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/
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.
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.
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.
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.