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.
MOORE(More) Winning by Trump
Page 1 of 4
We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
This is extremely shameful of Trump & the RNC. Can't say it's in the least bit surprising though. Totally within Trump's character to not concern himself in the least with morality but instead only care about what's best for himself. I have no doubt in my mind that the ladies who've said Trump sexually harassed them are telling the truth. I believe Moore's accusers too. Plenty of evidence has come out about that. Boy, will Satan be delighted if the folks in Alabama vote Moore. 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.
RNC Jumps Back into Alabama Race Behind Judge Roy Moore ~
RNC supported a Republican from Alabama ~
Women made PUBLIC ALLEGATIONS against the Republican candidate from Alabama ~
The supposed "victims" DID NOT pursue their "victim" claim UNTIL a Republican candidate was running for office some 40 years later ~
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.
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 ~
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!
God help them.
It was the RNC that supported Moore, then stopped supporting him when 40 years old allegations were made against him.
The President supported Moore's candidacy, and continued, and would stop supporting Moore, IF the allegations were found to be true.
When were the allegations found to be true?
And you find it EXTREMELY SHAMEFUL to support a person with ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM, that have not been found to be true?
There have been other PEOPLE of your same mind-set. You can read about them in Scripture.
They made ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JESUS, and crucified Him.
Shocking, a President didn't join the local lynch mob.
And you oppose that? LOL
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.
The only reason you could possibly resort to such a blatant red herring would be to attempt to somehow demonstrate an inconsistency, which you might label "hypocrisy" rather than "inconsistent." That might be relevant if we were examining my logical consistency, which we're not, yet if we were, demonstrating an inconsistency wouldn't invalidate the issue I brought up in regards to what you posted; it would only mean that if correct, I'm inconsistent. You may also be trying to make this some sort of us vs. them argument where I'm siding with the liberal club and you're with the conservative club, so I shouldn't be listened to because I'm a hypocrite hanging out in the other club who really just wants to see his own team win. But motivations don't invalidate an argument and neither does the group from which it originates.
In any case, before you go down a rabbit hole of further red herrings, I think Franken should step down for his unethical behavior. I also have about an equal disdain for Republicans and Democrats though my views might overlap with a political party on various things. So if you're going to try to make this an us-vs-them/Republican-vs-Democrat thing with me, you're going to have tough luck.
Now back to the issue you posted.....
Page 1 of 4