Brontoforumus

New Yorker: Even back in the early 80's, locals were disturbed about Moore's predations on young women, even going so far as to allegedly banning him from the local mall, a popular teen hangout at the time.

Also, there's a randomly bizarre and weirdly close to home aspect of the article. In the photo where Beverly Nelson is holding up her page in the yearbook, in the bottom right corner, there's a woman who 1) Has my mother's first name and is probably also Persian given her name and appearance 2) Looks very similar to the way my mom did at the time (though my mom was 20-21 by '79), especially the eyes, but also the mouth and nose somewhat.

I mean, I know perfectly that's not my mom. I know exactly what she was doing in 1979 and where she was - giving birth to me in Winnipeg! Nor would it really be that weird in a vacuum to see another Persian woman of similar age & appearance with the same name.

But the context, geez, that's too much weird for me.

I've noticed something online in the past couple days: Lines like "Don't let old man Moore near her!" with regard to a young girl have started to become running gags online. It's like he's become the pedobear of 2017.

I don't know that that's justice, but it's pretty damned fitting that Moore's name has literally become a byword for creepy sexual predators.

Roy Moore On Pedophilia Accusers: ‘These Women Are Only Discrediting Me Now Because Shifting Sociocultural Norms Have Created An Environment In Which Assault Allegations Are Taken Seriously’ (The Onion)

The harshest burn:
Moore went on to say that he would nevertheless continue his run for the Senate despite the charges against him because while the norms had shifted, they had not shifted nearly as much in Alabama.

Hardly Ideal wrote:

Moore press release wrote:...establishment republicans are colluding with the Obama-Clinton Machine behind the scenes in a blah blah blah

...you're telling me with a straight face that McConnell is working with Obama? The same guy who, during the worst financial fartstorm since the Great Depression, said the GOP's number one goal was to make Obama a one-term president? The obstructor in chief? The leader of the Party of No, working with a guy they spent eight years cock-blocking in every way possible?

My dad's convinced that the long lines and voting problems in Maricopa County were a plot to tilt the primary to Hillary Clinton. Never mind that our county recorder was a Republican; you know how much Arizona Republicans love Hillary Clinton.

pacobird wrote:I'm honestly a little surprised McConnell et al have condemned him as strongly as they have. They may hate Moore - he was never their guy, of course - but they really, really cannot afford to lose this seat.

This may be the line where he really starts worrying that defending the guy at this point could start costing them other seats. Pedophilia may not be a line in the sand for Alabama Republicans, but it probably is for Republicans in a lot of other states.

Or maybe they're assuming he'll still win and gearing up to oust him.

Has Paul withdrawn his endorsement yet? Last I heard he was the only senator who hadn't. In his defense, he's probably on a lot of painkillers.

Kiddie fuckers are widely frowned upon in my experience. On both sides of the aisle

So are nazis, and yet here we are.

Could be that Mitch suspects that the party's long-term prospects aren't so good if people come to see it as the party of nazis AND child molesters.

Could be he saw this:

You guys may have heard some headlines to the effect that a ton of pastors were supporting him. Turns out nope, his wife and him were lying and editing previous support letters to make shit up.

I thought lying was a sin?

Actually, maybe that's why Roy Moore has such a boner for the Ten Commandments. He personally can't remember the rules unless they're carved into 5,000lbs of stone, just so he can be reminded what they are every day.

It's great because even if you do the usual thing of playing dumb and parsing the Commandments literally using modern English, he's still bearing false witness.

Joxam wrote:

You guys may have heard some headlines to the effect that a ton of pastors were supporting him. Turns out nope, his wife and him were lying and editing previous support letters to make shit up.

Update: Apparently only a quarter of them are actual pastors, and quite a few are either not religious figures at all (i.e. a hate group leader), or people who don't show up in a google search and "whose identities cannot be confirmed".

Also,



Holy Shit.

Ugh

I mean, we are actually at the stage where a man is running for a major national office and just about the only thing he could do that's worse than what he's done is probably start murdering children himself.

Maybe I'm overreaching, but I feel like if he gets voted in in spite of this, I think it's going to make it clear, in a small, but important way, that the US is in bigger trouble than even it's worst critics might have anticipated.

Put another way, things have gotten so maddeningly insane that a state is quite possibly going to elect real-life pedobear as a senator.

The burning just doesn't stop.

God, okay, Mongrel, no more teen sex abuse knee-slappers please.

Latest is Moore going into denial mode, saying the yearbook signature was fabricated. Wondering if he's gonna double down on the "this is all a conspiracy by both the GOP and the Democrats to destroy me specifically" narrative, because god damn does that seem like a stretch.

That's fair. I just know that if I stop laughing, any number of far grimmer emotions will fill that hole.

Well, this bit of news isn't very funny. Though it's certainly still theatre of the absurd. We knew Moore had hired some nutjob racist lawyer to defend him, but it turns out there's more...

Medium: Latest polls show Moore likely to win - and the Senate unlikely to expel him

I can't say this is surprising. At this point all I can do is pray it'll be a Pyrrhic victory as we move towards the midterms, though that's by no means a safe hope.

The Democrats have a real opportunity here, to treat sexual assault allegations differently than the GOP, but so far they're blowing it and inviting more "both sides are the same" cynicism. (Obviously what Franken and Conyers are accused of is not the same as what Moore is accused of; I don't mean to downplay the difference in severity. But what Franken and Conyers did is enough to warrant expulsion, and instead most Democrats are hemming and hawing and circling the wagons, and aside from being ethically wrong that's just bad strategy, because it makes them look like hypocrites when they criticize Republicans for shielding predators.)

There are exceptions. Jayapal has called for Conyers to resign. But so far she's a lone voice.

Part of the reason the Democrats are timid on this is, there are more. There have to be. If they expel Conyers and Franken, more names are going to come out.

My feeling is, aside from the ethics -- which, again, boil down to "get rid of the sexual harassers" -- this is poor strategy. They should just assume at this point that, sooner or later -- and very probably sooner -- all those names are going to come out, all the allegations are going to become public. The best thing they can do is get it out in the open and deal with it now. Let the public see the Republicans as the party of nazis and child molesters, and the Democrats as the party that won't tolerate sexual misconduct.

But I'm afraid that's not going to happen.