Donald Trump and US politics

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Kellog wrote:

The guy is a sleezbag same as Sessions and should be in jail, not running for the Senate.

Oh, in case you decided not to see:

Moore was blocked from a Mall in the 80's for harassing young girls - you can pick your own news source.

The New Yorker seems to have delved into it well enough:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/locals-were-troubled-by-roy-moores-interactions-with-teen-girls-at-the-gadsden-mall

"This past weekend, I spoke or messaged with more than a dozen people—including a major political figure in the state—who told me that they had heard, over the years, that Moore had been banned from the mall."


"Some say that they heard this at the time, others in the years since. "

"Sources tell me" "Wilson declined to divulge his sources."

Teresa Jones, a deputy district attorney for Etowah County in the early eighties, told CNN last week that “it was common knowledge that Roy dated high-school girls.” Jones told me that she couldn’t confirm the alleged mall banning, but said, “It’s a rumor I’ve heard for years.”

So what did the two people that actually knew about the ban list have to say to the New Yorker?

A former manager of the mall, who began working there in the late eighties, confirmed the existence of a ban list, but did not recall Moore being on the list during the manager’s tenure there.

Barnes Boyle, who is eighty-six, also managed the mall, from 1981 to 1998. His wife, Brenda, told me that Moore was a longtime acquaintance of his—they went to the Y.M.C.A. together often—and that he planned to vote for him. The recent allegations against Moore, the Boyles thought, are likely liberal propaganda and, as Brenda put it, “a sign of the times.”

They spoke with 3 officers about the ban, one named, two unnamed. What did they say?

The named one: "Reached by phone on Saturday, Thomas, who lives in the nearby town of Southside, declined to discuss the existence of a ban on Moore at the Gadsden Mall. “I don’t have anything to say about that"

So, no confirmation, and no denial.

The unnamed two officers said: " was told by a girl who worked at the mall that he’d been run off from there, from a number of stores. Maybe not legally banned, but run off"

"A friend of mine told me he was banned"

So lot's of rumours, people hearing things second and third hand, and no confirmation that he was banned. The closest thing the New Yorker was able to get was a no comment from someone.

In Other Words -
Some say
they heard
Sources tell me
common knowledge
It’s a rumor I’ve heard
was told by a girl
Maybe not legally banned

The one person who would know that replied said
did not recall Moore being on the list

more FAKE NEWS

Lots of hearsay from lots of different sources. Seems like a strange thing for people to be talking about without any truth to the matter.

"

Kellog wrote:

Looks to me like CNN just published a picture of the year book message.

The color changing ink is in the picture CNN published.

"

Kellog wrote:

Bottom line, if Moore is innocent, where's the litigation?

It is just beginning,



A similar one was sent to the Washington Post.

"

Kellog wrote:

All he he has to do to exonerate himself, is get a forensic hand writing analysis of the message...

Agreed.

On the other side, to be fair to those doubting Moore, some of his answers when interviewed by Hannity didn't give him a clean bill of health. It might be that he doesn't remember a lot of the stuff, but it certainly doesn't play well as a defense.
Transcript of the interview here:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/10/roy_moore_interviewed_by_hannity_generally_didnt_date_girls_in_late_teens_accusations_never_happened.html

"

Kellog wrote:

Lots of hearsay from lots of different sources. Seems like a strange thing for people to be talking about without any truth to the matter.

Rumors can be vicious, prevalent and still unfounded. I've seen it happen in real life with business associates that were smeared with rumors that took forever to clear up. A little bit of dislike, some envy and a nasty comment and away people go.

While those rumors could be true, we don't have much to go on in the way of evidence. It may be that the case is just too long ago, but the New Yorker should have been able to find someone with first hand knowledge willing to speak up. I have to give them credit for doing some real journalism, and trying to find out the truth for themselves. If we had a lot more of that, the ranks of crooked politicians on either side would get thinned.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Kellog wrote:

Looks to me like CNN just published a picture of the year book message.

The color changing ink is in the picture CNN published.

"

Kellog wrote:

Bottom line, if Moore is innocent, where's the litigation?

It is just beginning,



A similar one was sent to the Washington Post.

"

Kellog wrote:

All he he has to do to exonerate himself, is get a forensic hand writing analysis of the message...

Agreed.

On the other side, to be fair to those doubting Moore, some of his answers when interviewed by Hannity didn't give him a clean bill of health. It might be that he doesn't remember a lot of the stuff, but it certainly doesn't play well as a defense.
Transcript of the interview here:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/10/roy_moore_interviewed_by_hannity_generally_didnt_date_girls_in_late_teens_accusations_never_happened.html

Seems to be a trait of politicians from Alabama.

Edit: That letter is hilarious, particularly the part you didn't post.





Edit: Hannity is a douch

"

“Here’s where I am tonight. Between this interview that I did and the inconsistent answers; between him saying ‘I never knew this girl’ and then that yearbook comes out - for me, the judge has 24 hours,” Hannity said Tuesday night.

“You must immediately and fully come up with a satisfactory explanation for your inconsistencies that I just showed,” Hannity continued. “You must remove any doubt. If he can’t do this, Judge Moore needs to get out of this race.”

Funny how things changed after some of his bigger advertisers suggested they'd pull out!

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I don't know if I agree with not listing parties. I think it's important that a voter with little or no information walking into the ballot box has something to go on, although I'd prefer a short (30 second?) video clip from the candidate rather than simply "Republican." I don't think voting should be elitist in the sense of only the well-read political junkies having an effective right to vote in local elections.

I am, however, staunchly against being able to vote a straight party ticket with a single button press. That's outrageous

I don’t think there is anything elitist about suggesting that people shouldn’t vote for candidates they have no knowledge of. I also don’t think the ballot box is the time/place to gain that knowledge.

Are we really setting the bar so low that what should be considered the average political consumer is instead some kind of class above? Point is, I don’t think party affiliation says anything about an individual’s character or capabilities. This is, by large, why we have so many crooks in office (was going to say rapists, but didn’t want to be too hyperbolic :p), because party affiliation, not history nor promises, constitutes the candidate’s entire identity when we press the button (edit: for most non-major elections).

At the very least, I’d settle for banning party tickets. If you were going to throw your democratic privilege down the gutter anyways, it should at least take a little bit of effort. Little as it may be, at least then every voter would have the opportunity to read every candidate’s name before voting.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Here's the point: I recently looked into the politics of the Catalan region of Spain, and I grew envious. There's a party for centrists who want independence, a party for centrists who don't want independence, a party for communists who want independence, a party for communists who don't want independence, a right-wing party, and even a party for center-left types that are undecided regarding independence. All of these parties have representation in the regional legislature. Yet in the US, every type of political position is forced into one of two monolithic parties. Why can't we have that kind of diversity of ideology in our government?

Specifically because entry to the ballot is rigged against third parties. I’m not exaggerating when I say democrats and republicans constitute an oligarchy (edit: I totally misspoke here. I was looking for the right words, and went with the wrong turn of phrase. What I meant was that I am exaggerating, that they form a sort of oligarchy over the institution of voting—not literally an oligarchy, the word I was having a hard time finding a replacement for. I think that conveys my sentiment, anyways. Point is, the primary parties retain the means to prevent long-term meaningful competition. A monopoly of two, is what I was going for).

1) Once either convention declares its list of candidates, they are all but guaranteed entry; third parties have to go through the ringer and still likely be told ‘no.’

2) Once on the ballot, either convention is guaranteed votes; party ticket limits the supply of non-primary votes, and ensures that even if a third party candidate makes it onto the ballot, it will be difficult to receive a meaningful number of votes.

3) Our system guarantees that there can be only a single third party. In order to circumvent obstacle 1 (i.e., benefit from the same entry requirements as the primary parties) a party needs to receive a meaningful number of votes (obstacle 2). The more third parties vying for power (or really, relevance), the more the limited supply of non-primary votes are divided up, and the less likely either party will receive a meaningful number of votes.

When I say meaningful number, I do not mean enough to win, but rather some percentage large enough to register as relevant.

I don't know if he is innocent or guilty but the witch hunt environment is not good for anybody. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Americans have a history of witch hunts. They eschew civilized behavior once they sniff blood in the water.

The burden of proof is on prosecution, not defense. Duh. If anyone has credible proof then charge him.

Uh, this guy was a VERY high profile judge for years he did not just crawl out of the woodwork to run for senate. Why were there no accusations in all these years?

Were these people in hibernation or what when he was making a name for himself in AL (and nationwide)?

If he is guilty, than formal charges should be brought and he should have his day in court. It is really that simple. He has a right to defend himself and his accusers have a right to accuse.

I'm certainly not defending him; I'm defending the notion of justice. Guilty until proven innocent (except when you are high profile or on the "wrong end" of the political spectrum?) is what a nation of laws is based on. Undercut that, and you have chaos.

How would you like it if I publicly accused you of stealing from me and showed no proof but had some thugs throw you in jail. No jury trial, no chance to defend yourself. You can rot in jail, I may even have you tortured or killed there.

What if you did steal? Does that make it right? Is it OK for me to ruin your life, because you are a certain "kind of person" you don't get a trial. I can convict you by just saying you are guilty. No proof needed. That is where the US is heading.

This is where the death of a credible justice system leads. Try going to Russia and talking to people that remember what it was like there under Stalin and come back and tell me that is the sort of "justice" system you want.

Or hey, don't bother leaving the country. Maybe you can't afford it or have Russophobia. Why not talk to some people that survived McCarthyism in the 50's and ask them what kind of justice they received? My father knew someone that committed suicide from being falsely accused. His wife and kids were homeless.

The Americans seemed fine with it then, and they certainly do now too.

The US is not a vigilante justice country or banana republic. Except it is certainly looking more and more that way.

Maybe they don't want a credible justice system anymore.

"

Kellog wrote:

Bottom line, if Moore is innocent, where's the litigation? All he he has to do to exonerate himself, is get a forensic hand writing analysis of the message...

His lawyers are now trying to get the yearbook released for just that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0eXpU35nZ8

One of the accusers who said she had no contact with Moore afterward is lying. He was her judge in her divorce case (1999?).

It also looks like the Judge's signature may just be a Court stamp. The D.A. is the initials of his assistant.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-roy-moore-accusations-20171115-story.html



Time to manufacture some additional fake accusers. I wonder how many will pop up today?