[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. Why would he lie? Why do you doubt a growing number of women with physical proof they knew him personally? 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.

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

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?

{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.}