So, what would be the proper terminology here? I mean, sometime I might want to be politically correct.
Agreed, but it is a public forum, and people other than the addressee do read. Every post from an unreasoning knucklehead provides an opportunity for stating a case!
What is the debate here? These guys are rapid anti-homosexuals and they are supporting pedophile who sexually assaulted young girls.
The debate is about his guilt. In America a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that has to be in court, not the court of public opinion. I don't care who it is democrat or republican, nobody should be removed simply because they are accused of something. Prove it in court then remove them, then they would deserve the names you call them not before.
It is not political correctness it is accuracy. Use the word alleged. Alleged pedophile or alleged harassment. Without it you are prosecuting in the court of public opinion a kangaroo court. Where is the due process in this court?
I'm not promoting the idea of keeping quiet once being called a bad name. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying don't let it stop you. I'm only saying to laugh at the name-caller, then ignore him as you continue to make your points. Sorry for my inability to be clear.
Oh, I see. I was not calling Moore homophobic, but his policies are certainly anti-gay. I started this thread as a note of the few supporters who are still vocally advocating for Moore in spite of his allegations. As to your point, an actual court room will never become involved because the statute of limitations has run and Moore, despite his threats, is not going to file any lawsuit. And, in either case, your standard would be important for determining whether someone should go to jail. Moore is not facing jail time, but merely the failure to be elected. And for that, the court room of public opinion is the only one necessary.
No, we're quite unlikely to type "alleged" in front of everything that has been alleged. And, that doesn't mean that accusation is believed to be incontrovertible fact. BTW: Are you suggesting there are rules of evidence in the court of public opinion? Are you suggesting that we discount the claims of multiple individuals until there is a court case? I'd point out that there aren't even laws covering all sexual harassment. For example, I don't find anything in Alabama law suggesting that it's illegal for Moore to overtly troll teens in his local mall - as obviously disgusting and unacceptable as that is. The thing is, we need leaders who are not working under a cloud of suspicion of being perverts. The same goes in the financial world. We don't wait for court convictions when assessing whether a candidate has behaved unacceptably in the financial world. In fact, there is significant guilt by association - such as my concerns about the Trump Goldman Sachs crowd.
The problem with all this is unless something can be proven under scrutiny then they are just he said she said. How easy would it be for someone with an axe to grind or being paid to level accusations if nothing is taken to court. Not everyone is honest and many can be bought.
Without the courts anyone can say anything about any politician they want to. All one would have to do is have a believable story and the court of public opinion would side with them.
This is not "he said, she said". It even gets down the the security guy at the mall and people other than those who were targeted by Moore. I'm frankly astounded at the degree to which Christian fundamentalists defend this guy. Remember that it isn't just sex. They also like him for flagrantly ignoring the law on other topics. We're not looking for the best high school level protester. We're looking for someone who will contribute to the leadership of our nation. Our nation stands for rule of law.
Yes rule of law. Let them take him to court and prove he did these things. Without proof and a jury of his peers they are just baseless accusations. We must not allow accusations alone to remove people from office, there must be some form of convictions in a court of law.
Candidates are not adjudicated. Elections are not trials. Credibility is assessed with reference to factors such as the consistent testimony of multiple individuals with no discernible self-interests. It is when fanatics who reject the US legal system and screech, "Lock her up! Locker her up!" concerning a political opponent that it is proper to point out the need for an indictment, a trial, and a conviction. Of course, Moore's refusal to respect and enforce the laws of the United States was a legal matter.
Where do I start? 1. What happens in a courtroom is how we determine our government's position on guilt or acquittal of a crime and on that basis a sentence is rendered with the same govt deciding punishment including incarceration, loss of privileges of citizenship such as voting, and fines. The standard for proof in a criminal trial that may lead to a loss of personal liberty is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. There is a lot of space between proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and 'without proof' or baseless. 2. Moore cannot be removed from office, when he hasn't been in office yet. This is about whether he should be put in there in the first place. 3. Not all accusations of impropriety on which we judge our candidates for high office involve illegal or criminal conduct so it is ludicrous to insist that anyone has to take a candidate to court, especially when there are statutes of limitations that preclude that option. Try to make sense next time.
If there is not a chance of going to court then it would be so easy to come forward with accusations when there is no chance you will be prosecuted for perjury. Are we to believe anyone who comes up with any accusation without substantial proof? Running for an office is different but the burden of proof should still reside with the accuser and the voters can make up their own minds.
The silly 40 year old accusations don't really matter. Your last line is what might matter if other politicians around the nation were held to the same standard. Sanctuary cities and states come to mind when respecting and enforcing the laws of the United States.
Women who do not come forward with sexual harassment or rape charges against men of power, esteem and authority, are not scared of 'perjury charges'. Its the least of their worries. You need a broader imagination if that is what you think keeps victims silenced. I do agree that the accusers have to 'tip the scale' but there are a lot of ways I as a voter can be convinced. Sometimes the accusation just sounds a lot more believable and credible than the denial. You can think of it as the same 'demeanor of the witness' that judges and jurors use to decide what to believe as well as inconsistencies, or too rehearsed a story and if there are a lot of these stories and there is a basic pattern of similar behavior behind them, I as a voter look at that too.
Initially I was concerned that there might be a couple of women... with an agenda, but the evidence kept on mounting, the accusers kept on talking and his denial in the Hannity interview was a literal implosion of credibility on his part. The man has a lot of interest in 14-17 year old girls and half of his home town knew it! Come on, at a certain point, you just can't call them all liars. This is a bunch of Alabamans from 30 years ago talking about him as the town pervert. They are not people like Streisand/ Phil Donahue and Susan Sarandon. They are conservatives from that part of the world!
If targeting teenage girls in the manner Moore did does not matter to you, it does not matter to you. Most Americans, including many Republican leaders, differ. Of course, no sanctuary city or state is willfully defying and violating the US Constitution as Moore did. The U.S. Constitution bars the federal government from commandeering state officials or using federal funds to “coerce” states into doing the bidding of Washington. The Tenth Amendment had been solely the preserve of conservatives in recent years - those determined to resist a big-government philosophy of recognizing no restraint on the power of the federal government to dictate policy to states and municipalities on just about anything - but it protects local jurisdictions from Washington impositions without regard to the ideology that drives such usurpations.