MOORE(More) Winning by Trump

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Um, no. I said we should determine if he actually did the behavior before taking action against him on account of that behavior.

You said this:

Has Moore been lawfully arrested?
Has Moore been lawfully charged?
Has Moore had a lawful court hearing?
Has Moore had a lawful court trial?
Has Moore had a lawful court judgement?
Has Moore had a lawful court sentence?

~ For they WHO, find no need for lawful proceedings to CONVICT of man of GUILT BEFORE GUILT is proven ~

I'm I to understand that you now retract this?

Or do you believe people are presumed guilty based on accusations?

It looks like you're trying to tweak what you already posted. I think there is no requirement to wait for a court case when looking at ethical behavior of someone running for public office.

That's really all you had to say, without all the prefacing gibberish.

No, it was necessary to point out your use of a red herring. That "gibberish" was showing you the faulty argument you were attempting to make.
 
Upvote 0

SBC

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2017
2,477
584
US
✟38,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Maybe the RNC saw that nothing happened to Al Franken. Franken gave a press release and said he was going back to work.

The RNC has no political influence over Al.

The women who have made public charges against him means nothing until they decide to pursue their claims in a legal manner. If the photo of him with his hand on one of the women is true, and not photo-shopped, (which photo-shopping CAN be proven), and she decides to pursue the case, that is her business, albeit, it is obvious it was not pursued in a timely manner.

God Bless,
SBC
 
Upvote 0

SBC

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2017
2,477
584
US
✟38,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others

So before we vote against someone for ethical reasons, they first should be tried in a court of law? Even if a person hasn't been convicted of criminal activity in court, their actions could still be unethical and a good reason to vote against or withhold a vote for that person for public office. I don't know of a requirement for criminal trial before making a decision on voting for someone into a public office.


Here's the deal. You can vote for whomever you choose to vote for.
You want to believe newspapers on unproven ethical "reasons" ie "grounds", that's your business, however you might want to go beyond the splashy headlines, and discover, much of what people call and present as "NEWS", is clearly stated on the articles are "opinions", sort of an old rendition of modern day blogs, where as anyone can spout off what they feel like, whether it be true or not.

As far as ethical behavior ~ that is the people's business to find out if it is true, before casting a vote.
As far as a sitting representative's ethical behavior ~ ha, there are two choices IF anything at all is done. 1) is a tongue lashing 2) or they can be booted out. And how convenient, it is their fellow Congressmen who get to do the deciding.....the ones who do the very same behavior. lol

If there is no legal charge and court procedure, exactly where do you have any evidence of guilt?
A reporters opinion? An allegation?

Seems this would only apply if someone were trying to put Moore into prison. But I think the real issue is ethical behavior and fitness for a federal public office.

Then provide evidence his behavior was unethical.

God Bless,
SBC
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

Blade

Veteran
Supporter
Dec 29, 2002
8,165
3,989
USA
✟629,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"decent people, of course they won't vote for Moore" <----huh?

For this man.. I know looked into some of this. Two are very questionable. And when something comes down to just "he said she said". Never going to take just ONE persons story. You have to look at ALL. The timing of this is just to perfect.

And Franken.. though the man is NOT for Trump.. he was and always will be a comedian. And has said some really awful jokes. Come on.. lets be true here. We would have to ask 90% of ALL men and women to step down. That right there..what about all the women that said did things to some guy? And.. again its silly. Hillary? Hello? So.. there asking people to STEP DOWN.. for what? Ok.. ok.. and Hillary? Its a joke..for me as I see it
 
Upvote 0

Christie insb

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2015
868
513
65
Santa Barbara, California
✟60,196.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Maybe the RNC saw that nothing happened to Al Franken. Franken gave a press release and said he was going back to work.
I think it's too soon to say that nothing happened to Al Franken, and Mr. Conyers resigned from the House today.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
RNC Jumps Back into Alabama Race Behind Judge Roy Moore ~

Facts:

RNC supported a Republican from Alabama ~
SHOCKING!

Women made PUBLIC ALLEGATIONS against the Republican candidate from Alabama ~
SHOCKING!

The supposed "victims" DID NOT pursue their "victim" claim UNTIL a Republican candidate was running for office some 40 years later ~
SHOCKING!

The President stated;

President Donald Trump believes Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore should step aside if allegations he had sexual contact with teenage girls in the 1970s are true, White House officials said.
~ SHOCKING!

QUESTION ~

Has Moore been lawfully arrested?
Has Moore been lawfully charged?
Has Moore had a lawful court hearing?
Has Moore had a lawful court trial?
Has Moore had a lawful court judgement?
Has Moore had a lawful court sentence?

No.
~ SHOCKING!

~ For they WHO, find no need for lawful proceedings to CONVICT of man of GUILT BEFORE GUILT is proven ~

Whoopie ~
They can dismantle the Court System, (because it has no needful purpose).
They can stop pretending Attorney's are a needed profession.
They can continue as they do, being self-appointed JUDGES, pronouncing whomever as GUILTY based on their OPINIONS, and let the newspaper dictate the sentence.
Then they can congregate with their banners, that they gots them some justice!

SHAMEFUL ~ and totally Christian-like.....not!
Shocking?
No, expected.

God help them.
SBC


It’s depressing to see this kind of superficial thinking on here. I’d challenge anyone to read through all of the evidence put forward, all of it and not just some dismissal of it in some low quality Breitbart type rag, and still conclude there’s nothing to it. All of it including the accounts of the women involved, the managers of stores and colleagues where young women were employed who would warn their female staff about Moore trawling those stores for young girls, the security staff in the malls those shops were in etc etc. Do you really not have any idea at all why a young girl in the 1970s, in a notoriously male dominated and hypocritical ‘religious’ part of the states might find it difficult to speak up against an older guy who was preying on them? Really, you don’t get that? Remember also that those women are not guilty of deceit until proven so either.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Go Braves

I miss Senator McCain
May 18, 2017
9,652
9,000
Atlanta
✟15,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Obviously you do not comprehend the RNC is not the President.

I sure am sorry that you had such difficulty comprehending my post, which really ought to have been very simple for you to understand, that you came to that hilariously wrong conclusion. I fully comprehend that they're not one and the same, but both disgracefully endorsed Roy Moore. It's a downright shame.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post, as it was clear from how badly you botched things this early on that it would be a waste of time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SoldierOfTheKing

Christian Spenglerian
Jan 6, 2006
9,223
3,039
Kenmore, WA
✟276,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
So before we vote against someone for ethical reasons, they first should be tried in a court of law? Even if a person hasn't been convicted of criminal activity in court, their actions could still be unethical and a good reason to vote against or withhold a vote for that person for public office. I don't know of a requirement for criminal trial before making a decision on voting for someone into a public office.

I would suggest voting based on issues, and letting the courts address alleged indiscretions in a candidate's personal life...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

SBC

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2017
2,477
584
US
✟38,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It’s depressing to see this kind of superficial thinking on here. I’d challenge anyone to read through all of the evidence put forward, all of it and not just some dismissal of it in some low quality Breitbart type rag, and still conclude there’s nothing to it. All of it including the accounts of the women involved, the managers of stores and colleagues where young women were employed who would warn their female staff about Moore trawling those stores for young girls, the security staff in the malls those shops were in etc etc. Do you really not have any idea at all why a young girl in the 1970s, in a notoriously male dominated and hypocrital ‘religious’ part of the states might find it difficult to speak up against an older guy who was preying on them? Really, you don’t get that? Remember also that those women are not guilty of deceit until proven so either.



Really, you don’t get that? Remember also that those women are not guilty of deceit until proven so either.


Uh ~ what a unwittingly fascinating post!

Why do I need to REMEMBER, those women are not guilty?

Do you NOT GET? WHO here is claiming those women ARE GUILTY!

Do you NOT GET, you just said.... "those women are not guilty of deceit until proven so EITHER?"

"EITHER" compared to WHO? Moore!
"PROVEN" as like WHO? Moore!

Do you NOT GET, you are on the band wagon of declaring Moore GUILTY, without proof!

Do you NOT GET, he said, she said, they said......IS NOT LEGAL PROOF!

It is hearsay, allegations, gossip, opinions ~

If their hearsay, allegations, gossip, opinions ARE TRUE.....THEY can take their hearsay, allegations, gossip, opinions IN TO A COURT OF LAW and STATE THEM "UNDER OATH"!

THEN 'EITHER' party, will have THEIR WORDS "SAID", with THEIR EVIDENCE, and a "JURY" can decided what is "PROVEN" to BE TRUE!

I’d challenge anyone to read through all of the evidence put forward

Challenge away ~
THEN provide the TITLE " of WHO vs WHO"
and
the "CASE NUMBER" of "WHO vs WHO"
so
ANYONE can ALSO read (like you apparently have_
"all the evidence"
and
ALSO
"the VERDICT" !

Thanks for the funny post.
God Bless,
SBC
 
Upvote 0

SBC

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2017
2,477
584
US
✟38,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I sure am sorry that you had such difficulty comprehending my post, which really ought to have been very simple for you to understand, that you came to that hilariously wrong conclusion. I fully comprehend that they're not one and the same, but both disgracefully endorsed Roy Moore.

That's nice, you do know, the President and the RNC are not the same thing.

Neither is the time-line of their support of Moore,
which you apparently missed was the point, and CLEARLY stated.

It's a downright shame.

SHAMEFUL ~is attempting to TRY a PERSON in the gossip columns instead of a COURT ROOM.

SHAMEFUL ~is saying it's a SHAME, to NOT CONVICT a person, when PROOF has not be revealed!

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post, as it was clear from how badly you botched things this early on that it would be a waste of time.

No problem. I do not have a high expectation of Liberals reading or comprehension.

  1. Americans read headlines. And not much else. - The Washington...
    www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/03/19/am...
    Mar 19, 2014 ... So, roughly six in 10 people acknowledge that they have done nothing more than read news headlines in the past week. And, in truth, that number is almost certainly higher than that, since plenty of people won't want to admit to just being headline-gazers but, in fact, are. Here's that breakdown in chart form:....
God Bless,
SBC
 
Upvote 0

Go Braves

I miss Senator McCain
May 18, 2017
9,652
9,000
Atlanta
✟15,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
No problem. I do not have a high expectation of Liberals reading or comprehension.

You may wish to concern yourself more with your own reading and comprehension. Please look right underneath my name. I'm a Republican. A conservative. I take the Bible seriously.

Glad you got your rant out of your system. God bless you, too.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟812,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
RNC Jumps Back into Alabama Race Behind Judge Roy Moore

Exclusive — RNC Jumps Back into Alabama Race Behind Judge Roy Moore - Breitbart

The RNC’s decision to now publicly support Moore again comes in the wake of President Donald Trump’s wholehearted endorsement of Moore on Monday morning.

“We stand with the president,” a senior RNC official told Breitbart News.

The RNC notified the RNC members from Alabama on Monday afternoon that the national party would resume financial support to back the state party in its efforts to elect Moore to the U.S. Senate. At this time, since this development is fresh, it remains unclear exactly what that means, but sources close to RNC leadership told Breitbart News that it would become apparent in the coming days.
And the swamp thickens. Maybe they can create a movie plot for an old style B movie.
He came to kill the swamp but he was really a swamp rat so it grew and grew until it swallowed up all of his followers. It's aliveee.... Swamp Rat starring the Donald.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,637
59
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
I'm very proud that my own relatives there, they are Bible-believing Christians, decent people, of course they won't vote for Moore.

Edited on account of a typo.

Is that only because he's Republican? Did you call
for Hillary to drop out of the 2016 election?
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,637
59
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
The RNC has no political influence over Al.

The women who have made public charges against him means nothing until they decide to pursue their claims in a legal manner. If the photo of him with his hand on one of the women is true, and not photo-shopped, (which photo-shopping CAN be proven), and she decides to pursue the case, that is her business, albeit, it is obvious it was not pursued in a timely manner.

God Bless,
SBC

The Al Franken allegations were not 38 years after the fact,
as are those against Roy Moore.
 
Upvote 0

Yonny Costopoulis

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2017
2,930
1,301
Crete
✟60,005.00
Country
Greece
Faith
Ukr. Grk. Catholic
Marital Status
Married
RNC Jumps Back into Alabama Race Behind Judge Roy Moore

Exclusive — RNC Jumps Back into Alabama Race Behind Judge Roy Moore - Breitbart

The RNC’s decision to now publicly support Moore again comes in the wake of President Donald Trump’s wholehearted endorsement of Moore on Monday morning.

“We stand with the president,” a senior RNC official told Breitbart News.

The RNC notified the RNC members from Alabama on Monday afternoon that the national party would resume financial support to back the state party in its efforts to elect Moore to the U.S. Senate. At this time, since this development is fresh, it remains unclear exactly what that means, but sources close to RNC leadership told Breitbart News that it would become apparent in the coming days.
After so much crazy in the last year, apprently pedophelia has become normalized instead of something to disqualify a candidate in the USA.

Personally I thought a candidate bragging about sexually assaulting women by grabbing their vaginas would have been disqualifier as well. It is obvious I do not understand many American Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟812,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
RNC Jumps Back into Alabama Race Behind Judge Roy Moore

Exclusive — RNC Jumps Back into Alabama Race Behind Judge Roy Moore - Breitbart

The RNC’s decision to now publicly support Moore again comes in the wake of President Donald Trump’s wholehearted endorsement of Moore on Monday morning.

“We stand with the president,” a senior RNC official told Breitbart News.

The RNC notified the RNC members from Alabama on Monday afternoon that the national party would resume financial support to back the state party in its efforts to elect Moore to the U.S. Senate. At this time, since this development is fresh, it remains unclear exactly what that means, but sources close to RNC leadership told Breitbart News that it would become apparent in the coming days.
One thing is for sure. Hillary nailed it with her "basket of deplorables" statement. We've seen a load of them since Trump got elected.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I would suggest voting based on issues, and letting the courts address alleged indiscretions in a candidate's personal life...

Why should people have to wait for a court ruling before considering the ethical behavior of someone running for public office? And why not apply this strict standard to all questions regarding a candidate for office - to include issues beyond ethics? Why not require a court ruling to determine the truth of any potential question regarding a candidate?

It seems to me that a court is for handling civil or criminal matters, not a determinant on all ethical matters. Voters are the determiners of many things regarding a candidate - ethical behavior being among them. This doesn't require a trial by jury, but the sound judgement of the voter.
 
Upvote 0