Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[demi-conservative]

We shall see...

Try believing less of Fake News:

President Trump is being treated like a royal during his visit to China, and received a rare dinner inside the country's most famed imperial palace.

Trump is also the first U.S. President to be given a state dinner in the Forbidden City, an elaborate palace in the center of Beijing used for centuries by China's ruling dynasty.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.3618735

Chinese don't respect him for nothing.

[Cow Poke]

Depends on a lot of factors I think:

1. The candidate the democrats pick (another go with Hillary or a Hillary clone might sink them).
2. How much Trump supporters associate current setbacks in congress with Trump.

Those are likely the major factors in the 2020 elections.

But, as they say, 2 years (or so) is a lifetime in politics. Yeah, a lot could change.

[carpedm9587]

Depends on a lot of factors I think:

1. The candidate the democrats pick (another go with Hillary or a Hillary clone might sink them).
2. How much Trump supporters associate current setbacks in congress with Trump.

Those are likely the major factors in the 2020 elections.

I cannot speak for the entire left, obviously, but I can tell you that your list is MUCH too short. Some of the factors likely to bring the left out in fairly large numbers:

1) continued erosion of priorities they (and I) value (e.g., environment, equal treatment across racial lines, equal treatment across gender lines, equal treatment across wealth lines)
2) continued unacceptable behavior as a chief executive (name calling, reacting to every slight, picking fights, a continuing stream of falsehoods)
3) continued lack of diplomatic tact/skill (again, name calling, American isolationalism/nationalism)
4) healthcare (continued actions to sabotage the ACA and then try to blame its collapse on Democrats)

These are major issue for the left, and are likely to galvanize them significantly both in 2018 and 2020. Yes, it is true that the right is likewise galvanized, but the math is simply not there. Trump's approval levels remain dismal and his base has never grown significantly. He is also playing almost exclusively to that base, shutting himself into a Fox and Friends and Brietbart bubble - so his inability to measure the entire political landscape is a serious Achilles Heal - and his division of the Republican party into two factions is self defeating. Finally, every special election so far has skewed 10+ points to the left, sometimes creating close contests where that historically has not happened. If that trend continues, 2018 has the potential to see Democrats gain 50+ seats in house districts that have a PVI of 5 points or less.

Of course, the Democrats may prove to be equally self-defeating. If Sanders runs as an independent, Trump will most likely win. If Hillary runs again, a Trump win is more likely (though it would be interesting to see how that would play out). If the left fractures between the extreme "never compromise" left and the more moderate left (as the Republican party appears to have fractured), that too will create problems.

Right now, that we might be on the road to political balance is encouraging. I was not a fan when both houses and the executive were in Democrat hands, and I am not a fan of them all being in Republican hands. I am not a fan of "my way or the highway" politics and the politics of obstruction - and both parties currently engage in such tactics. But I will be rooting for the Democrats to take the House in 2018, and those prospects look good. I will be rooting for the Democrats to take the executive in 2020 so that SCOTUS can maintain it's current 4-1-4 balance. If they also take the Senate - I will not be happy. If they take both houses, I will be in a quandary. I believe Trump is unfit for office, so I cannot vote for him, but I likewise do not want to see all three (executive, both houses) in Democratic hands, so (if the Democrats take both houses) I will have to hope that the Republicans run someone against Trump and we have a different Republican candidate as a choice.

[carpedm9587]

Try believing less of Fake News:

Chinese don't respect him for nothing.

We shall see...

[rogue06]

Testimony of eight women is evidence.

Almost all who say they merely went on a date with him. So please explain how that corroborates the claims of the other two?

[Teallaura]

Wrong. Two accusers of actual sexual abuse on the part of Moore, and a bunch more that support his having a penchant for, and a stalking and harassing of adolesent girls, as well as giving them alcohol.

Wrong - two more that state he dated them while they were of age (16 and 17) and with their parent's permission.

Quite a number that have come forward stating the opposite - that Moore never gave them alcohol and was a perfect gentleman when he dated them, however.

Whether I believe there is something wrong with someone casting a vote for Moore is besides the point, my belief isn't the cause of the guilty feelings that supporters of Moore might experience, their own conscience is. If you actually believe that the women are making these stories up whole cloth then there is no reason for you to feel guilty, but if you feel guilty about supporting Moore then it's obviously because you believe the girls and voted for Moore anyway.

Oh, I think you are very much aware of the attempt to make people feel guilty rather than have them examine the facts.

[Teallaura]

What name did I call whom, Jimmy?

It's not name calling - but it also wasn't really called for. We don't like it when people resort to aspersions rather than substance - and we shouldn't do it either.

MUCH easier said than done, I very much realize. And yes, I've been as guilty as anyone else. Trying to do better.

[Mountain Man]

Testimony of eight women is evidence.

Depends on what they're testifying about. The two accusing him of sexual assault are almost certainly lying. The rest, as far as I've seen, accuse him of taking them on dates and behaving like a gentleman. How scandalous!

[lilpixieofterror]

I cannot speak for the entire left, obviously, but I can tell you that your list is MUCH too short. Some of the factors likely to bring the left out in fairly large numbers:

1) continued erosion of priorities they (and I) value (e.g., environment, equal treatment across racial lines, equal treatment across gender lines, equal treatment across wealth lines)

2) continued unacceptable behavior as a chief executive (name calling, reacting to every slight, picking fights, a continuing stream of falsehoods)

3) continued lack of diplomatic tact/skill (again, name calling, American isolationalism/nationalism)

You mean like expecting NATO allies to actually do what the treaty they signed says or not giving in to North Korea vs the apologizer in chief that makes concessions to those that hate us?

4) healthcare (continued actions to sabotage the ACA and then try to blame its collapse on Democrats)

These are major issue for the left, and are likely to galvanize them significantly both in 2018 and 2020. Yes, it is true that the right is likewise galvanized, but the math is simply not there. Trump's approval levels remain dismal and his base has never grown significantly. He is also playing almost exclusively to that base, shutting himself into a Fox and Friends and Brietbart bubble - so his inability to measure the entire political landscape is a serious Achilles Heal - and his division of the Republican party into two factions is self defeating. Finally, every special election so far has skewed 10+ points to the left, sometimes creating close contests where that historically has not happened. If that trend continues, 2018 has the potential to see Democrats gain 50+ seats in house districts that have a PVI of 5 points or less.

Of course, the Democrats may prove to be equally self-defeating. If Sanders runs as an independent, Trump will most likely win. If Hillary runs again, a Trump win is more likely (though it would be interesting to see how that would play out). If the left fractures between the extreme "never compromise" left and the more moderate left (as the Republican party appears to have fractured), that too will create problems.

We can barely predict the weather let alone an election over 3 years away.

Right now, that we might be on the road to political balance is encouraging. I was not a fan when both houses and the executive were in Democrat hands, and I am not a fan of them all being in Republican hands. I am not a fan of "my way or the highway" politics and the politics of obstruction - and both parties currently engage in such tactics. But I will be rooting for the Democrats to take the House in 2018, and those prospects look good. I will be rooting for the Democrats to take the executive in 2020 so that SCOTUS can maintain it's current 4-1-4 balance. If they also take the Senate - I will not be happy. If they take both houses, I will be in a quandary. I believe Trump is unfit for office, so I cannot vote for him, but I likewise do not want to see all three (executive, both houses) in Democratic hands, so (if the Democrats take both houses) I will have to hope that the Republicans run someone against Trump and we have a different Republican candidate as a choice.

Lots of speculation, but the historical record tells us the democrats will likely take a lead in the House in 2018, but not as likely to take the senate in 2018.

[Teallaura]

I cannot speak for the entire left, obviously, but I can tell you that your list is MUCH too short. Some of the factors likely to bring the left out in fairly large numbers:

1) continued erosion of priorities they (and I) value (e.g., environment, equal treatment across racial lines, equal treatment across gender lines, equal treatment across wealth lines)
2) continued unacceptable behavior as a chief executive (name calling, reacting to every slight, picking fights, a continuing stream of falsehoods)
3) continued lack of diplomatic tact/skill (again, name calling, American isolationalism/nationalism)
4) healthcare (continued actions to sabotage the ACA and then try to blame its collapse on Democrats)

These are major issue for the left, and are likely to galvanize them significantly both in 2018 and 2020. Yes, it is true that the right is likewise galvanized, but the math is simply not there. Trump's approval levels remain dismal and his base has never grown significantly. He is also playing almost exclusively to that base, shutting himself into a Fox and Friends and Brietbart bubble - so his inability to measure the entire political landscape is a serious Achilles Heal - and his division of the Republican party into two factions is self defeating. Finally, every special election so far has skewed 10+ points to the left, sometimes creating close contests where that historically has not happened. If that trend continues, 2018 has the potential to see Democrats gain 50+ seats in house districts that have a PVI of 5 points or less.

Of course, the Democrats may prove to be equally self-defeating. If Sanders runs as an independent, Trump will most likely win. If Hillary runs again, a Trump win is more likely (though it would be interesting to see how that would play out). If the left fractures between the extreme "never compromise" left and the more moderate left (as the Republican party appears to have fractured), that too will create problems.

Right now, that we might be on the road to political balance is encouraging. I was not a fan when both houses and the executive were in Democrat hands, and I am not a fan of them all being in Republican hands. I am not a fan of "my way or the highway" politics and the politics of obstruction - and both parties currently engage in such tactics. But I will be rooting for the Democrats to take the House in 2018, and those prospects look good. I will be rooting for the Democrats to take the executive in 2020 so that SCOTUS can maintain it's current 4-1-4 balance. If they also take the Senate - I will not be happy. If they take both houses, I will be in a quandary. I believe Trump is unfit for office, so I cannot vote for him, but I likewise do not want to see all three (executive, both houses) in Democratic hands, so (if the Democrats take both houses) I will have to hope that the Republicans run someone against Trump and we have a different Republican candidate as a choice.

Exchanging 'left' for right' and adjusting policies accordingly, that's almost exactly what I'd have told you in 2010. Obama looked the statesman but never produced the results of a statesman.

Honestly, it's way too early to handicap a race that we don't know much about - what track and who's running, for example. But, just going on what we've got now, I don't see enough there to galvanize the Democrat middle - and that's the part that isn't showing up to vote. The extreme leftist bent in leadership of the last twenty years is telling - the Baby Boom is still a force to be reckoned with and it's growing increasingly conservative - which makes it harder to pull in and much harder to galvanize.

Don't count Trump out - Republicans aren't likely to rally behind another candidate and Democrats are floundering for theirs now. At this stage, Trump would win a second election - the Dem base is too small.

This is actually what I suspect will happen with Moore - he received more votes in the original primary than all the Democrat votes combined. Unless Dems actually show up, or Republicans who do actually vote against, Moore will likely win. I expect the worst turnout in Senate election history - that favors Moore.

[carpedm9587]

Exchanging 'left' for right' and adjusting policies accordingly, that's almost exactly what I'd have told you in 2010. Obama looked the statesman but never produced the results of a statesman.

Honestly, it's way too early to handicap a race that we don't know much about - what track and who's running, for example. But, just going on what we've got now, I don't see enough there to galvanize the Democrat middle - and that's the part that isn't showing up to vote. The extreme leftist bent in leadership of the last twenty years is telling - the Baby Boom is still a force to be reckoned with and it's growing increasingly conservative - which makes it harder to pull in and much harder to galvanize.

Don't count Trump out - Republicans aren't likely to rally behind another candidate and Democrats are floundering for theirs now. At this stage, Trump would win a second election - the Dem base is too small.

This is actually what I suspect will happen with Moore - he received more votes in the original primary than all the Democrat votes combined. Unless Dems actually show up, or Republicans who do actually vote against, Moore will likely win. I expect the worst turnout in Senate election history - that favors Moore.

We will see...

[carpedm9587]

I vote for who best reflects my views and priorities, accepting that every vote is a compromise. Sometimes I vote Democrat, sometimes Republican, sometimes 3rd party or independent. It depends on the candidate and positions taken. Obama did indeed do several things I did not approve of. Every president has. He also did things I did approve of. Every president has - even Trump. Trump pulled us out of the Paris Agreement for reasons I cannot begin to explain because I cannot trust the word of a man who has publicly told me that he will lie to me if it gets him what he wants (The Art of the Deal) and has been doing so regularly since he began his campaign. If it was to protect U.S. Industry, then I disagree. Short term economic pain is not worth the ecology or the long term economic risk, IMO. Some Americans disagree with me (mostly to the right) and some agree with me (mostly to the left), so the right tends to reject that "deal" and the left tends to be willing to accept it as "where we are." I have already spoken of my opposition to gender/racial/ethnic qoutas.

Most of this is a form of "what-about-ism." In a court of law, if someone says, "you're honor, I know I killed my neighbor, but what about that guy down the road who killed his wife?" they would be politely told that the misdeeds of another does not justify their own. Whatever Obama may or may not have done is irrelevant to the discussion of what Trump IS doing. I evaluated Obama on his own merits, and I evaluate Trump on his. So this has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I am referring to ending support/advertisement for the new round of registrations mostly, and the uncertainty introduced into the market by the back/forth on subsidies. Trump could have said, "they are done" in January when he took office. Instead he sowed confusion for many months, leaving the entire industry unsure how to structure itself.

Actually, the polls were, for the most part, fairly accurate. What was inaccurate was the hype that accompanied them by the left. Clintons margin was there, but not outside the margin of error. As for what will happen in 2018 and 2020 - I am pleased by the trends I am seeing in the special elections. The consistent 10+ shift to the left bodes well for balance being restored in 2018/20. That being said, none of us truly know. As I have said before...we shall see

We can barely predict the weather let alone an election over 3 years away.

That much is true.

Lots of speculation, but the historical record tells us the democrats will likely take a lead in the House in 2018, but not as likely to take the senate in 2018.

I would agree with the assessment. I will be very surprised if the house does not shift to Democratic hands in 2018. I will be very surprised if the Senate does. In the Senate, Democrats are defending 25 seats, some in deeply Republican territory. Republicans are defending only 8. Given that a three seat shift would be required, the odds are slim to none. Picking up a seat or two, however, would narrow even further the Republican lead and require them to either work with Democrats (which I hope to see happen again - bipartisanship) or develop approaches that will appeal to both wings of their party. So far, they have no been successful doing that for major initiatives.

As for the 2020 election... we shall see...

[rogue06]

I have NEVER heard a Muslim person do that. I HAVE heard people accuse Muslims of defending pedophilia on the basis that Muhammad is claimed to have done those things. But I have never heard or seen that defense made. Does someone have a link to where this is documented?

You're right. They insist that having sex with someone 9 years old isn't pedophilia so at least in their mind they are not defending pedophilia.

I did post a bit about the history concerning that and more at post #473

^[1][2]nonewarning








1. I've always wondered that since all indications reveal that her father Abu Bakr (who became the first Muslim Caliph following Muhammad's death) was not exactly pleased by this, that he might have given his daughter some drug in order to delay the inevitable for as long as possible.

2. While some modern Islamic apologists claim that the age of Aisha is not mentioned in the qur'an this is a pointless defense since the textual sources of Islam are made up of both the qur'an and the Sunnah.

Various Muslim apologists have provided a multitude of defenses for Muhammad marrying a six year old and having sex with her when she was nine. I mentioned one (denial), but others have argued that it was common in Arabia/Middle East, that since lifespans were short back then so you had to marry young (never understood how that was relevant here), and even if you total up the ages of all his wives their average ages shows he wasn't a pedophile (love to see that one used in a court of law).

A few years ago one of Saudi Arabia's leading Islamic scholars, Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan (who has been a member of the highest religious bodies in that country including the Council of Senior Scholars which advises the king on religious matters, and the Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Issuing Fatwas) issued a fatwa declaring that there is no minimum age for marriage -- and that girls can be married "even if they are in the cradle."

In the fatwa Al-Fawzan complains about

Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase, posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry.

Al-Fawzan complained about "uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists" saying it posed "dire consequences to society." He concludes his fatwa by cautioning:



The fatwa appears to have the backing of Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Al Shaykh (the highest religious authority).

The primary motivator appears to be Saudi Arabia's justice ministry attempting (and failing) to set 15 as a minimum age to marry a girl in the kingdom, in response to an increasing trend of rich Saudi's (some associated with the royal family) purchasing for their sexual pleasure, young refugee girls fleeing from the Syrian civil war. Many of these Saudi men are in their 60s and 70s and buy the girls for as little as $200 from desperate families but when they tire of the girls they tend to hand them off to other men.

But opposition to changing the law was immense since many Muslims see an attempt to change it as being nothing less than an attack on Muhammad himself.




Just one more bit to chew one. In one of the Kutub al-Sittah (six major Hadith collections) in Sunni Islam, the Sahih Muslim (which is also revered by some Shia as well) at 8:3460 Muhammad is recorded as asking the following question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman":

"Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?"

Creepy factor +1000

[carpedm9587]

You're right. They insist that having sex with someone 9 years old isn't pedophilia so at least in their mind they are not defending pedophilia.

I did post a bit about the history concerning that and more at post #473

Various Muslim apologists have provided a multitude of defenses for Muhammad marrying a six year old and having sex with her when she was nine. I mentioned one (denial), but others have argued that it was common in Arabia/Middle East, that since lifespans were short back then so you had to marry young (never understood how that was relevant here), and even if you total up the ages of all his wives their average ages shows he wasn't a pedophile (love to see that one used in a court of law).

A few years ago one of Saudi Arabia's leading Islamic scholars, Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan (who has been a member of the highest religious bodies in that country including the Council of Senior Scholars which advises the king on religious matters, and the Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Issuing Fatwas) issued a fatwa declaring that there is no minimum age for marriage -- and that girls can be married "even if they are in the cradle."

In the fatwa Al-Fawzan complains about

Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase, posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry.

Al-Fawzan complained about "uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists" saying it posed "dire consequences to society." He concludes his fatwa by cautioning:



The fatwa appears to have the backing of Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Al Shaykh (the highest religious authority).

The primary motivator appears to be Saudi Arabia's justice ministry attempting (and failing) to set 15 as a minimum age to marry a girl in the kingdom, in response to an increasing trend of rich Saudi's (some associated with the royal family) purchasing for their sexual pleasure, young refugee girls fleeing from the Syrian civil war. Many of these Saudi men are in their 60s and 70s and buy the girls for as little as $200 from desperate families but when they tire of the girls they tend to hand them off to other men.

But opposition to changing the law was immense since many Muslims see an attempt to change it as being nothing less than an attack on Muhammad himself.




Just one more bit to chew one. In one of the Kutub al-Sittah (six major Hadith collections) in Sunni Islam, the Sahih Muslim (which is also revered by some Shia as well) at 8:3460 Muhammad is recorded as asking the following question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman":

"Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?"

Creepy factor +1000

Rogue - I am familiar with most of what you have posted. I am also familiar with the phenomenon of there being extremist positions in virtually every faith, most of which have a "creepy factor +1000." I could reach into Christian sects, Judaic sects, and almost any community, religious or otherwise, find their most extreme voices, and parade it as "cause celebre." I can even find SCOTUS ruling that, today, we would find repugnant. I do not toss out the U.S. Constitution because sometimes a narrow-minded person in a position of power uses that power and their misinterpretation of a faith, creed, or legal framework to take a repugnant stance.

Yes, there are extremists today who espouse this view. Some even live in the U.S. The vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. and in western countries reject this. In my personal experience, I have dozens of Muslim friends and acquaintances. When I first became aware of the facts you listed here, I took the time to ask each and every one of them if they defended or approved of this position. I did not get a single "yes."

The marrying age IS significantly lower in some countries (including some Muslim countries) because many countries/cultures view puberty as a "coming of age." Their culture is built around it. We westerners recoil at the idea, but we are attempting to assess a phenomenon from within the context of our own cultural roots, which is pretty much always a mistake. And when we try to go into the past and assess those cultures by modern standards, we are again making an error. Even here I have seen the argument made that "well, it was OK for Jesus to do that because it was normal in the honor/shame culture of the ANE."

I do not know if you hold those views (and I don't remember if you were one of the people saying that to me), but it would be inconsistent to insist that a culture has to be evaluated internally in one context, and then judge it externally in another.

Further, I think the time spent seriously pushing this kind of discourse further feeds the "anti-Muslim" sentiment that is so pervasive in our society today, laergely fueled by the minority of extremists who are getting the majority of the headlines. The global average for homocides is "a murder a minute," or over 1,400 per day. Most never get noticed. But if a Muslim is the perpetrator - instant headlines - because it gets eyeballs and ad dollars. We should be doing more to build bridges between faiths, and uniting with the moderate voices in all religions and securlar organizations to decry the extremist voices who only want to sow division and discord in the name of their narrow ideology.

[Cerebrum123]

rogue06, that number at the bottom of your post is way, way too low. Even with the plus sign in front of it.