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

As an intellectual exercise: imagine that Moore thinks he's debating respective powers of pillars of democracy in every long rambling answer he gives.

>>...said he “doesn’t know” if gay people should be executed.

Yep, another result of his confusing soliloquy style. When asked whether sodomy should be punished by execution, he replied:

"Well I don’t, you know, I’m not here to outline any punishments for sodomy. That’s far beyond any issues I’ve come in contact with. I can’t help what some people say, what some people do... In 1960, every state in the union had laws against sodomy. And in the beginning of the country, in 1776, all 13 colonies had laws against sodomy. So sodomy is historically against the law.”

Can you agree that Moore thinks he's discussing legality and how it ought to arise? He should have answered "no" and moved to the next question which isn't just smart, it's consistent with his unwavering legalist purism- becaue by the time Moore was asked this question, no state still had the death penalty for sodomy. By failing to answer no, he creates doubt that he may prefer Leviticus to the law of the land, justifying the sorts of misgivings you express. Don't worry- I get it. It's just a shame Moore didn't get the usual training on how to answer the media. Sheesh, maybe he even refused it.

Similarly, his objection to same sex marriage was that Alabama has laws on the matter that cannot be trumped by others. FWIW I don't think he's right, but the tragedy is that he's never challenged because by the time somebody figures out what he's saying, it's too late and all he's left is a reputation time bomb to be used against him later. As Trump would say, sad.

IMHO if you look at every other utterance, I think you might come to share my sense of pity for the man who is paving a road to hell with good intentions but dreadful PR.

>> 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.

His argument in both cases was willfully stubborn based on his take of law. Re the 10 Commandments: he pointed to the 1st Amendment. I wonder whether anybody pointed out that giant biblical statues in courthouses is a somewhat extravagant interpretation! If they did and he persisted- well, that's what you get for being a stubborn mule. And he wouldn't be able to erect a statue in Senate! His objection to gay marriage was that Alabama already has laws that can't be erased by federal decree. But separately he argued that segregation clauses don't need to be removed from AL statute because the Supreme Court already ruled. So now he's created an apparent double standard that he's incapable of explaining in a way people can follow. The MSM had a field day.

What I wonder, is how or whether he was called on these things. The Alabamans I know would have gone home, prayed, then come back confessing that their actions appear inconsistent and they will do better. Right now I'm wondering whether Moore is spoiled and unused to challenge. A lot of judges get like that.

>>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.

It's overblown IMHO. Yes, he said earlier he remembered one or two as friends from 38 years ago but didn't remember dating them. Later he said when he saw their pictures in attack ads he didn't recognize them, didn't know them. I don't see that as inconsistent. I can remember a friend John Barclay from 40 years ago but show me his photo today and I wouldn't recognize him, wouldn't know him.

Not that it matters: here we go again with excessive verbiage that added nothing to his denial but tripped him up. He protested too much. That's commonly the action of a liar, so I do get the reaction.

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

Either that, or it's the defining moment of his presidency- if it all goes well. Which it might, according to ecomomists.