I did read your post. It is clear you are not willing to give Moore the benefit of the doubt, but you are willing to give the Washington Post and the accuser they found the benefit of the doubt.
Have you ever considered there could be more than one explanation for why a speaker garbles an important message they want to communicate?
I say Moore has a better record than the Post. But you don't agree.
I have to be skeptical about the timing of the charges coming from someone with a history of buying or trading for illegal drugs, attempted suicide, and gaming the bankruptcy laws.
Both arguments are decent. The timing of the accusations is purely political. Anyone can see that.
But Moore’s horrible interview and some of the details in aggregate by the accusers also point to hm hiding SOMETHING and do hint to a man in his 30s seeking out teenaged love interests, even if legal.
It could all be a politically smear and it’s could also be, concomitantly, that the Judge is not as honorable or honest as we’d like. It is hard for Hannity and Bannon etc to be standing there praising and defending a guy who lied to their faces (if they both today found out he did, privately) about something as important as a sexual obsession with teen girls!!
FReepers sometimes think that guys cloaked in bible verses are always good. I wish the world was as pure as some FReepers think.
I liked Dennis Prager’s approach today: even if Moore is guilty those many years ago, we are in a war to save the republic from extermination at the hands of the left, so as long as Moore doesn’t still seek out teen girls, we want him to keep the seat. He would hardly be the most odious person in the senate.