Roy Moore

Originally posted by @js357
I don’t believe I have taken a position on it.

I wonder if there is a statute of limitations on whatever the charge would be.

So you agree with me?

Take the guy to court and have him thrown in jail if he is found guilty of a crime.

Put up or shut up, but do not play the guilty until proven innocent.

Originally posted by @eladar
So you agree with me?

Take the guy to court and have him thrown in jail if he is found guilty of a crime.

Put up or shut up, but do not play the guilty until proven innocent.

The voters of Alabama decided they didn't want him representing them.

Originally posted by @fmf
The voters of Alabama decided they didn't want him representing them.

Yes, I know. I did not say that throwing around accusations isn't an effect political tool.

The fact that Moore is not an establishment type is the real issue here. In a primary an establishment will lose. It took a perfect storm to make this happen. Establishment and Dems would lose. They had to find this other issue to convince some religious right people from voting.

This is why the establishment Senator will be primaried and this Dem loses his next election.

Originally posted by @eladar
[b]So you agree with me?

Take the guy to court and have him thrown in jail if he is found guilty of a crime.

Put up or shut up, but do not play the guilty until proven innocent.

i have since learned that there is no time limit in Alabama on charging a crime like those his alleged actions encompass. But this would be after a proper investigation by the DA, I suppose, like any such allegation should trigger.

I have no reason to have confidence in Alabama that the proper DA investigation of these allegations has or will be done. But I agree with you that a proper judicial system is where this belongs.

Failing that, the trial-by-election-campaign will have to do, and is the closest to a legitimate alternative.

Originally posted by @js357
i have since learned that there is no time limit in Alabama on charging a crime like those his alleged actions encompass. But this would be after a proper investigation by the DA, I suppose, like any such allegation should trigger.

I have no reason to have confidence in Alabama that the proper DA investigation of these allegations has or will be done. But ...[text shortened]... the trial-by-election-campaign will have to do, and is the closest to a legitimate alternative.

So guilty until proven innocent is legitimate. You are one twisted person.

Originally posted by @eladar
So guilty until proven innocent is legitimate. You are one twisted person.

It would be shocking to see you twist my words to your accusation, except that I have seen it before.

I said “Failing that, the trial-by-election-campaign will have to do, and is the closest to a legitimate alternative.”

This does NOT make it a legitimate alternative in my book. Get that? But it appears so far to be the Alabama way.

Btw Moore has called for a voter fraud investigation.

Originally posted by @js357
Btw Moore has called for a voter fraud investigation.

He doesn't have any credible evidence of voter fraud but apparently he is claiming that all the fraudulent votes were for his opponent and none were for him.

Originally posted by @js357
It would be shocking to see you twist my words to your accusation, except that I have seen it before.

I said “Failing that, the trial-by-election-campaign will have to do, and is the closest to a legitimate alternative.”

This does NOT make it a legitimate alternative in my book. Get that? But it appears so far to be the Alabama way.

Btw Moore has called for a voter fraud investigation.

You said that there is a condition under which guilty until proven innocent is appropriate.

Originally posted by @sonship
That's not an all that helpful comment as far as I'm concerned.


Politics is politics - unfair, unforgiving, sneaky, [b]dirty.
Politics is full of dirty tricks on every and both sides PERIOD.

Where there's smoke there may be some fire.

Thirty years ago is pretty long ago.
Abe Lincoln probably did some dirt 30 years before he was elected. ...[text shortened]... in that realm, has done other things since then which do not endear him to some voters.[/b]

You have to know there had to have been something that got him banned from even coming inside that mall. That is pretty bad on the face of it.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
You have to know there had to have been something that got him banned from even coming inside that mall. That is pretty bad on the face of it.

Proven truth or accusation? Perfect ecample of what I was talking about.

Evidently the mall manager does not recall ever banning him.

Oh but that doesn't matter.

Originally posted by @eladar
You said that there is a condition under which guilty until proven innocent is appropriate.

Help me find it, dude.

Originally posted by @js357
Help me find it, dude.

You already stated it. If the courts won't go after the guilty person, we must believe what the networks tell us to believe.

Originally posted by @eladar
You already stated it. If the courts won't go after the guilty person, we must believe what the networks tell us to believe.

No,we needn’t do that.

Originally posted by @eladar
You said that there is a condition under which guilty until proven innocent is appropriate.

No, he didn't.

You twisted a part of what he did say through your personal filters and came up with "guilty until innocent is appropriate", but he never said that at all. As usual, your personal biases are showing.

Originally posted by @eladar
You already stated it. If the courts won't go after the guilty person, we must believe what the networks tell us to believe.

He never said that, either.

All I see here is you, once again, bearing false witness. Just stop lying.