Roy Moore accused of sexual assault

https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-moore-accused-sexual-contact-14-old-192241566--politics.html

Sorry Deus, I see now that you already posted this on another thread. I guess it deserves its own headline though.
Is this going to make a difference in the race? I seriously doubt it. First of all, Moore is denying it ever took place. The church people will say the liberal, atheist, yankee press is just out to lie and lie and lie about their beloved Judge Moore. The centrists in the house are trying to get him to drop out, and centrist Republicans are just RINOs that don't matter a bit anyway. The Republican party in Alabama will not dump him as their candidate, because they know all of the above.
Americans can just get ready to call him Senator Roy Moore and he can wear his dumb cowboy suit on the floor of the Senate to embarrass anyone who hasn't been embarrassed enough to leave Alabama already.
And the young voters in Alabama won't save the state. I'm not so sure that young voters in Alabama are as progressive as they are in other parts of the country. I don't know how they could get through school without being beaten to death by rednecks otherwise. Those pick-up trucks in Mobile with the Confederate flag on them are not all being driven by old farts.

Christmas comes early to Alabama.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bigot. However, I have to agree with bigdog that this won't likely make a bit of difference in the race -- at least not unless and until a whooooole bunch of other accusations flood in.

If he doesn't drop out of the race, my estimation of Doug Jones chances of winning are going even bigger.

If he does drop out... errrrgggh, red 'Bammy.

I bet Trump, in his weirdness, is all happy now because Bannon picked a pedophile to oppose his Luther Strange candidate. But then, Moore always was stranger than Strange...

zsomething wrote:But then, Moore always was stranger than Strange...

Well said and true.

The Republicans in Alabama have come up with the perfect defense: Joseph, the "father" of Jesus, was a Pedo!

'Mary Was a Teenager.' Alabama Republican Uses Jesus to Defend Roy Moore

While some Republicans at the national level spoke out against Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore on Thursday in the wake of allegations that he initiated sexual contact with a 14-year-old when he was in his 30s, Republicans from his own state seemed to have a different view — with one citing Jesus’ parents to defend Moore’s alleged behavior.

“Take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus,” Alabama state auditor Jim Ziegler told the Washington Examiner on Thursday.
http://time.com/5017940/roy-moore-sexual-contact-underage-jesus-defense-jim-ziegler/

I just deleted a post because I know it made sense to nobody but me. I had a very bad thought and then thought better about expressing it. But here's some of it anyway:  HOW THE HELL CAN THIS STATE AUDITOR CLAIM IT'S OKAY FOR ROY MOORE AND A TEENAGER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS BECAUSE JOSEPH AND MARY HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WHEN THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE CHRISTIANITY THAT HE CLAIMS IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT MARY WAS A VIRGIN???????? A Christian can't go around supporting a pedophile because Joseph, who according to that same religion did NOT,  maybe, actually did have sex with a teenaged girl.

Absent the virgin birth, there is no Christian religion because Jesus isn't the son of God. If you believe his dad was Joseph, you can't BE a Christian because the religion is based on believing that He is the son of God.

These damned new fangled Republican Christians are a total enigma to me. They can justify anything without an ounce of reason behind their justifications. You just can't worship Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ at the same time and not get a little bit confused. They've gone way beyond confused and into schizophrenic.

That big bang you hear is the sound of the GOP hitting rock bottom.

See how this is supposed to work?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/all-the-republicans-calling-for-roy-moore-to-step-down-after-allegations-he-pursued-14-year-old-girl-list/article/2640206

Since the Republicans know there is no time for a hearing to see if this really is true, they can get by with the "if this is true" argument.
And the people of Alabama will be happy enough with that argument too.
So, we'll have a gun-toting, Bible Spouting, gay hating pedophile walking around the Senate for the next 6 years, unless he decides to challenge Donald J Trump in the primaries in 3 years. I won't be surprised if he does. I also wouldn't be surprised if he won the nomination.

Hey, he's just being tempted just like Christ, right? That's what they say.

Telstar wrote:That big bang you hear is the sound of the GOP hitting rock bottom.

Nah, they did that when they nominated Trump. They just kept on digging.

Watching them try to defend this shit is pretty crazy. They know their base is dog-trained into thinking "everything negative every said about a Republican is fake news from the liberal media" (Charles Manson or Jim Jones couldn't have come up with a better brainwashing technique than that one -- "distrust all news contrary to the words of the cult -- people speaking against the cult are your enemy!"), but jeez-us.

I've always been a big Louis CK fan. Today he admitted he abused his position and whacked off in front of women who weren't into it. At least he admitted it so the public won't be questioning the integrity of his accusers anymore, but still, he knew what he was doing when he did it, and I'm frickin' done with that guy. It's that simple. And that wasn't even as bad as child molestation.

Now, just to avoid taking a black eye, guys like Hannity are defending child molestation. It's crazy. A few, like Mitt Romney, get it and are speaking out against Moore, but, for the most part, they're rallying around him. The so-called party of morals and family values. I don't put much past them, after I experienced one of 'em on this very forum defending Trump's letting an old man bleed on the floor rather than helping him up -- gotta admit, that surprised me, but ya wanna be a garbage person, fine by me, as long as you're nobody I have to defend.

If they want to let Moore stay in the race.... GOOD. Do that. Brand yourself the party of child-molester-defending (which ya kinda already were by not dumping Ted Nugent's support, when he has a LONG history of it), and cling to a candidate who was already unpopular for his craziness and racism and lack of respect for the Constitution. The Dems should put money behind Doug Jones and see the state go blue for once. There are a lot of Democrats in the South who usually don't vote because we've gotten used to our votes being outnumbered, and they'll be encouraged to turn out this time in a big way. Once they figure out they can win one, they'll show up more from now on. And a lot of Republicans will be dispirited and embarrassed and not want to vote for Moore, so they'll stay home. And even if the scumbag DOES get elected, they'll go down as the party who elected someone like that, which will wreck what little is left of their integrity. Roy Moore is lose-lose across the board for Republicans, so, I'm glad to see them stupidly clinging to the guy. Ya'll head right on with that, good idea.

I've been a big Louis CK fan too, as well as a huge fan of Kevin Spacey, so I've lost a lot of entertainers I really liked this week. CK's letter did seem to be heart felt to me, but the vision of what he did would be in my mind every time I saw him from now on, so I think his career is finished. I'm not sure about Spacey-I can believe he was drunk as a skunk when he threw himself on that young man, but alcohol can't be an excuse for anything. I think he's getting punished as much for not coming out earlier than he did as much as he is for the things he actually did do.
It's just difficult for me to imagine the entertainment world without Spacey in it. I don't think he is totally down for the count yet. I will say this, I have no interest in watching House of Cards anymore without Frank Underwood as a character.
I also enjoy the Louis CK production "Baskets," and I sure hope this does not affect that show. I'm pretty sure Zack Galafinakis can keep it above water on his own, but CK's writing will be missed.
This whole deluge of accusations depresses me. As a woman, I understand why many of the woman needed to come forward, but also as a woman, I also know that we can be, as a sex, just as devious as hell. I like men more than women, always have. I think they are more trustworthy.
And though I know it was dead wrong for Roy Moore to date teenagers back when he did, I believe him when he says their moms allowed it. He had a good job and he spouted Bible to them as well as anybody could. Surely, that kind of guy could be trusted, right? Hey, from personal experience I can speak here. My mom let me date a 26 year old when I was 16 because he was a good Christian that had been to Bible college. Nobody thought much about it in 1966 when girls often got married by the age of 18 anyway. And if you weren't married by 21, you were an old maid. But mommas back then could be VERY, Very wrong, as was mine. I'm just happy this incident has caught old Judge Roy up in a net, even though I'm sure he'll still be elected. Because no matter what moms say, 30 year old men are not chasing 14 year old girls because they are good cooks.

I just read the NYTimes article about Louis CK and, I gotta tell you, I don't get what the big deal is. It's weird, this business of jerking off in front of women, but they have eyelids they can shut and mouths they can use to shout "No! Louis, what the fuck are you doing? Stop it! Put that thing away!" He wasn't tying them up and forcing them to watch ala Clockwork Orange.

Here's a quote from the article about another woman: "Another comedian, Rebecca Corry, said that while she was appearing with Louis C.K. on a television pilot in 2005, he asked if he could masturbate in front of her. She declined."

Another woman says she HEARD him masturbating ON THE PHONE! I mean, c'mon! So what?

Here's the link, read the article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html

Granted, this is a bizarre fetish but it's more akin to some kind of exhibitionism than it is molestation or abuse. It seems relatively benign to me.

Really, big fuckin' deal, some guy ASKS you if you'll watch him beat off. Even if he starts doing it, so what? Get up and leave or express strong disapproval.

The entertainment industry is rife with this kind of kinky behavior. It's more laughable than lamentable. The really sad thing is he probably doesn't even know why he does it.

Besides, there are probably very few mothers of teenage boys that haven't either accidentally caught them in the act or known about it and avoided disturbing them. "Uh...   never mind, son, I'll get the laundry later."

Really, grow up, folks. He's getting a bad deal here and I wish someone would stick up for him.

Deus X wrote:Really, grow up, folks. He's getting a bad deal here and I wish someone would stick up for him.

You make a good argument, Deus, but I think it overlooks two important factors:

1.   Just the act of asking someone if you can masturbate in front of her is likely disturbing to the woman, whether or not she agrees to comply (and see #2 below if she does).  It's bizarre and frightening behavior and no one should be subject to having to listen and respond to it.   What I'm trying to say is that just the act of positing it demonstrates an insensitivity and egocentricity on the part of the instigator for putting anyone in what is surely a very uncomfortable (for most, I have to believe) position.  It's a selfish, thoughtless aggression -- the act of a user.

2.  Correct me if I'm mistaken but I seem to recall that the man himself has admitted it was wrong to  use his position of power in the industry to coerce women -- however gently it may've been presented -- to submit to that weirdness.   And I agree with him -- using power and status in that way is dead cinch wrong.   It's the same principle behind the illegality of an adult's molesting an underaged person, despite even the most overt complicity/cooperation on the part of the abused.

Really, the act of asking is disturbing? Puh-leeeeze, these are comedy clubs we're talking about here. Most of the stuff that's said onstage is disturbing in one way or another and these women weren't groupies from the audience, they were fellow comics. If they're disturbed by someone asking if they can jerk-off in front of them, they're in the wrong racket. After watching numerous comedy specials, I've never gotten the impression that female comics were a particularly delicate bunch.

As far as his apology goes, my guess is that he was advised to write an apology admitting his "sins" and to be humble and contrite. Do you really think that when this story broke, he wasn't on the phone with lawyers and advisors right away?

I bet that apology was hashed out over the phone with two or three people several times before it was ever made public. "No, no, Louie, you gotta be more contrite. Say you're remorseful and something about the pain you caused others." "Okay, how's this sound..."

C'mon, don't be so naive, this a multi-million dollar goose laying golden eggs for scores of agents and managers and industry executives. He's got plenty of money so he can lay low for a couple years, write a new act that includes his, uh, peculiar urges and be back on top.

I've got no sympathy for the women. They made a calculated decision to stay at which point they were no longer victims and became participants in the weirdness. Besides, it just masturbation, it's not like he was fucking a goat or something. Getting freaked out over that says more about the women than it does about some pitiful guy with a weird fetish. I think a lot of it is motivated by envy of his status.

This is all a touchy subject. My problem with the Louis CK thing is not that he really did not harm anyone but he looks like he could be  a sexual predator and I think I would see that every time I saw him on TV from now on. Poor Louis is not a wholesome looking guy.  I like him as a comedian,  and I doubt that these women were nearly as traumatized as they said they were. I think his apology was extremely sincere, I don't think any lawyers wrote it up for him. I think he knows he was wrong but just had some type of sexually deviant exhibitionism that he didn't try enough to control.
Kevin Spacey's problem I think is clearly mental. The guy is a magnificent actor, no one could ever deny that. Magnificent actors aren't always known for being the most stable of personalities. In the first place, the gay rumors have been around for years about him, and he should have just "come out" much sooner. He's an odd person anyway- he's always dated his mother when he went to awards shows and I always thought that was strange. I think he very seriously does not WANT to be gay, but he knows he is. I suspect that has led to some pretty odd encounters with gay men-if you read up on some of them he didn't say anything at all before he moved in to kiss them, that's just weird too. One reported that Spacey was on his chest when he woke up and had obviously slept there and been crying all night. No mention of sex, just a strange encounter. Of course, all that might be part of why he can be such a good actor. His character in House of Cards is a suppressed homosexual who has to hide it because he happens to be POTUS. Maybe it isn't great acting at all.
I think Spacey will be back because of his talent, and so should Louis CK, but Louis has that unkempt look like Harvey Weinstein that will make it harder for him. It's a shame that looks matter but they do in Hollywood. Hey, if Mel Gibson can come back, anybody with a pretty face can.

Deus X wrote:I've got no sympathy for the women.

Gee, why am I not surprised at this? Silly me for trying in the first place.

Poor Louis. Maybe the devil made him do it.

RealLindaL wrote:

Deus X wrote:I've got no sympathy for the women.

Gee, why am I not surprised at this?  Silly me for trying in the first place.

That's cheesy ad hominem comment. You've got no sympathy for the guy, it's always the male's fault in every situation, no matter what.

Silly you for not being able to muster an argument based on anything but sympathy for the poor, naive girls.

Silly you for not having any sympathy for an obviously troubled guy.

Deus X wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

Deus X wrote:I've got no sympathy for the women.

Gee, why am I not surprised at this?  Silly me for trying in the first place.

That's cheesy ad hominem comment. You've got no sympathy for the guy, it's always the male's fault in every situation, no matter what.

Silly you for not being able to muster an argument based on anything but sympathy for the poor, naive girls.

Silly you for not having any sympathy for an obviously troubled guy.

Ha! Spoken by the master of ad hominem attacks, and the purveyor of eminently predictable misogyny.

Silly me for expecting anything other than a response pretending to any knowledge of me whatsoever, much less how I think in "every situation."  Balderdash.  

Further, I never called them "poor naive girls."  You can put words in my mouth all day long, sir, but it doesn't make them real or true.  

Women, just like men, don't have to be naive, young, inexperienced, or anything else to be made extremely uncomfortable by the actions of a sexually deviant individual.   He chose to foist his particular perversion into their lives, whether or not his desires were consummated -- and just because he asked, however sweetly, doesn't make the situation any less strange or disturbing, very possibly to almost anyone except perhaps yourself.  

Whether or not I or anyone else has a modicum of sympathy for an off-kilter, troubled individual does not in any way change the fact that his action was disturbing to OTHERS, and he had no right to subject OTHERS to his weirdness, but took advantage of his power and status to do so anyway.    

Your defending this man is your privilege, but in my opinion, as I indicated in the beginning, you're missing a couple of big pieces, and maybe that's in more ways than one.

RealLindaL wrote:

Deus X wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

Deus X wrote:I've got no sympathy for the women.

Gee, why am I not surprised at this?  Silly me for trying in the first place.

That's cheesy ad hominem comment. You've got no sympathy for the guy, it's always the male's fault in every situation, no matter what.

Silly you for not being able to muster an argument based on anything but sympathy for the poor, naive girls.

Silly you for not having any sympathy for an obviously troubled guy.

Ha! Spoken by the master of ad hominem attacks, and the purveyor of eminently predictable misogyny.

Silly me for expecting anything other than a response pretending to any knowledge of me whatsoever, much less how I think in "every situation."  Balderdash.  

Further, I never called them "poor naive girls."  You can put words in my mouth all day long, sir, but it doesn't make them real or true.  

Women, just like men, don't have to be naive, young, inexperienced, or anything else to be made extremely uncomfortable by the actions of a sexually deviant individual.   He chose to foist his particular perversion into their lives, whether or not his desires were consummated -- and just because he asked, however sweetly, doesn't make the situation any less strange or disturbing, very possibly to almost anyone except perhaps yourself.  

Whether or not I or anyone else has a modicum of sympathy for an off-kilter, troubled individual does not in any way change the fact that his action was disturbing to OTHERS, and he had no right to subject OTHERS to his weirdness, but took advantage of his power and status to do so anyway.    

Your defending this man is your privilege, but in my opinion, as I indicated in the beginning, you're missing a couple of big pieces, and maybe that's in more ways than one.

I find the Bible's subjugation of women to men, somehow allows men to think their behavior is normal. CJ is a sick F. Trump is a sick F. Moore is a sick F., and I could go on for hours without understanding that women get treated like chit under the paradigm that women are men's chattel.

I mean my wife and I were talking. At 32 both my children were born and part of our life. The idea of me getting a phone number from a 14 year old child and then kissing her, and then doing heavy petting in our underwear in my house is so out there in my context, but my baptist family had the male head of the home all powerful. The first thing that strikes me is how twisted fundamental Christians are with their sex lives. I mean when I was with a woman at my place and we were in that position, I never once had the action stop because we were two consenting adults. There are reports from female coworkers who said it was common knowledge that Moore was going to high school functions and dating high school students when he was fifteen years older and a grown man working as an assistant SA. That was a powerful postition. Do you think anybody wants to take on this crazy when he is the guy who could charge you or your family with a crime. This was simply abuse of power. Why do such insecure folks migrate to politics.

There is a legitimate argument as to why now on these disclosures, but there is no time limit on the truth.