taking the position that these allegations are from 40 years ago, the timing of them coming up now is a little suspicious, and there have been no other accusations of impropriety by Moore in the ensuing 40 years -- during which time he was somewhat of a public figure (with the 10 commandments controversy), so they're going to give him the benefit of the doubt unless more evidence comes out. But I can't understand actually excusing the alleged behavior.

With respect to your first paragraph, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. And don't get me wrong, I do not want Roy Moore in the senate or any other position of power in government so I am not a Moore supporter. But in the case of Roy Moore you have ONE allegation of improper sexual conduct from 40 years ago that would be almost impossible to substantiate. In the case of Anthony Weiner, you have documented evidence via texts and online chats of his improper (illegal) behavior and an actual prosecution and conviction. In the case of Harvey Weinstein you had more than 50 women come forward and he has pretty much admitted to his improper behavior. So the evidence against Moore and the evidence against Weiner/Weinstein is quite a bit different.


[Post edited by BocaHoo91 at 11/10/2017 08:52AM]