Oy Poor Roy Moore

[Kidlicious]

hehe, you think Moore's credible

Moore's credibility has nothing to do with the credibility of the accusors.
I

[Berzerker]

Moore's credibility has nothing to do with the credibility of the accusors.
I

Anyone who thinks a fraud is credible is a fraud.

you think a fraud is credible

[Kidlicious]

you think a fraud is credible

I didn't sayanything about his credibility. I recognized your Whataboutism.

[Proteus_MST]

Trump makes accusations sometimes that aren't true. That has nothing to do with this.

That's quite a belittlement of Trumps enormous list if lies (many of them having severe consequences (in wilfully creating hate, for example, or by leading people astray for his own gains)

Here a nice list of the NYT that covers his lies till July:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

[Kidlicious]

What does that have to do with anything? I do not believe his accusations. For example, I was not a birther.

[Proteus_MST]

What does that have to do with anything? I do not believe his accusations. For example, I was not a birther.

The pointt is the following:
With Trump you have no problem with believing him everytime anew, despite the fact that you, yourself, admit that he spread lies and conspiracy theories in the past.

With one of accusers of Moore however, you immediately dismiss her whole testimony (and the whole yearbook entry) as lies/fake,
just because she admitted hat she added one line of her own to this entry (a line that is clearly distinguishable from the rest of the entry)

This is a high level of hypocrisy from your part.
If you would treat Trump the same way you treat this woman, you should never ever believe anything Trump says

[Berzerker]

I didn't sayanything about his credibility. I recognized your Whataboutism.

You believe him and I believe his accusers, this is all about credibility

"Whataboutism"? I'll need that translated

[Kidlicious]

You believe him and I believe his accusers, this is all about credibility

"Whataboutism"? I'll need that translated

Sigh. Moore is simply denying the accusation. It doesn't matter if he's got credibility (in which case he has never forged a document in an accusation against anyone). It's the accusors credibility that matters. And you believe an accusor with no credibility.

Whataboutism is a logical fallacy used by bringing up false equivilancies of bad things the other side has done. Those accusations do not prove the case of the side using the logical fallacy. They have nothing to do with it. For example, the Soviets used it in their propaganda, "slavery was legal in the USA."

[Ming]

First he admits he knows some of the accusers and stated that he asked their mother's for permission. Now, he is claiming he doesn't know any of them.
Proof that he lies. He is totally unbelievable with his own words.

[rah]

All over the papers this morning. I got it from the Chicago Tribune.

In his sternest rebuke yet, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby said repeatedly Sunday his state can "do better" than electing fellow Republican Roy Moore to the U.S. Senate, making clear that a write-in candidate was far preferable to a man accused of sexual misconduct.

Days before the pivotal race, Shelby, who is Alabama's senior senator, said he had already cast an absentee ballot for another, unspecified Republican, even as other prominent state Republicans fell in line behind Moore.

Moore faces Democrat Doug Jones in the special election Tuesday to replace Jeff Sessions, now the U.S. attorney general.

"I couldn't vote for Roy Moore. I didn't vote for Roy Moore. But I wrote in a distinguished Republican name. And I think a lot of people could do that," Shelby told CNN's "State of the Union."


"There's a lot of smoke," Shelby said of Moore and his accusers. "Got to be some fire somewhere."

The accusations against Moore have left many GOP voters and leaders in a quandary. Voters face the decision of whether to vote for Moore, accused of sexual misconduct with teenagers decades ago when he was a county prosecutor, or sending Jones to Washington, which would narrow the GOP's already precarious majority in the Senate.

They also could write in a name on their ballots or simply stay home. Meanwhile, most GOP politicians in the state must run for re-election next year — where they will face Moore's enthusiastic voting base at the polls.

Roy Moore accuser: Expert confirmed his 1977 yearbook signature
Shelby said allegations that Moore had molested a 14-year-girl in particular were a "tipping point" in disqualifying him.

At least not all Republicans follow blindly. I'm not the only republican that finds him repulsive. I hope more in Alabama follow his lead.

[Proteus_MST]

I think what Nikki Haley said (with regards to Trumps acccusers) also fits for the Moore-case:

...
“Women who accuse anyone should be heard,” she said. “They should be heard and they should be dealt with. And I think we heard from [Trump’s accusers] prior to the election. And I think any woman who has felt violated or felt mistreated in any way, they have every right to speak up.”
...
But, you know, women should always feel comfortable coming forward. And we should all be willing to listen to them."
...
“You know,” Haley said, “I am incredibly proud of the women who have come forward. I’m proud of their strength. I’m proud of their courage.

“And I think that the idea that this is happening, I think it will start to bring a conscience to the situation, not just in politics, but in, you know, we’ve seen in Hollywood and in every industry. And I think the time has come.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...hould-be-heard

And Nikki surely is no liberal, but a republican and Trumps choice fo the US ambassador to the UN

[Berzerker]

Sigh. Moore is simply denying the accusation. It doesn't matter if he's got credibility (in which case he has never forged a document in an accusation against anyone). It's the accusors credibility that matters. And you believe an accusor with no credibility.

Whataboutism is a logical fallacy used by bringing up false equivilancies of bad things the other side has done. Those accusations do not prove the case of the side using the logical fallacy. They have nothing to do with it. For example, the Soviets used it in their propaganda, "slavery was legal in the USA."

Accusers, not accuser... And if you deny accusations, your credibility becomes an issue too - thats why jurors consider the accusers' credibility and the defendant's. If a woman accuses Trump of kissing her and Trump denies it after claiming to kiss women because he can get away with it, his credibility is non-existent. Now what false equivalency did I make?

[Kidlicious]

Pics or it didn't happen is the standard. That standard will continue despite the wishes of Ds who will continue accusations in desperation. The real victims will be actual victims of sexual harassment, and the perps are democrats.

[Kidlicious]

Accusers, not accuser... And if you deny accusations, your credibility becomes an issue too - thats why jurors consider the accusers' credibility and the defendant's. If a woman accuses Trump of kissing her and Trump denies it after claiming to kiss women because he can get away with it, his credibility is non-existent. Now what false equivalency did I make?

Link?

[Kidlicious]

I think what Nikki Haley said (with regards to Trumps acccusers) also fits for the Moore-case:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...hould-be-heard

And Nikki surely is no liberal, but a republican and Trumps choice fo the US ambassador to the UN

The election is OVER!