Friday, November 17, 2017

Donald Trump is an evil,evil man. Judge Moore, is a slimy, little worm.

Donald Trump has a long history of engaging in behavior that could best be categorized as immoral.  He clearly is narcissistic and that seemingly drives him to evaluate all moral questions by the standard of what benefits him personally.  His history of affairs and divorces should remove any element of surprise from his his behavior toward women.

Judge Moore, several decades ago, engaged in behavior which is at best disgusting and creepy, at worst, illegal.  His refusal to acknowledge his situation and to drop out of the senate race seems to indicate someone who is also narcissistic and self centered.   He should drop out of the current senate race and focus on clearing his name if that is possible, however unlikely it seems.

These two are just the most recent of a long line of people in positions of power, wealth, fame, or government who have used their positions as aq means to inflict harm on others.   I shouldn't have to repeat the obvious and self evident fact that this behavior is wrong.

But, in a world where certain people insist that objective right and wrong don't exist and that morality is relative, where does the moral authority come from to demonize these people? 


22 comments:

Craig said...

And the hypocrisy continues, Kate Harding just published a WAPO editorial saying that it’s more important to keep Franken in office (because he’s pro abortion and anti-Trump) than to be morally consistent. The left has the chance to regain some of the ground they’ve lost on the values issues by pressing for Franken to resign, but they won’t. Why, because abortion.

The thing to keep in mind, is that Franken resigning is a win win proposition for the left. They get to claim a bit of moral high ground, and they know that eventually Dayton will bumble into replacing him with someone just as reliably liberal. Probably Keith (dumb as a post) Ellison. For now, let’s ignore the possibility that Mr. DOAP might have anti-semitism issues, and focus on the affirmative action boxes he checks. If only he identified as a woman, he’d be perfect.

Marshal Art said...

I have to object, Craig. Unless I missed some newsflash, Moore did NOT engage in immoral behavior. He is only accused of having done such. I will admit to only hearing specifics about five women. Three of those were sixteen years old dating the older man with the consent of their parents (or at least their mothers). They did not report anything more sordid than kissing and hugging, which is consistent with how Christian men should treat women with whom they have not married. In Alabama, 16 is the age of consent and thus they are legally women, regardless of what is true in the culture with which you are familiar. One must consider the context in which the actions took place, and with that in mind, there is no reason for concern. Moore did nothing wrong. In my state, 18 is the age of consent. At my age, I would not necessarily seek out a relationship with an 18 year old, but I can't say I'd necessarily avoid one. Some might find that alarming, and others (you know who) would use that as an excuse to attack me, but the fact is that there could very well be an 18 year old that is a perfect partner for someone my age. (We're talking extremely long shot here and as a hypothetical possibility---I'm married, after all and with each passing moment, it becomes less and less likely that I'd let such a relationship even begin, much less happen. And no, I'm not only not ashamed to say all this, but there is no legitimate reason why I should be)

In Alabama, especially forty years ago, that reality shifts two years. To Alabamans, it may not have seemed the least bit extraordinary or unseemly to many people. It might even have been somewhat common. I would not be surprised if that in 2017, despite the age of consent remaining at 16, public sentiment may no longer view things the same way. If it did, I doubt these allegations would have even arisen. At least, that is, none but perhaps those that allege some abuses.

In any case, we're still talking allegations and I don't believe it is proper for you to write about it as if it is fact. Leave that to the two choir boys, feo and Dan. In the meantime, I wonder if at the time of this writing you have had the chance to check in at my blog and see what I've added to the discussion about Dems with no shame. Aside from the snarky responses to the boys, I posted new info relevant to the case. The Steve Deace piece is especially worth the time in my opinion, and also important is whether or not you were actually able to access it.

Something occurred to me while typing all this out. While I don't find problems of consistency in anything you've ever posted, the same is not true of our pals. In this case, I speak of Dan, who won't oppose legal abortion because he doesn't want to interfere with the personal private decisions of the expectant (they ain't mothers yet). Maybe you can see where I'm going with this. Dan says that not everyone agrees about when one is a person, so we shouldn't get in their way. Naturally, that's nonsense, but if he really believes that, then why not allow that some might not agree with notions of what age is appropriate for dating? Whatever age is legal is fair game for some, regardless of what another's opinion is on the readiness of the 16 year old for such a relationship. I mean, hey...if you don't want to date a 16 year old, don't. Isn't that how it goes for Dan and those like him with the taking of innocent life? And Moore is the one who engaged in outrageous behavior? Incredible!

Craig said...

Art, at this point it’s something like 9 women with multiple corraberating witnesses. I get that most of this was legal (legal doesn’t equal right), and I get that he didn’t apparently actually assault anyone. That’s why I used the word slimey. I’m sorry, but a guy in his 30’s cruising the mall for teenaged girls is just unseemly.

I’ve always been big on avoiding the appearance of impropriety, and this certainly appears improper.

It’s more than like going to cost him the election and increase the gridlock in the senate. Ultimately, the fact that he (and his supporters) don’t understand this and have made stupid comparisons, as well as his unwillingness to acknowledge the damage he’s doing concern me more. If he truely had the best interests of others in mind, he’d drop out and work to elect someone without the baggage.

Craig said...

Art, one last thought. I wonder if you understand that I’m advocating that Moore drop out because it’s what’s best for the GOP and arguably for the country. I’m suggesting that him continuing this doesn’t benefit anyone but the democrats. It’s about putting personal ambitions aside for the benefit of a larger goal.

I completely agree that he should fight this to the extent he can, but losing the election makes it a moot point and doing it from the senate just draws more attention to it.

In short, he should “take one for the team”. I know it sucks, but it’s the reality.

The other benefit for him, is that if he can prove defamation he has grounds for damages.

Marshal Art said...

https://spectator.org/al-franken-to-the-rescue/

The link above provides the following regarding Moore "cruising the mall for teen-aged girls". It explains realities of the time and place I've tried to suggest in these "discussions" with the two buffoons, and this Scott McKay dude covers them as well...

"Doing so was significant of a couple of things. First, that Moore wanted a wife who didn’t have a career, something which observers of his well-established and long-held traditionalist positions on cultural and social issues won’t find surprising. And second, that he was looking for a big family with lots of children. Marry someone young who doesn’t have a career, and raising four or five kids is a lot easier to make happen. In the 1970s, and particularly in Alabama, and particularly in a small town like Gadsden where Moore lived, this was not all that uncommon. Nor was Alabama unique in this respect — the pursuit of young brides was a societal norm in the generation before Moore’s and had been for a long time. Practically every Jane Austen novel you had to read in high school or college covers that subject."

I don't put forth legal as license or proof of morality. But there is no immorality in a man in his early thirties courting young women, which age of consent made them...if their biological development isn't enough. As to the fourteen year old, it is more than slightly possible that she looked older. The problem I see is that folks are using the "teen" age of these girls to smear him, when his intentions are honorable in most as far as most of the girls have indicated by their accounts of the relationships. The few that have said worse things each have aspects of their histories that puts their credibility in question.

Moore stepping down is the goal. The people of the state supported him in great numbers and those who oppose Moore have set this muckraking in motion. For him to step down will only encourage more of this nonsense with other candidates.

Next is another article that presents reasons to doubt the accusers with the worst tales of woe. It is followed by the article that linked to the other two. I encourage you to read them all, as they each provide angles I've been trying to have considered in those recent discussions...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/gloria-allred-wont-allow-inspection-of-yearbook.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/gloria-allred-wont-allow-inspection-of-yearbook.php

Dan Trabue said...

Damn. What a perv.

I grew up in the south and I'm not much younger than Moore. We did NOT try to date teenaged children (and they are, by law, children, you pervert!), once we were adults. Indeed, our very conservative church and church groups we were part of actively counseled us to be very wary of even going down that road. Hell, I wouldn't date a teenager once I was 20, just by way of principle.

What a pervert you are, Marshall. And a pervert defender.

Craig said...

Dan,

If your going to insist on no personal attacks at your blog, then you’ll have to abide by that standard here.

I’m not defending Moore, because I’m on record as not being a supporter, but you seem to be suggesting that you are accepting all of the accusations as 100% true, yet I’ve not seen enough evidence to support such a dogmatic position.

Anyway, if you can’t stop the attacks, I’ll be editing your comments.

Marshal Art said...

Not all teenage girls are children by law. 18 in my state is an adult. The age of consent in Alabama is still 16, Dan, and thus there is no "perversion" in dating WOMEN of young age. At my age, 30 is a kid, and with all you've written over the years, I don't see much maturity in you whatever your biological age is.

AS I said, you're intention is to smear Moore, and this provides you with what you think is reason enough, even though there is no proof to the allegations against him. It's enough for you that allegations have been made. Because you embrace grace.

It doesn't matter what YOU have done or not done with regard to teen-aged girls when you were in your early thirties. Your use of the term "WE" is a lie, as you have no idea what all people in your area did or sought to do, nor have you polled the population of your state to dare suggest such a thing. What's more, if you actually read the link related to the point, the author states that Moore was on the back edge of the era when choosing mates that young was commonplace, likely or possibly putting you further removed from it. So your "WE" is a bigger pile of dishonest crap than ever.

AS to perversion, there's nothing perverted about courting pretty girls. Perversion would be something like...oh, I dunno...sex between two men or between two women. You support, celebrate, enable and suggest that God blesses such perversion and your entire hatred for Moore is based on the fact that he doesn't agree with that abomination.

Dan Trabue said...

It is perverse to say that all people of one religion should not be allowed to serve in an elected public office.

It is perverse to say that gay folk (or anyone else who might be practicing consensual sex in a way you personally disapprove of) should be criminalized or that they're the same as practicing bestiality. Gross, perverse. Stupid and offensive as hell.

It is perverse to call teenaged girls "dateable material" or pretty, in a sexual sort of way, if one is a full blown adult. The older one is (especially over 25), the more perverse it is.

To that end, Marshall, should I assume that you talking about "courting pretty GIRLS" is a freudian slip, or did you mean you find it acceptable to think of girls as pretty and date-able? Because every time you talk, you sound creepier and creepier. And yes, there is something perverted about dating/courting young girls. We don't live in the first or even the 15th century, when something like that might not be thought much of. Different times, different cultures, different life expectancies.

Craig, I haven't attacked anyone. I've called a pervert a pervert. Moore had already demonstrated perverted, sick-minded, irrational thinking before these allegations arose. This is why it was so easy for so many to sympathize with the accusers so quickly. Marshall and his creepy talk about dating "pretty girls" is perverse. His suggestions that "all men" would naturally like to date teenaged girls suggest a sickness in his soul that makes him blind and assume that all men are perverse in the ways he talks about.

Perverse: showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences.

Perverse: turned away from what is right or good : corrupt

Trump, Moore and their defenders are perverse in these dictionary definitions of the words. That is the problem with your mild and vague "I yeah, I kinda disagree with them..." and where you actually start pointing out their "wrongs" (in your mind), it is a limited and incomplete condemnation, and it doesn't address the problem of the Moore/Trump supporters, including the majority of Christian evangelicals in Alabama. Their hatred of Democrats have perverted their thinking, to the point where they'd take actual liars and perverts over a Democrat.

For my part, I would not vote for someone who is a casual and stupid liar (i.e., telling obviously stupid/false lies) like Trump/Moore, even if it cost my party the election. I WOULD rather have a Republican in the office than a Trump or a Moore and you can be sure if they were running as Democrats, I would not vote for them and that i'd be fighting mightily against my party for doing so.

Did I ever point out to you fellas that I never voted for B Clinton? I voted Ross Perot the first time (although, I only did so knowing he couldn't win and that, in Kentucky, my vote for Clinton wouldn't matter, anyway) and for Nader the second time. And it as precisely because I didn't trust him and his character.

Dan Trabue said...

Perverse: showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences.

Craig, can you agree that many of Moore/Trump's positions are perverse, in at least this sense?

Would you actively work against not only these sorts of candidates, but those who'd support them?

Because I think good citizenship/basic rationality and morality demand it, and this is why many people are appalled NOT just with Trump/Moores, but with their supportive base.

Craig said...

That’s a lot of BS to justify name calling.

Of course, you now are an apologist for Clinton, so I guess that doesn’t matter.

Craig said...

One thing I can agree on, is that the list of unanswered questions you’ve left here in various posts is reason enough not to answer any of yours.

Marshal Art said...

Dan offers definitions of perverse that perfectly describes sexual behaviors he defends, celebrates, enables and without legitimate basis dares suggest God blesses. So, thanks for that, Dan. You're a pip.

More corrections to Dan's perverse reasoning and false attacks later.

Craig said...

That's interesting. It seems like many of the sexual behaviors that Dan endorses, celebrates, and advocates for do indeed fall under the definitions he offers for perverse. While, I don't think his self justification of his name calling is appropriate in this thread as it's not really on topic, I do think they should be preserved somewhere as an exhibit of his perverse way of looking at things.

Craig said...

Art,

Even though, Dan's comments are mostly off topic and contain personal attacks against you, I don't want to deny you the opportunity to defend yourself. Therefore, I will temporarily leave the two comments here, until you have a chance to respond. Then I will either delete or edit them, in addition to archiving them for future use.

Fair?

Marshal Art said...

"It is perverse to say that all people of one religion should not be allowed to serve in an elected public office."

Unless that one religion teaches the types of evil that islam does, in which case withholding my vote for any of that religion is better described as "prudence", "wisdom", "common-sense", "intelligence" and other such words. Voting for such a person is perversion as it is masochistic.

"It is perverse to say that gay folk (or anyone else who might be practicing consensual sex in a way you personally disapprove of) should be criminalized or that they're the same as practicing bestiality. Gross, perverse. Stupid and offensive as hell."

So many lies in one statement. Personal disapproval is the consequence of understanding and accepting God's clearly revealed prohibitions. You imply personal disapproval comes first. Without God, I couldn't care less where you put your junk, regardless of how perverse it is.

As to criminalizing it, few, if any, are calling for such. But to do so is hardly perverse. People should be free to destroy and condemn themselves. God gives us that liberty. Enabling such people, though, is incredibly perverse...especially for anyone daring call himself Christian.

No one says homosexuality is "the same" as bestiality. Perpetuating lies is perverse. The reality is that citing bestiality and other forms of sexual immorality, like incest, is simply to state that they are all, along with homosexuality, forms of sexual immorality in the eyes of God. Honest people understand that it is each behavior alone that God prohibits, without consideration for any context in which it might take place. So it doesn't matter how much you love your goat, sister or the guy down the street, Dan. Each is still sinful and prohibited by God. Insisting otherwise is perverse.

"It is perverse to call teenaged girls "dateable material" or pretty, in a sexual sort of way, if one is a full blown adult. The older one is (especially over 25), the more perverse it is."

Not at all. It's simply illegal, if the girl is beneath the age of consent. Then, it's no different than any other pursuit assuming it is done in the proper manner, which, by the accounts of the mothers of most of the girls attached to this story (of Roy Moore) was the case. Strangely, they did not agree that Moore was perverse at all. How they'd regard Dan would be cool to find out.

Dan pretends he doesn't know what "attractive" means. It is an expression of desire, just as calling a teen girl or a woman beautiful, gorgeous, etc. It indicates that one is attracted to the female in question. It is indicative of the mating instinct. It is always sexual in nature, and only perverse in how one responds to the attraction. And it's perverse to assume that an older man has deviant intentions when courting a younger woman or girl. Of course, it's Dan saying it and he supports immorality. Thus, it's not surprising when trying to assume a position of moral authority that he'd be confused about what decency looks like.

"Different times, different cultures, different life expectancies."

That doesn't make the notion perverse. Your sick mind does.

Moore later...

Craig said...

One notion that seems the pervert the foundation of our justice system is to forget that Moore has not been convicted of, much less charged with, much less accused of any criminal behavior. Since those in our justice system are presumed innocent until proven guilty, if someone was to choose to vote for a person who is currently innocent who does run a small risk of possibly being charged with a crime, and an even smaller risk of being found guilty, that position does make a degree of logical sense. I’m not suggesting that that is a decision I would personally make, but it is the exact same argument I heard Hillary Clinton supporters make during the last presidential election. So , If you made the argument that you could vote for Clinton because she hadn’t been convicted of a crime Then it seems wildly inconsistent to criticize someone who would vote for more who also hasn’t been convicted of or charged with a crime.

Marshal Art said...

More importantly, Craig, is that Moore hasn't even a hint of criminal behavior in his track record, whereas Hillary was tied to a host of scandalous stories. This makes voting for Hillary under such conditions problematic, while not so much in the case of Moore.

Craig said...

Apparently John Conyers has multilple accusations of sexual harassment that have been obscured with “settlements” and NDA’s, I’m sure the Dans of the world will be calling for his head very, very soon.

Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Craig said...

Interesting that you assume something nobody actually said, then try to go further off topic. Sorry. I’ve given you plenty of leeway, but your obsession with making everything about gay is getting old.

Craig said...

Just looked this up. The federal age of consent in the US is 12, so I guess some body of lawmakers believe it's OK.