• 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:
Actually, you still didn't say why conservatives would throw him under the bus. It looks like you're going for the "possible conspiracy" defense from other posts I've seen. It takes about three posts for you to respond to one question, but that's better than some do on this forum.

Oh and you dumbed down the part about him funneling money from his charity? I thought you didn't respond to that, but ok, it must have been in cipher form and over my head. I get your point of view. You don't believe or disbelieve the women because if you were to believe the dozens of people who have come forward - in a very short period of time - then Moore would be a sexual predator of young women and obviously unfit for any office. If you disbelieve the women, you can't go after Democrats who face the same charges (Clinton, as you so readily mentioned). The old have your cake and eat it too.

And Moore was not put in prison for what he did with his charity, the IRS made him pay back a few hundred thousand that he didn't report to evade paying taxes on them and he used the money of a lot of people for his own personal gain. Plausible deniability is a powerful weapon when you're a very rich scumbag who pretends to be a man of god.
Click to expand...

Holy hell you're trying too hard here.

What part about people throwing voices, on top of a pile of voice didn't you get?

Its like you are trying to not even listen, so you can just drag this little parade on even longer.

Even you said he paid back what the IRS wanted him to pay. So why should I even care if he did what they wanted to make things even?

I can speculate all I want about the other conservatives that are coming out against more. Though they can claim knowing about it, I would just rather chalk it up to them not wanting to be called out for staying quiet. This still doesn't change the fact that even dating these younger women is not illegal, save for any that were minors, and even then they are having a hard enough time to prove that they even met at all.

Was that a good enough example this time around? Because this runaround is really starting to get boring.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Why is the fact she is female relevant to the story?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Some of those women are Republicans/conservatives so don't really see the political motive here.


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...

That is why there are libel/slander laws. But everyone is entitled to their opinions, just as Moore is entitled to his idiotic opinion that homosexuality should be illegal.
 
Oborosen said:
My favorite part about the whole thing is when they asked Trump, because he had known Weinstein for some time.

His words were.


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.
Click to expand...

Probably because they are completely irrelevant, except when Trump wants to bring them up on Twitter to deflect from his own controversies.
 
akyron said:
You also neglect the fact that weinstein was shielded for decades..
Click to expand...

I did not neglect that point, it was irrelevant to what we were talking about: the general public.
 
Geoist said:
Probably because they are completely irrelevant, except when Trump wants to bring them up on Twitter to deflect from his own controversies.
Click to expand...

Actually they asked him, not the other way around.

So your poor attempt at deflection on what you believe is deflection, is sadly laughable at best.
 
Oborosen said:
Actually they asked him, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I know they asked him. I didn't say anything to the contrary. No one cares about the Clintons except Trump and his followers.
 
Geoist said:
I know they asked him. I didn't say anything to the contrary. No one cares about the Clintons except Trump and his followers.
Click to expand...

So why are you bringing up the Clintons, when I have not?
 
Oborosen said:
So why are you bringing up the Clintons, when I have not?
Click to expand...

Ummmmm:

Oborosen said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Oborosen said:
I will eat crow on this one good sir. That's what I get for churning through 20 post at a time.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the honesty. I've done the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom