White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short: If Donald Trump Didn't Believe Accusations Were Credible, Trump Would Be In Alabama Campaigning For Roy Moore
Sources for this quote,
Archived Today: https://archive.ph/MWZ8Z
Wayback Machine Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20180919114326/https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/19/whs_marc_short_if_trump_didnt_believe_womens_accusations_were_credible_he_would_be_down_campaigning_for_roy_moore.html
Source for Roy Moore winning a defemation case related to false statutory rape accusations.
Archived Today: https://archive.ph/W1qgq
Wayback Machine Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20220823101132/https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/23/roy-moores-defamation-case-victory-sends-a-message-about-the-actual-malice-standard/
This was the moment I realized the majority of the people have regressed so far into retardation they can't be trusted any longer for fucking anything.
The "smoking gun" of the accusation was a yearbook note. Written with a title that Moore did not possess at the time. Written in two different handwritings, and angles to the page. Loudly proclaimed in the media to totally be real which is why they only showed grayscale versions of it except for the first oopsie where they showed it was actually written in two different color inks.
"Republicans stayed home" Well done.
I think they cheated their ass off using that as cover
Here I thought the fact Gloria Allred was the lawyer was enough to go well that’s fake
I don't ever want to hear from anyone that Roy Moore was "too conservative" for MOTHER FUCKING Alabama.
What's the purpose of this shit? There is zero doubt that Moore creeped on pubescent girls, and you have zero evidence that Trump said that--your sources only say that some dude named Marc Short said that this was the case. You're using quotation marks for something nobody said.
This is just bullshit heaped on top of bullshit.
The rape claims were obviously false but he's still a creep
Do you remember that we had a discussion about this exact subject on Reddit?
That was before Kavanaugh so I was actually stupid enough to buy into their lies.
Yeah vaguely. At least you've learned by now. It's just the lefts MO. They'll do all manner of horrid things and then accuse others of it while actively defending their own when they get caught
I mostly remember because you made a sneering comment in response to me calling him a Bible-thumper.
Now I have a more positive view of Bible-thumpers, though not this one. At the very least, they are a balancing force against all the groomers running around.
I'd still make a sneering comment because cries about "Bible thumpers" is counter productive at best even using the phrase is a net negative. You can either have so called Bible thumpers or not have a functioning society
Traditionalists. There are functional societies that are not Christian.
Name them
Taiwan. Japan.
In fact, a good deal better than the nominally Christian countries which are grooming shitholes.
I don't think you understand what's meant. When I hear "bible-thumper," I don't think "religious person." I think prosperity gospel, mega-church, pray-in-public guy.
From the moment I became aware of Moore, and his (well-established) rep, I thought of a morally small man in a big white suit. You don't go around town convincing parents that having your 30-year-old ass "courting" their teenage daughter is okay, without you being a certain kind of huge pile of shit. There's an underlying intimidation and nasty level of untouchability implied there, in order to have that kind of sway.
I don't care if that guy is a "Republican" or not. That guy is an unacceptable feudal Raubritter and he needs to go.
Well you're the one using Bible thumper wrong because everyone else literally means Christian that doesn't hide their faith.
The rest of your shit is irrelevant to what Antonio and I are talking about
Yeah, I'm not. I live in the bible belt, and am involved in several loosely Baptist churches. Whatever you think these words mean is irrelevant to what they mean in the places where the term is most relevant and used. Maybe atheistic coastals and metropolitanites use it this way, but that's a fraction of Americans, even.
Has anyone ever informed you that you're an asshole? If not, they should.
Moore was a shit candidate who cost Republicans the senate seat. Fuck him and his ego.
I always believed the RAPE allegations were false, but the truth is that the dude was a creepy weirdo who was trying very hard to date teens when he was in his 30s. He even admits it with his wife:
"Moore first saw his future wife, Kayla Kisor, when she was in her mid-teens performing at a dance recital. Moore was 31 at the time. In his 2005 autobiography, Moore described his reaction, writing: "I knew Kayla was going to be a special person in my life.""
Moore denied the sexual assault allegations,[8] but did not dispute that he had approached or dated teenagers over the age of 16 (the age of consent in Alabama).[10][230][231] Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for approaching teenage girls, often at a local mall, and asking them out.
It doesn't matter that it's legal for a dude in his 30s to hit on 16 year olds in Alabama, politicians are not held to the standard of legal, they are held to the standard of what is socially acceptable and moral judgments. Moore simply is not electable and opens up Republicans to the "groomer" accusation that the Right primarily pushes if they endorse him.
Also he didn't win a case of the sex shit, only on 1 narrow claim he was banned from a mall:
Comment Reported for: Rule 15 - Slurs
Comment Approved: Everyone's allowed to call each other faggot.
you are an idiot
personal attacks and name calling = blocked
bye bye loser
It wasn't all that bad.
Bro, I'm too old to put up with bullshit flung at me from angry young stupid children and autists on the internet. I don't need that gratuitous negativity in my life.
I'm fine with going back and forth with you even when we strongly disagree because you always act like an adult.
I wish this site had IRD and that the blocking function worked like Reddit.
That's nice to hear.
But you can also just ignore the negativity. A lot of people here say nasty stuff about me. I might care if Yesmovement or someone I actually respect said it, but not some of the worthless autists - when I don't care about their opinions to begin with.
when I see someone who is seething with hatred at me calling me names, I think:
This person is emotionally-driven
I have triggered this person
This person wants to ruin my mood and invoke and emotional reaction in me to punish me for triggering them
This person cannot be reasoned with, nor do they deserve the effort. I'm not here to parent them.
I have dealt with people like this on reddit for years. When I was new to reddit, I would go back and forth with literal autists (I later checked their post histories) for extended periods of time, pulled into their world of shit. I realized that engaging was always the wrong answer, and that every minute of my life wasted on such people was a fail on my part.
While people try to pretend to be cool and act like nothing ever affects them, the truth is that people can and do get under my skin, and it will always be that way. It required emotional and mental energy from me to counter-act their impact and ACT like they don't affect me, but they do. Being in denial about it isn't helpful. Constantly being barraged with insults and vitriol wears on a person, even if it is only an individually tiny amount. It's like a poison that accumulates. Now, if you're trolling, that's different. If you're trolling, it becomes hilarious to trigger people. Anyway, I adapted as follows:
I almost always activate IRD on my comments on reddit, especially when I know I am going to trigger people, especially in libtard subs, which is almost all of them. I simply do not care about the responses. I said my piece and I'm not going to change my view because of hostile replies.
On r-4chan, the main sub I comment on because no one approves me on r-KIA2, I noticed that when my comment is blowing up I get overwhelmingly positive replies, and then when I'm solidly at the top, I get overwhelmingly negative ones. This is because when I make it to the top, people who agree simply add another upvote instead of replying. People who are mad know their downvote is like pissing into the ocean and will have no impact, so they feel compelled to talk shit to increase their impact.
Literally every single negative comment on reddit = blocked. 0 fucks given. Mature disagreement is fine, but anyone lashing out or talking shit = blocked. This actually does wonders at improving things over time. After you've blocked a few dozen haters, you actually will have killed off the majority of your downvoters, which means your comments get more traction and rise faster, so they reach greater heights. It's actually really awesome. It also reduces the number of reports against you since, again, you're blocking your haters from even seeing you. Unfortunately all blocking does on here is IRD as to that one person. They can still see, downvote, and reply to your comments, you just don't get it in your inbox. Very weak.
No doubt, it's entertaining though.
If that is actually true for you, then yes, go right ahead and block them. I see why you were so obstinate about not unblocking people, though in Reddit context, I don't think it is justified due to admin shenanigans.
Did you not manage to get approval from evil?
Do you still think I was biased against you?
Not sure I like that idea.
I do like this idea very much. I wish we could block people from even viewing a sub.
Oof.
It absolutely matters. Ignoring the law and prosecuting people because of feelings is the mark of the leftist.
Then Victorian England was leftist I guess.
Ran by a woman, very likely.
Sorry, 'the law' is literal garbage. What else would you expect from something created by politicians?
This is the same place that defends pedophiles jerking to loli because it's legal
I wouldn't talk about the opinions of "this place". People here have a variety of opinions on any given issue.
Naw this is a united front for this website. Everytime I bring it up people lose their shit and start claiming it's not pedophilia and even if it is its a good thing pedos get off to their fantasies. The same shit was common on both reddit subs as well
Not that I noticed.
I mean I literally got banned for simply saying loli is pedophilia on kia1 and I'm pretty sure you agreed with doing so when I made a post about it on kia2
And I'll do it again. Who is harmed in that scenario, and is censoring the creation of the objectionable art a worthwhile price to pay for stopping harm done in your scenario?
Look, the pedophiles should get the consequences, not art that has a nebulous definition that few could define adequately. And, before you say it, nope, I'm not a loli fan. I think it's pretty gross, and I hate when it's inserted into anime, and at such frequency. I just think it is still protected expression. You don't have to like loli, in fact I appreciate that you don't. Doesn't mean it should be illegal or anything though.
You can dowvote but not reply. Wonder why that is
I never said anything about it being illegal. In fact I've explicitly said that I wasn't saying it should be. I just want people to acknowledge that it's pedophilia which is still too much for loli defenders.
No dude, people are allowed to vote against a person for character traits that are degenerate, even if legal. This isn't a court of law, it is a political election.
Republicans don't want to vote for groomers. Roy Moore came across as a groomer. Simple as.
No dude, it's too late to backpedal on your own comment.
People can vote for or against whoever they want for whatever reason. Roy Moore was taken to a court a law on bullshit charges by a known shyster as a political hit piece.
Is it really necessary for someone to point out that you two are obviously arguing past each other?
One hand: Legal prosecution. The obvious: It is bad to prosecute based on lies.
Other hand: Social constraint. The obvious: It is unseemly as fuck for a grown man to be widely known for blatant ephhebo...macking on young chicks.
Some people found Moore's behavior nasty, and that is normal and okay. Other people attempted to legally prosecute Moore, and that appears to be unfounded and not okay. Nothing about this combination of true circumstances is incompatible.
Objectively true.
That said, props to him for having the guts to sue people who lie about him, instead of rolling over and surrendering as is the Republican way.
Would depend on the age of the teens, right? 19 is still a teenager.
I agree. He was very smart about the statement he chose to sue over. It was obviously false and easy to disprove. He used to be a judge so I'd expect him to understand how defamation works, unlike that Vic Mignogna guy who stepped on a landmine with his lawsuit.
So the problem was that there were a ton of women who came forward, all teens, and all claiming he was hitting on them when he was in his 30s and a prosecutor. This was all in the late 1970s, so about 40 years before his election when this ALL came out, out of nowhere, AFTER he won the primary. It was a total Democrat ploy and it worked brilliantly. The lesson learned here is that you don't fucking run candidates who have these extreme vulnerability he had.
Leigh Corfman - who I think is a liar and a Democrat plant - accused him of raping her when she was 14. I think she made it up completely. They both sued each other and they both lost. She was the main accuser.
Beverly Young Nelson then claimed Moore creeped on her when she was 15 and sexually assaulted her at 16. "As evidence of her relationship with Moore, Nelson provided her high school yearbook, which included an entry by Moore, written about a week before the alleged assault.[26] Moore's entry reads: "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas. Christmas 1977. Love, Roy Moore"" Again, the fact that a prosecutor in his 30s was writing that to a HS girl is already creep factor enough to piss off a lot of voters even if it was legal.
After this he got dogpiled by a bunch of other women claiming he creeped on them when they were teens, but didn't rape them or have sex with them.
Overall, it painted a picture of a dude who was obsessed with dating very young girls in his 30s, which might be 100% legal, but is still considered to be not socially acceptable. I would compare it to if he was a freak like that Biden appointee in the energy department that does puppy play. If Moore was a furry or into puppy play, even if legal, it's just too creepy to people and so he'd be unelectable.
Oh, hell no. Maybe the 16-year-old stuff is (and even that was widely practiced throughout history, while I disapprove of it), but dating 19-year-olds is in no way comparable to that disgusting subhuman.
Yeah I wasn't referring to dating a 19 year old I was referring to the many sources saying that he creeped on teen girls of all ages in his 30s.
I'm the libertarian type who pushes back against the overly aggressive age of consent laws and people trying to expand what pedo means. I don't think a guy is a bad guy for dating a teen girl in isolation, but when a large number of sources say that he was basically exclusively chasing jailbait and barely legal girls in his 30s that's creepy as hell and not what I want to see in a person I vote for.
It also really undermines the credibility of the Right to make groomers a wedge issue in elections and then back Moore, who seems like quite the groomer since there were a lot of women who said back when they were under 16 he creeped on them.
Never a good sign.
He definitely was a terrible candidate, and preying on 15-18 girls is very bad. That said, it's rather different from what the left does. This was the (imperfect) norm throughout history. Destroying their bodies is not.