Octopus Overlords

Alefroth wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:14 pm Seems like this could go pretty well for the GOP. Moore is elected and seated, then they vote to expel him. I assume that would lead to a special election which they'd be sure to win.

Uncharted waters, though.

Having elected Moore despite it all, would the good people of Alabama stand to see their Christian hero expelled from the senate? Why wouldn't they elect the candidate most likely to represent what they believe Moore stood for and most likely to piss off McConnell in Bannonish ways?

Recall that McConnell despised Moore before all the scandal came out. Even if Jones wins next month, this GOP civil war is just getting started.

Enough wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:20 pm Gadsden locals say Moore's predatory behavior at mall, restaurants not a secret

Seriously fuck this guy.

At this point, I'll assume that any public figure whose brand is "boiling anger" has these sorts of skeletons just waiting to be discovered.

I'll admit I'm a little confused that his known predilections didn't stop him from being named Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Or maybe I'm not. At some point (maybe over the last 12 months?) I have started to accept that the voting (and non-voting) public should be shouldering the blame. As has been said many times by different people, the election of Trump (and apparently Moore) says a lot more about the people that voted for them than the actual candidate - particularly when this type of information is known.

Grifman wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:41 pmI find it extremely creepy that a 30+ year old goes around signing high school year books.

Pyperkub wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:05 pm

Kurth wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:37 pm

Grifman wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:40 pm Democrats too have dark past that they need to own up to:

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainme ... es/545729/

They rallied around Clinton exactly like Republicans rallied around Trump, and Alabama Republicans are rallying around Moore. There needs to be some soul searching on the left here also.

That article makes some really good points. I hadn't been thinking about how much daylight there is between the old allegations against Clinton and those currently taking down men accused of sexual misconduct left and right. Upon reflection, the clear answer is, not much.

The thing is that Clinton won judgement in Paula Jones' case, and Starr concluded he couldn't/wouldn't bring the other 2 cases during the impeachment (when Starr went for every bit of dirt he could get with 225 people working for him on it). Some info, though it's strange that the article completely glosses over the Broaddrick stuff).

And the sexual harassment accusations of Jones and Willey … well, they’re complicated. Jones’s claims are serious if true, but have been largely shown to be false. Basically, Jones alleged that Bill Clinton had a "distinguishing mark" on his penis that both doctors and Monica Lewinsky said he did not have. That casts doubt on whether the incident happened as she alleged it did. Willey’s accusation is less clearly fallacious, but several factors cast serious doubt on it, and it’s overall much less credible than Broaddrick’s.

However, I do grant that the courts tend to be very difficult on these questions. Still, I think Starr would have done his best to crucify Clinton on these, and couldn't.

My biggest issue with Moore, is that he runs as a "family-values" Republican, while he clearly believes that shouldn't apply to him (and it's the only reason he gets the votes) which seems to be a theme here.

Addition - one thing to keep in mind is that the trauma of sexual assault can make memory unreliable - it's one reason our courts are so screwy regarding this. Title IX investigations (at least in CA) are based upon a preponderance of evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt, but also don't have the same potentiality of prison time (hence the difference)>

Grifman wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:40 pm Democrats too have dark past that they need to own up to:

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainme ... es/545729/

They rallied around Clinton exactly like Republicans rallied around Trump, and Alabama Republicans are rallying around Moore. There needs to be some soul searching on the left here also.

Um...

While I understand that sentiment (and expressed it) in the beginning, there's a huge difference between 14 and 15 vs 22.

edit: Furthermore, who cares. I can be upset with both of them and all the others. I don't have a limit on disdain.

I gave up on Bill Clinton some time ago. While many of the allegations against him were just nutty conspiracy, and Starr couldn't land others, the fundamentals of Bill being a lying horndog are well attested and well established.

So what does this mean now? Ann Coulter and others seem to think that having liked Bill Clinton in the past (or even continuing to be fond of him now) somehow means that we're not allowed to attack Roy Moore or Bill O'Reilly. That's plainly bullshit.

Plus there's the issue of separating the politician from the positions he espoused. I can be sick of Bill Clinton while continuing to agree with many of his positions, just as I can despise Roy Moore and Roy Moore's politics independently and in parallel.

Holman wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:07 pm
So what does this mean now? Ann Coulter and others seem to think that having liked Bill Clinton in the past (or even continuing to be fond of him now) somehow means that we're not allowed to attack Roy Moore or Bill O'Reilly. That's plainly bullshit.

Whataboutism Stay focused, people.

1. Bill Clinton never ran on a platform of "moral crusader." Or "God's Commandments"
2. Bill Clinton didn't pursue minors.
3. Bill Clinton didn't depend on the deplorable "pussy grabber" vote to get elected.

Holman wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:21 pm

Alefroth wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:14 pm Seems like this could go pretty well for the GOP. Moore is elected and seated, then they vote to expel him. I assume that would lead to a special election which they'd be sure to win.

Uncharted waters, though.

Having elected Moore despite it all, would the good people of Alabama stand to see their Christian hero expelled from the senate? Why wouldn't they elect the candidate most likely to represent what they believe Moore stood for and most likely to piss off McConnell in Bannonish ways?

Recall that McConnell despised Moore before all the scandal came out. Even if Jones wins next month, this GOP civil war is just getting started.

Yeah, but that just gets the Republicans a potential do-over, and Jones only needs to win once to get the seat.

The real opportunity here (that's been floated around a bit) is as a way for Trump to dump Sessions. Moore wins, they expel him, Trump names Sessions as his replacement (and Sessions then runs for reelection), and Trump can then replace Sessions with someone who will fire Mueller (though maybe it's too late by then).

El Guapo wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:25 pm

Holman wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:21 pm

Alefroth wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:14 pm Seems like this could go pretty well for the GOP. Moore is elected and seated, then they vote to expel him. I assume that would lead to a special election which they'd be sure to win.

Uncharted waters, though.

Having elected Moore despite it all, would the good people of Alabama stand to see their Christian hero expelled from the senate? Why wouldn't they elect the candidate most likely to represent what they believe Moore stood for and most likely to piss off McConnell in Bannonish ways?

Recall that McConnell despised Moore before all the scandal came out. Even if Jones wins next month, this GOP civil war is just getting started.

Yeah, but that just gets the Republicans a potential do-over, and Jones only needs to win once to get the seat.

The real opportunity here (that's been floated around a bit) is as a way for Trump to dump Sessions. Moore wins, they expel him, Trump names Sessions as his replacement (and Sessions then runs for reelection), and Trump can then replace Sessions with someone who will fire Mueller (though maybe it's too late by then).

I assume that will be after Sessions appoints the Special Counsel to investigate HRC?

Zarathud wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:51 pm 1. Bill Clinton never ran on a platform of "moral crusader." Or "God's Commandments"
2. Bill Clinton didn't pursue minors.
3. Bill Clinton didn't depend on the deplorable "pussy grabber" vote to get elected.

So that makes Clinton's actions ok? I don't think you believe that but let's not minimize Clinton's transgressions here. Though Clinton didn't run as a "moral crusader", he did claim to be a Christian, and played up singing in the church choir, quoted scripture, etc. And he did run as a supporter of women's rights. And while he didn't pursue minors, he did abuse his power in his relationship with Lewinsky. Any corporate CEO who did what he did would have been fired. And the last point is bogus rhetoric - I'm not aware of any "pussygrabber" constituency.)

Look, I'm not engaging in "whataboutism" because I think Moore should be condemned and should not run for the Senate. But as the article I linked to makes clear, Democrats don't have clean hands here. I don't point to Clinton to absolve Moore, I'm just saying we need to be morally consistent, conservatives and liberals.

This isn't a Republican problem or a Democrat problem, or a liberal or a conservative problem, or a Christian or an atheist problem, or a gay issue or a straight issue, or a Hollywood or a Main Street USA problem. It's a wrong committed by many people in all sorts of positions, and it needs to be cut out, root and branch. It needs to stop, and I don't care who does it.

Rip wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:59 pm I assume that will be after Sessions appoints the Special Counsel to investigate HRC?

I hope he does. Then the Trumpists will have to come up with a new poorly thought-out distraction.

We don't care about Clinton. At all. The 2016 election is over, and the Clinton dynasty is dead. Investigate her, indict her, exonerate her, lock her up - we couldn't care less.

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:15 am

Rip wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:59 pm I assume that will be after Sessions appoints the Special Counsel to investigate HRC?

I hope he does. Then the Trumpists will have to come up with a new poorly thought-out distraction.

We don't care about Clinton. At all. The 2016 election is over, and the Clinton dynasty is dead. Investigate her, indict her, exonerate her, lock her up - we couldn't care less.

If the Trumpistas start locking up political opponents and critics on trumped-up charges, maybe you should care just a little. Before it's your turn in the barrel, if for no other reason.

Max Peck wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:56 am
If the Trumpistas start locking up political opponents and critics on trumped-up charges, maybe you should care just a little. Before it's your turn in the barrel, if for no other reason.

I think that would go without saying.

Daehawk's point, if I read him correctly, is feel free to waste time, money and energy on Clinton. She is a non-factor from here on out, and throwing shade on her all day is not going to make any difference. It's hard to disagree with him.

That Republicans are still trying to sell Hilary as the boogeyman is hilarious. If nothing else, it shows they really aren't very creative and didn't have a plan for a post Hilary political climate. I mean, beat that horse some more, but I don't think its got any more miles in it.

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:08 am

Zarathud wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:51 pm 1. Bill Clinton never ran on a platform of "moral crusader." Or "God's Commandments"
2. Bill Clinton didn't pursue minors.
3. Bill Clinton didn't depend on the deplorable "pussy grabber" vote to get elected.

So that makes Clinton's actions ok? I don't think you believe that but let's not minimize Clinton's transgressions here.

Clinton wasn't ok, but his offense was lying about an extramarital affair with an intern. It's a stain (literally) on his record on women's rights. And the Republicans tried to impeach him.

Moore is exponentially worse. He's a hypocrite. He's a pedophile. He's terrible on women's rights. And many Republican are defending him despite this being a "known" skeleton in his closet. His supporters are literally defending middle aged men trolling for teenagers.

You don't need clean hands to criticize. But you better not be holding the knife standing over the victim when the news reporters arrive on the scene.

Rip wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:59 pmI assume that will be after Sessions appoints the Special Counsel to investigate HRC?

Been there. Investigated that. It's not only irrelevant but an obvious smoke screen for a desperate administration.

Zarathud wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:13 am

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:08 am

Zarathud wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:51 pm 1. Bill Clinton never ran on a platform of "moral crusader." Or "God's Commandments"
2. Bill Clinton didn't pursue minors.
3. Bill Clinton didn't depend on the deplorable "pussy grabber" vote to get elected.

So that makes Clinton's actions ok? I don't think you believe that but let's not minimize Clinton's transgressions here.

Clinton wasn't ok, but his offense was lying about an extramarital affair with an intern. It's a stain (literally) on his record on women's rights. And the Republicans tried to impeach him.

Moore is exponentially worse. He's a hypocrite. He's a pedophile. He's terrible on women's rights. And many Republican are defending him despite this being a "known" skeleton in his closet. His supporters are literally defending middle aged men trolling for teenagers.

You don't need clean hands to criticize. But you better not be holding the knife standing over the victim when the news reporters arrive on the scene.

I don't think Grifman is talking about Monica specifically. There are claims that Clinton was a sexual harasser in his pre-White House careers.

My understanding is that he was more of a basic philanderer than a predator, but the waters have been muddied by a lot of absurd claims among the ones that would cause concern.

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:13 am
Daehawk's point, if I read him correctly, is feel free to waste time, money and energy on Clinton. She is a non-factor from here on out, and throwing shade on her all day is not going to make any difference. It's hard to disagree with him.

That was, indeed, Blackhawk's point. The constant counter to "Trump has done a bad thing" has always been "but Clinton did a bad thing, too! Benghazimails!" Now they're offering to call their own bluff. Go for it. If she's honest, an investigation will exonerate her. If she's not, an investigation will charge her. Either way - it makes no difference, but they lose a red herring.

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:13 am Daehawk's

Zarathud wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:15 am

Rip wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:59 pmI assume that will be after Sessions appoints the Special Counsel to investigate HRC?

Been there. Investigated that. It's not only irrelevant but an obvious smoke screen for a desperate administration.

Thoughtful thread on this news here:
tl;dr: based on the statement, there's reason to believe nothing is happening and that they're just supplying requested answers.

I am having a hard time believing we should be ok with a possible investigation into the Uranium deal and the Clinton Foundation *now*. Meaning if Trump hadn't specifically asked for these things and they weren't political footballs...go crazy...otherwise this only serves to completely undermine the independence of the DOJ. And that probably should be at the top of the list of the scariest things that could be happening right now. This is a potentially horrifying development if you care about freedom.

Rip wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:59 pm I assume that will be after Sessions appoints the Special Counsel to investigate HRC?

Let's set aside the ridiculousness of Trump using the DOJ to go after political opponents for a moment.

Pretend that your wildest dreams come true, and Clinton is found guilty. Now what? How does that exonerate or justify the behavior of this administration in any way?

I imagine it would suck to lose your primary boogeyman.

And there it is:

NEW: AL GOP Rep Mo Brooks says he is sticking by Republican Roy Moore bc will vote right in Senate unlike Democrat Doug Jones

The quote from Mo Brooks: "There are major issues facing the United States of America, deficit and debt that can lead to insolvency and bankruptcy, funding for national security, border security, abortion, an appointment of supreme court justices – Doug Jones will vote wrong on each of those issues, Roy Moore will vote right on each of those issues. That’s why I’m voting for Roy Moore. "

Restated: As long as he votes R, we don't think it matters that Moore sexually assaults minors.

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:08 am Look, I'm not engaging in "whataboutism" because I think Moore should be condemned and should not run for the Senate. But as the article I linked to makes clear, Democrats don't have clean hands here. I don't point to Clinton to absolve Moore, I'm just saying we need to be morally consistent, conservatives and liberals.

That is exactly what whataboutism is, "Democrats don't have clean hands here (just look back 20 years ago and see)"

I have to give it up to Trump and McConnell. Moral character generally was a norm that went back to the beginning of our Democracy. But all it took was ignoring a SCOTUS nominee and whispers that what was important would be who he nominated. Now we are fully embracing the dark side and throwing out any questions of moral character even when it involves child abuse. Swell.

Yeah, I'm stealing Isg's picture.

Isg's picture is pretty much what living in the DC area has been like since I moved here in 2002. The rest of the country gets to experience it now.

The picture loses me a little since it suggests that the picking of teams is random, which really doesn't fit with our political situation. The rest of it, sure.

So, that letter Moore's wife released that listed 50 pastors that still support Moore? Not so fast...

After the letter was published on AL.com, Tijuanna Adetunji of the Fresh Anointing House of Worship in Montgomery, said she was not contacted about the letter and did not give permission for her name to be used.

"I was not asked about this story or allegations," Adetunji said.

The letter appears to be a version of one already posted on Moore's campaign website. That letter, posted prior to the primary, contains all the same wording as below but with three extra paragraphs at the top, including a sentence referencing the Aug. 15 vote.

Pastor Thad Endicott said he was not contacted about the most recent post from Kayla Moore.

"The list that has recently circulated was evidently copied and pasted from the August endorsements without checking to see if I still endorsed Moore," said Endicott.

Endicott, pastor at Heritage Baptist Church, asked that his name be removed from the Moore endorsement.

You'd think they would have at least double-checked to make sure everyone was still on board first.

Skinypupy wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:15 am So, that letter Moore's wife released that listed 50 pastors that still support Moore? Not so fast...

After the letter was published on AL.com, Tijuanna Adetunji of the Fresh Anointing House of Worship in Montgomery, said she was not contacted about the letter and did not give permission for her name to be used.

"I was not asked about this story or allegations," Adetunji said.

The letter appears to be a version of one already posted on Moore's campaign website. That letter, posted prior to the primary, contains all the same wording as below but with three extra paragraphs at the top, including a sentence referencing the Aug. 15 vote.

Pastor Thad Endicott said he was not contacted about the most recent post from Kayla Moore.

"The list that has recently circulated was evidently copied and pasted from the August endorsements without checking to see if I still endorsed Moore," said Endicott.

Endicott, pastor at Heritage Baptist Church, asked that his name be removed from the Moore endorsement.

You'd think they would have at least double-checked to make sure everyone was still on board first.

But if you ask, there's a good chance that at least some of them say "no", and then you really can't use it.

I'm sure there is an opt-out protocol.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:18 am

Skinypupy wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:15 am So, that letter Moore's wife released that listed 50 pastors that still support Moore? Not so fast...

After the letter was published on AL.com, Tijuanna Adetunji of the Fresh Anointing House of Worship in Montgomery, said she was not contacted about the letter and did not give permission for her name to be used.

"I was not asked about this story or allegations," Adetunji said.

The letter appears to be a version of one already posted on Moore's campaign website. That letter, posted prior to the primary, contains all the same wording as below but with three extra paragraphs at the top, including a sentence referencing the Aug. 15 vote.

Pastor Thad Endicott said he was not contacted about the most recent post from Kayla Moore.

"The list that has recently circulated was evidently copied and pasted from the August endorsements without checking to see if I still endorsed Moore," said Endicott.

Endicott, pastor at Heritage Baptist Church, asked that his name be removed from the Moore endorsement.

You'd think they would have at least double-checked to make sure everyone was still on board first.

But if you ask, there's a good chance that at least some of them say "no", and then you really can't use it.

I would guess that's less embarrassing than them publicly doing so to the media after the fact.

Freyland wrote:The picture loses me a little since it suggests that the picking of teams is random, which really doesn't fit with our political situation. The rest of it, sure.

Given that a large part of our population has it determined by where they are born and subsequent life experiences, I’d say it’s closer to random in a lot of cases than not.

Skinypupy wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:22 am

El Guapo wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:18 am

Skinypupy wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:15 am So, that letter Moore's wife released that listed 50 pastors that still support Moore? Not so fast...

After the letter was published on AL.com, Tijuanna Adetunji of the Fresh Anointing House of Worship in Montgomery, said she was not contacted about the letter and did not give permission for her name to be used.

"I was not asked about this story or allegations," Adetunji said.

The letter appears to be a version of one already posted on Moore's campaign website. That letter, posted prior to the primary, contains all the same wording as below but with three extra paragraphs at the top, including a sentence referencing the Aug. 15 vote.

Pastor Thad Endicott said he was not contacted about the most recent post from Kayla Moore.

"The list that has recently circulated was evidently copied and pasted from the August endorsements without checking to see if I still endorsed Moore," said Endicott.

Endicott, pastor at Heritage Baptist Church, asked that his name be removed from the Moore endorsement.

You'd think they would have at least double-checked to make sure everyone was still on board first.

But if you ask, there's a good chance that at least some of them say "no", and then you really can't use it.

I would guess that's less embarrassing than them publicly doing so to the media after the fact.

Maybe, BUT: (1) it's easier for ministers to say 'no' privately beforehand, than it is after the letter goes out publicly with their name on it; and (2) even if some of them do say no later, "53 ministers still support Moore" probably gets a bigger headline than "some of them later said no they don't".

Skinypupy wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:59 amI imagine it would suck to lose your primary boogeyman.

'Go then. There are other boogeymen than these.'

Grifman wrote:[. Any corporate CEO who did what he did would have been fired. And the last point is bogus rhetoric - I'm not aware of any "pussygrabber" constituency.)
.

Don't be silly. Of the past couple weeks have indicated anything, it's that they more than likely wouldn't be fired. They'd settle, or hush it or threaten.

And if you don't see the pussy grabber/nazi/homophobe/anti justice/newly pro Russian constituencies you haven't been paying attention.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Someone post the pic of the mom wearing a tee shirt that said "Donald can grab my pussy" and then seriously state there isn't a pussy grabber constituency .