[El Gallo]

Originally Posted by Luca El Gallo just one thing, you seem to feel that "convenient timing" is proof positive that Moore is innocent. But you refuse to consider the evidence that he may not be innocent, which is also somewhat tenuous. You are holding the arguments on either side to completely different standards, and it reveals just how strongly partisan you are.

The standard of proof or innocence should be the same as what our legal system uses. Using that standard there isn't a single charge that could be brought against Moore and any follow up questioning to the one woman that made the strongest claim has made her claim very suspect. Be it tampering with evidence (she admits to annotating the supposed Moore signature and a half dozen people have refuted pretty much every detail of her story) Now also I didn't say that it was completely proof that Moore was innocent. Rather I said that if this issue truly is of importance to the people pursuing the claims and message, dropping it a month before an election and ONLY discussing it during those times isn't going to bring justice or proper awareness to their cause. I noted half a dozen examples of this and again the thing is the press isn't pursuing these matters in a nonpartisan matter or outside the election cycle. Be honest. Shouldn't they be doing that if it is important?

Also do you know if Doug Jones every signed a yearbook or how he treated the girl at the make up counter? You do know he wasn't married until he was 39 so obviously there was plenty of time to date. Has the media told us anything about Doug Jones beyond the fact that he isn't Roy Moore? The point is they are supposed to vet these folks for us. I'll tell you what. Just find me one article about Doug Jones and how he treated women when dating them. Can we even find an article on the family background of Doug Jones and how he dated and married his wife as a contrast to Moore? I mean clearly if we are very concerned about making sure we aren't putting sexual harassers, abusers or just creepers into office someone should have done an investigation on Jones. The reasoning in this thread that it didn't happen during the primary for Moore was the race just wasn't big enough and thus, it was magically discovered only after the primary. Well clearly they SHOULD have and WOULD have done it for both sides since they aren't partisan. Doug Jones didn't do anything wrong to anyone and all he did is respectfully date and marry his wife. That's great so where's that article for balance heck it would even help him. Where's the article where the women he dated noted he never treated them badly or disrespectfully? Does it exist? Has the media done their job and vetted both candidates?

How often can you get irrefutable proof of anything?

This is far, far, far below that. There isn't a DA alive that would even file a charge on any of this let alone get a conviction. The logical leaps you allow are a bit crazy/

No, a yearbook signature doesn't = rape, giving compliments to a young woman is not illegal, and so on. They are merely small pieces of supporting evidence that appear to corroborate the stories put forth by his accusers.

Corroborate it how? The two aren't even linked in any manner. How many yearbooks did you sign Luca? What is that proof of? Is it even proof of a relationship in any form or fashion that you had with most of the folks? Is it proof you dated them? How many interactions have you had with service staff in your life? If one of them claimed you made a comment or even gave a compliment, what is that proof of? It's proof of nothing.

The reason most of this is even up for discussion is the partisan nature of the press. How can you not see that? How long did Doug Jones date his wife? How long were they engaged? Why can we know every girl or waitress Roy Moore ever spoke to but we don't even know basic information for Doug Jones? That my friend is partisan.

But it is not absolute proof of wrongdoing either, and it's likely we'll never have absolute proof of these accusations.

There is a broad spectrum between absolute proof and and just pure nonsense. I've never said evidence that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This evidence wouldn't even raise reasonable suspicion. If someone came to you and said their daughter accused of you..... complimenting them or propositioning them for a date. Those aren't crime. Likewise if they say you respectfully dated them as consenting adults but there was an age difference.....that isn't a crime. If you finally had one person who said you dated them, took them in your car and you made unwanted sexual advances on them and that they were underage, you'd ask for proof. If the proof was you signed their year book, that is laughable. If you checked into the story and the timelines, locations, description of the premises, etc all failed, then you'd dismiss the claim.

That is what reasonable people do and that is what the legal system does. The #metoo movement doesn't want that nor do partisans who want a senate seat for their team.

But bobsky already brought up that argument and you merely ignored it so I don't expect you to ever understand what is being said.However, when confronted with equally circumstantial evidence on the opposite side - that the timing was convenient, you immediately jump to the conclusion that he must be innocent. For all your haughty talk of how incredibly non-partisan you are, it's pretty obvious you're much more willing to make a leap in one direction and not the other.

Well here is the problem with your conclusion. The media shouldn't be the opposite side. Was that a slip? Shouldn't the opposite side be.... Doug Jones? Now I helped you with that above. We know the platitudes. We need a free and independent press to do their job and their job is to vet these candidates and give us the information we need to make an informed decision. Thanks to movements like #metoo we are now very aware that we need to know how these candidates will treat women not just as a matter of policy but how they did that in their private lives.(Even though for years Democrats have told us the two aren't the same.) So we send all our reporters down to Alabama to investigate since this is a federal election for a Senate seat. We find lots of people Roy Moore dated. We talk to all manner of people. We can even talk to people who claim to have frequented a mall Moore visited. For Doug Jones we......... hello is this mic on?

The most damning piece of evidence is there is no opposite side. I mean I'm sure there is but the media will sit on their hands. Just like how Drudge had to break Lewinsky scandal and how the National Enquirer had to tell us John Edwards was cheating on his cancer striken wife and had a love child on the way they know but they just don't care to deal with the opposite side because they ARE the opposite side. I'd argue the evidence for that is pretty strong. There have been media studies to prove that point. There are donation patterns. There is a clear preponderance of evidence like I've noted where they just won't drop the dirt on the Democrat and not only won't investigate but won't do their basic job of vetting them. However you can believe what you want. I prefer a world where the facts don't make me feel crazy.

Here's some non-partisan info for you and it even brings it back around to Trump. We are in an everything bubble. There isn't a single sound area of the economy left in my opinion. My personal money is sitting on the sidelines. Car sales/loans, student loans, government bonds, stocks and housing prices are ALL in bubble territory. BRIC ROW is even worse. I suspect these bubbles SHOULD pop before 2020 but the fed might find ways to prop it up until after that election regardless of how "independent" they happen to be.

So there is some real financial ugliness coming and Trump, MAGA, Republicans, and no one else can stop it from happening. Democrats won't have a real answer either and will make it worse but they'll likely get elected from the downturn.