[SpecialOlympian]

I'm sure a guy who felt so drawn to underage girls that he stalked the malls every weekend until he was kicked out had absolutely no desire to fuck them.

In other news, apparently someone is making fake robocalls to the people of Alabama.

[blackjack21]

If he's innocent, then he'll be cleared of charges, but if he's guilty, he deserves anything he gets.

Dating girls in their early teens when you are an adult? That was also wrong in 1979.

He hasn't been charged with anything, because it is way too far passed the statute of limitations.

What accomplishments can they point to that are worthy of a free childfucking pass?

If it's okay for Bob Menendez, it's okay for Judge Moore too.

I thought we could all agree that being against kiddy-fiddling, and jailing the fuckers, was a bipartisan issue?

Then we should be demanding Bob Menendez resign from the Senate, right?

[Godstud]

Many states have no Statutes of Limitation when it comes to child abuse.

If it's okay for Bob Menendez, it's okay for Judge Moore too.

Who said that? You're using a whataboutism... "What about Menendez?". Well, he should be treated accordingly and accorded no special treatment. This is a bipartisan issue, as I already stated.

Then we should be demanding Bob Menendez resign from the Senate, right?

If he is guilty of kiddy-fiddling, then absolutely. Whether or not it's illegal or even if the SOL has been exceeded, it's an abominable crime.

[Stormsmith]

100 could come forward, but it will not mean a thing unless they can prove Roy Moore is lying. The Yearbook is the best chance of that so far.

Wrong. The women have to convince other voters he's unworthy, full stop.

[Godstud]

100 could come forward, but it will not mean a thing unless they can prove Roy Moore is lying.

How many incidents must there be for you to believe that maybe this guy's a rotten shithead pedophile? Do you really need over a 101 to come forward before you start to suspect that you might be fucking wrong?

Holy shit, man! I mean, politics aside, this is a horrible thing. Put aside the political crap for one minute and think about the crime and the victims, and not your religion or blind party loyalty.

This has to do with a person who was possibly sexually groping, etc. children. You think this is about politics?

[Hong Wu]

The latest accuser happens to have had her claim for divorce rejected by Roy Moore when he was a judge. Has anyone actually gone through all of the accusers and listed their claims and what the counter-arguments or ulterior motives for them might be?

[Godstud]

1 of 5. Assuming that this is the reason, could be wrong, as well. People don't normally like to inform people they were molested as children.

You're simply looking for excuses for him. You're being kiddy-fiddler apologists. It's quite disturbing, really.

[Hong Wu]

There's lots of criticisms, although I haven't gone through every accuser. The one that says his alleged signature in a yearbook is proof but it says DA even though he was actually a DDA in 1977 and other inconsistencies is pretty interesting.

But perhaps most telling here is that none of these women appear to have claimed he had sexual intercourse with them. It's almost as if they are only willing to go so far with this because the more serious your claim is, the more damage you take if you end up unable to prove it.

1 of 5. Assuming that this is the reason, could be wrong, as well. People don't normally like to inform people they were molested as children.

You're simply looking for excuses for him. You're being kiddy-fiddler apologists. It's quite disturbing, really.

You appear to be a shallow person who sits on his computer all day accusing anonymous people of things so that you can insult them. Makes me wonder what happened to you.

[Hindsite]

How many incidents must there be for you to believe that maybe this guy's a rotten shithead pedophile? Do you really need over a 101 to come forward before you start to suspect that you might be fucking wrong?

Holy shit, man! I mean, politics aside, this is a horrible thing. Put aside the political crap for one minute and think about the crime and the victims, and not your religion or blind party loyalty.

This has to do with a person who was possibly sexually groping, etc. children. You think this is about politics?

There only needs to be one that can prove it. However, I just learned from CNN that Gloria Allred, the attorney for the accuser with the yearbook, has refused to turn over the yearbook for authentication. Something smells fishy with her response. I need more, broteddybear.

[Drlee]

100 could come forward, but it will not mean a thing unless they can prove Roy Moore is lying. The Yearbook is the best chance of that so far.

It is clear that quite a few morons are still doubting the witnesses. Of course for these mental midgets all it would take is for one white woman to accuse a black guy of pinching her butt and they would be looking for a rope.

I am getting really tired of stupid people. They are a danger to our country.

[Godstud]

You appear to be a shallow person who sits on his computer all day accusing anonymous people of things so that you can insult them. Makes me wonder what happened to you.

You appear to be a person who sits on their computer all day, while their mom's at work, making stupid comments and protecting child molesters. You know, you're just doing what you are accusing me of doing, don't you, sport?

If you are sitting here apologizing and making excuses for a child molester, then that's YOU doing that, not me. I am not making you leap to the defense of a potential child molester. You're doing that all on your own. What kind of person would rather protect the guilty instead of the innocent? I'd rather err on the side of the victim, and not the criminal.

I suppose what happened to me was that I have some human empathy and compassion that you are probably lacking. Did you have a bad childhood?

[Hong Wu]

You appear to be a person who sits on their computer all day, while their mom's at work, making stupid comments and protecting child molesters. You know, you're just doing what you are accusing me of doing, don't you, sport?

If you are sitting here apologizing and making excuses for a child molester, then that's YOU doing that, not me. I am not making you leap to the defense of a potential child molester. You're doing that all on your own. What kind of person would rather protect the guilty instead of the innocent? I'd rather err on the side of the victim, and not the criminal.

I suppose what happened to me was that I have some human empathy and compassion that you are probably lacking. Did you have a bad childhood?

I think ultimately, no one's going to have to seriously defend the concepts of innocent until proven guilty or statutes of limitations on a cultural level and that's what this is seemingly about if we consider this to be part of the same movement as the collegiate sexual assault hysteria.

[SpecialOlympian]

We all understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. But everyone here has lived through the OJ trial, let's not pretend we don't know what a shitload of evidence looks like.

Even PoFo's dumbest posters have nothing left to appeal to but "He deserves to fuck children because he served his country" and "It must be a conspiracy." When you're a Republican and even Sean Hannity says you're too toxic to support, you know you fucked up bad.

Also Hong Wu does not live with his mother. I assume he receives support from his parents, who can apparently afford to live in California while he can not. But Hong Wu does not live in a basement. He lives far, far below any AMERICAN basement in a Chinese apartment complex teaching English, in a a rental unit befitting the gravitas and acclaim deserving of an expat AMERICAN teacher.

[Stormsmith]

We'll know sooner than that, because two more have already come forth.

Correction

Four more women came forth today.

[Beren]

Regardless of the validity of the allegations we've come to know two things at least.

(1) Bannon's talent as a political strategist is a myth, he's a great political communicator and spin doctor though.

(2) Hillary was right about the basket of deplorables.

[Rich]

(2) Hillary was right about the basket of deplorables.

Well while we're on the subject of deplorables let me make it quite clear:

I utterly condemn anti-abortionists like Ray Moore and Joseph Stalin.

I would like to see Ray Moore exposed for his rabid Christianity. Ray Moore is a Jew worshipper, the Jewish /Christian god is a lie. Its the projection of a genocidal Jewish / Israelite Fuhrer into the sky. The Creator of the universe didn't order Joshua to genocide the Gentile Caananites, that is a lie. When ever you try and criticise Muslims, lefties always jump in with "What about Christianity?". Well Alabama, here's your opportunity to take on some real Christians - get down there, maybe burn some Bibles, test Conservatives new found love of free speech.

[blackjack21]

Who said that? You're using a whataboutism... "What about Menendez?". Well, he should be treated accordingly and accorded no special treatment. This is a bipartisan issue, as I already stated.

I'm pointing out that it is not a bipartisan issue at all. It is about the establishment preserving itself at all costs. If Moore did what he's accused of, it was known long before he ran for the Senate and nobody cared to keep him out of a judgeship. If Menendez did what he's accused of, it is already known or he wouldn't be on trial for it, and yet nobody cares to expel him from the Senate; yet, members of Moore's own party threaten to do the same to him even though he cannot be tried for this now. That is as clear a double standard as there can be, and after the 2016 presidential election where the Democrats ran the wife of a sexual predator themselves.

If he is guilty of kiddy-fiddling, then absolutely.

So why does Menendez get the presumption of innocence while Moore does not?

Whether or not it's illegal or even if the SOL has been exceeded, it's an abominable crime.

Abominable as of the turn of the 20th Century. Age of consent was historically lower before then. Before women decided they were the equals of men, they were much better protected as well.

How many incidents must there be for you to believe that maybe this guy's a rotten shithead pedophile? Do you really need over a 101 to come forward before you start to suspect that you might be fucking wrong?

No more than I need to believe Bill Clinton is a shithead pedophile and rapist, who gets to interact in polite society. On a personal level, I never have to meet or interact with any of these shit heads. What I care about is destroying the establishment power structure, lowering my taxes, getting rid of ObamaCare, destroying political correctness and causing general havoc to both major parties.

Holy shit, man! I mean, politics aside, this is a horrible thing.

It is insignificant compared to Bill Clinton's forcible rapes. It is insignificant compared to Hillary Clinton trashing women who asked the courts for action and relief from what Bill Clinton did. In other words, I don't think you really believe it is horrible. I think you believe conservatives are horrible, and whatever method you can use to prevent them from having any political power is something you will do. Consequently, I think these stories are likely apocryphal.

This has to do with a person who was possibly sexually groping, etc. children. You think this is about politics?

It's all about politics.

1 of 5. Assuming that this is the reason, could be wrong, as well. People don't normally like to inform people they were molested as children.

You're simply looking for excuses for him. You're being kiddy-fiddler apologists. It's quite disturbing, really.

A lawful defense is absolutely legitimate. He's presumed innocent. For a guy who lives in the kiddy-fiddler capitol of the world, I find it strange for you to be commenting on something like this. By the way, how much younger is your wife than you?

But perhaps most telling here is that none of these women appear to have claimed he had sexual intercourse with them. It's almost as if they are only willing to go so far with this because the more serious your claim is, the more damage you take if you end up unable to prove it.

Good point.

You appear to be a shallow person who sits on his computer all day accusing anonymous people of things so that you can insult them. Makes me wonder what happened to you.

Consider his supposed political leanings, his obsession with US politics, and where he chooses to live: Child prostitution in Thailand.

There only needs to be one that can prove it. However, I just learned from CNN that Gloria Allred, the attorney for the accuser with the yearbook, has refused to turn over the yearbook for authentication. Something smells fishy with her response. I need more, broteddybear.

There's usually something fishy when Gloria Allred is involved. She seems much more of a media manipulator than an attorney.

It is clear that quite a few morons are still doubting the witnesses.

Moore is not on trial, and therefore cannot cross examine or compel witnesses to his own defense. Trial by ordeal is not a Western value.

Of course for these mental midgets all it would take is for one white woman to accuse a black guy of pinching her butt and they would be looking for a rope.

I did no such thing in the Dr. Cosby case. It was my opinion that they were trying to get us to lynch a black man. I said the same thing about the Ray Rice incident and the Adrian Petersen incident as well.

I am getting really tired of stupid people. They are a danger to our country.

If you are as smart as you say you are, you know you have been in danger your whole life and always will be if you are that threatened by the dull witted.

If you are sitting here apologizing and making excuses for a child molester, then that's YOU doing that, not me.

You have Moore dead to rights without a single charge being filed against him and not a single bit of testimony admitted into a court of law or anyone having to say anything under oath.


Everybody gets a presumption of innocence and the right to defend themselves when charged. That you have abandoned the Western legal tradition to further your left wing values says more about you--and your choice to live under a military junta than a democracy.

What kind of person would rather protect the guilty instead of the innocent? I'd rather err on the side of the victim, and not the criminal.

Not when it comes to Bob Menendez or Bill Clinton...

We all understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. But everyone here has lived through the OJ trial, let's not pretend we don't know what a shitload of evidence looks like.

Yeah, and all we have here is "he said, she said" going back 40 years. The evidence is weak. In the OJ trial, there was a long history of abuse involving the police, there was a divorce, there was alimony and child support, there was plenty of blood, and gloves buried on his own property among other things. And... let's not forget that OJ was acquitted.

Regardless of the validity of the allegations we've come to know two things at least.

(1) Bannon's talent as a political strategist is a myth, he's a great political communicator and spin doctor though.

Well, we're learning that the Republican establishment is with the Democrats once again, not like we needed reminding. They are happy to sacrifice a seat in the US Senate. That's fine. They will have their comeuppance in 2018, just like they did in Virginia for running Ed Gillespie and a bunch of other lobbyists who will do only what big money donors want them to do.

(2) Hillary was right about the basket of deplorables.

She lost a presidential race to Donald Trump, in spite of the fact he never held political office of any kind. That is just awesome!

Looks like McConnell is getting desperate: GOP leaders weigh drastic plan to save Alabama Senate seat

[Pants-of-dog]

I think ultimately, no one's going to have to seriously defend the concepts of innocent until proven guilty or statutes of limitations on a cultural level and that's what this is seemingly about if we consider this to be part of the same movement as the collegiate sexual assault hysteria.

Yes, I too am disappointed at the number of people accusing these women of lying and judging them as quilty for taking bribes and making false accusations.

[maz]

After once giving a platform to a literal pedophile (which they conveniently deleted all their articles), Salon does an about face in light of Moore and is all of the sudden concerned about age of consent

Some bizarre feminist at Salon imagines that there is some secret Christian religious conspiracy of arranged marriages between 16 year olds and 30 year old men in order to get them pregnant and, I guess to keep them from getting contraceptives, abortions or otherwise keeping them from whoring it up.

You gotta love these people.

A national age of consent? After Roy Moore, maybe it’s time

Political issues have defined most of the fallout from revelations about Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore allegedly spending his 30s trying to fondle every high school girl in Etowah County. So far the focus has largely been about what Republicans will do now that maintaining their Senate majority might depending a man so noxious he was reportedly banned from a shopping mall for creeping on teen girls. But in light of these revelations it's also time to expand the discussion to a broader social issue: a flawed legal system that makes it easy for predatory men to get away with chasing teenage girls.

What this entire story exposes is that this country has a serious problem with age of consent laws. The age at which a teenager can legally consent to sex with an adult ranges from 16 to 18 across various states, and in many states, children can be married off to adults so long as they have a parent's or judge's approval. Sexual activity that is legal in one state can immediately become illegal if the couple crosses state lines.

This patchwork system creates ambiguity that Moore and his defenders have exploited, using the fact that 16 is the age of consent in Alabama to create the impression that there's some uncertainty about the moral status of a man in his 30s who pursues high school age girls. It's a typical strategy for excusing this kind of predatory behavior. Any element of doubt or uncertainty is seized upon as reason to imply that it's unreasonable to simply expect men to keep their hands off the young ones. Moore worked this angle hard in his immediately infamous interview with Sean Hannity, where he blurred the lines between teens and adults in an effort to make his dating habits seem more normal than they actually were.

In addition, all 50 states should have an all-out ban on marriage under 18, without exceptions. Hell, make it 21. No one should get married who isn't old enough to drink at their own wedding. If your teenage relationship is meant to be, it will last until you're old enough to get married.

Religious conservatives will object, of course, because they want to marry teen girls off who get pregnant. But perhaps strengthening these laws will help religious conservatives rethink their objections to allowing abortion and contraception for teenagers who need it.

Eighteen is still pretty young, of course. Most people grasp that a man older than 30 chasing 18- and 19-year-olds is incredibly creepy, even if he's on the right side of the law. But most 18-year-olds are old enough to know how young they are, and are better equipped to fend off advances from predatory men. High-school-age girls, as the stories told by Moore's accusers illustrate, are often more vulnerable to the idea that they should be flattered by the attention, instead of repulsed.

No good comes from having the age of consent as low as 16 or 17. The only people it benefits are men who struggle to get dates with women who are old enough to know better. Even then, those men would be better off learning to be decent human beings who seek to develop adult relationships than exploiting girls who really should be focused on prom dresses and college applications instead of watching their boyfriends' hairlines recede. We have much to gain and nothing to lose by standardizing the age of consent laws to 18, with a three-year "Romeo and Juliet" exception.

[Godstud]