Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Teallaura]

Unfortunately, it comes down, once again, for voting for the lesser of two evils.

No, it doesn't. Moore hasn't been convicted - and couldn't be on the evidence in the media. Even the things he actually did, while not to my liking, are not either illegal or immoral. So no, it's not a 'lesser of two evils' - it's a difference of platform, one of which I do find evil.

[Teallaura]

That seems like a terrible reason to vote. If it comes down to choosing one evil over another, then don't be a part of the process.

So letting other people pick which evil you're stuck with is a good plan?

[Teallaura]

No candidate will embody all of the points of view, or support for policies, that we support. Voting is an exercise in finding the candidate that most closely matches the policies we hold most dear.

I do not live in Alabama, so I do not have to make this choice. But if I did - I would be voting for Jones.

I do live in Alabama and do have to make this choice. Jones supports abortion, is anti-gun control and cannot bring himself to admit that he's a Democrat. His ads - the ones he claims - are negative to nasty. I wouldn't vote for him if he were the only candidate running - which would be the one instance in which I'd write in a candidate, seriously considering Daffy Duck.

Moore was accused but nothing in terms of confirmatory evidence has been offered.

I'll be voting for Moore.

[Teallaura]

I don't have as much at stake in that election, Jimmy.



I think he's creepy, as I've said before. Your "logic" and powers of deduction truly suck, as usual. Why don't you go back to defending NAMBLA.

To be fair, it read the same way to me - it can't be the 'lesser of two evils' if he's innocent. Creepy isn't evil.

[Teallaura]

Which means you're voting for your preferred candidate of those offered...

Not really - technically correct by definition, that's not really how the term is used. When we think of 'preferred candidates' we usually mean those we actually support, not those we vote for because we don't have a better alternative.

[Cow Poke]

No, it doesn't. Moore hasn't been convicted - and couldn't be on the evidence in the media.

I never claimed he was convicted of anything - I've consistently said its more about him being creepy.

Even the things he actually did, while not to my liking, are not either illegal or immoral.

We don't know what he "actually did" - we just know of some of the things he's done, and some other as yet unproven allegations.

So no, it's not a 'lesser of two evils' - it's a difference of platform, one of which I do find evil.

It's an expression. It doesn't necessarily have to mean he is "evil".

[Cow Poke]

To be fair, it read the same way to me - it can't be the 'lesser of two evils' if he's innocent. Creepy isn't evil.

Like I said - it's an expression.

[Teallaura]

When all else fails, play the race card!

I heard a snippet on the radio about a fuss from Alabama State not supporting him - that's actually a LOT more telling, if true. I didn't catch it all so I could be wrong.

[Teallaura]

No. I think if it comes down for the Christian between choosing evil, or choosing a greater evil, then we probably should not choose at all.

But that ISN'T an option - you're just choosing to let others choose the evil - and its degree. Abdicating responsibility doesn't absolve one from the choice.

[Teallaura]

It isn't. As Christians, we have other methods at our disposal since our battle is not in this physical realm, but in the spiritual one. The Theologian David Lipscomb had some interesting points on the subject,

Um, he's arguing that Christians shouldn't vote AT ALL - this doesn't support your argument, it makes you hypocritical to consider voting.

Did I miss something?

[Teallaura]

You are entitled to your opinion, Adrift. I recognize that my stance is not "the norm." I do not see "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as mutually exclusive - which is not the norm. But I do believe abortion is a moral evil - is wrong - and ought not occur. I believe it constitutes the death of a human child, and every reasonable effort should be made to eliminate it as a practice. As far as I know, that is the definition of "pro-life."

If it's any consolation - the "pro-choice" camp doesn't think I am "pro-choice" either - they relegate me to the "pro-life" camp.

That dynamic - from both sides - is very interesting. Yes - I am using the term ideosyncratically - because I refuse to accept that one cannot be both pro-life AND pro-choice. One can be both by recognizing the catch-22 this issue represents. There IS a middle ground we can work in to achieve the reduction of carnage. As soon as more people are willing - we might even make progress.

Since none of the solutions you offered work with any high degree of efficiency (BC IS readily available - free from any health department) you can only minimize the conflict, not eliminate it. A woman's 'right'* to choose abortion only comes into play once she is actually pregnant - which will happen inevitably to some as BC is far from 100% effective** - so at that point, you are no longer 'pro-life' in any meaningful sense if you believe the woman has the right to kill her child. Or vise versa - you can't win, it will come to a conflict.

The position is similar to the one I held when I was much younger - but less logically tenable. Congratulations - mine was pretty danged bad as it was based on Roe.

[Teallaura]

...

Here is the relevant part of the actual FBI statement from their website...

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

That's a FAR cry from your claim that he said "there was not adequate evidence to even indict".

So, again, bullpucky!!!!

Um, I agree with Carpe - he's strongly implying that there is a major problem with the case. The most likely problem would be evidence.

But Carpe is incorrect to make the assumption. Comey just appears to be weaseling here.

[Cow Poke]

Looks like some polling has Moore behind by 10 points or so.

I wonder if there's a "shame factor" here.... people who won't tell the polling people they're going to vote for Moore because there is so much effort to shame them out of it.

[Cow Poke]

Um, I agree with Carpe...

OK, so I disagree with both of you.

[Teallaura]

As I said, I reread it - and then reverified my observations by doing a selective word search (to make sure I had not missed anything and that my impressions were correct). The quote you just posted above is perfectly in line with what I sad. I'm not sure where you are seeing a disconnect. There actually was NOT adequate evidence to indict, or they would have indicted. The reason for this is that intent is also part of what causes a prosecutor to make a decision about what to prosecute and what NOT to prosecute.

A sixteen year old who pulls out dad's gun and accidentally shoots his father dead could prosecuted under existing laws prohibiting "man slaughter." But a prosecutor will examine circumstances, including intent, and many times will determine that prosecution is not advised because intent cannot be shown, and because there is adequate existing harm (i.e., loss of father). So they will choose not to indict.

Likewise, Clinton is guilty of grossly negligent handling of information, and poor choice of staffing. She is guilty of being lazy in her use of client devices. But the investigation showed no basis for "intent" and not enough evidence to move forward with an indictment.

Frankly, IMO, the entire email thing was more political than legal. We can essentially see that in the speed with which it was dropped the moment the election was over - and the speed with which it was then refocused on by Trump as soon as he was criticized or felt the legitimacy of his election was being challenged.

Clinton was stupid. There is no basis, IMO, for saying she was criminal, except possibly in the context of "criminally stupid."

Um, no. Gross negligence IS criminal in this case. That's why Comey uses 'extremely careless' instead.

Yes, the term is understood primarily in civil law - but here we're talking about a security matter. Given her position and the nature of the information, the issue is criminal, not merely civil.

For the record, I think she was guilty. I also don't see the point in this argument - she isn't in office and no one is pursuing prosecution.