To Republicans, With Regard to Judge Roy Moore:

[MineralMan]

Some Republican wags are saying that his offenses haven't been proven, and cite "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Look here, GOOPers: We don't give a damn. Our elections are not courtrooms. We're not juries, judges or anything of the sort. We're voters. We don't vote for people who are accused of sexually abusing children. We don't care whether it has been proven under legal rules. It doesn't matter. We don't have to vote for creeps in this country.

"Reasonable Doubt" simply doesn't apply. Except that I "reasonably doubt" that I want some right-wing asshole who appears to prefer teenagers over adults as sexual partners. I won't vote for someone accused of doing that. You shouldn't either, despite his being a Republican. Surely there are other people you could vote for who aren't likely perverts. Go ahead. Write one of those in on your ballot.

But don't talk to me about "not proven guilty." I don't care. The accusation is plenty for me to absolutely refuse to vote for such a person. Think about it. You either have daughters or know someone who has daughters who are, will be or have been that age. Do you really want some dirty old man representing you in the Senate? Really?

Just vote NO on Moore! Thanks!

[Arkansas Granny]

1. The fact that he admits dating girls who were young enough that he asked

for their mothers permission first lends credibility to the accusations, IMHO.

I have a daughter, granddaughters, great granddaughters, neices, young female friends. . . .

[MichMary]

2. I hate he said/she said situations

Especially 40 year old ones.

I don't doubt that this could have happened. The biggest hypocrites are usually the most ardent Bible-thumpers.

However, remember the Duke Lacrosse players? Those guys were very nearly railroaded into prison. IIRC, the accusations started to fall apart when one of the guys was able to product a time-stamped receipt, or something.

If the accusations had come out a week or a month later, long after he probably would have discarded the receipt, their chances of proving their innocence would have been greatly decreased.

[MineralMan]

4. Were those Duke Players running for the Senate?

No? Then it doesn't matter. What I said is that I don't care. The mere accusation should be enough for voters to choose someone else as their Senator. We do not have to vote for any individual. No proof is required.

[Pantagruel]

3. The GOP fully supported

a "self-admitted sexual predator" for POTUS and 63 million "droolers" voted for him. I see no reason to think the GOP in Alabama will suddenly develop a moral spine.

[MineralMan]

5. But that doesn't prevent me from offering advice.

So I did.

[magicarpet]

6. Perverts and child molester....

Do not belong on the bench and acting as judges.... They will only pervert justice to their bent way of acting and thinking.

Perverts do not belong in the US Senate... They will only pervert the Rules of Law and infect the entire system and usher in the normalcy of disreputable behavior, disreputable conduct and the abhorrent consequences sure to follow.

We are better than that !

Toss this failed man to the curb and wash him into the sewerage systems. Better people exist among us to fill these shoes with far more dignity and pride than this man offers.

[MineralMan]

7. Exactly. We should select candidates for high office who

exhibit the highest standards of behavior and action. Why even consider anyone who may be what Roy Moore appears to be? I simply don't get it at all.

Elect clearly good people and reject those who are not. Simple.

[VMA131Marine]

8. It's not just an accusation in this case

There is also a lot of contemporary corroboration supporting it and more than one unrelated accuser. It would be wrong to call this a he said/ she said situation.

[ThoughtCriminal]

9. ++

This is not "Pizza Gate". These are credible.

[liberaltrucker]

10. Just add "in a court of law"

to "beyond a reasonable doubt". Problem solved.