[El Gallo]

Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky You aren't following the bouncing ball. The evidence in the year book and other pieces is to refute the claim that he didn't know these women when they were girls. He did.

Except this is absurd reasoning. Even if taken at 100% face value signing someone's yearbook isn't proof of anything except there was an encounter where you signed their yearbook. Anything that follows from that is a logical leap. The other piece of evidence was a graduation card. The same is true there. All that means, presuming them at 100% face value is that she got a graduation card. Drawing from that relationships, dating, rape or sexual assault is rather insane. You can't even make that leap unless you have some pretty strong partisan blinders on.

Why would he lie?

Signing a yearbook or a card isn't proof of a relationship. So whether it be he or myself noting that, it isn't lying. Can you seriously not see this? It's nuts.

Why do you doubt a growing number of women with physical proof they knew him personally?

Growing number with physical proof equals two women with "proof" that one claims a yearbook signing and another a graduation card.

Is it because he reflects who you are? Are there skeletons in your closet you are worried about? A cute young thing you complimented when you knew you shouldn't, perhaps? A single compliment doesn't reflect harassment, but many reflects a poor moral guidance and when they are directed at underaged girls a creeping awfulness.

Speaking of creapy awfulness....LOL. I don't even know where all this projection and personal nonsense comes from but it does seem like a good idea to put yourself in timeout for a while.

Regardless, you failed your own test. You assumed he did these things and then defended him because of the timing.

No I dismissed the argument about whether he did those things because when someone like yourself has reasoning like (yearbook signature = rape) then it is kind of pointless to there. I guess you baited me into going there anyway. That is the test I failed.

Any non-partisan would see that the assumption that he pursued these girls is enough to evoke a desire to see him punished and not given the keys to more power

What sort of puritanical nonsense is this? I mean are you serious? You do realize that even among all these "growing allegations" that around half of them are claims that he complimented someone or asked them on a date. That is the CLAIM. You think someone should be punished for that? That is your claim above. It doesn't seem like you have actually read about the accusers.

But you, the apparent purveyor of all things non-partisan, merely dismiss your assumption in the next breathe. [My guess is you were awful at mathematical proofs.] The problem with this discussion is you cannot follow your own argumentation. You assumed the girls were reporting actual harassment and then found a way to reject their claims. This makes no sense.

It isn't a dismissal when you actually examine the facts. I noted the basis for yourselves and others for believing the accusers. You believe a woman would never make up a story about this type of stuff and should be believed uncritically without due process, facts or any reasoning applied. I didn't just dismiss the women. I said let's look at their claims but part of looking at them is examining why and when the claim was made. Of course you don't like that sort of process because it is part of how false allegations are discovered. Much like how property faults are magically uncovered when the tenant doesn't have the rent or how domestic abuse is magically alleged in the midst of a divorce proceeding, the timing and motivation are examined as part of the claim. This should be especially true when the claims are of the nature like "Roy Moore gave me a compliment when I worked at the make up counter"....and that is proof he was a creeper and a pedophile. That isn't proof of anything.

As for timing... Again, when was a race that Moore has been involved in attracted the attention of journalists with substantial experience and reporting abilities?

Well let me see.... he ran for governor twice. The Supreme Court of Alabama is an elected office and he ran for that multiple times winning and becoming chief justice. He had fights that drew national media attention involving the ten commandments, and same-sex marriage including one that involved him being removed from the bench for failing to follow federal orders regarding the ten commandments and display of them. He was suspended a second time for directing judges to ignore the federal decision regarding same-sex marriage.

The two runs for governor certainly should have attracted reporting and investigation at a minimum but being removed from the bench twice for ignoring federal orders does attract considerable attention especially when the reasons involve same-sex marriage. Here is a Times link to the story that involved a battle between Moore and the SPLC.
Of all these matters I remember the ten commandments making national news for a considerable period. I remember the second being news worthy but was part of a broader theme of reporting how courts, clerks, etc were dealing with the national decision.

But really there's no story there right? A Supreme Court Chief Justice being suspended for failing to enforce a court order involving same-sex marriage oh and by the way.... everyone knows he likes little girls.... no one would send anyone down to examine the first and discover the second right? Not worth thinking about or pursuing or even questioning.

If you had some real sense, you'd question the claims about why anyone was sent down to examine THIS race. The last time a Democrat was elected for this seat was 1990. The seat hasn't been competitive in decades. Last election Sessions ran UNOPPOSED and collected 99% of the vote. The real race for this seat was the primary between Strange who was appointed to replace Sessions and Moore. That race received PLENTY of media attention because Trump had endorsed Strange and Bannon, who had just been forced from the White House, had endorsed Moore. It was receiving plenty of media play because of this schism in the Republican Party and how it was going to play out. It was characterized as Trump's first first congressional defeat. Here is a Politico article discussing those points.

So again the claim that the media wasn't sending anyone down there until AFTER the primary doesn't pass the smell test. There are plenty of stories about the Trump, Bannon, Strange, Moore angles and how they were going to play out. Moore winning was a case of the underdog beating what Trump and the party wanted. Democrats hadn't even broken 40% of the vote in decades for this seat. The primary was the story. Yet somehow.... no one can find or report on any of this until after that primary is finished. You know... when everyone should have gone home and watched Moore win 60-40% in a a worst case scenario. Yes that's sarcasm.

{His reported behavior is so repugnant, that you are willing to defend him even when assuming the behavior is absolutely true revolts me. I think this may be the first time I have ever blocked you, Nick, but enjoy being silenced.}

Have a nice day and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you!