>>>This is his spokesman talking - watch this its really funny :) ..it's 10 minutes long but it's worth the laugh to watch it. I found this hilarious - put me in a better mood - about the 9 minute mark gets to the Muslim thing lol lol.
>
>Oh dear. The poor spokesman is fiercely loyal to Moore, but has a superficial understanding of the issues and contradicts the Constitution's Article VI that says elected officials "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
>
>Amateur hour. Clearly that was not legal scholar Moore's argument, with loyalty no substitute for subject matter knowledge when dealing with the likes of Acosta! I hope you also noted how he snipped Moore's 2005 comments leaving no possibility of audience engagement with Moore's legal point? Not that it wasn't already tricky to follow. Moore really needed (needs?) to learn to talk in sound bites., not soliloquys.

Yeah that guy was not only an idiot but looked like a version of Kellyanne Conway with no debating skills and an I.Q. equivalent to my shoe size. Sort of makes you question Moore's judgement of who he considers qualified for a job.

>>>I see your point - but keep in mind your talking about one interview. If you go back and listen to many of the other things he's said regarding homosexuals you see a pattern of what I would call hate towards them.
>
>I'm not seeing such such a pattern- except possibly well-meaning stumblefoot "spokespeople" getting themselves and him in trouble. In any case, one senator can't overturn the law and won't stay long if he mounts crusades without electoral support. Churchill is yet to be proven wrong in his observation that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. ;-)

I call this a pattern - don't you???

...said he “doesn’t know” if gay people should be executed.
...said he thinks LGBT people are responsible for the multiple sexual assault allegations made against him.
..compared gay sex to bestiality and said that decriminalizing homosexuality was “terrible” and “devastating”.
...refused gay couples right to marry in violation of federal law
...etc etc etc

>>>If he becomes an elected official and thus has the power to help enact laws obviously his intent would be to outlaw same-sex marriage and possibly attempt to outlaw homosexual conduct - because that what he's actions and words say he wants to do.
>
>Jones argues that he's able to separate his personal beliefs wrt abortion from the nation's laws. Every baptist or catholic etc who ever took office after Wade vs Roe was able to do the same. So I'm not seeing it.

Except he has already shown he'll violate someones civil rights because of his religious beliefs and violate a federal order for the same reason. I'm sure as hell seeing it.

>>>Roy claimed repeatedly that he didn't even know any of his accusers, but of course this contradicted his earlier defenses.
>
>I saw that presentation by Acosta. Frankly I find it shameful how the MSM snipped it to make it look contradictory.

uhh no. He said it a bunch of times in a bunch of interviews. A few times in late November and again at least once in December.

>>>There are plenty of people who say higher the voter turnout, the better the democrats do -
>
>I'd say that logic is very true in AL or CA where elections are so one-sided that the opposition may not bother to turn up at all, especially on a frosty December day. Well, there was no point turning up against Sessions, but this time was different. Jones had better listen to those black voters for whom jobs and their economic future are very significant.

And thanks to the GOP tax "reform" those people are screwed.