“You’ll take someone who is potentially a...”

Seems to me like his mind is made about the guy being guilty. It’s like you getting fired for being potentially a criminal even though no one knows if you actually are.

Not gonna speak up about Roy Moore specifically but the whole issue in general. For a country that is so hell bent on political correctness, this whole thing is an absolute irony.

Not discounting the possibility but whatever the fuck happened to innocent until proven guilty? Seems like that shit is just a suggestion and people will take claims as absolute truths.

lmfao.

Saying “potentially” doesn’t mean much when your actions are what they would be if that person was actually guilty. Like the firing example I used. “We have to let you go because you are potentially guilty” vs “We have to let you go because you were found guilty”. It’s the same outcome but the first one disregards due process.

That's why I like to say potential. Feel people look at 'alleged' and equate it to a conviction

He's also a shitty person. Accusations don't help either however. Just know I'll never automatically believe he's a sexual criminal. Whether he's a socialist or a hardcore rightie doesn't change that. 

Moving past politics, I always have the fear of having my life ruined from a rape accusation. It's a serious claim, and Moore deserves to be left unaccountable if proven innocent. If not, then he should give up his power. That's my view

Seriously. I would never automatically trust a rape accusation. Regardless of my views, I wil leave it at potential. 

Alleged doesn't even have any damn difference because it comes to a point where the defendant's integrity is already damaged. 

Your wording for "potential" doesn't do much when you condemn the accused like guilty. This whole damn mess needs to stop and "victims" need to take legal actions.

Hillary's trust took a hit when there were allegations against her concerning security of private information.

I'm not condemning him as guilty - I'm pointing out that it's ridiculous that people would vote someone who could be a sexual criminal just to vote for a member in their party. 

Bear in mind I know little about Moore and even less about his opponent. But you didn't frame the original question very well.  It was stated that the Dems were running a shitty opponent against him (not sure if that part is true) which says to me that if they ran anyone even halfway decent Moore wouldn't win.  your reply was:

"Are you telling me you'll take someone who's potentially a sexual criminal over a bad candidate? Jesus"

Perhaps one of our perceptions may be off but that says to me: "potential sex criminal is worse than bad candidate " not people will vote for a criminal to stay within party lines ...

Hmm...

Y'know, you raise a good point. Definitely did misread Puggsly's statement, and I will admit I made a mistake on my half.

CosmicSex, yes at least some of us here read what you had to say and I appreciate your perspective / insight.  At least you live there.  I still think that something like this should be up to the store owner though.  If you and yours(i.e. all the people in your area) don't like it then you should vote with your wallets.

Jumpin see above.  Also as someone else pointed out bullet proof glass is not all that common although I have seen it in good and bad area's.  Sometimes it's use comes down to company policy.

On a side note the bill should have a provision that if the stores that have to remove the glass get robbed , say three times in a set period the city should have to pay for the glass removal and to replace the safety glass (better yet her and anyone that voted yes).  It would be nice if they were also liable if someone got shot behind the counter after the glass was removed.  <- someone pick this apart I really didn't think much about it...