Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sambojin]

From what I've seen from that Moore story, one of the allegations was that he was ringing a 17yr old in school while she was in trig class. In the 1970's.... How? There weren't mobile phones back then, so he either rang the front office and got the call transferred through, or she actually had to come down to front office to receive the call. Seems entirely made up.

I'm not trying to support the guy, but that was either the strangest or worst reported story in this debacle I've seen. The guy seems like he probably is a sleeze, but facts are facts. It harms other evidence against him if impossible allegations are proven fraudulent.

[redwallzyl]

From what I've seen from that Moore story, one of the allegations was that he was ringing a 17yr old in school while she was in trig class. In the 1970's.... How? There weren't mobile phones back then, so he either rang the front office and got the call transferred through, or she actually had to come down to front office to receive the call. Seems entirely made up.

I'm not trying to support the guy, but that was either the strangest or worst reported story in this debacle I've seen. The guy seems like he probably is a sleeze, but facts are facts. It harms other evidence against him if impossible allegations are proven fraudulent.

He called the office I think.

[EnigmaticHat]

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/im-in-trig-class-woman-describes-roy-moore-relentlessly-pursuing-her-when-she-was-17-and-calling-her-at-school/

Richardson also was the object of Moore’s persistence, and after she turned him down in the Sears where she worked, she was called to the principal’s office at school with a phone call from him.

Edit: Its also worth pointing out the reason people are particularly mad at Moore is because he didn't deny the allegations from the then-17 and 18 year olds (which is technically legal in Alabama) but only denied the allegations of the then-14 year old.

[Frumple]

Also on record saying his (decade plus younger) wife caught his eye at a dance recital when she was around 15, heh. Makes that denial ring ever so slightly hollow.

Though mind I'm pretty sure it's worth noting there's a handful of other reasons people are sketch as hell 'bout the guy's shit. Just so folks don't feel inclined towards thinking that denial discrepancy is actually the sole reason even chunks of the GOP have dropped moore like he's on fire.

[Trekkin]

Also on record saying his (decade plus younger) wife caught his eye at a dance recital when she was around 15, heh. Makes that denial ring ever so slightly hollow.

Though mind I'm pretty sure it's worth noting there's a handful of other reasons people are sketch as hell 'bout the guy's shit. Just so folks don't feel inclined towards thinking that denial discrepancy is actually the sole reason even chunks of the GOP have dropped moore like he's on fire.

Those reasons aren't unique to Moore, though. He's a theocrat without a theology, but so is Ted Cruz, so if you go after him for using religion purely as an excuse to hate LGBT people and women you're going to draw the ire of the Freedom Caucus. He's a blatantly hypocritical judicial activist trying to pass off reactionary views as strict constructionism (subject to the aforementioned theocracy), but any objection to that begs the question of why Republicans are stuffing the courts with people just like him, Gorsuch included. He has no real reason to go along with the party as they drive the country off the cliff, but the Tuesday Group and Republican Main Street Partnership are also wavering on that front, so if the extremists start calling people "RINOs" there's no clear place to stop without threatening the passage of legislation.

In other words, his ephebophilia and resultant toxicity isn't the only reason the GOP doesn't want him in the Senate, but it's the only thing that Republicans can plausibly claim is uniquely disqualifying about him.

[McTraveller]

It strikes me that the direction in which this conversation moved is exactly what some folks might want - it distracts from the actual conversation related to policy.

[RedKing]

The simple answer is that Moore is potentially damaging to the Republican "brand". So is Trump, but Trump is a double-edged sword: he's expanding their base but contracting the upper levels as conservative intellectuals and fiscal conservative donors pull back. Essentially, he's reshaping their target demographic, to the consternation of the stewards of the brand (the RNC).

It reminds me of how French cognac makers reacted when they realized their most prominent supporters were gangster rappers, not rich white guys.

[smjjames]

Seems more like a fracturing of the Republican base than growth in either direction. The 35% or so that Trump calls his base isn’t growing, it’s actually been eroding at the edges. There is a core that would stick with him no matter what, but there is no sign that core is growing at all.

Also, isn’t Moore an adherent of dominionism or something? He’s repeatedly expressed his theological views.

[Trekkin]

Also, isn’t Moore an adherent of dominionism or something? He’s repeatedly expressed his theological views.

Yes, he has, but that's kind of the point; he's made a big show about putting God back in everything and putting the Ten Commandments in courthouses and so forth, but he's long on theater and short on policy -- with the usual "family values" exceptions regarding abortion and LGBT rights.

This is common among Dominionists, in part because any attempt at setting Biblical literalism in law raises questions about eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics and in part because Christian theologians have generally maintained that the ceremonial and civil law set forth in the Old Testament should not be enforced as law, so it requires a certain amount of selective Bibliolatry to believe that, for example, homosexual individuals should face legal penalties because Leviticus says so. So, rather than set forth a theological argument for their stance (and risk alienating everyone of a different sect, as well) and actually propose a coherent theocracy, they make vague allusions to God and values and so forth and let everyone fill in the blanks on all the non-hatred-based parts.

[smjjames]

To be fair, the shellfish thing is likely rooted in the possibility of getting sick from contaminated or not properly cooked shellfish, especially back in those days. Less of a problem now though. Most of it wouldn't make sense anyway like the wearing mixed fabrics thing. Seems like only a fashion designer would be particular about different fabrics.

Anyways, Trump continues to shoot himself in the foot. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/361826-obama-ethics-chief-warns-trump-tweet-on-cnn-could-be-evidence Or at least shooting in the area where the metaphorical foot would be because I don't think he has any metaphorical foot left.

There's also a fight brewing over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the former head of it retired on Friday (speculation is to run for Ohio Governor), and he left behind an acting official. Usually that'd be the end of the story, but Trump went and put in Mulvaney as acting director (he is allowed to). So, with two acting directors and a full one not nominated yet, a fight is brewing over it and the Republicans plus Wall Street absolutely loathe the CFPB.

The CFPB thing is just a minor sideshow until Congress gets back and the fight over taxes and other stuff they still need to do by the end of the year. There's also a governmnent shutdown looming somewhere in mid-December, the debt ceiling got punted to sometime in the spring.

[redwallzyl]

All that strange stuff in the old testament is basically just a reflection of the norms of ancient Jewish culture. Its a bit surprising that anyone would put any kind of meaning in them. I would hope most people would be smart enough to tell what is the religion and what is the culture but probably not. Also literalists in general are just massively ignorant people with little understanding of the concepts of stuff like oral tradition and how people in the past wrote things as not literal exact truth and referenced other things not to mention culturally specific expressions and sayings. Anyone who goes around saying the bible is the exact infallible word of god is just showing themselves a fool.

[Trekkin]

There's also a fight brewing over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the former head of it retired on Friday (speculation is to run for Ohio Governor), and he left behind an acting official. Usually that'd be the end of the story, but Trump went and put in Mulvaney as acting director (he is allowed to). So, with two acting directors and a full one not nominated yet, a fight is brewing over it and the Republicans plus Wall Street absolutely loathe the CFPB.

More specifically (and this is a case where technicalities matter), Cordray appointed English as deputy director prior to his resignation; per the Dodd-Frank Act, she became the acting director when he resigned. Trump's claim that he can appoint an acting director rests on the idea that the CFPB's specific provision does not expressly supersede the process provided by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (itself part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999) in which the President can simply direct people to temporarily fulfill the duties of positions that have been vacated and which require a replacement to be appointed by the Senate.

[smjjames]

There's also a fight brewing over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the former head of it retired on Friday (speculation is to run for Ohio Governor), and he left behind an acting official. Usually that'd be the end of the story, but Trump went and put in Mulvaney as acting director (he is allowed to). So, with two acting directors and a full one not nominated yet, a fight is brewing over it and the Republicans plus Wall Street absolutely loathe the CFPB.

More specifically (and this is a case where technicalities matter), Cordray appointed English as deputy director prior to his resignation; per the Dodd-Frank Act, she became the acting director when he resigned. Trump's claim that he can appoint an acting director rests on the idea that the CFPB's specific provision does not expressly supersede the process provided by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (itself part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999) in which the President can simply direct people to temporarily fulfill the duties of positions that have been vacated and which require a replacement to be appointed by the Senate.

It seems like it's a case of where the technicalities aren't clear. Usually the way that the acting  official is assigned is clear and there's no argument over it or ending up with two acting officials. However, somehow the line of succession isn't even clear or established for this agency, which is extremely new and was set up under Obama. It just seems like something wasn't set up correctly because you just don't have that kind of problem with other agencies.

Also, apparently Cordray was forced to remain an acting official for a while, not sure if he did get confirmed eventually, which probably makes the situation even more muddled.

[Trekkin]

It seems like it's a case of where the technicalities aren't clear. Usually the way that the acting  official is assigned is clear and there's no argument over it or ending up with two acting officials. However, somehow the line of succession isn't even clear or established for this agency, which is extremely new and was set up under Obama. It just seems like something wasn't set up correctly because you just don't have that kind of problem with other agencies.

Also, apparently Cordray was forced to remain an acting official for a while, not sure if he did get confirmed eventually, which probably makes the situation even more muddled.

Most of the problem is with the Federal Vacancies Reform Act; the parts of Dodd-Frank that created the CFPB did include a clear and established line of succession for the directorship, and that line of succession has been followed. Mulvaney's appointment is more that the Trump administration is a gaggle of thundering morons who think that just because there's no rule explicitly saying you can't do something unfathomably stupid and describing it in every particular, that must mean you can (cf. emoluments and obstruction of justice); they've had this ready to use on something, and the CFPB is just the agency they hate enough to spend this particular bit of untested legal minutiae trying to destroy.

[Strife26]

And now it's time to beeline to the important issues of the day. Did Sarah Sanders *actually* cook a pie for the holidays?




Hashtag piegate: American discourse is entirely subsumed into the absurd.