No one went back to find the original topics about this?

you're the only one who's disagreeing with the basic timeline of facts i laid out. feel free, ill be fine being wrong. the signature wasn't proven to be fake afaik, the date was later said to be written by her.

overall the yearbook itself is only a small part of the total allegations. it's one part of one story from one of 3 women.

Some of the logic behind the GOP's reversal to reinstate support and funding for Moore was based on the idea that they could help him win, impeach him, remove him from the Senate, and then hold another special election.

Essentially a re-roll.

Of course, that also requires the President and party to support a man who sexually assaulted a 14 year old. But that was their decision, and I'm sure history will look upon them favorably for it.

I wasn't around here during the Alabama Special Election, but I find it amazing that some people still defend Trump's endorsement of Moore to this day...just take the L on that one and shill on something with more gray area like say, immigration. Geez.

I dont defend the decision to endorse him. It was a mistake. But as I said, I can understand the rationale behind it: the GOP and Trump would rather have gotten a bad man who's in their team elected to the senate than a good man who's in the opposing team.

in any case, the bottom line is that they are better off with him having lost. and Jones is a decent guy who most likely wouldnt stand in the way of reasonable bipartisan legislation.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 22 2018 11:37am

Yes, I understand the rationale. I think everyone did. I think it was abundantly clear they were selling their collective morality for a seat in the Senate. One that, as you pointed out, probably didn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things and one they would almost certainly win back in 2020.

And yes, I agree with you that they are better off with him having lost. Trump made the wrong decision to endorse Moore, but if Moore had won, it would have looked even worse for Trump and the GOP brand as a whole.

They dodged a bullet. The GOP breathed a collective sigh of relief behind closed doors when Moore lost. They also feared a Moore victory would further empower Bannon's anti-establishment crusade.

hindsight is 20-20.

if, and its a big if, it was proven in some Alex Jone-esque tinfoil plot that George soros paid some women Moore knew to embellish or fake stories to hurt him Trump and the GOP would be lauded as heroes.

more realistically, he can be sufficiently disavowed in the event he's guilty (if they win) and they still get the optics win of ousting a pervert. you don't switch horses mid stream, in my eyes a lack of support still applies as switching horses. this is just the most extreme case, with the most extreme accusations, and the voters acted accordingly.

i think you'd have a stronger case in being outraged if Roy Moore was a complete outsider, just some guy who owned a business or something. Moore was a judge, a corrupt one who shouldnt have been there so long, but he's been in the public eye a long time. how these accusations took so long to come out idk, but it gave just enough doubt.

https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=77516919&f=119

Gloria Allred was the lawyer, the same lawyer that was offering $500K for people to come out against Weinstein.



https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=77529959&f=119

https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=77482122&f=119

https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=77473994&f=119



Well, here's a few of them. Just to refresh everyone's memory. Wouldn't want to be accused of: "History is written by the winners".

Can't seem to find the original post however.

A hindsight bias fallacy doesn't apply here. At least a good portion of the allegations against Moore seemed true at the time, and even in the week running up to the election, it was wrong for Trump to endorse Moore, and it was wrong for the RNC to reinstate funding for the candidate. We didn't need the benefit of hindsight to reach that conclusion.

On some of your other points, the victory points the GOP might have gotten would have been greatly outweighed by the optics of helping elect a pervert. It would have been a big net-negative for the party. An ousting of Moore would have been a reactionary and necessary move to avoid even more criticism that the party would have inevitably received.

Additionally, the ousting and impeachment of Moore would have been a lengthy and ugly process. Talk about awful PR for the GOP brand. That's why McConnell and other party leaders were breathing collective sighs of relief when Moore lost.

i get what you're saying but perverts/criminals are supported all the time, ousting them is always an optics win. people forget the support quickly tbh.

adrian peterson is a kid beater, he's still in the NFL. wierd shit happens.

hindsight still applies tho, we have hindsight that he wasnt elected, and therefore was tried as guilty in the court of public opinion. its impossible to not see that, even though i agree the allegations were and are credible.

well, the Roy Moore case was particularly severe and ironic: a guy who is a corrupt and racist scumbag through and through runs on the platform of being the champion for conservative christian morals and family values - only to then get exposed as someone who was preying on teenage girls while in his 30s.
Ive never seen someone get the rug pulled out from under his feet as quickly as Moore when this story broke.