• 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!

Why now? Here's why Roy Moore's accusers waited so long

Mustachio said:
There's no proof that Hillary Clinton lied when she said that she didn't know that the e-mail server wasn't kosher. There's no proof that Hillary committed any crime, yet "lock her up" was 1/3rd of the platform used to win the election for Trump. That's where circumstantial evidence and plausibly deniability come into play.

Several of the women who Moore says he didn't know were shown to be exactly where they were exactly when they said they were, and Moore was in the same building. There is no reason to doubt the account of any of the first 5 accusers. Locals have said Moore was known as a child (high school age) predator for that era. We have a policeman saying he was all but banned from a mall. We have locals saying it was a secret everybody knew about. And the kicker is that this is the deep south and these are all lifelong conservatives and probably all Trump voters. There's mounds of circumstantial evidence and no plausible deniability. But feel free to explain why a bunch of Trump voters would come forward with these accusations.

Of course, you can say "he only molested older teenagers, therefore he wasn't a pedophile," I might accept that point of view.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge she sent and received classified material via a non protected server.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Red Herring. But I can respond with this:

Watch Harvey Weinstein, Caught on Tape | The New Yorker Video | CNE

He has a lot of explaining to do...but he still deserves the presumption of innocence in each case alleged.







Really? Then from the perspective of a defense attorney, let me retort!

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...s-why-roy-moores-accusers-waited-so-long.html

1. So, Moore has been controversial for “for quite some time,” but not “nationally.” The accusers are all from the State of Alabama where he was controversial locally for “quite some time.” Yet no accusations there in all those years. Argument 1 is that it is his national notoriety which prompts local people to come forward. Really? :roll:

2. Then, there were two other male reporters from the Washington Post who never heard anything during their time there. Nope, it was this intrepid female reporter who followed rumors and involuntarily “unearthed” the first accuser. Argument 2 is the female reporter fell into a scoop and dug and dug until she had to almost force the story to come out. :roll:

3. The final assumption is that the rest of the accusers (total of 5 as of last count) popping up with allegations of misconduct…oh and one with “proof” in the form of a damning memorial in a yearbook (which appears to be a possible forgery), are just now getting the courage to step up thanks to this reporter and the fact it is a U.S. Senate seat as opposed to all the other local elections that for some reason they felt they had no stake in.

So, I got it wrong? You'll pardon me if I don’t agree. There is still no reason why if this was a well-known secret it would not, or should not have come bubbling out at any time during the decades prior to this while he was running for local offices.

Again,
I don't know if he was involved in sexual misconduct
Click to expand...
 (there has only been one allegation of sexual assault from "yearbook lady"), I am simply presuming innocence until the accusers present factual proof otherwise.
Click to expand...


You can believe whatever you want to believe but that will have no effect on reality.This isn't a he said/she said situation.Several ladies have accused Moore of putting his hands on them and I believe them.Moore may be elected to the Senate but if he is he may be thrown out.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmmm... so according to this story, everything comes out simply because a female Washington Post reporter was in the right place at the right time.

Well, that explains everything; case closed...everyone must now agree that he is guilty as sin. Don't forget to cast your votes righteously if you live in Alabama folks.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Geoist said:
Recent New York Times and New Yorker articles on Weinstein's sexual abuse resulted in an avalanche of women coming forward. Do you believe them? Why or why not?
Click to expand...



Yes, it's been noted elsewhere: Where were these rabid defenders when Weinstein was accused? Halperin? Spacey, Takei, and the other "Hollywood Liberals"? Bill Clinton?

Hell, where was this rabid defense when Hillary was accused around Benghazi? Uranium One?

Nowhere. The people now attacking Moore's accusers in order to defend Moore simply accepted those accusations. Hell, a good 50% of them probably had lots to say about Vince Foster.....




A man could get to wondering whether it simply comes down to ideology and partisanship.

:thinking
 
Captain Adverse said:
1. So, Moore has been controversial for “for quite some time,” but not “nationally.” The accusers are all from the State of Alabama where he was controversial locally for “quite some time.” Yet no accusations there in all those years. Argument 1 is that it is his national notoriety which prompts local people to come forward. Really?
Click to expand...

See, even on that point you're playing fast and loose. The only mention of "controversial" in the article is in this paragraph:

Moore has been a controversial figure in American politics for some time but mostly at the edges. His fight to preserve a monument to the Ten Commandments in a state building 15 years ago gained him national attention - but not necessarily national importance. Now, he's seeking election to the Senate, one of 100 people who make up one-half of the legislative branch of government. It's a much more important fight nationally, and, as a result, has attracted much more attention.

Why do you expect sexual assault victims to come forward as a result of his seeking to preserve a monument to the Ten Commandments?



Why does the article think it makes sense for people to come forward now?

Now, he's seeking election to the Senate, one of 100 people who make up one-half of the legislative branch of government. It's a much more important fight nationally, and, as a result, has attracted much more attention.

Oh yeah. Duh. Potential national power. That makes a lot more sense as a trigger for them to come forward than does acting to protect a monument. (I don't consider "Really?" a counterargument to that point).




I suppose you also find it suspicious that a 14 year old girl wouldn't go to the police with allegations against an assistant district attorney, instead choosing to tell friends/relatives?

Bleh...








There's a reason that Halperin, Weinstein, Spacey, and the other "Liberals" weren't given the same defense Moore is getting, and it sure as hell isn't down to some striking difference in the cases.
 
Oborosen said:
Actually its the fact that Weinstein was caught on audio admitting to his acts that got him dragged down that hole. All we have against more are allegations. If they have pertinent proof against Moore, I would be more ready to judge him. But so far the only thing to come out of all of this, is un-backed personal testimony.
Click to expand...

Most people were/are unaware of those recording, but they do know about the allegations. No controversy over his guilt.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Lets start that this news story breaks about 4 weeks before an election that Moore was going to win. That thru some miracle of miracles a Washington post reporter just by pure stupid luck breaks this story.
Moore has been in the national news time after time and not a word about any of these allegations. Moore has been found guilty in the media. If he is guilty there should be a consequence for his actions but in this highly charged political environment the media has decided the question. Guilty!
Click to expand...

"Through some miracle?" You do realize stories... true stories... related to national figures often come out at the height of their celebrity or major topic of discussion.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Red Herring. But I can respond with this:

Watch Harvey Weinstein, Caught on Tape | The New Yorker Video | CNE
Click to expand...

And most people are/were only aware of the accusations, not the tape, so my point stands.


He has a lot of explaining to do...but he still deserves the presumption of innocence in each case alleged.
Click to expand...

He deserves the presumption of innocence in a court of law. That is not the same thing as the court of public opinion, whether fair or not.
 
Geoist said:
He deserves the presumption of innocence in a court of law. That is not the same thing as the court of public opinion, whether fair or not.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why people who make accusations should be held to the same standard.

It also shows a clear motivation for making false allegations in order to destroy someone for solely political reasons.

This is also why the "court of public opinion" is a kangaroo court that people should avoid participating in much less accepting as a valid reputation-destroying vehicle.
 
Captain Adverse said:
This is exactly why people who make accusations should be held to the same standard.

It also shows a clear motivation for making false allegations in order to destroy someone for solely political reasons.

This is also why the "court of public opinion" is a kangaroo court that people should avoid participating in much less accepting as a valid reputation-destroying vehicle.
Click to expand...

Destroying people for fun has long been one of our more popular pastimes you know....the situation, the sadism, is far worse than you say.
 
Oborosen said:
Its funny, we heard child molesting like its the truth. Yet no one seems to be able to actually supply solid evidence for this..
Click to expand...

So then there's no evidence that Bill Clinton did anything unsavory that he didn't admit to? I can assume by your statement that you believe there is no evidence Clinton was with anyone other than his wife and that all the accusations have no basis in fact because there is no tangible evidence to support their claims. Do you agree with that?

joG said:
To my knowledge she sent and received classified material via a non protected server.
Click to expand...

And I assume you know her defense to any claims she did anything illegal. You can't prove she's lying, so she's not lying. This is the logic used to defend Moore. Hillary certainly knew what she was doing and used plausible deniability as a shield. Trump voters burned her at the stake based on circumstantial evidence. Now they act like you need it on tape or it's a conspiracy. I guess it depends if you're a fool or not.
 
Last edited:
Why now? It’s probably the outcome of DNC or Alabama Democratic Party opposition research.
 
holbritter said:
Child molesting and pedophilia is tossed around and misused. Hot button labels that get people enraged. It is within reason with the 14 year old since the legal definition is 'under 14'. Close enough for me IMO.
Click to expand...

I know, its just that people being so quick to judge without any real evidence is something that irritates me to no end.
 
joG said:
That is one of our modern swarm lynchings‘ problems. It is not about nor is it justice and is antithetical to Rule of Law.

But equally bad for the justice/Rule of Law question is the fact that the destruction of the persons is wrecked without any evidence being available due to 40 years gone by. This means it is de facto slander and false accusation that our judiciary mostly ignores.

And the worst feature of something like the Moore case, if true, is that someone says she knew that he was pedophile and let him continue to perform his crimes on child after child, when she could have saved those children.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, which it generally is. It sounds like someone should be at least fined, or tried as an accessory to the fact.
 
Mustachio said:
There's no proof that Hillary Clinton lied when she said that she didn't know that the e-mail server wasn't kosher. There's no proof that Hillary committed any crime, yet "lock her up" was 1/3rd of the platform used to win the election for Trump. That's where circumstantial evidence and plausibly deniability come into play.

Several of the women who Moore says he didn't know were shown to be exactly where they were exactly when they said they were, and Moore was in the same building. There is no reason to doubt the account of any of the first 5 accusers. Locals have said Moore was known as a child (high school age) predator for that era. We have a policeman saying he was all but banned from a mall. We have locals saying it was a secret everybody knew about. And the kicker is that this is the deep south and these are all lifelong conservatives and probably all Trump voters. There's mounds of circumstantial evidence and no plausible deniability. But feel free to explain why a bunch of Trump voters would come forward with these accusations.

Of course, you can say "he only molested older teenagers, therefore he wasn't a pedophile," I might accept that point of view.
Click to expand...

Okay, so only know. Even though "locals" say he was a know predator of younger girls. Automatically means that if they didn't say anything up until now, that there must be a alternative motive to all of this.

This whole "unofficial" ban from the Mall, and the story that people are coming out with that he was well known for these things. Should have completely stopped him from rising to his position, or holding his career in the first place. It is completely asinine to think that it is a coincidence that all of this is coming out right now, and not possess at least a sliver of skepticism about the motivation of these accusers.

Also, on the point of Hillary, and her server. Every government official, when they reach a higher office. Are briefed on the things that they can, and cannot doe without the oversight of another government body. Even Obama was told it was better that him to not use his BlackBerry when he was brought into office, even though he insisted.

The worst lie she ever told about this, was when she was being questions whey "Classified" document were being sent out to unverified contacts, and her answer to this serious question was, and I **** you not.

"The C on the documents stood for cookie"

A bald face lie, ever one was spoken.
 
Geoist said:
"Through some miracle?" You do realize stories... true stories... related to national figures often come out at the height of their celebrity or major topic of discussion.
Click to expand...

Most people do realize this, because the higher you go, the deeper the reporters dig.

That's just how it is. The best thing you can do is just hope that there's nothing buried in your back yard that you don't want the world to know about, if you ever run for office.
 
Geoist said:
Most people were/are unaware of those recording, but they do know about the allegations. No controversy over his guilt.
Click to expand...

My favorite part about the whole thing is when they asked Trump, because he had known Weinstein for some time.

His words were.
"I've known Harvey for a long time, and I'm not surprised."
Click to expand...

Though I also found it funny that they asked Trump, when he was one of the Clintons most staunchest supporters, and had been seen with them on numerous occasions. Yet they didn't feel like asking that old power-couple on what their feelings were on those accusations.
 
Mustachio said:
So then there's no evidence that Bill Clinton did anything unsavory that he didn't admit to? I can assume by your statement that you believe there is no evidence Clinton was with anyone other than his wife and that all the accusations have no basis in fact because there is no tangible evidence to support their claims. Do you agree with that?



And I assume you know her defense to any claims she did anything illegal. You can't prove she's lying, so she's not lying. This is the logic used to defend Moore. Hillary certainly knew what she was doing and used plausible deniability as a shield. Trump voters burned her at the stake based on circumstantial evidence. Now they act like you need it on tape or it's a conspiracy. I guess it depends if you're a fool or not.
Click to expand...

The files were marked as classified, yet they were still sent by her. Though the most damning information is when she was questioned for sending the classified information.

She responded saying, that she thought the C on the files stood for Cookie... you have to be ****ting me?
 
Oborosen said:
Okay, so only know. Even though "locals" say he was a know predator of younger girls. Automatically means that if they didn't say anything up until now, that there must be a alternative motive to all of this.

This whole "unofficial" ban from the Mall, and the story that people are coming out with that he was well known for these things. Should have completely stopped him from rising to his position, or holding his career in the first place. It is completely asinine to think that it is a coincidence that all of this is coming out right now, and not possess at least a sliver of skepticism about the motivation of these accusers.

Also, on the point of Hillary, and her server. Every government official, when they reach a higher office. Are briefed on the things that they can, and cannot doe without the oversight of another government body. Even Obama was told it was better that him to not use his BlackBerry when he was brought into office, even though he insisted.

The worst lie she ever told about this, was when she was being questions whey "Classified" document were being sent out to unverified contacts, and her answer to this serious question was, and I **** you not.

"The C on the documents stood for cookie"

A bald face lie, ever one was spoken.
Click to expand...

The timing "automatically" means this is some kind of conspiracy, that's simply a fallacy. On Hannity interview in which Moore basically admits he did exactly what these women said he did. If I were one of those 5 women, I would be enraged to read words like yours. Why is there "automatically" an alternative motive in your opinion? Because you're a conservative. I don't think you've read a word about Moore's career. He's been plagued by ethics violations his entire career. How do you feel about him secretly taking nearly half a million dollars from his charity? I will allow the answer "because I'm a conservative."

I don't think you understand what I'm saying about Hillary. I'm saying I think she did know what she was doing was not kosher because of circumstantial evidence. The point being: your opinion lines up with your partisanship while I consistently believe claims that are supported by evidence, both circumstantial and tangible. Such evidence is found both with Moore and Clinton. Your views are terribly hypocritical in my opinion.
 
Mustachio said:
The timing "automatically" means this is some kind of conspiracy, that's simply a fallacy. On Hannity interview in which Moore basically admits he did exactly what these women said he did. If I were one of those 5 women, I would be enraged to read words like yours. Why is there "automatically" an alternative motive in your opinion? Because you're a conservative. I don't think you've read a word about Moore's career. He's been plagued by ethics violations his entire career. How do you feel about him secretly taking nearly half a million dollars from his charity? I will allow the answer "because I'm a conservative."

I don't think you understand what I'm saying about Hillary. I'm saying I think she did know what she was doing was not kosher because of circumstantial evidence. The point being: your opinion lines up with your partisanship while I consistently believe claims that are supported by evidence, both circumstantial and tangible. Such evidence is found both with Moore and Clinton. Your views are terribly hypocritical in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Calling me a hypocrite, and proving it. Are two things that you are sorely adverse at.

I am calling for the fair treatment of Moore's case, seeing as no real evidence has been brought against him. Besides personal testimony at least, and even that is a poor excuse for evidence in of itself. Besides we do know that women are perfectly capable of lying about things, especially when it suits their motives in any case. Women have been falsely accusing men of rape for over a decade now, and it seems strange that no one could even suspect these women of such an act.

The only reason I am so adamant against Hillary, is because she betrayed the public trust is some pretty nasty ways, and if I'm to be honest. Benghazi was a pretty nasty piece of work for her, and Obama as well.

If these women came forward with hard evidence, such as a photograph. Which might I point out that at least one of them has stated their date together. Had her & Moore taking pictures in a photo booth, yet nothing of the such has yet to be supplied.

Its innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

As for his money laundering issue, I find it strange that you can mention Moore, and Hillary in that same vein. When she has one of the largest slush funds available in her Clinton Foundation. So I would advise you to at least check your own double standards, before calling me a hypocrite, while I'm simply being practical.

I know more then enough about the man, he is bar far one of my least favorite politicians. But this treatment of him, without any proven evidence of wrong doing. Is simply insane, and speaks to the simple mindedness of your average person.

This is not the place for mob mentality.
 
Oborosen said:
This is not the place for mob mentality.
Click to expand...

So the 30+ people corroborating the evidence against Moore, most of whom are staunch Republicans, is not evidence to you? That's a yes or no question.
 
Superfly said:
My apologies for the 147th Roy Moore thread, but there are so many threads, and so many people asking this question, that I thought I'd post it separately, instead of in each thread.

Why now? Here's why Roy Moore's accusers waited so long | AL.com

Answers questions, if people are willing to believe the answers.
Click to expand...

Nobody who accuses somebody of any crime should just be believed. You have to be proven guilty. That being said I understand some of these allegations are quite credible and I think more should step down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom