republicans.
 
Your assumption is that the accusations are all a political ploy. Anyone paying attention knows that there are too many accusations and that the Leigh Corfman accusations were backed up by people who she told at the time and her mother and they are very credible.

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the court proceedings. This isn't a trial in court.

You choose to believe Moore, and I don't. Neither do any decent Republicans.

Okay, so just blow off my question entirely. Well, in that case, my assumption is you would just let the accusers, the media, and your political opponents on both sides bulldoze you until your life is ruined then, even if what you would say is true about you not doing the deed. Am I assuming this, correctly? No attempts to prove your innocence? That doesn't make sense entirely, but whatever. BTW, "innocent until proven guilty" is NOT just for the courts, and you know that. It's foolish to just assume someone is guilty of something just because someone said so. As I maintain, Moore could very well be guilty, but neither you nor I know for sure if he is or isn't. Based on what I know about people, though, they can lie to try and achieve something that they want (typically it's money). In the mean time, let's wait and see if any of the proof presented against him is true.
 
Okay, so just blow off my question entirely. Well, in that case, my assumption is you would just let the accusers, the media, and your political opponents on both sides bulldoze you until your life is ruined then, even if what you would say is true about you not doing the deed. Am I assuming this, correctly? No attempts to prove your innocence? That doesn't make sense entirely, but whatever. BTW, "innocent until proven guilty" is NOT just for the courts, and you know that. It's foolish to just assume someone is guilty of something just because someone said so. As I maintain, Moore could very well be guilty, but neither you nor I know for sure if he is or isn't. Based on what I know about people, though, they can lie to try and achieve something that they want (typically it's money). In the mean time, let's wait and see if any of the proof presented against him is true.

You are determined to not believe the accusations against Moore, all of which came from credible people with nothing to gain.

There are 160+ million men in this country. Most of them haven't been accused of feeling up teenaged girls through their underwear. Most never will. I don't deal in hyperboles and hypotheticals. I deal in what's obvious. It's obvious he did what he's accused of. You want to support him? Go ahead. I'll join in with the many other people who reject Moore and know there is truth at the heart of these accusations. And if you can provide any evidence that these women, the people who backed up their stories, and anyone else involved is profiting from this, please post it. Otherwise you are just doing what you're accusing them of doing.
 
So how many people have pictures people who they knew and dated in jr high together with them?
 
You shriek and shake your fist and constantly whine.

Pot & Kettle doesn't even begin to describe how hilarious you have made my return to the site after these few days, Thanks.
 
You are determined to not believe the accusations against Moore, all of which came from credible people with nothing to gain.

There are 160+ million men in this country. Most of them haven't been accused of feeling up teenaged girls through their underwear. Most never will. I don't deal in hyperboles and hypotheticals. I deal in what's obvious. It's obvious he did what he's accused of. You want to support him? Go ahead. I'll join in with the many other people who reject Moore and know there is truth at the heart of these accusations. And if you can provide any evidence that these women, the people who backed up their stories, and anyone else involved is profiting from this, please post it. Otherwise you are just doing what you're accusing them of doing.

As I said earlier, I'm leaving the possibility open that something happened, just like you should leave the possibility open that he didn't do anything. I don't see what's unreasonable about that. Bottom line: We don't know what happened. I'm just trying to figure out why you're avoiding my question I asked earlier. Are you afraid to answer because you know that this is a non-political issue and has everything to do with giving someone the benefit of the doubt over something that there's no concrete evidence over? Are you afraid that what I asked questions the accusers, the media, and the opposing party's motives? Or do you not know how to answer it because you don't know if you'll be called sexist and bigoted? I'd like to know because the other people haven't answered it, so just for this one time: Replace Moore with yourself in his place. Same circumstances and all, except we both know you're innocent but these other people are saying you're guilty. And I'll say it again: I'm leaving the possibility Moore could still be guilty because all the evidence isn't in yet, so this example does not reflect what I think of the matter, but we are changing the roles and changing the verdict just for the sake of simplicity. So what's your answer, or are you not going to bother answering, and assume you should always take the side of the alleged victim without due process just because, even though they could be lying?
 
We should all be living by innocent until proven guilty.

It is curious how this gets trotted out when someone on the right is accused, but vanishes when it's someone on the left...



Anyway, that standard is for a criminal trial, not for deciding who to vote for in an election. Why do people idiotically and hypocritically keep pretending otherwise?

Hillary was never convicted in criminal court but we were supposed to accept that she was guilty everything under the sun. Not one single one of the right-wing people who mentions "innocent until proven guilty" with respect to Moore did so with respect to Clinton.




Not one.

So drop the pretense.
 
As I said earlier, I'm leaving the possibility open that something happened, just like you should leave the possibility open that he didn't do anything. I don't see what's unreasonable about that. Bottom line: We don't know what happened. I'm just trying to figure out why you're avoiding my question I asked earlier. Are you afraid to answer because you know that this is a non-political issue and has everything to do with giving someone the benefit of the doubt over something that there's no concrete evidence over? Are you afraid that what I asked questions the accusers, the media, and the opposing party's motives? Or do you not know how to answer it because you don't know if you'll be called sexist and bigoted? I'd like to know because the other people haven't answered it, so just for this one time: Replace Moore with yourself in his place. Same circumstances and all, except we both know you're innocent but these other people are saying you're guilty. And I'll say it again: I'm leaving the possibility Moore could still be guilty because all the evidence isn't in yet, so this example does not reflect what I think of the matter, but we are changing the roles and changing the verdict just for the sake of simplicity. So what's your answer, or are you not going to bother answering, and assume you should always take the side of the alleged victim without due process just because, even though they could be lying?

Did someone tell you that you weren't allowed to support or vote for Moore? I didn't. No idea why you're whining to me about this. Support him. Then maybe he'll invite you down, and you can meet his Jewish friend and talk about the good old days of slavery and how to get rid of those pesky Amendments giving women the vote and freeing the blacks.

You want to believe he's innocent. That's your choice. I, on the other hand, am not naïve. Where there is smoke, there is fire.
 
As I said earlier, I'm leaving the possibility open that something happened, just like you should leave the possibility open that he didn't do anything. I don't see what's unreasonable about that. Bottom line: We don't know what happened. I'm just trying to figure out why you're avoiding my question I asked earlier. Are you afraid to answer because you know that this is a non-political issue and has everything to do with giving someone the benefit of the doubt over something that there's no concrete evidence over? Are you afraid that what I asked questions the accusers, the media, and the opposing party's motives? Or do you not know how to answer it because you don't know if you'll be called sexist and bigoted? I'd like to know because the other people haven't answered it, so just for this one time: Replace Moore with yourself in his place. Same circumstances and all, except we both know you're innocent but these other people are saying you're guilty. And I'll say it again: I'm leaving the possibility Moore could still be guilty because all the evidence isn't in yet, so this example does not reflect what I think of the matter, but we are changing the roles and changing the verdict just for the sake of simplicity. So what's your answer, or are you not going to bother answering, and assume you should always take the side of the alleged victim without due process just because, even though they could be lying?

lol...


There are multiple accusers, their stories corroborate each other, as was pointed out two told people way back then when it happened, Moore signed that girl's yearbook, Moore sent another one a card, police officers have mentioned being told to watch him AND he was banned from a mall for stalking girls.

"Leaving open the possibility" my foot. You are actively defending him but pretending you're just being fair & balanced (hence the "innocent until proven guilty" act). Yet here's the thing: there is a whole lot of reason to think he did it. There is no reason other than a conspiracy theory to think he is innocent.

Namely: that every single one of these people is lying just to *get* a conservative. But you don't have any evidence for that. A suspicion of motive isn't evidence.
 
Pot & Kettle doesn't even begin to describe how hilarious you have made my return to the site after these few days, Thanks.

Yes, the way you have totally embarrassed yourself has been absolutely hilarious. Glad you comprehend that. Now, do you have the mental capacity to deal with facts, or are you going to keep whining?
 
Yes, the way you have totally embarrassed yourself has been absolutely hilarious. Glad you comprehend that. Now, do you have the mental capacity to deal with facts, or are you going to keep whining?

More insults when actual debate would have sufficed. It appears you are still just happy to dig your own hole it seems.
 
The Moore campaign does appear to have some problems. Time and time again they have been caught making various claims which have then been refuted.

One more time with such a nice, polite response when asked to verify what they have said.


Just my opinion, but when a political campaign replies in the following manner - they got a problem and they know it.

“The Washington Post is a worthless piece of crap that has gone out of its way to railroad Roy Moore,” Doster wrote in an email he described as an “on the record” statement. “There is no need for anyone at the Washington Post to ever reach out to the Roy Moore campaign again because we will not respond to anyone from the Post now or in the future. Happy Thanksgiving.”

Considering the narrow difference and the Democrat history of voter fraud I don't blame them.
 
Considering the narrow difference and the Democrat history of voter fraud I don't blame them.

I must admit, Wapo has done more then enough this year to garner this kind of a response.
 
More insults when actual debate would have sufficed. It appears you are still just happy to dig your own hole it seems.

Actually, it appears you and your pals have dug your own holes quite deep enough with your support of Scumbag Moore. Looks like the people of Alabama didn't appreciate it.
 
Back
Top Bottom