Which side makes a better case?
avatar
148 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 25 days ago

    are persons charged with the sex offender status sex offenders for life or does it disappear after a period of time?

    • 25 days ago

      @henrywolfe_ Most jurisdictions - 'sex offender' status is for life. Totally not applicable to this debate since there was no court case....no charges....and most of the women had claims that would not be 'actionable'.

    • 24 days ago

      @mvineyard it is though, point I was trying to make is that if you do something as morally repugnant as sexualy assault someone that never goes away...

      He might be a “changed man” as you’re professing now with literally zero evidence to support the fact but his past actions are enough to keep him out of office.

    • 24 days ago

      @henrywolfe_ "He might be a “changed man” as you’re professing now with literally zero evidence to support the fact"

      Kinda like the zero evidence to support the accusations. What can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

      "but his past actions are enough to keep him out of office."

      Which past actions?

  • 25 days ago

    BINGO

    • 25 days ago

      so theft is on the same moral level as sexual assault???

    • 25 days ago

      Con: They consented.
      Pro: They were under 14.
      Con: So what?

      ah, the old "statutory rape is good" argument. it had been a few centuries.

      • 25 days ago

        @lewisoflime Why do you think that its "wrong?" What is you basis? I'm betting you have none. It just "feels icky"

      • 25 days ago

        @lewisoflime "under 14?" Nobody said that. Maybe you could actually listen to the debate, yeah?

      • 25 days ago

        @nellyj_misesian 'icky-ness' is the foundation of laws. It's hard to have an objective morality without making assumptions about the world. In absence of reasonable assumptions, defer to the universal feeling of disgust.

        Also, bro, they can't fucking consent. Would you fuck someone in a coma, or with someone with severe disabilities? Or a corpse?

      • 24 days ago

        @liamm @nellyj_misesian

        Despite the highly credible evidence that Moore sexually abused women, let's go above and beyond, to greatly insurmountable lengths, to give Moore the benefit of the doubt.

        EVEN IF he had never done that, HE STILL dated a 16 year old girl when he was 33, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. That's literally sexual abuse and/or manipulation of a minor, in our society. We don't even NEED to prove the case of the fourteen year old, Moore ADMITS that he's manipulated minors in the past. It "feels icky" because it is.

        ps: Daniel is 100% a conservative.

      • 24 days ago

        @liamm " It's hard to have an objective morality"

        "Objective morality" LOL!

      • 24 days ago

        @iantreyparish "Despite the highly credible evidence"

        What highly credible evidence?

      • 24 days ago

        @iantreyparish " That's literally sexual abuse and/or manipulation of a minor, in our society."

        I don't think you know what the word "literally" means. What is "manipulation of a minor" is that a crime or are you using those words generically?

        "We don't even NEED to prove the case of the fourteen year old, Moore ADMITS that he's manipulated minors in the past."

        What does "manipulated minors" mean?

      • 24 days ago

        @bronsonkaahui I agree its absurd, but just because one can't exist doesn't mean you dont act without an ethic, see: every human ever who retrainsthemselves

      • 24 days ago

        @liamm "It's hard to have an objective morality without making assumptions about the world."

        How do you go from that to "my assumptions are correct?"

      • 24 days ago

        @bronsonkaahui you don't... they're assumptions lol. the person who claims objective morality is wrong lol >.>

    • 25 days ago

      Pro says multiple girls were sexually hurt. FACT - only 1 girl (the 14 year old) was below age of consent. Several women (3 of the first 4) claim ONLY dating, with parental permission, and nothing improper happened.

      The 5th person making allegations could easily do more than show a yearbook with an alleged signature by more....and she also LIED in saying she had not seen him since the 'attack' - yet more than 10 years ago - he was the judge presiding over her divorce case. She is a liar.

      Later ones - again -allegations, no credibility, no proof. Zip, Nadda.

      Dating a 17 or 18 year old young woman with parent's permission is neither illegal NOR immoral.

      PRO makes a principle that we should NEVER go against a Supreme Court ruling. By that logic, PRO would say slavery was completely legal (by the Dred Scott decision), and would support the principle of segregation and separate but equal principles (decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson .) SO - Daniel would call all those opposed to slavery or segregation part of a 'theocratic' group that has no business being in office.

      • 25 days ago

        PRO - at 42 min - says Moore was a Federal Judge. WRONG - Moore was the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court - NOT a federal position.

        PRO says it is wrong to date someone under 18 - another error. Age of consent (even for sex) - is 16. Moore is not alleged to have had intercourse (or even attempted the effort) with any of the young women.

        PRO tries to make a case using lots of false information!! BAD FORM.

        • 25 days ago

          @mvineyard ah yes, because a man in his thirties dating 16 y/o's seems totally legit. :joy:

        • 25 days ago

          @iantreyparish There is a difference between legal and 'right'. Back in the south - 30 to 60 years ago - totally legit and considered totally okay. Moore ASKED parents for permission to date. Hardly illegal. Maybe not your cup of tea...but not the sleaze you suggested it was.

          OTOH - I wish leftists were as outspoken about Republican attempts to put real teeth in laws pertaining to giving abortion to very young women (below 16) - where the abortion provider is LEGALLY required to determine who might be the father. Often - it is a man over 21 years old...and that requires REPORTING to police....and it is often not done. (Covert video tapes and nurses in the room hear the 'counselor' advising the girl to claim that the father is 15 or 16 .... Democrats obstruct improving the laws - I guess because they don't care about young girls being sexually abused...unless they can fabricate a claim to help win an election.

        • 25 days ago

          @mvineyard I apologize for saying federal, I had said state judge every other time during the debate I just misspoke on that last one.

          And it is wrong to date someone under 18, it’s especially wrong to date someone who is 14, and a 16 year old who you touch without her consent. It might not be illegal to date a 17 year old, but it is creepy, and what is illegal is the other facts that were mentioned. If you wanna talk facts, the overwhelming evidence is on the side of multiple accusers and the 33 (at least) corroborating witnesses.

          I am not the one using false information, I backed up my info with sources and numerous provable accounts.

        • 25 days ago

          @debateme13 Reconcile your numbers with this article...can't be done.

          http://billlawrenceonline.com/roy-moore-accuser-scorecard/

          See near the bottom....Congress and voters should remove from Congress the many perps who stand 'charged' (remember- actual proof is un-necessary by the Daniel @debateme13 standard). AND - all payments made by Congress - the names of all offenders should be released...and those offenders dismissed from Congress. Otherwise - this is an exercise in leftist scheming to 'disqualify' one person on 38 year old allegations (without proof) - while permitting existing members of Congress to get away with far worse... GAME??

          BTW - plenty of your sources are long on innuendo. Where are the facts? THe link to my article (above) has a quick summary of FACTS....where is there a quick summary to support your re-telling the story - that is long on facts and short on emotion and lies.

          You mention '16 year old who you touch without her consent' ...well- the 5th accuser was 16, and alleges significant groping...but she is a PROVEN LIAR. She claims to not have seen Moore since the assault (when he was the presiding judge over her divorce only 18 years ago...) - and she won't release the yearbook for forensic analysis by a 3rd party. THAT tells me she is a BIG TIME LIAR and discredited.

          The 17, 18, 19 - they claim that he asked permission and got it..and acted gentlemanly...nothing illegal here. AND - for the deep south - that was not creepy, not wrong, not bad, not anything bad.... You keep saying it was ILLEGAL to date under 18. WRONG. Age of consent - 16. Why keep lying?? The debate is over, most of the voters have bought into the lies...so don't keep repeating it, just let it go and don't comment further on that particular lie.

        • 24 days ago

          @mvineyard

          As a Southerner, that comment, 'it was right', is inherently offensive. As someone who has seen parents abuse the 5th Commandment (honor thy father and mother), the excuse of "asking the parents" is inherently offensive. These two instances happening do not make something right, it makes that instance culturally acceptable. These are two very different things.

          Disregarding the abortion argument because it's a non-sequitur.

        • 24 days ago

          @iantreyparish I didn't say it was 'right' - I said it wasn't illegal, it was permissible, and I can think of things far worse....like abortion and especially partial birth abortion. I understand some people think a 32YO man dating a 17 YO woman is far worse than routinely killing lots of babies ....partial birth abortion. Definite difference in moralities....but that is what you get with abortion is a sacred rite of leftists.

        • 24 days ago

          @mvineyard

          "not wrong, not bad, not anything bad...."

          The implied of these statements, to any educated or even sane person, is that it is a morally acceptable thing to do, or what's known as RIGHT.

          This is about some sacred rite of leftists. Abortion can be just as wrong as sexually taking advantage of another human being. Both. are. wrong.

          Also, stop saying this was acceptable in the Deep South. It wasn't, has never been, and won't ever be.

        • 24 days ago

          @iantreyparish Again - if it was wrong - then why would a parent grant permission to date? If it was 'wrong' - why is the LEGAL age of consent 16, with no requirement on age difference? I thought that people had to follow LAW...and not how people FEEL. For a long time - sex outside of marriage was WRONG - but not illegal. We don't round them up and punish them. Laws against adultery for the most part have been abolished, and states that still have them on the books don't enforce them.

          If we want a lynch mob to take out someone....shouldn't the lynch mob at least wait for facts on violations of the LAW and not 'beliefs'. If the lynch mob is thirsty for blood - then there are a number of sitting Congressman and Senators who are guilty of greater 'crimes and offenses' than Moore is, and there is more REAL evidence against them, and the offenses are far more recent. Maybe the lynch mob should start with those IN power first to prove that this isn't a hyper-partisan lynch mob that really doesn't care about the truth, it just wants a liberal seated in the Senate, and not Moore.

        • 24 days ago

          @iantreyparish " ah yes, because a man in his thirties dating 16 y/o's seems totally legit."

          Red herring and does not even begin to address his argument.

        • 24 days ago
        • 23 days ago

          @iantreyparish Why waste time explaining your 'bona fides'? Your argument should stand or fall on its own merit.

          You compare dating older teens with the Prophet Mohammed. WELL - please get your facts straight....he married Aisha at 6, not 9, and consummated the marriage at 9, not 12. AND - if you think it is correct to compare the dating a 17 or 18 YO with a child bride - then you have ZERO credibility.

          You introduce the idea of teachers having SEX with dating...again-idiotic. AND - dating between a teacher and student would be like an office romance between a senior in office and someone very junior.

          You discuss Moore dating - AS A JUDGE....WRONG. Re-state it - he was a Deputy District Attorney. (MORE FACTS WRONG!! DO you even fact check yourself before wasting time to 'correct others??')

          Your logic is AMAZINGLY STUPID. Bad to vote for Trump because he is morally repugnant? (Like you - I was a Cruz support) - unlike you - I am not a brain dead surrendering Republican who thinks we should lose to Hillary to win. Voting against Trump - okay -turn over control of the DoJ to Hillary - and the investigations for Uranium One go no where. All the unethical things Obama did - continue. Hillary is a criminal....but you want to let her have power because you don't like Trump. The stupid is strong with you.

          If you and those like you spent a tiny fraction of the time attacking the entire issue...demanding that EVERY Republican and Democrat with a 'questionable' problem ....starting with Menendez and Franken, add in any/all representatives in Congress where a secret payout (totals amounting toover $17 Million) is removed ....THEN I could agree with you that Moore should also be included. But until then, what you suggest is 'unilateral disarmament' - and every critical election, look for people to come out of the woodwork with more allegations that can't be proved...can't be easily disproved...and by your new standard, we will lose every time. Wonderful plan for perpetual Democrat control.

          I have complete disgust with those like you who will shred someone into pieces based on flimsy evidence (and fabricated evidence like the yearbook)....and re-define morality where what YOU DON'T LIKE is now illegal (when it was LEGAL)....but you would be happy to torpedo a candidate who won't support abortion on demand and won't support partial birth abortion and won't support amnesty for all illegal. AND - Moore hasn't tried to destroy a young 15 year old girl who was abused and misused at a university (the way his opponent did.)

          Guess what - we live in a flawed world. I am sick of idiots who want to surrender to horrible evil Democrat candidates because our own candidates are not perfect. Maybe some time in the future you will be judged by unprovable allegations, the rules will be re-interpreted to make what you did 20 years ago now 'illegal' because some people don't like it...and you will face the same sort of moral outrage of people with mob mentalities shouting for punishment now, trial later. You WILL reap what you sow. And you will deserve it.

        • 23 days ago

          @iantreyparish I'm ready to debate this. Let me know if you want.

        • 23 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui I'm most likely free later on Sunday or Tuesday.

          lol @mvineyard I'll debate you too, if you're not too triggered tho.

        • 22 days ago

          @iantreyparish Sunday works for me let me know I am on Hawaii time.

        • 21 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui

          Idk the timezone for Hawaii, but I can most likely debate anywhere from 8 pm to 12 pm EST.

        • 21 days ago

          @iantreyparish My son says HI is 2 hours before us - on PST....so 8 PM PST for me is 6 PM for you (HST), and is 11 PM EST. AND - if you want, we can move to 5 PM your time, 7 PM mine - but on Monday, not Sunday....my son/DIL here til Monday AM - and I drive them to the airport for flight back to HI in the morning.

        • 21 days ago

          @mvineyard Hopefully I'll be back on campus by then, and I'll take CON. The rez can be that "Roy Moore deserves support, votes, and defense" and either of y'all can be pro.

        • 21 days ago

          @iantreyparish (My wife advises 8 PM is not good on Monday...6 or 7 - okay).
          As I see it - I will make a statement I believe in...that would be a PRO resolution:

          "The allegations against Moore lack veracity and credibility to disqualify him from the election for Alabama Senator; voters should compare the beliefs and policies of each candidate before voting."

        • 21 days ago

          @mvineyard I can most likely do 7 on Monday.

          And that resolution seems fair enough.

        • 21 days ago

          @iantreyparish okay gonna go into town for a few hours I willl check back around 8 EST

        • 21 days ago

          @iantreyparish "The rez can be that "Roy Moore deserves support, votes, and defense" and either of y'all can be pro."

          I don't agree with that statement. I wouldn't vote for Roy Moore for other reasons completely unrelated to the reason you say I shouldn't support him. Same with Trump. There are valid reasons not to vote for Trump, but "grab em by the pussy" isn't one of them.

        • 21 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui

          That's a valid reason to not vote for Trump.

        • 21 days ago

          @iantreyparish I will post the resolution ....I will use the 'challenge button' - I think that prevents others from taking it up....

        • 21 days ago

          @iantreyparish and @bronsonkaahui How about having a private e-mail server with lots of classified e-mails on it - including Top Secret Special Codeword Access? How about trading your position for 'Pay to Play'? How about aiding Russian lobbyists in securing 20% of US uranium mining rights? How about running a 'bimbo eruption' squad to quiet women who have credible allegations against the husband for sexual harassment (up to and including rape)?

          I can understand that there are certain 'crimes' that 'disqualify someone from office....but last time I checked the laws/Constitution - the locker room talk of Trump is not 'legally disqualifying' - however, if Clinton had been properly investigated/charged - and found guilty of negligent handling of classified material, she would be legally barred from ever holding in federal job/federal elective position. Just wondering how 'selective' your outrage is?

        • 16 days ago

          @iantreyparish not in my opinion. I don't think random boasts made over a decade ago should be the deciding factor in elections. I think policy is exponentially more important than rhetoric.

        • 16 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui

          Rhetoric is not divorcable from policy.

        • 16 days ago

          @iantreyparish I think that's demonstrably false. So far I've not seen anything that would resemble a coherent official policy of pussy grabbing.

        • 16 days ago

          @iantreyparish Sure it is. Recall how Obama, in the 2008 campaign - criticized Bush for his profligate 'spending'....saying that Bush adding over $4 Trillion to the National Debt was almost unpatriotic? Go back and look for it on YouTube. Sounds like Obama's rhetoric was to challenge Bush's policy - and the Obama would fix it and do better. Hell yes he did better - Obama doubled down and added over $9 Trillion of debt his his 8 years. Not only was Obama's policy divorced from his rhetoric - it was divorced from any responsibility to future generations. I am quickly coming to the realization that the youth - ages 18 to 30 - are, for the most part, ill-educated and politically ignorant. (How else can you come up with the number of those youth who claim that socialism would be preferable.) So - while I used to feel sympathy for burdening them with a huge national debt, nowadays - not so much. They will likely get exactly what they deserve. (Now- I will feel sympathy for those who believe in capitalism, the Constitution, etc.....but it seems like those are a minority in the younger generations. Thank you National Education Association...you succeeded in 'dumbing down' the children.)

        • 15 days ago

          @mvineyard Careful there...
          I bet your parents generation was saying the same about your generation. The youth that you are describing is on average much more educated than your generation and the fact that they don't perceive politics in the same way you do and the fact that you don't understand them doesn't mean that they are ill-educated or ignorant. And if anything, they reflect their parents' flaws and weaknesses.

        • 15 days ago

          @gigi Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where the baby boomers thought that socialism and big government was a great thing....or something equivalent. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where the belief of socialism and big government is a smart belief - instead of lazy - desiring 'wealth equalization' (and forgetting that the ends usually resemble Argentina.....or worse - Venezuela.) How many 20 somethings would really like to live in Western Europe - where the unemployment rate for youth (18 to 30) is double or triple what it is in the US?

          As to 'more educated' ..facts not in evidence. College students had higher SATs in the past (60's, 70's, 80's) than more recent. AND -the SAT scores were 're-normed' a few decades ago so that a 1200 'composite of old would give a 1300 composite today. Yet - the overall SAT scores are dropping (even after the 'adjustment.)
          AND - consider that many of the higher more prestigious colleges today still report that a large percentage of freshmen (can I use that term today without triggering 'gender sensitive individuals'??) are not ready for college work and must take remedial math and English (i.e. - do high school work while i college.) The years to graduation has increased....it is taking, on average, more than 6 years to get a 4 year degree. AND - the number of students taking worthwhile STEM coursework leading to meaningful jobs has decreased.....while the number of students taking fairly worthless degrees in ethnic studies, film, modern dance or other equivalent to the 'underwater basket weaving courses' - has grown significantly.

          The Baby Boomer generation looked forward to being more successful and having better jobs than their parents. The current generation of high school and college students, on average, are far less likely to be successful than their parents.

          Now - do you have facts to counter the above...or just feelings.

          However...in the past (and hopefully now and in the future) - we see lots of 18's - 22's go into early 20's - ill prepared, not ready - but they suddenly get a reality check, they grow up, they get more education (the real life stuff, not the cloistered college 'safe space' stuff) - and some turn into entrepreneurs, innovators, etc. ....and they become very successful. It doesn't take a college degree to do this....it takes drive and initiative - and there are always a small percent of 'do-ers' in every generation that make things happen instead of wondering what happened. Maybe things will get better.....

        • 15 days ago

          @mvineyard
          I'm not actually even going to attempt to enlighten you on political and social beliefs and values. I tend to respect your views as well as the socialists views regardless of my own personal beliefs. These political debates of what is better have been going on for generations and is not just happening now
          My point was more about the generalisations and accusations for a whole generation rather than about political beliefs.
          Regarding your education point, sure I can search the internet and find facts that support my case. I was thinking more about access to education and quality of it which yeah I assume that it's improving over the years naturally. The performance of students and the subjects (your personal opinion about what is a valuable degree is irrelevant) that they choose are valid argument but not necessarily prove that overall access and quality of education is worse than it used to be 50 years ago.


          The blaming of a whole generation is happening quite lot but if you think about it every generation tends to reflect their parents... So if you blame them, then you may as well blame their parents generation first and foremost. From my experience in Europe, my parents generation was the first one to move to urban centers, work hard and build a comfortable life for themselves and their families (given that they tend to live in worst conditions). They over showered their children with almost anything that they didn't use to have themselves. They created a massive financial boom, national debts, dependence on credit etc that their kids are inheriting and paying the price now. So yeah, maybe the youth is more spoiled and might not work as hard as their parents but hey that's what their parents and they society they built, have taught them, no?

        • 15 days ago

          @gigi My apologies if you think I was trying to 'blame' the youth. Nope...just an observation...and a HOPE that the majority of the youth will find themselves, find good work - and improve themselves and society. The adage about 'if a man is not a socialist when he is 20 then he has no heart; and a man is not a conservative when he is 40 has no mind.' Attributed to plenty - without proof...but the concept is valid - and goes back a long long way! So - we can establish that youth is idealistic and might make mistakes - but with wisdom - they likely fix things.

          I agree that we have too many parents 'spoiling children'....and I certainly agree what we as a society have spent a ton of money we DON'T have - and are leaving a huge debt burden on them. BUT - the operative question is....what do we do to fix it?

          I agree with Mike Rowe (actor - Dirty Jobs) ..."We are lending money we don't have to kids who can't pay it back to train them for jobs that no longer exist. That's nuts." Our federalizing of student loan programs was shear idiocy...it incentivized colleges to keep raising prices at rates much higher than inflation, offer degrees that don't lead to well paying jobs that would enable the graduate to pay off the student loan, etc. Why not make colleges 'back the loan' - and if the student can't get a job - they can 'write it off' and the college must assume the debt. THEN - the college has every incentive to not bring in students not prepared to study, they have every incentive to ensure that the degree programs are worth the cost, etc. That is how a free market system would work!

        • 15 days ago

          @mvineyard Oh so sorry, if I misunderstood you!!!!
          Then I think we agree on all the above and I love your quote 'if a man is not a socialist when he is 20 then he has no heart; and a man is not a conservative when he is 40 has no mind.' :-)

        • 15 days ago

          @gigi Actually - if you search on line -the quote is attributed to plenty of different people (Winston Churchill foremost)...but the closest one comes to a long past 'similar' thought is John Adams

          "Thomas Jefferson preserved this quip, writing in a 1799 journal that Adams had said: “A boy of 15 who is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a democrat at 20.”" (same concept - except a shorter time frame...)

          http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/25/john-adams-said-it-first/

          I guess I really feel sorry for so many students. They know little about finance, interest rates, costs, benefits - and they enter into a student loan that might cost more than a luxury car - and they enter into this debt without the typical warnings and consumer awareness alerts that would accompany most loans for stocks/bonds, etc. Colleges can lie about job placement rates, values of certain majors, etc....and are never held accountable for these things. SO - at 23 or so - lots of graduates - huge student debt - makes it hard for them to look to buy a house or car, makes it hard for them to consider marriage and a family (especially if their potential spouse is also larded down with student debt!) They were set up for failure - with little/no warning. Mike Rowe is definitely right! Many would do better going to a lower cost trade/tech school, learning a trade - and getting into the workforce earlier ...and earn more money and have less debt than if they went to a college and graduated without a good useful credible degree (STEM?).

        • 15 days ago

          @mvineyard Nice!
          Honestly, I really don't know how basic education works in the US but at least in Greece our school curriculum is very advanced, compared to the rest of Europe. This of course doesn't mean that students are more educated but the knowledge is there is you want to use it.
          I agree with you that school does very little to prepare you for real life...hopefully, this will change!

        • 15 days ago

          @gigi From what I have read - plenty of European schools do (did?) better. AND - again - from what I read...(so -feel free to correct me if I am wrong)...there is plenty of 'tracking' students - and some students are placed on College Prep, while others are identified as 'not college material' and are placed in a 'Trade Tech track.' This means that lots of Europeans might graduate ready to work, while a smaller percentage go off to college.

          Here is America - lots of people think that 'free college' would be a great thing, like countries in Europe - but they don't realize that the majority of high school graduates DON'T (and can't) go to college. AND- I wonder if those going to work (after trade /tech) would like higher tax rates to subsidize those going off to college?

          My wife & I home schooled our 3 children...my wife is an RN...me - engineer - and we had 'traditional' education requirements - and by the time they were 'finishing' 12th grade - they were completing 2 years at the local junior college - and were testing extremely high for colleges. There are plenty of private schools that try to offer the older traditional 'liberal arts' program that gives a thorough study of political systems (without 'indoctrination') - history, both European, American, and World. AND - lots of math and science. We are happy with the results. AND - I would say that there are a number of students who do well - in spite of a poor public school system.

        • 15 days ago

          @mvineyard Yeah I think there are a of differences not just between the US vs Europe but also within Europe. I can only talk about Greece and the countries where I studied but from a curriculum perspective Greek schools really overload you e.g. the maths that we do, you can only do at your second year at college and only if you have chosen a relevant subject
          It's absolutely true that we do have the "technical track" but this is mostly up to students rather than for the school/ college to decide. However, again at least in Greece, higher education is free and you earn your position purely on merit i.e. results on the national exams. So you sort of filter the people who really deserve and want to get into higher education from the ones who might not be meant to go to university
          I have zero experience from home-schooling (not that common in Europe and sometimes illegal cause there is no efficient system to test if parents teach their kid or they send him/ her to work) but from what I hear from your guys, seems to be a valid alternative and one that can benefit the children
          My personal opinion on the education topic is that basic education should be mandatory for any individual - it's one of the fundamentals to become good citizen. And that's why I favor free education based on merit.. for sure, it's not perfect to let the government run this (corruption and money not always going where it should be/ low quality etc) but I find it a better alternative from non-education or the one that is so expensive that either you make students debt slaves or it's only accessible to the few.

      • 25 days ago

        Many many felons and convicted "criminal" have been elected to office and many more people of no character, such as William Clinton and Hillary, have been elected to office. So to say "we don't elect people without character to office is ridiculous. Its actually more common that lacking character is typically a requirement for office- 'Promises are meant to be broke.'

        • 25 days ago

          @nellyj_misesian Surely you should have mentioned the "Lion of the Senate" - Ted Kennedy ....of the Mary Jo Kopechne fame...and of the 'waitress sandwich' with Chris Dodd. A little manslaughter of a young woman is not that big of a character flaw - if you are a liberal Democrat.

      • 25 days ago

        RFD: Pro remained poised throughout the entire debate. Made compelling arguments especially in response to the 40 years ago point, timeframe doesn't matter. I voted Pro.

        • 25 days ago

          @henrywolfe_ He used a lot of false information from his opening of "Is..." to his claims of "forged letter" or the yearbook. All factually false.

        • 25 days ago

          @nellyj_misesian but like half of the other stuff isn't. If even one example of sexual misconduct or moral misconduct can be proven true then you should vote Pro. Pro brought up like 6 and yet you continually harp on those 2 specific ones.

        • 25 days ago

          @henrywolfe_

          Here is a 'score card' for evaluating the claims against Moore.

          http://billlawrenceonline.com/roy-moore-accuser-scorecard/

          When you get through the 'score card' - you end up with 1 or 2 possibly serious claims - NOT 6. AND - you end up with conflict problems....is Moore a predator of young women ....or older women? AND- the older woman has a tainted past of passing bad checks, theft, ...not credible.
          Some of the 'allegations' were basically - "I was a teen (17, 18 or 19, and age of consent is 16) ...and he asked my parent(s) to date, we dated, and nothing happened...." Oh WOW!!! Earth shattering information. SO - the 14 YO is the only 'outlier' and the only thing we really have - with zero evidence of anything...and that behavior is totally inconsistent with his behavior towards the other women.

          AND- your words...'even if ONE example of sexual misconduct or moral misconduct can be proven true, then you should vote PRO." WELL - we are all waiting for EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE ONLY ONE OF THESE ALLEGATIONS THAT RESEMBLE MISCONDUCT IS TRUE! Please enlighten us? Would you want YOUR life tarred by an unprovable allegation that is 20 years old or more....lose your ability to get a professional license, a mortgage or something important?

        • 24 days ago

          @mvineyard Even your own link has absolutely nothing against Leigh Corfman’s story. Because it’s true and has been backed up by others from the time.

        • 23 days ago

          @debateme13 Point is...patterns of harassment are NOT there. Where are similar stories? You say it is 'true' - based on what evidence?? Other stories - inconsistent or proven to be lies (the 15/16 yr old Beverly with the fake yearbook.).

          AGAIN - with REAL proof - I would agree to dump Moore.....IF the Senate had the same high standards and were in the process of dumping far sleazier characters (Menendez and Franken) - where there are more serious allegations that have more evidence of truthfulness. Do you support trashing Moore and doing nothing about Menendez and Franken? OR - do you suffer from 'Leftist Selective Moral Outrage Syndrome'??

          Would YOU like to be judged to these standard - any accusation by someone else MUST be presumed valid, and you will stand guilty unless conclusively proven innocent? Even 35 years later? My hope - those pushing for lynch mobs will some day end up with the same - accusations and punishment before trial...after all - the allegation is all that is needed.

        • 23 days ago

          @henrywolfe_ time-frame does matter. We are casting votes today, not 40 years ago. If Roy Moore was a child abuser, we'd see an allegation a hell of a lot more recent than 40 years ago.

        • 22 days ago

          @debateme13 AND - here is a link to information coming out to provide sufficient doubt to trust Leigh Corfman's story. Note that the claims in the story (link below) are ones that involve court records, maps of locations, etc...and don't rely on 'memories of others' from that time. Which ones would be more credible? For me - if we put on one side of the scale - the Leigh Corfman's allegations....with some 'recollections by others' ....then on the other side we examine her memories and the evidence brought forth in the article linked below - there is far more reason that the scales would tilt in favor of Moore (unless you have a political bias.) [Note - I am honest to admit a political bias - but I would never allow REAL evidence to be ignored. I indicated early on that if the 16 YO Beverly had a credible claim backed by the yearbook signature...it would be enough to 'damn' Moore. BUT - she made lies (or errors?) in her claims that she had not seen him since the assault - yet he was her divorce judge in 1999, and she won't release the yearbook for independent forensic analysis - suggesting she is hiding stuff in addition to being a liar.)

          https://70news.wordpress.com/2017/11/22/busted-court-doc-shows-troubled-teen-leigh-corfmans-many-lies-about-her-roy-moore-story/

          AND - surely you are not the diviner of all things true. Your last statement 'Because it's true and has been backed up...' is either showing you have god-like powers to actually discern REAL truth - or you are just arrogant. Maybe a more humble statement would be for you to say that 'we can't know the real truth, but her account, backed by her friends gives her more credibility to be believed than Moore.' If you made that statement - I would have a hard time criticizing, because it is your opinion and you aren't claiming special powers. AND - now that there is more REAL (and 'contemporaneous' ) evidence that would hurt Corfman's story and support Moore's denial - it would be hard to say that Corfman should be believed, giving what she has hidden and lied about.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard I mostly let debates go after a couple days, but I will respond once more here, because it’s kind of scary just how much your cognitive dissonance has kicked in here. You’re listening to the absolute most biased, uncredible sources available and you’re excited to believe every word they say, because they agree with your pre-conceived determination to believe Roy Moore. If the exact same criticisms were leveled against a Democrat, you’d believe even one unsubstantiated accuser, but because you agree with Roy Moore’s politics, you’ll disbelieve numerous accusers and corroborators and believe 70news and Conservative Tribune. It’s tribalistic partisanship at it’s worst.

        • 22 days ago

          @debateme13 Lots of smear - instead of discussing the article. Interesting. And you claim to be a classical liberal - when this type writing is more typical of an extreme leftist who won't examine all sides of a position reasonably. AND - you have ZERO basis for stating that what I would or would not believe. In the absences of evidence -I would not participate in any 'lynch mob'....regardless of the political position of the accused person. OTOH - I might say that I would be in support of a more detailed investigation to get at the truth.

          The information presented in the article i linked deserves vetting and consideration. You want to bury your head in the sand, because if the information was true, it would hurt the accuser's credibility, and it would damage your beliefs. YOU are tribalistic and part of a 'rush to judgement, facts be damned, lynch mob.'

      • 25 days ago

        @mvineyard @nellyj_misesian

        Would you be ok if your daughter interns at his office? (since he is a different person now)
        And what are your thoughts about older men (30+) dating teenagers? (children marriages happen with parental consent too)

        What's happening at the moment is surreal with all these allegations and you are probably right that some of them are lies or reality stretched but this is not an excuse to defend dating/ touching a single teenager. I can understand the argument that passing the tax plan etc is more important at the moment but defending his actions is a bit unfair, no?

        • 25 days ago

          @gigi You ask good questions...and I will try to respond....

          1. I would be okay with my daughter to intern at the office of a man like Moore - and that would be my opinion now, 20years ago or 36 years ago. (BUT - I would be scared spitless to have her intern at most Democrat offices...Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, etc.) Even 35 years ago, Moore asked for the parent's permission to date, and in one case, the parent said no - and Moore didn't. Sounds like a man of integrity to me.

          1.A. I have a daughter....she would not date anyone without my permission (her choice, not my mandate). Over a few years, I had 2 men approach me to ask permission to 'court' my daughter. I said yes each time. The first guy wasn't a good 'fit'...and they stopped seeing each other. The second guy was a perfect fit - and the guy asked for my permission - and I granted it. They are happily married.

          1.B - would I be happy with my teen daughter dating an older man? Probably not ...but my daughter had zero interest in dating until she completed college and got her RN license.

          I do now of interesting marriages...child marriage - with parental consent. Have you heard of Will and Ariel Durant? Famous historians. Lots of books written by them (The first volumes of his history books - only Will's name; later volumes - both names. Ariel was 15 when she got married; will was in his late 20's. NOW - that is not to say I agree....just that it can happen and work fine.

          Final - I am not trying to defend Moore's actions if they were PROVABLY TRUE. IF they could be proven true - I would withdraw support.
          OTOH - if you are talking about (what @debateme was saying was so wrong) Moore standing on 'States Rights' by Imperial Edits issued by non-elected judical tyrants - I actually believe that somewhere - there MUST be a way of stopping judicial over-reach. Under @debateme13 reasoning - slavery should still be legal, and segregation should still be legal...all because a Supreme Court decision said so. I believe that judicial over-reach is wrong - and Obergefel was wrongly decided. How many leftists would want a Supreme Court decision that the state with the most lax gun carry laws would now be 'law of the land' on all states? YET - that is what Obergefel decided for gay marriage. What is wrong with States Rights?

          Look at the 'scorecard' of women making claims against Moore. Most everything falls apart...but the lies keep getting repeated (banned at the mall -when it is a lie.)

          http://billlawrenceonline.com/roy-moore-accuser-scorecard/

        • 25 days ago

          @mvineyard Thanks a lot for the response and appreciate the honesty.
          We could debate what is provable and who is worse in DC but that would be a long debate...
          I'll have a look at your suggestions, thanks a lot!

        • 23 days ago

          @gigi "Would you be ok if your daughter interns at his office? (since he is a different person now)
          And what are your thoughts about older men (30+) dating teenagers? (children marriages happen with parental consent too)"

          I watched teenagers get fucked all the time on Youporn. In fact that's often one of my search terms. "Teen anal" or something like that.

        • 23 days ago

          @gigi what's wrong with fucking teenagers doggystyle?

        • 23 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui And you're back :-) If you're trying to provoke me my friend, try again
          You can fuck whatever you want actually and in whichever way you want as long as it's consensual and legal. If you need porn recommendations, I can also give you some to expand your horizons
          My question was not about what you fuck but if you would be cool with your daughter working closely with a guy like him or dating a man 15 yrs older than her when she is a teenager (but thanks for sharing your sexual preferences lol)

        • 22 days ago

          @gigi so yeah, I'm okay with teenagers getting fucked by older men, and I watch that on porn. It's okay. It's fine. What's the problem with that?

        • 22 days ago

          @gigi "My question was not about what you fuck but if you would be cool with your daughter working closely with a guy like him or dating a man 15 yrs older than her when she is a teenager (but thanks for sharing your sexual preferences lol)"

          It depends on the exact circumstances but I can say for sure that I'm not opposed in principle. Would you like to debate this or not?

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui No one cares what you fuck or what porn you watch so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up

          And thanks for your answer, same circumstances as the ones we discuss I guess:
          1) A 30+ years dates/ touches/ fucks your daughter when she is 16 and still going to school
          2) Having your 17 yrs old daughter working closely with a 60 yrs old man who had been accused for molesting teenagers in the past (not convicted, just accused by multiple sources)

          Not exactly sure what you want to debate? This is a personal question and everyone has their own opinion and is respected as long as it's legal and consensual. What I'm trying to understand is the consistency of our morality i.e. if I am ok for 35 yrs old people to fuck teenagers then I should be ok for my daughter to be one of these teenagers

        • 22 days ago

          @gigi " No one cares what you fuck or what porn you watch so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up"

          But you do. You're implying that there is something wrong with older men having sex with teenagers. I'm disputing that.

          I've already answered your question about the relationship. I don't see anything inherently wrong with it and you've not provided an argument for why it's wrong in the first place.

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui
          Each person has his own moral values and fair enough so I'll repeat once again that my question was not about what you do but about the consistency of your morality
          So as long as you are consistent and, as you stated, you would be cool for a 30+ to fuck your teenager daughter then you are honest and true to your values. I might not agree with these but as long as you are operating within the laws of your country and no one is harmed, then you can do whatever you want

        • 22 days ago

          @gigi so why is this wrong? I don't get it. Nobody has even tried to make that argument. It's taken as an axiom.

        • 22 days ago

          @gigi yes, if I had a daughter, especially if she was old enough to intern. Why not? No claims on him today

        • 22 days ago

          @gigi if each person has their own moral values then why would you even question those of a 30 y/o Moore? Seems you, like everybody else here who claim moral relativism, can't live with the ridiculous ideology of moral relativism.

        • 21 days ago

          @nellyj_misesian Not sure what are you talking about...
          My question was just to see if people who are ok with Roy Moore would extend the same principles to their own life (i.e. have their young daughter dealing with him and also be ok for her to date older men) - I'm checking consistency of morality that's all
          Of course anyone has his moral beliefs and are respected as long as you are legal and no harm was made! In the case of Moore, he is accused of breaking the law so not the same as just following his moral beliefs.
          And I'm perfectly fine with my values and morals so..what's your point?

        • 21 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui (btw - apologies for the previous comment, no idea if you even have a daughter but I didn't mean to be offensive to your family- just playing with hypothetical scenarios)
          Why it's wrong for a 35 yrs old to date a 16 ys old?
          I think it can happen but generally speaking is a bit weird (again this is how I grew up and the values that I got from my family, but I understand that in different societies people might think differently)..
          Do you have any ethical limits on the topic? e.g. minimum age? is it ok to have sex with animals? do you need to get consent?
          And if you do, why do you have these limits and who defines them?

        • 21 days ago

          @gigi me of course. I am the at the very center of my moral value system, since morality is subjective.

      • 25 days ago

        PRO used sleazy techniques to smear an honorable man with falsehoods and half-truths...used emotionally charged words that don't even fit the allegations.

        Here is a great article where the author has seen a very nasty attack on Moore - and he takes it apart, piece by piece with facts and careful analysis. Oh to have people look at that and compare the facts vs. the sleaze being heaped out by PRO....

        https://theapologeticsgroup.com/the-trashing-of-judge-roy-moore/

        I wonder if all those who vote for PRO would join with me in asking Congress to pass several resolutions and take several actions:

        1. Congress should immediately release the names of all 'perps' where there were payouts made (an about that is reportedly over $17 Million) - and then take action to investigate the perp. All 'perps' should be given the same 'presumption of innocence' that they are willing to give Moore (which is to say .NONE.)

        2. Congress should pass a Resolution that declares Ted Kennedy to be a moral reprobate and not the 'Lion of the Senate' for his sexual misdeeds and his manslaughter of Mary Jo Kopechne. AND - any building, highway or anything else named for Kennedy should be renamed.

        3. Congress should pass a Resolution that declares Bill Clinton to be a moral reprobate and a perjurer who SHOULD Have been convicted by the Senate after impeachment in the House. He should be re-impeached and the Senate should convict him...and he should lose all further retirement benefits and other benefits due a former President, and he should lose Secret Service protection. (He is rich, he can pay for it himself!)

        4. Congress should quickly move to eject Sen. Bob Menendez and Sen. Al Franken on the grounds that there is far more evidence of far more serious sexual harassment allegations, much more recent, than any of the allegations against Moore.

        Do these things - and then and only then do leftists have any moral claim that Moore is not fit to be elected or serve in the Senate.

        • 24 days ago

          @mvineyard I call out abuses of other humans, no matter whether the abuser comes from the right or the left.

          If a person has harmed another person or abused their power to pressure another person into sex, they should be removed from power and prevented from having the opportunity to hurt someone else. Hence, I basically agree with 1/2/4, and I semi-agree with 3.

          That being said, I would strongly question your rather overt bias that you call for these things against Democrats but then immediately rush to believe/defend Roy Moore who has just as much or more evidence against him. The only reason you disbelieve his accusers is because you chose from the very beginning to disbelieve, so you look for every potential shred of reason to defend Roy Moore, but you don’t afford the same opportunity to anyone who has a D over their name. This is tribalistic partisanship, which is so overt and illogical as to put children at risk.

          And I take offense at you calling my technique sleazy. I did a significant amount of research from sources on both sides of the aisle. What would be sleazy would be to disbelieve accusers who have nothing to gain by lying, and who are backed up by at least 33 corroborating witnesses, in order to support a man who makes a mockery of conservatism. I refuse to do that.

        • 24 days ago

          @debateme13 SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE. I won't defend Moore if there is REAL evidence. Allegations is NOT evidence. The patterns are not even there. There is clear evidence of fabrication and lies by the worst accuser. AND - this pattern of 'late surprises 1 month before an election' is typical Democrat smear tactics.

          Yes - you did a lot of research - but you kept mis-stating things, calling dating a 17 or 18 year old as illegal when it is not, and claiming a number of women alleged improper sexual advances when several of them only claimed a date or two after parental permission obtained - and nothing happened. When you throw up a number and act like all the women have the exact same worst case allegation - it is a smear...that is sleazy. Corroborating witnesses? No - it is hearsay ...someone says someone told them something some time ago. 33 - wow... again - unbelievable.

          I think that this sort of crap of last minute unprovable allegations has to be reined in. Every woman should be required to get sworn testimony, under oath in a legal deposition...then the other side should be allowed to investigate to see if there has been any payments, offers of payments, etc. If there is real sexual harassment - it should be announced early - at the very least - at the beginning of a campaign. Democrats and leftist newspapers tend to hold things in to make it impossible to swap candidates AND to thoroughly vet the claims and see if there are lies. You are happy to destroy the reputation of one man based on 38 year old statements that can't be proven.

          AND - you make a big deal about Moore not blindly following Supreme Court Tyranny - I guess you wish there was still slavery - because 7 to 2 -Dred Scott decision - the Supreme Court declared chattel slavery legal and slaves had zero rights. I guess you would not dissent and say the Supreme Court overstepped the Constitution.

        • 24 days ago

          @mvineyard

          1. Dating a 14 year old (with sexual contact) is illegal. Groping a 16 year old without her consent is illegal. Giving a person below the age of 19 alcohol was illegal. Yes he did illegal things, and even if they were legal they're clearly problematic so it's kind of ridiculous to make this point in the first place.

          2. Last minute allegations aren't the issue here because none of these women came forward on their own. They were approached by the Washington Post, and the women, after years of not believing their stories would be heard, were finally able to say what had been done to them. The Post's inciting reason to contact them was because the Post doesn't like conservatives, but whatever, if that's the inciting incident that helps victims expose their abuse, then that's a positive result.

          3. Ignoring the Supreme Court is questionable for regular citizens, but it is absolutely 100% unacceptable for a judge to disregard the Supreme Court, which has the legal authority to interpret the constitution. As Justice Gorsuch has repeatedly explained, the role of a justice is to enforce the law, not to stand for the judge's personal opinion. This is why Judge Moore was an absolutely terrible judge, who was fired from his position twice for gross incompetence. He was incapable of performing according to his duties, because he was violating his constitutional burden.

          4. No matter what evidence is provided about a Republican, you won't believe it. But no matter how flimsy the evidence about a Democrat, you WILL believe it, because you are so determined to support your tribe that you refuse to examine issues objectively.

          5. You wanna talk evidence? Ok, we either believe the women, or we believe Roy Moore. There is no middle ground. One of them is lying. But there is no reason to believe Moore.
          a. He himself has admitted that he dated girls under the age of 18.
          b. He was banned from the Gadsen County Mall for repeatedly badgering young women.
          c. We have 6 separate women who have all come forward saying he dated them when they were underage, which is at least creepy, and at worst, abusive.
          d. At least 2 women have stated that he used them sexually, including a 14 year old.
          e. Both of those women state that there was reluctance or explicit non-consent.
          f. Both of these women voted for Trump and are Republicans, thus they have no reason to lie about this.
          g. Both women have outside evidence corroborating their stories. Leigh Corfman's Mother confirmed they were together, and the court documents from the time confirm they met at that time. Beverly had the signed yearbook, which also had his signature. Beverly told her friends and family about the incident years ago, which they corroborate. Leigh's friends and ex-boyfriend also corroborate that she had told them back then about how Moore had mistreated her.

          In order to believe Moore, we must believe that he dated underage girls, who for absolutely no reason whatsoever, then decided 40 years later to lie about how he had dealt with them, and that they had known they would commit this lie 40 years ago so they told their then-boyfriends and friends about how Roy Moore had inappropriately engaged with them, so that 40 years in the future they could lie about him for no benefit to themselves whatsoever.

          Either that, or we believe the obvious truth.

          Roy Moore is a liar.

          Here are a few good sources that actually analyze the evidence.
          a. https://musingsontheright.com/2017/11/16/on-selling-your-soul/
          b.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/11/the_mountain_of_evidence_against_roy_moore.html
          c. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453610/roy-moore-sexual-misconduct-allegations-shouldnt-be-dismissed-conservatives

        • 24 days ago

          @debateme13 Again - you put in lies. There is NO evidence of the allegations. An allegation is not evidence. (Check the definition.)

          The claim that Moore was banned from the mall - another lie. (Is it too inconvenient for you to recognize that a senior mall official said that there was no 'ban' for Moore?) If you have conflicting statements - you can't rely on them.

          You talk about Beverly and her yearbook. She is a LIAR. She lied about not seeing him after the alleged assault. Moore was the presiding judge at her divorce in 1999. PRODUCE THE YEARBOOK FOR ANALYSIS!! She WON'T. The yearbook is the first AND ONLY substantive evidence, if validated. BUT - she won't turn it over for independent analysis. AND - photos of the page suggest different color inks, and the 'artifact' at the end - the D.A. after the alleged signature. He was the DEPUTY District Attorny (DDA). OTOH - The divorce paperwork with his signature that could have been used to copy/forge his signature - well - his secretary would use a rubber stamp to stamp his name, then she would put HER initials next to the stamped signature (D.A.) Until Beverly releases the yearbook for analysis - everything she said should be presumed to be a lie, like her lie about not seeing him since the 'assault.'

          Take away Beverly - and you are down to only 1 woman with 'serious' assault - but no real corroborating EVIDENCE.

          No reason to believe Moore? How about the many many women who have known him and have worked with him and provided testimony to his character? Thing is...Bill Clinton had a pattern that kept repeating...and it was obvious. Moore - only 'guilty' of dating 17, 18 or 19 year old women - and that was (and still is) legal. You might think it 'icky' - but that is not a legal standard. (I think it is icky and should be illegal for someone to vote for anyone in a political party that believes in violating US laws - like amnesty for illegals, or wants to use high taxes to take from makers and give to lazy takers...but what I think/believe doesn't make it illegal.)

          Evidence. Let's see a filed police report contemporaneously with an assault. That would be evidence. For the Mall - let's see the list, or at least the owner of the mall to say it happened (he hasn't - he refuted the claim.)

          It is not that I am 'supporting Moore against the evidence'....because there is NO REAL EVIDENCE! The only possible evidence is the yearbook. Let the yearbook be produced, analyzed and verified. If the ink is 38 years old (easy to determine) - and since Moore denies signing it - then if valid - proves he lied and adds weight to Beverly. Without the yearbook - we MUST assume she is lying and is hiding the only real evidence that would establish the story.

          I would hope that some day YOU might be 'railroaded' by allegations and fabricated evidence that is every bit as flimsy as this. AND - you should not be given any presumption of innocence. All it takes is several people to make allegations.....and you must be presumed guilty.

        • 24 days ago

          @mvineyard

          literally every single conservative has condemned Moore. Are they all establishment now?

        • 24 days ago

          @iantreyparish I didn't claim that conservatives condemn Moore were establishment. No - not every single conservative has condemned Moore. Plenty support him, others are 'neutral' ....saying that the allegations are flimsy - but if there was credible proof, then they would support calls for Moore to withdraw, but at present, lacking sufficient credible proof, they feel that the people of Alabama should be the ones deciding. I too would call for Moore to withdraw if there was real evidence. When I first saw the woman come forward with serious allegation of Moore trying to force her - and she showed a yearbook with his comment and signature...I felt that would be sufficient to establish her credibility. HOWEVER - she LIED when she claimed she had not seen him since the alleged assault. The photo of the page in the yearbook shows some serious 'credibility issues'....and she refuses to turn it over for independent analysis ....between her lie and the withholding of evidence - she should be judged a complete liar with zero credibility (unless/until the yearbook is analyzed and verified.)
          With this woman's comments (not testimony - wasn't done under oath..) sufficiently impeached, we are left with 1 serious allegation that is unproven. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Moore - unless the Democrats PROVE that the new standard (guilty until proven innocent) is their standard for their own politicians - and Sen. Menendez and Sen Franken (and a few Congressman) are thrown out of the Congress - for offenses far worse than anything Moore is alleged to have done.

        • 22 days ago

          @debateme13 you, like all moral relativists, can't even live with your own worldview. It shows how incredibly ridiculous and unlivable your worldview is

      • 24 days ago

        i’m a little disgusted, and nauseated that people are actually trying to defend Roy Moore in this thread...

      • 24 days ago

        @nellyj_misesian @debateme13 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

        • 24 days ago

          Article VI Section 2

        • 24 days ago

          @noahdfarley Judges in every state shall be bound thereby...
          Nothing you wrote or quoted actually gives the US Supreme Court the ability to create (make) NEW LAW by judicial fiat. (Maybe you can show me that part of the Constitution.)
          What if those 9 black-robed masters declared whole sections of the Constitution to be outdated and therefore irrelevant? Would that be legal?
          I have remarked in earlier posts that prior Supreme Court rulings made slavery LEGAL (Dred Scott) - or made segregation (separate but equal) legal (Plessy v. Ferguson). These SC rulings were abominations and were eventually overturned. Dred Scott decision helped fuel the South's 'justification' for separation - leading to the Civil War.

          If you believe that the Supreme Court is totally Supreme - then WHAT ARE THE LIMITS TO ITS POWER?

        • 24 days ago

          @mvineyard First of all, I made no claim as to the correctness of any SCOTUS decision. I was simply clarifying that the Constitution binds state judges.

          The issue of judicial review is an entirely different issue from that. It is very clear from the legal and historical record that SCOTUS has the power of judicial review. Sometimes that leads to bad outcomes, sure.

          The solution you seem to favor, being nullification of federal laws, is also problematic. In 1832 South Carolina attempted to nullify a tariff law. Regardless of your opinion on said tariff, the tariff was completely Constitutional and nearly led to war. That is little better than SCOTUS.

          SCOTUS is limited by addressing cases and controversies, and tends to be extremely restrained in its purview. Should they grow too cocky, the Congress retains the power of impeachment.

        • 24 days ago

          @noahdfarley Good comments. My point is that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be the tyrannical power it has become. Plenty of times, it has seen fit to 're-write' laws and ignore the Constitution. Moore is being challenged for twice not sucking up, bending over and taking it in the rear when the court decision was fairly obvious to be 'judicial activism' and NOT adherence to the Constitution.

          What is the correct way to resist judicial tyranny? Maybe what Moore did wasn't 'correct' - but then again, neither was the court decision...and sometimes, resistance to tyranny is appropriate.

          Impeachment is a toothless threat. When almost 50% of the Senate decided against conviction of Bill Clinton for various mis-deeds - like perjury in a deposition...not to mention violating federal law pertaining to sexual harassment with a very junior intern (and federal law doesn't permit that to happen - even if 'consensual'...which is impossible when the differences in 'power' are so extreme!) The leftists in Congress would NEVER vote to hold their own accountable. The leftists in Congress would never vote to impeach a judge who was using judicial activism to re-write the Constitution. As a result - we see before the decline and fall of the American Republic....soon to be 'The Socialist Republic of America' - with free college, free health care, confiscatory taxes, and an economy that will soon resemble Venezuela.

        • 23 days ago

          @noahdfarley "The solution you seem to favor, being nullification of federal laws, is also problematic. In 1832 South Carolina attempted to nullify a tariff law. Regardless of your opinion on said tariff, the tariff was completely Constitutional and nearly led to war. That is little better than SCOTUS."

          Nullification of federal marijuana laws doesn't seem to be leading to war.

        • 23 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui Perhaps that's because the federal government has openly decided not to enforce them.

        • 23 days ago

          @mvineyard Part of being in a country employing rule of law is that regardless of how you feel about the law, you have to obey it. That applies to the court as well, which is the proper authority for deciding cases and controversies. Even when you disagree with a court decision (as I happen to with Obergefell), you have to obey it, when the arbiter of Constitutionality under our Constitutional order makes a decision.

          There are ways of attempting to change incorrect decisions. I brought up impeachment as a way to address grievous wrongs and moral failures. One option is to attempt to change the makeup of the court. Another is to do a Constitutional amendment either to overturn a SCOTUS decision (11, 13, and 16 come to mind), or to structurally change the court's authority.

          Unfortunately there will always be problems with who we establish as the final authority for Constitutional questions. States will get it wrong as well. I'm not willing to sacrifice the Constitutional order and the rule of law for the sake of disagreement with one court decision.

        • 23 days ago

          @noahdfarley I really don't disagree with anything you said...except that impeachment has become a toothless threat. Consider that we had a President caught lying (perjury) in a deposition - and a few other crimes and violations of federal workplace regulations - yet the Democrats in the Senate would obstruct efforts to convict him...with the idea that even if we had photos of him in bed with a live young girl or a dead young boy - they STILL would not convict. Same would happen trying to remove a leftist judge who ignores the Constitution to find new emanations of penumbras to discover new rights that were never there before. (AND - years of judicial precedent - like 'gay marriage' were over turned in Obergefel.)

          SO - when the Democrats feel that the Constitution is outmoded, outdated, and needs to be 're-interpreted' by the Courts - and every step leftward becomes permanent new 'territory' that can never be taken back (after all - precedent is supreme over the Constitution) - in their minds. So - we are already losing Constitutional order and rule of law....which is what Obergefel was.....and a few people standing astride history saying "STOP" is understandable.

        • 22 days ago

          @noahdfarley "Part of being in a country employing rule of law is that regardless of how you feel about the law, you have to obey it. "

          Yes we are all familiar with statist mythology. We're talking about reality though. In reality politically powerful and connected people do not have to follow the law.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard I understand where you are coming from. It is the case that impeachment hasn't happened as it maybe should. The problem I have is that you can't say that we should attempt to nullify the rule of law because we disagree with a judicial decision. And I think someone who actually does that (a judge who understands exactly what he is doing) repeatedly is unfit for office.

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I am laying out the classical case for the rule of law. And I am the furthest thing from a statist you can probably imagine. Anyway, what is doesn't negate what ought to be.

        • 22 days ago

          @noahdfarley if you believe there should be a state then you're a statist by default. Ayn Rand for example, was a statist.

          The "rule of law" is really just a clever way of protecting the established order from the competition. It's a way to get people to accept their masters "right to rule."

        • 22 days ago

          @noahdfarley 'And I think someone who actually does that (a judge who understands exactly what he is doing) repeatedly is unfit for office.'

          Maybe unfit for being a Judge...but maybe not unfit for being a Senator. For those claiming that Moore is unfit because he does't kowtow to a Supreme Court ruling that is blatently judicial activism....should be asked if Moore is held to unwritten (therefore non-existent) standards/rules. The Constitution states the requirements to be a Senator - and Moore qualifies. If there are 'character traits' to be imposed...are they written down and part of law? Are they applied equally to all other Senators? Do the rules subvert the Constitution, which would be really really bad, unless a Judge or Justice found an emanation of a penumbra that somehow made the law now superior to the written Constitution.

          My question for all those upset with Moore's dissent against the 10 Commandments monument ruling and Moore's dissent against the Obergefel ruling ......WHAT ARE THE LIMITS (IF ANY) ON JUDICIAL ACTIVISM?? Could the Supreme Court approve of laws that would appear to clearly violate the written Constitution on the based of some new found means of interpreting the Constitution? Any limits? If they 'over-reach' - what is to be done (especially considering that you would probably have a tough time getting a 2/3rds vote to convict after any impeachment proceeding)??

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui Definition of Statist, Oxford Dictionary: An advocate of a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

          And no, the rule of law is designed to protect people from the powerful, not the powerful from the people. The rule of law as an institution, despite failures, has done that far better than any other.

        • 22 days ago

          @noahdfarley "And no, the rule of law is designed to protect people from the powerful, not the powerful from the people."

          You're confusing mythology with fact. When a new state is formed (invariably through force) there is the issue of resistance. In order to convince people of your "right to rule" you have to legitimize your rule somehow, and states do that through the creation of these "laws" which they enforce on the entire society in order to coerce them into accepting the arrangement.

          That's why your logic says I have the right to rob you if I write it down on a piece of paper. You won't admit it, but if we probe far enough we will see that this is the fundamental basis of your belief system.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard I am not making an argument that he fails Constitutional prerequisites for office, but that people should not vote for him due to his reckless disregard for the rule of law. Character can and should be considered by voters.

          And yes, there are limits. There are limits to what a court can do. They are always required to have a case or controversy. They can be overruled by a Constitutional amendment. In addition, the Court shows great restraint in its decisions normally. As a student of the Supreme Court I can assure you that this is the case. There is also the structural ability to change the makeup of the court. Like it or not, when the Court decides a case or controversy, you have to follow the decision. Feel free to change it, but don't pretend you can ignore it.

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui This is a whole other debate than where this started. The point I am making is that in a liberal democracy, the rule of law ensures that everyone is required to obey the law. This is not always done in a fair and equal manner, but in a system like America, laws are made through representatives of the people, not simply through the whim of a monarch. You can critique the American system all you want, but you will not find that it is ever simply you writing down on a piece of paper that you have the right to rob me.

          And no that is not the basis of my belief system. I'd be happy to explain, but that's a bit too much a rabbit trail for this comment thread.

        • 22 days ago

          @noahdfarley " The point I am making is that in a liberal democracy, the rule of law ensures that everyone is required to obey the law."

          Mythology /=/ reality.

          " This is not always done in a fair and equal manner, but in a system like America, laws are made through representatives of the people, not simply through the whim of a monarch. You can critique the American system all you want, but you will not find that it is ever simply you writing down on a piece of paper that you have the right to rob me. "

          That's exactly what it boils down to though, philosophically. Just because you're not aware of the philosophical foundations of your own beliefs doesn't mean I am not. You believe there should be such a thing as "President of the United States" because some guys wrote that down on a piece of paper a long time ago. No different than a religious belief.

          "And no that is not the basis of my belief system. I'd be happy to explain, but that's a bit too much a rabbit trail for this comment thread."

          Let me know if you're ready to debate:

          "Discussion: What is a government and should we have one?"

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui It is not mythology, refer to the later sentence. And yes, I am aware of the foundations of my beliefs. I am far more aware of them than you are.

          And yes I am.

      • 23 days ago

        I would actually say he does on account of the fact that the thin veneer of civility the American Right has been projecting for decades (and spent millions on propaganda to convince people of) is finally cracking.

        So yeah, let this play out. Let the American people see who the so-called " moral majority" they've been voting for for 40 years for their "good Christian values" are really like.

        And if the creep still wins we'll know that America, or at the very least Alabama, is beyond saving.

        • 23 days ago

          @arkle Too late - the Democrats supported the sleaziest criminal and sexual harassment enabler when they supported Hillary. Your 'outrage' is fake and/or hypocritical.

        • 23 days ago

          @mvineyard So in your book that makes it okay to support a pedophile? Well, good to know.

          HEY GUYS! MVINEYARD THINKS IT'S OKAY TO BE A PEDOPHILE SO LONG AS YOU'RE REPUBLICAN!

        • 23 days ago

          @arkle you should debate him. The extremes of the left vs. the extremes of the right.

        • 22 days ago

          @arkle Where is the pedophile. First - definition of a pedophile is someone attracted to a 'pre-pubescent' child. Late teens (16 or more) - is hardly pre-pubescent. (IF you are going to discuss and debate on QallOut - I thought it was important to be accurate in terms of definitions, terms...and facts.) [Oh - my bad....leftists don't hold themselves to standards of accuracy.]

          So - there is no 'pedophile' issue.

          Next - the allegations against Moore are NOT proven. Allegations are not evidence. I would be fully opposed to Moore if there was PROOF.
          AND - there are 2 serious allegations...the first was an allegation of improper touching of a 14 year old.
          Today - an article was posted that provided DATA to refute her claims. Torpedoed. This gives credence to Moore's denial.

          https://conservativetribune.com/court-docs-roy-moore-allegation/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=libertyalliance&utm_campaign=liberty&utm_content=libertyalliance

          The second serious allegation was from a 16 year old who claims Moore tried to sexually assault her in his car....and she showed her yearbook with a 'signature' as proof. Again - Moore claimed it was not true. And - Moore called for a release of the yearbook for forensic analysis - but apparently Gloria Allred and Beverly have something to hide because they won't release it. AND - there are other people who point out her story about the restaurant don't fit reality....AND - she claimed to not have seen Moore since the alleged assault - yet Moore was the judge hearing her divorce proceedings in 1999 - about 20 years later and only 18 years ago. Lie after lie after lie.

          SO - what is it? Do you want the standards to be mere allegation -without proof, even when the evidence starts coming forward that possibly impeaches the claims?
          Do you have different standards for Republicans than Democrats? Are you calling for the immediate expulsion from the Senate of Sens. Menendez and Al Franken - because there are far more serious claims, more recent claims, more credible claims with more evidence. Or - are you only focused on the specious claims that lack evidence - and are more than 35 years old. And - you are willing to ignore the many people who have come forward to defend Moore's character and say that they never saw any improper behavior.

          AND - your 'concern' about the 'moral problems' of the Right are so fake....considering how the leftists ignored Ted Kennedy (murderer of Mary Jo Kopechne) - yet served in the Senate for more than 3 decades after the murder...and he was still sexually harassing women. OR - Bill Clinton - elected in spite of credible claims of raping Juanita Broadrick ...but leftists and the media (actually the same) - covered up most of it. Leftists have 2 standards....ultra high ones for those on the right - and way way low (or no) standards for their own politicians. Being a groper or sexual harasser is a resume enhancer for Democrats.

        • 22 days ago

          @debateme13 I don't believe in political views of 'extreme right' or 'extreme left'.

          For me - on a scale from right to left - all the way right is anarchy. Zero government. No rules, no one to enforce rules. You end up with rule of thugs. The bigger you are, the more you can control and oppress others. You have 'freedoms' - until someone takes stuff from you or takes your life. Hardly a good thing.

          All the way on the left - total tyranny. It doesn't matter whether you have a monarch, a ruling tyrant like Saddam Hussein, a triumvirate, or a ruling class (like the apparatchik in the USSR) - where you have nearly zero individual freedoms and total government control.

          As you move from right (no government) -towards left...first, you come to LIMITED GOVERNMENT. Our founding fathers wanted limited federal government - maximizes freedoms, but the government is a restraint to protect people from other people, and to protect people from government.
          THIS IS WERE I STAND POLITICALLY. It is not 'extreme right'. It is Libertarian/Constitutional Conservative.

          Moving more left ....you get to a Democracy - where you now have 'rule of the majority' (or mob rule). Bigger government, fewer individual freedoms.
          The mob can start to oppress minorities; the minorities lost protections that were in the Limited Government/Democratic Republic of our Founding Fathers.

          Move further left - and you get into bigger government control and fewer freedoms for the people.

          For the "extreme left" - I will let individuals speak for themselves. BUT - for someone who wants single payer health care, super high marginal income tax rates, and big government regulations on everything - then they are definitely leftists on my scale....instead of a single tyrant or monarch - we have tyranny of the bureaucracy - large numbers of politically well connected 'civil masters' (not civil servants) who swarm about eating out the substance of people trying to earn a living.

          BUT - this debate is on 'rule of law' vs. 'Rule of Mob' . Some people want to suggest that the merest allegation is disqualifying. I would be happy to see any REAL evidence against Moore -but thus far, none has come out. All I see is the hypocrisy of leftists who seem to have abandoned the protective stance that gave Kennedy and Clinton a pass, and this new standard applies ONLY to Moore, but not to the serious allegations (with far more evidence) against Sen. Menendez and Sen. Franken. (And - more will come out.)

          AND - yes, I will debate rule of law vs. mob rule... AND -somehow, I don't think 'rule of law' is any extreme...but 'mob rule' IS extreme. Maybe you think mob rule is okay - but not me.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard "Where is the pedophile. First - definition of a pedophile is someone attracted to a 'pre-pubescent' child. Late teens (16 or more) - is hardly pre-pubescent. (IF you are going to discuss and debate on QallOut - I thought it was important to be accurate in terms of definitions, terms...and facts.) [Oh - my bad....leftists don't hold themselves to standards of accuracy.]

          So - there is no 'pedophile' issue."

          'It's not technically pedophillia' is a common refrain from defenders of pedophillia. Also, at least one of Moore's victims was 14. So yeah, you just defended a pedophile, using pedophile apologist language.

          "Next - the allegations against Moore are NOT proven. Allegations are not evidence. I would be fully opposed to Moore if there was PROOF. "

          Coming from the guy whose side invented #pizzagate, that's f***ing hilarious.

          "Today - an article was posted that provided DATA to refute her claims. Torpedoed. This gives credence to Moore's denial.

          https://conservativetribune.com/court-docs-roy-moore-allegation/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=libertyalliance&utm_campaign=liberty&utm_content=libertyalliance"

          The "Conservative" Tribune? Obvious Right Wing bias. Fake news. Find me a real news source for that claim. If you can, of course.

          "The second serious allegation was from a 16 year old who claims Moore tried to sexually assault her in his car....and she showed her yearbook with a 'signature' as proof. Again - Moore claimed it was not true. And - Moore called for a release of the yearbook for forensic analysis - but apparently Gloria Allred and Beverly have something to hide because they won't release it."

          Oh, he says it's not true? Well, that it settles it then. White Christian Homophobic Right Wing Males never lie. Except, you know, often.

          "SO - what is it? Do you want the standards to be mere allegation -without proof, even when the evidence starts coming forward that possibly impeaches the claims?"

          No, that would be you. See your continued defnese of the illegal Iraq War in another thread.

          "Do you have different standards for Republicans than Democrats?"

          Nope. I mean, you'll say I will anyway, but that's beucase you are a shit person who needs to get genital cancer and die.

          "Are you calling for the immediate expulsion from the Senate of Sens. Menendez and Al Franken - because there are far more serious claims, more recent claims, more credible claims with more evidence."

          I don't know much about the Menendez case so I won't comment, but if you were half as smart as you (falslely) claim to be (but aren't), you'd have seen that I already have called out Franken on his behavior. I have said, and you cna find this comment in my history that the ONLY reason I didn't ask Franken to step down (at the time I wrote that) was beucase his accuser didn't want him to, and unlike you, I listen to victims of sexual harrassment. That was written before there were more accusers of course. Now I do think he should resign, or at the very least not run for re-election.

          I look forward to yu ignoring that fact and claiming I defended Al Franken. Because it's what your kinds always does. Republicans lie. Lie lie lie, all the f***ing time.

          "Or - are you only focused on the specious claims that lack evidence - and are more than 35 years old."

          The claims against Moore don't lack evidence, that's just another lie coming out of your useless mouth. Also, if you don't believe the charges, why would you bring up how old they are in the first place? Doing that i mplies that you think he did it but that it was long enough ago to not be a big deal. So, what is it? Are you saying Roy Moore is innocent? Or that it was a long time ago and we should get over it? Can't be both.

          "And - you are willing to ignore the many people who have come forward to defend Moore's character and say that they never saw any improper behavior."

          People have defended Al Franken's character too. And Harvey Weinstein's. And Kevin Spacey's. And here's the thing your tiny, tiny, brain fails to comprehened; predators don't do predatory things 100% of the time. Sometimes they act normal around certain people. I don't doubt that at least some of the peopel who say they never saw Moore do anything inapprpriate are telling the truth. But many people never saw Jeffrey Dahmer kill people either. So f***ing what?

          "AND - your 'concern' about the 'moral problems' of the Right are so fake....considering how the leftists ignored Ted Kennedy (murderer of Mary Jo Kopechne)"

          I wasn't born yet, moron.

          "yet served in the Senate for more than 3 decades after the murder...and he was still sexually harassing women."

          And had I been alive or old enough to be aware of it at the time, I would've said something.

          "OR - Bill Clinton - elected in spite of credible claims of raping Juanita Broadrick ...but leftists and the media (actually the same) - covered up most of it. "

          And we are coming to reckoning on that.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard Apparently there is a character limit I was previously unaware of, so I have to split my response to your nonsense in two.

          Anyway, back to what I was saying before. The Left does need to have a reckoning about how it handled Bill Clinton (and also Anita Hill). And if you actually got your news from sources other than tinfoil hat wearing racists, you'd know that this has been a conversation going on among the Left for awhile. From nationally syndicated hosts like Chris Hayes to little Indie operation like Citizen Radio.

          But you can't leave your little echo chamber long enough to actually consume any of that media. Like a truism told in the form of a joke that went around Twitter a couple of weeks ago said; "My Twitter feed right now is made up of two things; Liberals chastising Al Franken, and Conservatives claiming that Liberals aren't chastising Al Franken."

          "Leftists have 2 standards....ultra high ones for those on the right - and way way low (or no) standards for their own politicians. Being a groper or sexual harasser is a resume enhancer for Democrats."

          Strike that, reverse it. Right now, we're asking our predators to step down. Your side is trying to get one into the Senate so you can pass a tax cut for the top 0.02%.

          Oh, and don't forget that your CURRENT President got into moffice AFTER audio came out of him admitting to groping women. And his approval rating amongst white men went UP after that. So f*** you and your fake f***ing concerns.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard "For me - on a scale from right to left - all the way right is anarchy. Zero government. No rules, no one to enforce rules. You end up with rule of thugs. The bigger you are, the more you can control and oppress others. You have 'freedoms' - until someone takes stuff from you or takes your life. Hardly a good thing."

          Sounds like government to me.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard "AND - yes, I will debate rule of law vs. mob rule... AND -somehow, I don't think 'rule of law' is any extreme...but 'mob rule' IS extreme. Maybe you think mob rule is okay - but not me."

          I'd be happy to defend the anarchist position.

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui So - you would defend ZERO government, and no real rule of law...just 'rule of the biggest'? It might be the biggest person or the biggest gang....but the only 'law' is "might makes right"? I am sure it would be an interesting choice. Those who like that type of rule could move to failed states (like Somalia? other failed states in Africa)? but somehow I think the 'like anarchy' is a theoretical debate and not one that someone would actually choose to live.

          If someone came by your house to take your car - somehow I think you would likely call the police rather than going out and confronting the person - ready to use force (and hoping you would be more successful in application of force than the person claiming a right to take your stuff because he wants it.

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui this doesn't make sense...too short a remark. Maybe you are reacting to the government we have now - more 'democratic mob rule' with lots of built in cronyism....so the people protected by government do take stuff from other people. WHICH - IMHO - means our government is too big - not 'limited'.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard "So - you would defend ZERO government, and no real rule of law...just 'rule of the biggest'?" It might be the biggest person or the biggest gang....but the only 'law' is "might makes right"?"

          I think that's the current state of affairs.

          "Those who like that type of rule could move to failed states (like Somalia? other failed states in Africa)? but somehow I think the 'like anarchy' is a theoretical debate and not one that someone would actually choose to live."

          We have that right now. The state is simply the biggest most powerful gang, literally.

          "If someone came by your house to take your car - somehow I think you would likely call the police rather than going out and confronting the person - ready to use force (and hoping you would be more successful in application of force than the person claiming a right to take your stuff because he wants it."

          No I would probably shoot him in Florida or South Carolina but not in Hawaii where I would be held criminally liable for his death. Anarchists can call the police. We're forced to pay for them so there is no contradiction.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard I'd be okay with reducing government down to those things which cannot be provided by markets and just expanding the reductions from there as markets continue to make government functions obsolete.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard so you wanna debate or what?

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui Debate to debate? What is the proposition you would debate? You want to claim that an anarchy is better than limited federal government (the government permitted by the Constitution)? You would put up Somalia against the US - circa 1789 or so? Hard to agree to a debate when you haven't been sufficiently detailed about what would be debated.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard I would debate that there should not be a United States of America.

        • 22 days ago

          I think the world needs it about as much as we need a Soviet Union.

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui Anything more specific than that? I see from your profile you live in Hawaii (as does my son & daughter-in-law). What do you do in Hawaii for work (job)?

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui - 'I think the world needs it about as much as we need a Soviet Union.'

          If by 'the world' - we are speaking of the globe we call 'earth' - 3rd planet from the sun....well -the world doesn't need ANYTHING. It exists. It provides home to lots of 'stuff' - including a wide variety of life, including plenty of sentient beings - many capable of 'shaping and modifying the earth' or adapting to the environment to make life more comfortable. (And - there are beings with less sentience who vote themselves things to make their lives more comfortable....). The world needs nothing. Not the US, not the USSR. NOW - maybe you might be trying to say that 'humanity doesn't need the USA and humanity doesn't need the USSR'....and that becomes a debatable proposition, from my viewpoint. (BUT - maybe you have a certain belief in Mother Earth/Gaia ....and feel that the earth is, in of itself...the same as sentience...and mankind tends to 'hurt Mother earth' - and so your proposed statement would stand as written.)

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard I think you're splitting hairs and you know exactly what I mean by "the world doesn't need the United States or Soviet Union." That's not ambiguous and any plain reading is interpreted exactly in the way that you know that I mean to say it.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard The title can be: "Discussion: What is a government, and should we have one?"

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui That sounds like an interesting topic of discussion - and it would be less than a 'debate' than a discussion. And - we might find that we both are in a 'less is better' for government! This would be good.

        • 22 days ago

          @mvineyard Cool. You ready?

        • 22 days ago

          @bronsonkaahui Not today ....to many things happening, too many family coming & going. Monday afternoon/evening work for you?

      • 23 days ago

        I completely agree with PRO that we should not vote for 32 year old Roy Moore :P

        On a more serious note, PRO had to say something about Roy Moore's character *today* if he was going support the claim that conservatives shouldn't vote for him *today*, but all he had was a list of conservative positions that conservatives should love (except for homosexuality being illegal, which is a non-issue in 2017).
        I found PRO's rebuttal's to his 24-year-old self and the candy bar point a bit disingenuous, and I also rejected his claim that there is a lot more to consider beyond policy. When we talk about voting for a senator, we are literally talking about a person that will cast votes on policy on our behalf. That's basically the entirety of their job. I also agreed with CON that many of PRO's positions are very problematic from a classical liberal pov, I know that's irrelevant to the motion, but I voted CON none-the-less for all the rest of the reasons listed above. This does not mean, however, that I would actually cast my vote for Roy Moore. I'm thankful to not be in Alabama and have that tough choice.

        • 23 days ago

          It's always puzzling the standard that conservatives/evangelicals are held to. Voting for someone who dated teens 40 years go, that's a no-no. Vote for somebody that's likely going to vote for the next state-sactioned mass murder abroad, that's a-okay. Because blowing up teens in the middle east is apparently better than dating them here at home. Our priorities are messed up...I would argue the average seated senator today has done far worse than what Moore has done in his past, just look at the latest sanctions that passed with near unanimous support. We routinely elect worse people than Moore. And I'm not saying Moore would turn out any better because given the same power, he'd likely do the same thing. That's the real reason not to vote for him.

          • 23 days ago

            SOME NEW INFORMATION TO REFUTE THE MOST SERIOUS CHARGE...the charge by the 14 year old. (NOTE - the other serious charge - by 16 YO 'Beverly' of the un-released yearbook has already discredited herself through a big lie....and her unwillingness to release the yearbook for forensic analysis.)

            This article puts a BIT HURT on the claims of the then 14 YO girl. It would be more than adequate in any court to establish more than 'reasonable doubt' to get the case thrown out if Moore was being charged. (AND - for those who don't like the source....well - try to get some one to research the facts presented and refute the facts presented.)

            https://conservativetribune.com/court-docs-roy-moore-allegation/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=libertyalliance&utm_campaign=liberty&utm_content=libertyalliance

            Everyone who was supporting the lynch mob mentality should be ashamed. (BUT - typical of most leftists and 'establishment' Republicans....they are incapable of showing any shame or being embarrassed.)

            I am willing to wait for real evidence to 'convict' Moore of these allegations, but thus far, it is looking more and more like lies...lacking evidence, and the credibility of some of the women making the allegations is crumbling.

            • 22 days ago