2018 Senate (& House)

mchammer said:
This is why some people don’t take you seriously. You passed false information in the very first sentence. First, it’s not pedo if post-puberty. We had this discussion before on this board and how that term is grossly misapplied. Second, only one person accused Moore of sexual conduct (legally speaking) - maybe true maybe not. If true, definitely disqualifying as it was illegal on top of being gross. The others vouched their relationships weren’t sexual. Which is a more accurate representation of Moore? Third, how can it be serial if it hasn’t been repeated in the past 38 years? Finally, in that part of Alabama, I bet it wasn’t unusual for a 30 year old to date an 18 year old. The fact he was 32 and the girls were 14-18 is creepy and will be disqualifying for many voters. Outside of the possible illegal behavior, others may weigh the info differently than you and ask what parts are relevant today. Finally, you mentioned Weiner. Maybe you can see the differences between the two cases, such as the weight of evidence that is available today regarding the illegal behavior, how recent the behavior occurred, etc. In my mind, a suitable response would have been: “Moore’s past behavior, if true, is disqualifying and if one accuser is to be believed, illegal in regards to sexual misconduct with a youth. I cannot in good conscience support Moore for senator.” Instead we got a riotous screed from you that was more inaccurate than accurate.
Click to expand...

Dang...mchammer and I find commonality twice in a 24hr period. Is it snowing where you are?
 
Seattle Husker said:
Dang...mchammer and I find commonality twice in a 24hr period. Is it snowing where you are?
Click to expand...
FWIW, Moore just issued a statement saying that he did not provide alcohol to minors or engaged in sexual misconduct. He did not comment on whether he knew these girls socially or kissed them (so one can reasonably assume that part of the story is true). To be fair to OU bubba, I could have been more precise in my original comment regarding “relevant”. I meant relevant in multiple ways. For example, as in weighing an unsubstantiated claim of a single person of something that happened 40 years ago. Also, as in whether the relevancy of general creepiness of 40 years ago (not denied by Moore) is an important distinction today.
 
mchammer said:
FWIW, Moore just issued a statement saying that he did not provide alcohol to minors or engaged in sexual misconduct. He did not comment on whether he knew these girls socially or kissed them (so one can reasonably assume that part of the story is true). To be fair to OU bubba, I could have been more precise in my original comment regarding “relevant”. I meant relevant in multiple ways. For example, as in weighing an unsubstantiated claim of a single person of something that happened 40 years ago. Also, as in whether the relevancy of general creepiness of 40 years ago (not denied by Moore) is an important distinction today.
Click to expand...

What is really creepy is Moore's defenders and their biblical references to explain away any potential for creepy behavior towards minors.

I'm typically ready to give the benefit of the doubt in a he said/she said situation. If it's only 1 accuser then there is always the chance that the accuser could by lying. In this case we have 4 women describing similar inappropriate behavior and another 26 people vouching for these women.
 
Seattle Husker said:
What is really creepy is Moore's defenders and their biblical references to explain away any potential for creepy behavior towards minors.

I'm typically ready to give the benefit of the doubt in a he said/she said situation. If it's only 1 accuser then there is always the chance that the accuser could by lying. In this case we have 4 women describing similar inappropriate behavior and another 26 people vouching for these women.
Click to expand...
Well, they are dumb. Have they not heard of the “half your age plus 7 rule”? It’s in the Bible, and it applies to the minimum age. Moore was WAY below that line.
 
In it's reporting on Moore, it has been discovered that the WAPO failed to disclose that at least one of his accusers is a Democrat activist. She openly, proudly hates Rs in her Facebook stuff.

The Post claimed it carefully reviewed all allegations. If so, then why leave that out? At a minimum, it is a disturbing oversight.
 
NJlonghorn said:
It is hard to imagine a more thorough, empathetic apology than Louis CK's. Link. I'll be interested to see how it plays.
Click to expand...

I think FX already dumped him ("will not receive compensation for any current FX shows—Better Things, Baskets, One Mississippi, and The Cops—on which he is a producer")
His film release was also canceled. It was called "I Love You, Daddy" and, believe it or not, it is some type of tribute to Woody Allen and also reportedly takes aim at the previously rumored allegations that CK pressured women to either watch or listen to him masturbate. The distributor already paid $5M for it
He was dropped from a special by HBO
Netflix dropped out of producing another special
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
Gerrymandering was rampant back then especially in the South as Democrats struggled to keep their House majority, but it didn't get 100th of the media attention and political commentary that it gets now. Hmm. Can't imagine why.
Click to expand...
The sophistication of Gerrymandering has improved. The success of crack and pack has been pretty incredible, giving a voting minority control of all three branches of government at the federal level and many state governments as well.
 
Joe Fan said:
In it's reporting on Moore, it has been discovered that the WAPO failed to disclose that at least one of his accusers is a Democrat activist. She openly, proudly hates Rs in her Facebook stuff.

The Post claimed it carefully reviewed all allegations. If so, then why leave that out? At a minimum, it is a disturbing oversight.
Click to expand...

The Post has had serious credibility problems of late and then puts this story out at the right time to ensure that Moore can't be replaced. I would love to know how long these ******** sat on this story.
 
Crockett said:
The sophistication of Gerrymandering has improved. The success of crack and pack has been pretty incredible, giving a voting minority control of all three branches of government at the federal level
Click to expand...

First, the GOP did not get a minority of the votes for Congress in 2016. Second, gerrymandering has nothing to do with the Senate, the presidency, or the judiciary. Finally, when given the chance, Democrats were the bigger gerrymanderers.

I'm not defending gerrymandering. I think it's ridiculous, but this new righteous condemnation of it and attempt to associate it with the GOP is getting absurd. Yes, the software makes it easier now, but it was never difficult. It's not new. It's old, and it has always been very common.
 
mchammer said:
This is why some people don’t take you seriously. You passed false information in the very first sentence. First, it’s not pedo if post-puberty. We had this discussion before on this board and how that term is grossly misapplied. Second, only one person accused Moore of sexual conduct (legally speaking) - maybe true maybe not. If true, definitely disqualifying as it was illegal on top of being gross. The others vouched their relationships weren’t sexual. Which is a more accurate representation of Moore? Third, how can it be serial if it hasn’t been repeated in the past 38 years? Finally, in that part of Alabama, I bet it wasn’t unusual for a 30 year old to date an 18 year old. The fact he was 32 and the girls were 14-18 is creepy and will be disqualifying for many voters. Outside of the possible illegal behavior, others may weigh the info differently than you and ask what parts are relevant today. Finally, you mentioned Weiner. Maybe you can see the differences between the two cases, such as the weight of evidence that is available today regarding the illegal behavior, how recent the behavior occurred, etc. In my mind, a suitable response would have been: “Moore’s past behavior, if true, is disqualifying and if one accuser is to be believed, illegal in regards to sexual misconduct with a youth. I cannot in good conscience support Moore for senator.” Instead we got a riotous screed from you that was more inaccurate than accurate.
Click to expand...
Well, I have a 14 year old and if a 32 year old ADA pulls that we got problems. Likewise if they’re 17 and theyre I8. The biblical references are laughable.

According to your definition if there’s grass on the infield play ball? 32-14 will get you prison, even in Alabama - unless Moore is your judge.
 
DOXY-XMVAAAJKy1.jpg
 
OUBubba said:
Well, I have a 14 year old and if a 32 year old ADA pulls that we got problems. Likewise if they’re 17 and theyre I8. The biblical references are laughable.

According to your definition if there’s grass on the infield play ball? 32-14 will get you prison, even in Alabama - unless Moore is your judge.
Click to expand...
My definition to avoid the creepiness factor, which is actually written as a rule or adage in the Bible thus stronger than just being a biblical-based story, is half your age plus 7. Not sure what the Moore defenders are saying. Already said they were dumb. So, the ages according to my rule:
16-15
18-16
20-17
22-18
24-19
26-20
28-21
30-22

That is no where close to the smear you just wrote. Are you sure you are not Barry?
 
Last edited:
mchammer said:
My definition to avoid the creepiness factor, which is actually written as a rule or adage in the Bible thus stronger than just being a biblical-based story, is half your age plus 7. Not sure what the Moore defenders are saying. Already said they were dumb. So, the ages according to my rule:
16-15
18-16
20-17
22-18
24-19
26-20
28-21
30-22

That is no where close to the smear you just wrote. Are you sure you are not Barry?
Click to expand...
What smear did I type? I’m not the one minimizing 32 v. 14 misconduct.
 
mchammer said:
My definition to avoid the creepiness factor, which is actually written as a rule or adage in the Bible thus stronger than just being a biblical-based story, is half your age plus 7.
Click to expand...

Are you really saying this rule is in the Bible?
 
The polling on this is inconsistent but ....

"Two new polls demonstrate that GOP nominee for the U.S. Senate Judge Roy Moore remains unaffected entirely by smears in the Washington Post against him, and his lead before the Post piece on Thursday afternoon remains intact."​

but see
 
Last edited:
OUBubba said:
What smear did I type? I’m not the one minimizing 32 v. 14 misconduct.
Click to expand...
“According to your definition if there’s grass on the infield play ball?”

Not my definition. Again, your replies are filled with more inaccuracies than accuracies. I did ask in my OP if the behavior from 40 years is relevant today. But you used this opening to hijack the thread with a bunch a virtue signaling that doesn’t advance the conversation.
 
SNL paints Dems as old and out of touch
They dont do this sort of thing very often
Maybe we will look back at the Brazile stuff as a watershed moment

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top