Alabama is a lost cause in terms of even lightening its scarlet hue. So another solid R vote in the Senate doesn’t change much.
I think there WILL be some benefit to the Dems in another flatout insane R who can’t keep his damned mouth shut. The sideshow Moore loves will only distract from the energy Repubs are able to direct towards accomplishing longlasting harm, and will (one would hope) tarnish the entire brand. Hopefully will be another small factor influencing people in saner parts of the country.
I did not research Moore’s views in detail, because the ones that are complete fringe do not matter in any real sense other than to create outrage from iiandyiiii et al. But Moore voting to support conservative agenda in the Senate does matter. And being non-Republican-establishment is just the icing on the cake. When I have a choice between an establishment Republican and a bomb-thrower, the decision is very easy.
Got it – so you’d support someone who wanted to lock up my wife and I, just because they’d push the Republican establishment, and that’s more important to you than not supporting politicians who think my wife and I should be locked up.
You say you’re Jewish (I am half Jewish, by the way) – I wouldn’t support a politician who wanted to lock up Jews, even if they were otherwise liberal, over a conservative Republican. I wouldn’t support a liberal who wanted to lock up conservatives over a conservative Republican.
It’s very disheartening and saddening that there appear to be so many conservatives like you who don’t have the same values and concerns for your fellow Americans, and who would support politicians that, if they had their way, would put me in jail, along with family and friends, because of who we love.
Okrahoma, earlier you said that “racist/child molester” would be a deal breaker for you. Why is his support of locking up gay people a “complete fringe” view that wouldn’t matter, but support for racism or child molestation would be a deal breaker for you?
And how does that jive with your just-now assertion that supporting locking people up for interracial marriage wouldn’t be a deal breaker for you?
If chances of your wife and you being locked up were zero - yes.
Being against anti-semites is my personal bias, and that would be a deal breaker (and no, Bannon is not anti-semitic). But chances of Jews being locked up are zero. Just like chances of gays being locked up.
It’s not zero. It’s very small, but very significant percentages of Republicans in some states (Mississippi comes to mind) think that interracial marriage should be illegal, as it was for most of American history.
Why are you so certain that there’s zero chance of such attitudes becoming more popular?
If the chance was 1%, or .1%, would you still be willing to support a politician who wanted to lock up my wife and I?
My relatives who chose to stay in Germany in the 1930s (unlike my grandmother’s immediate family, who escaped) thought that there was zero chance that they would be killed in a genocide.
They were wrong.
I think it’s wise to learn the lessons of history and be vigilant to make absolutely sure that such repetition never occurs.
This link doesn’t work for me, but you can describe it if you want. Or if you actually have no compassion for fellow Americans who are concerned about small but real possibilities of oppression by race or sexual orientation, then don’t bother; at least you’d be revealing what kind of American you are.
I served with lots of great conservatives in the Navy, so I know that conservatives can be decent people and compassionate Americans. Hopefully you are too.
As I said, zero chance. You may disagree. But that’s my opinion.
There is a non-zero chance that all the oxygen molecules in the room you’re in are going to spontaneously concentrate in the opposite corner of the room and you will suffocate. Do you worry about that as well or do you think of it as zero chance?
That’s not reasonably comparable. Many or most Holocaust victims, like my relatives, thought there was zero chance Germany would try to kill all the Jews. We can look back at history and see that while these sorts of things don’t happen every year, they have still happened again and again, in countries on every continent, and even up into recent decades. History repeats itself, unless we’re vigilant. Why not be vigilant, and oppose even the very low chance of atrocities like locking people up for being gay? Is a minor push in the conservative direction of the US Senate for a short period of time really worth the chance of increasing the possibility of such atrocities, even if it’s only by a little bit?
Such calculations and tradeoffs were necessary conditions for every atrocity in human history. The Holocaust required lots of otherwise decent Germans to look at Hitler and, even if they had no personal animosity towards Jews, decide that the potential positives of Hitler outweighed his hatred of Jews. Unlike Trump (who I obviously strongly oppose), Roy Moore has specifically stated that a population of Americans (gay people) should be put in jail for who they are – that has a very clear and direct linear connection with potential American atrocities.
You can brush this off as liberal nonsense, if you want, but I’m trying to be thoughtful and reasonable in the hope that you might actually be open to thoughtful and reasonable dialogue. There’s nothing special about America, or our generation, that means that atrocities can’t happen any more. Preventing atrocities requires vigilance. Allowing atrocities requires tradeoffs and acceptance of hatred. Please don’t be accepting of hatred.
No, I brush it off as silly liberal alarmism that has nothing to do with reality. Oh and trying to score cheap political points off some politician’s weirdness.
Switching to political strategy, the Democrats really need to do all they can to oppose Moore. Not really because there’s a chance of victory (the chance is minuscule), but because they need to try and tie every single Republican they can to Moore, who will be the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats – every time he says something hateful about Muslims, gay people, or others – every time they can dig up something in his past (like that his foundation has joined with pro-Confederacy organizations that claimed Confederate leaders weren’t racist) – that’s another clip to use against Republicans in future campaigns. And by his temperament, Moore has no interest or likely even ability to censor himself from expressing views that could be very politically damaging for Republicans that campaigned for him.
Whatever folks like Okrahoma think, there really are lots of Americans, including moderates and conservatives, who would be disgusted by ideas like locking up all gay Americans for being gay.
Your point was that Moore will give the Democrats the chance to score political points? And are all political points “cheap”, or just ones about imprisoning gay people? Seems to me that it’s entirely reasonable to highlight very unpopular views of one’s political opponents.
Moore supports something that even you think is extreme (locking up gay Americans) because you like the fact he’ll be a “consistent conservative vote” and is a “bomb thrower.” [why we would want a bomb thrower in the Senate is an interesting question, seems like a strange thing to want in your lawmaker] You don’t seem to care what that indicates about the man’s character, education or understanding of the Constitution, because he’s so extreme he’ll never get his way. (political weirdness)
Being anti-Semitic, on the other hand, even if the jerk had “zero chance” of passing anti-Jewish legislation would be a “deal breaker” for you.
That’s true. And apparently you’re willing to overlook a lot of the crazy to get your “consistent conservative vote.”
Yes, some of us actually believe that we shouldn’t elect politicians who share 75% of our political views if the 25% not shared includes really offensive viewpoints.
And to justify that statement, I’ll simply point out that someone who believes that gays should be “locked up” has a view of gays, and of gayness, that is antithetical to what I believe someone who is a good American (as well as a good Christian) should have. That will inform his/her opinion on anything having to do with being gay. And since political issues that touch on being gay are substantially more extensive than the issue of whether all gays should be locked up, I would be loathe to vote for someone, or root for the political victory of someone, who expresses the view that all gays should be locked up.
There is zero chance that the Second Amendment will be overturned. Zero. So anti gun views (not history of legislation, views) should be no big deal, right?
That’s not cheap political point scoring. Some examples of cheap political point scoring: attacks for past connections to controversial people that were tenuous at best, harping on past positions/actions that they have clearly repented since, mining old statements/votes for minor inconsistencies with current positions to paint them as a flip-flopper, deliberately quoting someone out of context or only partially to make it sound like they said something they didn’t. We are talking about Moore’s actual current positions, statements that haven’t been taken out of context and he hasn’t disavowed, and prior actions as a judge that he continues to stand by.
The chance that we’ll actually start locking up gays (or Muslims or Jews) is very low, true. But why is it very low? It’s very low because most Americans think that such a policy is reprehensible, reprehensible enough that they’d never vote for a politician who held such views. But if everyone voted like you do, then the chances wouldn’t be low any more: It’d be a done deal. In other words, you’re saying that it’s OK that you cast insane votes, because most of the country wouldn’t vote as insanely as you do.
If you’re not comfortable with everyone else voting for people like Moore, then why are you comfortable with voting for him yourself?
I am not afraid of the Second Amendment being “overturned”. It will stay in the Constitution. I am quite wary of Second Amendment being ignored by the Congress when passing laws and the liberal-packed Supreme Court confirming those laws. And that is MUCH more likely than gays being locked up.
