Posted on 06/20/2019 5:34:04 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is set to announce his plans for the 2020 Alabama senate race on Thursday at 2 p.m. at The Ballroom in Montgomery.
Moore lost the U.S. Senate race in 2017 amid allegations of sexual misconduct with teenagers. Moore denied the allegations. President Donald Trump last month tweeted that Moore “cannot win” and said Republicans need to retake the seat in the once reliable red state. Democratic Sen. Doug Jones currently holds the position.
The event is open to invited guests and credentialed press.
Well aware of that. So where does he go to seize control of all the broadcasting systems? How does he get his rebuttal onto the same channels and for the same period of time those lying bastards used to smear him?
Where is the resort when the enemy has such a weapon working for them, and you do not have access to it?
Should he have given speeches on the corner telling people he was not a child molesting rapist? That would have the opposite effect of what he would want.
No, when you have the backstabbing Republican leadership against you as well as the massive propaganda system we naively call the "news" services, you are pretty much toast. Kavanaugh only managed to survive their onslaught because a lot of people in the "Establishment" wing of the party wanted him.
And Moore still lost, in spite of a Trump endorsement, a Trump rally, and a resumption of funding by the RNC.
"We are pulling all your funding because we believe that you are a reprobate child molesting rapist, and we do not wish to be associated with such a horrible person as you are, and so we are pulling your funding."
Followed by,
"Oh, we were a little hasty in deciding that you were a child molesting rapist, so because we are feeling pressure from people who think we made the wrong decision, we are going to resume your funding. Too bad all the damage we caused by convincing a huge swath of Republicans that you were guilty because we pulled your funding and announced it publicly so that every knew we pulled your funding because we thought you were a child molesting rapist. "
Pulling his funding convinced a *LOT* of people that the accusations must be true. Why else would they have pulled his funding?
And of course we had little bitches like Jeff Flake publicly sending a check to the Doug Jones campaigned, (for which Jeff Flake still needs his teeth punched out) and @$$hole Richard Shelby getting on national television and urging all Republicans in Alabama to "write in" some name other than "Moore."
Moore lost by the approximate amount of the "write in" ballots, which broke a record in the state of Alabama.
You may want to put all of this on Moore, but I correctly see the enemy media weapon system working together with establishment Republican backstabbers to torpedo Moore with faked up accusations, just like was used againt Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh only survived because he had more friends among Washington DC's establishment.
First of all, I’d forcefully defend against those allegations... call the liars out for who they are. Moore didn’t come close to that. His weak answers to a friendly interviewer such as Hannity showed he lacked the enthusiasm to insist he was innocent of those charges.
It’s not about a “perfect” candidate. It’s about winning that damned seat that never should’ve been lost.
Uh, no. I addressed that. Your comment was that he did “well.”
What exactly constitutes “well,” when he lost to a liberal democrat in an R+28 state???
Look, I told you I would prefer that Moore did not try to run for this seat, and I hope he gives up on the idea, but to speculate as to what's changed, I think some people have realized they were duped and lied to to get Jones elected, and they may not be so naive the next time around.
I also think the Kavanaugh hearings did a lot to wake people up to the fact that the Democrats will lie their @$$es off to make up fake accusations against someone they want destroyed.
People could see they were lying about Kavanaugh, but Moore was first, and a lot of people simply accepted that the accusations must be true, or these women wouldn't come forward to make them.
Now they may be more skeptical of accusations, and so Moore might have a chance to pick up some previous votes that went against him.
But I don't want to take the chance, and I hope we don't have to find out if anything has changed in Alabama. I hope Moore gives up on the idea, but I fear he is going to do like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and simply wreck our chances for picking up a Senate seat.
I cant stand Romney.
The results of the mid-terms didn't bear that theory out.
Danke. I would definitely vote for Byrne. Did not know he was running. I forgot about Tuberville.
They did vote. They voted for "not Moore" and they did so because Richard Shelby explicitly encouraged them to do so.
There were approximately 25,000 "write in" votes, and that is the margin by which he lost.
No, by the last two weeks, more campaigning by Moore would not have yielded him another 25,000 votes. Maybe if he could have gotten his message on the national news channels as were the lying accusations, but he couldn't, so more rallies wouldn't have moved the needle to any significant degree.
Of course you addressed the part about him doing well.
You didn’t address the part about the millions of dollars spent against him by Mitch McConnell and the rest of the RNC.
I understand why you didn’t want that address that other part.
Oh, I don’t think anything is going to change in his favor... Democrats and progressives would never be convinced.
It appears that some Republicans also believe that Senate races should be a popularity contest, or at least a competition to see who can best toe the media line.
I still don’t see anything presented that would prevent him being an effective Senator, that’s all
Maybe, but how old is this guy? Could he handle that sort of effort?
Internet says he's 72. Might be rough on an old man.
I still believe television is the primary decider of election campaigns.
So you would have us believe.
Apparently not since you said "months and months". Maybe it just seemed like months and months. Just like reading your posts.
Hannity put forth the premise that if Moore admitting to dating "teenagers", then the accusations against him were true. Hannity did not try to separate the "molesting of a 14 year old girl", and the "attempted rape of a 16 year old girl" from the accusation of dating teenagers.
In most people's minds, the molestation of a 14 year old and the attempted rape of a 16 year old are grounds for instant rejection, while the dating of 18 and 19 year old "teenagers" was just regarded as merely "creepy."
Hannity lumped everything together in one package, and then asked Moore if he dated "Teenagers."
Hannity should have focused on the two serious accusations, and not made an issue of the far less serious accusation of dating young women, but Hannity conflated the two things together and put Moore into a terrible spot.
First of all, I’d forcefully defend against those allegations... call the liars out for who they are. Moore didn’t come close to that.
Back at the time, there were three named witnesses who came forward to refute the claims by that women who said Moore attempted to rape her, and many pointed out that much of the woman's story simply didn't ring true, such as being unable to unlock her car door and just leave.
These three people that came forward all said they were frequent patrons of the "Hickory House" during the year in question, and they didn't see either Moore there, or the woman claiming she worked there. One of the people who came forward was a waitress that worked there at the time, and she said that the accusing woman didn't work there at the time of the alleged incident.
On top of that, we discovered the woman forged Moore's signature and the date on her Yearbook page.
The other woman had a history of being a mental nut case, with one or more attempts at suicide, and a history of promiscuity and drug usage from an early age. Her timeline does not stand objective scrutiny and her story has serious problems with it, but unless you were keeping up with this stuff, you wouldn't have known about it.
This stuff did not get on the regular media for the obvious reason that the media was being used as a weapon to destroy Moore.
It appears that some Republicans also believe that Senate races should be a popularity contest, or at least a competition to see who can best toe the media line.
Maybe. Or perhaps they just want a candidate who can demonstrate even a minimal degree of enthusiasm on the campaign trail.
I'm sure Roy Moore is a good man. But even good men are really bad at some things. Unfortunately for Moore, he's really bad at politics.
What do you think happened in the midterms? I know we lost at least 10 seats in California because of a newly passed law there that allows "bundling" of ballots.
Apparently this is the first year that Democrat activists can take ballots to various registered voters, get them filled out, (in theory, by the registered voter, but in practice, by anybody.) and carry them to an election polling station where they would be accepted as valid ballots.
We lost Orange county for f***'s sake as a consequence of this new form of election fraud.
So again, I ask you, what do you think happened in the mid terms?
"I stopped campaigning because nobody was going to change their minds anyway" is the kind of attitude that ought to disqualify any candidate from ever running for public office again.
Even a baseball team that is losing 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth inning will keep fighting to win.
I see that's become your latest pat phrase for when someone points out something that is clearly true, but at a time when you insist on being contrarian.
So you are going to argue that in 1868 when we were still locking up homosexuals in houses of bedlam, that the Congress intended that pervert f@ggots should have the right to get married?
You are going to argue that in 1868, when the nation was greatly more religious than it is now, and when such things as the "ten commandments", in front of public buildings, and even crosses were not uncommon place, they intended to ban the "ten commandments" from being displayed by a state?
Most conservatives do not believe in this "living constitution" "Penumbra" crap that liberal judges have been imposing on us since Roosevelt and Truman screwed up the courts by 16 years of kook judges being appointed.
Most conservatives follow "Original intent" doctrine in interpreting constitutional law.
I think you do too, you just feel like taking this opportunity to be contrary about this particular point on which Roy Moore made his courageous stand against the Liars and the Cowards.
If you believe that the congress in 1868 intended for either "gay marriage" or banning the ten commandments from public courthouses to be part of the 14th amendment, then you are nuts.
Moore was projected to win by 28 points in one poll before all these fake accusations popped up. Another thing i've always found annoying is how many people were blaming Steve Bannon for helping Moore win the primary, when no hint of this trouble was out there during the primary.
It's like they expected Steve Bannon to have psychic prediction powers and simply know things that were unknowable. When the primary happened, Moore looked like an absolute slam dunk shoe-in for winning, so I'll cut Bannon some slack, even though i've never really been a fan of his.
No that is my pat phrase for when you post your opinions and act as if they were solid fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.