Roy Moore, Republican Senate Nominee, Accused of Inappropriate Encounter With Underage Girl

The WaPo article is an investigative piece with a multitude sources. They are merely reporting on what these people have stated.

It objectively isn't an opinion article.

Please stop lying and repeating false Bannon & Hannity claims from last night. This isn't the Breitbart comment section, you can't just spout random fiction.

You are talking nonsense. And there is not multiple sources, the whole article is based around the one women claiming that she has a encounter 40 years ago. And then to cover the inadequacies in the story, the journalists uses some legal women who seems a bit more credible but have nothing to bring to the table.

So no it´s "Objectively" not a investigative article, that is nothing but your opinion

Also cute spin, why don't you also bring in Trump or someone else to make your nonsense seem more legit. Again just because you happen to agree with the bias the washout post has, does not equal to them stating facts.

It's not an opinion piece if they have a source whether you like it or not. I find it sad that you always want to give the benefit of the doubt to the men in these scenarios but obviously you think all the women lie. Double standard much? Misogynist?

Not surprised that Jacanuk defends rapists and pedophiles.

I do not care about your opinion on this investigative article. There are multiple sources, don't lie about that.

Two of Corfman’s childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore. Wells says her daughter told her about the encounter more than a decade later, as Moore was becoming more prominent as a local judge.

Disgusting nonetheless................

Not surprised that you jump on this without critical thinking or wanting any evidence at all.

Again like Zaryia you can call it whatever you want. The fact is that the journalist is passing of a story and ending it with their opinion on what has happened without any actual proof. They even state it in the article "the journalist hunted down the women and "convinced" them into telling their story"

And you are correct i do require actual evidence and more than some women who claims that something happened 40 years ago.

So since most sexual assaults/rapes leave no witnesses I guess you would never convict anyone since victims aren't credible to you. Shame to be like you are...................

we are at a point that republicans are ok with pedophilia and sexual assault, as long as they are republican pedophiles.

Pretty sickening.

Over 30 sources now. Screw off Jackacuck.

Bill Maher put it great,

But this guy is not a pedophile, he's a hebephile. and there is a big difference between the two, one could actually make a biological and natural argument for hebephilia. And if you don't know the difference pedo's are attracted to prepubescent children, hebephilies are attracted to younger men or women but they have gone through puberty and are sexually mature.

Im not sure when the other "assaults" took place, but im having to guess around that same time. And during that same time, the late 70s early 80s, it was still super common to see 16 year olds with 25 year olds. It was a very different country back then and in fact, many parents actually wanted this for their daughters.

Im not a fan of giving pedo's a pass, in fact its one of the few times i support the death penalty (because of the undoing damage it can do for generations). But given these were teens in an era that promoted these relationships.... give the man a pass. Its also worth noting the legal age of consent in Alabama since 1979 is 16. So the other two are not even worth mentioning.

@zaryia: 30 sources now.

Please do link to a credible source of those 30.

And very mature with the name calling, so when you are proven to be a bias hack, you resort to a link to a liberal talk show host and claim there 30 sources, and no Washout post is not a credible source.

Are you really asking if i like you convict and "execute" people based on simple allegations with no credible proof.

Holy shit and here i thought you as a american actually was for one of the foundations of our democracy, you know presumed innocence until PROVEN guilty

Are you really comparing personal opinions with the justice system? How arrogant of you when this discussion is over voting for politicians. You convicted Hilary without a court of law. It's in ALL you comments about her. HYPOCRITE.

Holy shit and here I thought you as an American actually was for one of the foundations of our democracy, you know voting for the best candidates to run the country and not merely a lap dog voting for the letter next to the name even when the integrity of the individual was called cause for alarm.

Well, at least you confirm that you know this is nothing but a smear campaign to discredit a republican candidate for the senate. But again opposite you i don't judge someone based on simple allegations and allegations that happened almost 40 years ago where there is only one source.

I know it´s easier to jump on this when you are on the opposite side, but try to approach this with some critical thinking. Why come forward now and why did the "washout post" feel the need to write that this is supposly a republican voter and also that they did not want to come forward but was "convinced" that she should come forward.

No I never said that either. And you cannot say he's innocent of the charges either. It's just another R next to a name so you give them a pass all the time. Seriously Republicans have become the biggest hypocrites ever. You accuse Democrats without any court rendering but let someone say something about a Republican and you all whine smear campaign. Going by that then Hilary lost because of a smear campaign by Republicans. You cannot have it both ways.

You are one of the biggest hypocrites here by the way. Always a double standard when it's your party. Disgusting. No integrity. Nothing but lies.

I hope a lot of you guys defending this never have daughters....jeez

Or any relationships either.

Yeah, I never really noticed there are so many people on the internet that just dont "get it".

LOL privileged white males. Note: I'm not saying all white males. The important word goes right before that.

Exactly. And if any of them took offense to what you said, then you must have struck a personal nerve.

So what evidence do you have that he is guilty? and don't come with a stupid answer like "the women said so"

Also look up hypocrite, because you seem to not understand what that is.

@kod: I've noticed people think a pedophile is anyone attracted to someone under 18... Glad you summed it up with "before puberty". The A.P.A. defines it as before the age of 14 I believe.

Yah, im not sure of the details, but i think there is a very clear and notable difference.

What evidence do you have that he's innocent?

And don't come up with a stupid answer like because he said so.

I understand hypocrite quite well. You have accused Clinton of various things and they were even proven false but you keep repeating them. In this case you don't know if he did it or not but you say no.

And that makes you a hypocrite.

Why?

It was 1979, a completely different era where this shit was encouraged by many parents. I think most people get that by today's standards its not acceptable but neither is drinking and smoking while pregnant, wanna find some 90 year old women to shame for doing this 70 years ago, before they really knew how bad it was?

In 1979 it was not okay for a 32 year old man to date minors.....14 was still too young then.

People didnt have that same view then. It was not "dating minors" it was more like..... preparing her to marry someone with job security.

You guys realize this whole "18 and under" thing is a relatively new concept right? Even when it was applied before, we didnt start taking it seriously on most issues until the 90s. Be it booze, cigarettes, sex, etc.

And another reminder here, the other two girls were at or above the age of consent.

That's not true. Children were not being married off at 14. Also he didn't marry the girl. He assaulted here....or do you think that's okay too?

Also the age of consent in Alabama in 1979 was 16. Not 14.

@Jacanuk said:

Your opinion on WaPo is noted, but it is a fact that they have 30 people on the record as sources. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. I linked Maher because he made an excellent point on the partisan hypocrisy on this issue. I didn't see many liberals defending the latest string of sexual deviants. What the conservatives have been doing over the last few days has been nothing short of sickening. And you're directly repeating the talking points of Bannon and Hannity, it is absolutely disgusting.

She was 14, and that is illegal. No one is going to give him a pass on this if it is true.

Kids got married at 14 ALL THE FUCKING TIME back then. Maybe by the 70s it had tapered down, but this was a normal practice across the world for most of world history up until around that time, give or take a decade. And i didnt say he married her, i attempted to get it through your skull the view that people took on relationships back then. Also, i may be wrong here, but i believe the "assault" was simply due to her age right?

@kod: Did you not understand age of consent being 16 at the time? And no....in 1979 high school children were not getting married all the time.

Not saying he is for certain guilty, but testimony is considered evidence.

Do some research before posting.

Not that any of this conversation is relevant, since it's illegal either way and would easily cost him the seat....but how often was sexual relations with a 30+ year old man and a 14 year old in the 70s?

Yes, i do understand it, i think ive been utterly clear on that. Just like i think ive been utterly clear on explaining that unless it was actual prepubescent children, people simply had different views then.

Even by today's standards with a median age of first marriage at 28 (20 in the 70s) its far more common than you think.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/10/why-does-the-united-states-still-let-12-year-old-girls-get-married/?utm_term=.51baaa37c974

Citing how a nation viewed something and societies acceptance of it, is not irrelevant. As for the last part, see the article linked in the above post. Over 20,000 cases a year to this day when laws are far stricter and societies attitude as a whole has completely changed on the topic.

In Alabama is was a crime as she was under the age of consent. Period. So no........the views in 1979 were not different or the age of consent would have been. False.

Also unwanted sexual advances are ALWAYS a crime and age does not matter.

Apparently he an apologist for sexual predators. He has all the earmarks of one. 1979 isn't really ancient history either and children weren't prey for adults.

It isn't relevant as it concerns the election or if it was legal or not. The morality of it is more subjective and off-topic, in that case I think a 32 with 14 is sick.

Of course how society views things. legal or illegal, absolutely matters and i guarantee you're not willing to take that position and apply this across the board to every topic.

And again, we are not talking about "unwanted sexual advances" are we? The issue was her age right? It was not that it was unwanted, it was the legal age issue.

Then looking at her age...........you must admit you were wrong. It was UNDER the age of consent. There is no grey area there.

Again, it was simply a different era then and many people had different tolerance levels on this. This is well established.

For you to say it does not matter, would be the equivalent of you saying that everyone involved in MASH was a bunch of black hating racists because the only black character was named "Spearchucker Jones".... but when that was written, it was not considered a derogatory term. You absolutely cannot be this stupid to not be able to apply something like this.... you cant apply today's standards, today's rationale, to things in the past.

There's nothing for me to be wrong on. I never suggested it was not illegal or under the age of consent.

I simply said society had a different view on relationships with teens back then and its something we absolutely have to consider.

It wasn't that different dude. I'm not sure how young you are.....apparently you are since you see 1979 as very different.

And I'm not sure why when the law is black and white you cannot accept it. It was illegal. That's definitive.

Comparing the age of consent to racism is a false analogy. We still.........unfortunately........have racism. That is an idea. Age of consent is a LEGAL term.

That makes you wrong since society in 1979 said it was unacceptable.

The article makes it seem like it was unwanted as well, especially since a child can't consent. Here's some quotes:

“I wanted it over with — I wanted out,” she remembers thinking. “Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over.” Corfman says she asked Moore to take her home, and he did.

...

“I wasn’t ready for that — I had never put my hand on a man’s penis, much less an erect one,” Corfman says.

She remembers thinking, “I don’t want to do this” and “I need to get out of here.” She says that she got dressed and asked Moore to take her home, and that he did.

There's also the issue of Moore, being an authority figure, preying on a vulnerable person whose family is going through divorce.

I thought the nickname "Spearchucker" in MASH was used ironically, and that it referred to his ability to throw a javelin particularly well in track and field events.

Not that it's related to the discussion much, I just like MASH :-P

1. Yes again, in the 70s society had very different views on these things. And im old enough to remember the early 80s and the very different world we lived in then.

2. Im not debating the law...... again... im not debating the law..... yet again... . im not debating the law. How many fucking times do you need to hear this before it absorbs into that thick skull?

3. No, it is not a false analogy because the acts themselves are not whats analogous. Work on that reading comprehension. The analogy is of the attitudes of people toward something and how its changed over time.... repeat that to yourself if you need to, get back to me when it sinks in.

The law says society viewed it wrong. You are wrong. You're an apologist for sexual deviants.

Also it's a false analogy. And by the 70s we already had the Civil Rights movement. While racism existed it wasn't okay.

Right, again, this is not what im arguing.

The only thing ive attempted to get through peoples thick skulls are that society has had different views on these things in the past. If you notice, we have 20,000 a year currently, that has been an ever dropping number since.... forever. When we get back to the 70s and the baby boomers, being married as a 14, 15, 16 year old was fairly common and accepted.

Because of this significant societal view change, i dont think its acceptable to hold this person to the same standards we do today. My first analogy was like berating a 90 year old for smoking a drinking while pregnant. Which no reasonable person would do, because they didnt know what we know now on that subject and societies views have changed on it. But is anyone going to argue that what we're talking about here is worse than that? Is anyone here going to say we shouldnt apply the era difference?