As I said before, anti-semitism is personal. So I have my personal biases. Other than that, and again, as I said before, I look at the probability of the politician’s weird views affecting anything if he is elected. Moore’s won’t. Balanced against his vote being a steady conservative one, and against him being a (very) non-establishment Conservative Republican, that’s a clear win.
Suppose that every sitting Republican Senator or House member gets a primary challenger with the same views as Roy Moore. At what point would you say “this is too many anti-gay Senators/Representatives”? Or would you be fine with a House and Senate full of Roy Moores?
And your personal bias about anti-semitism just shows your lack of compassion, IMO. You do value opposing bigotry, but only for bigotry that personally affects you. Perhaps you should be compassionate to your fellow Americans to the degree that this value of opposing bigotry also extends to bigotry against many of your fellow Americans.
Suppose my grandmother had wheels. Would she be a bus?
Incorrect. Since I don’t think there is any chance that his bigoted views can affect any legislation, I don’t care about them. That logic would apply to anti-semitism as well (not that Moore is anti-semitic). But as I said, that’s a personal bias for me so that would be a dealbreaker. Personal biases don’t have to be logical.
I asked a specific and straight forward question. Are you afraid to answer? If not, why not answer? Here it is again:
At what point would you say “this is too many anti-gay Senators/Representatives”? Or would you be fine with a House and Senate full of Roy Moores?
The assumption for your question is unrealistic. I don’t like unrealistic hypotheticals. I also don’t vote in every primary Senatorial election. In fact, I didn’t vote in Moore’s 
I vote in one. That one candidate I evaluate based on the logic I outlined. If the candidate’s “weird” views have any chance of affecting legislation, I would take them into consideration. In the extremely unlikely scenario that you posit, the candidate’s “weird” view would, in fact, have a chance of affecting legislation, so yes, they would be part of the decision process.
I think the difference between Moore and Strange is overblown. There’s no practical difference in that there is no issue that could conceivably come up in the senate where Moore and Strange would oppose each other. The ideology of the median vote in the senate. Whether the junior senator from Alabama is the most right wing or like the fifth most right wing doesn’t really make much difference.
Additionally, the Bannon over Trump rhetoric is also not as big a deal as it has been made out to be. The Trumpier candidate won so I’m not seeing this as much of a blow to Trump. Also, Moore has won multiple statewide elections in Alabama before going back to the year 2000, so he’s really not that much of an anti-establishment candidate by Alabama standards.
That said, I think Moore is pretty horrible person and while he may not be anti-semitic specifically he’s pretty anti-non-christian.
So what would your decision be for your specific elections, if Roy Moore equivalents were running with good chances to win against every Republican incumbent?
“If the candidate’s “weird” views have any chance of affecting legislation, I would take them into consideration. In the extremely unlikely scenario that you posit, the candidate’s “weird” view would, in fact, have a chance of affecting legislation, so yes, they would be part of the decision process.”
Huh. Aren’t Jews in general, by definition, non-Christian?
Yes. Is that a real question?
Of course, the title of the article that you cited “Judge: First Amendment for Christians Only” is something Moore didn’t say.
Not really. More of a rhetorical observation. It’s only that Okrahoma has indicated he is more uncomfortable with candidates who are anti-Jewish, and since Roy Moore is against non-Christians, it seemed a reasonable observation to make.
And for you to get that impression from the title of the article means the article’s deceptive goal was achieved.
I thought that was the exact observation I made. That was my intent at least. Thanks for your help.
I’m sure you made your point clearly and I only stepped on your toes. Apologies if that was the case, because it wasn’t my intention.
You already said that. What would your decision be? Suppose the incumbent is the equivalent of Strange – a standard establishment Republican.
I would vote for Strange. I thought I made that clear.
I don’t personally have any doubt about Moore’s anti-Semitic views and had no need to read the article to learn that. He’s as big an advocate of Christian theocracy as there could be. I have no doubt how those of the Jewish faith would fare should his dreams ever come true.
And you know, they’re doing pretty well this year, with Trump as their figurehead. Pence, DeVos, Gorsuch… these are all Mercer picks for our government, all advocates of “a Christian nation.” You think it can’t happen here. I think you are wrong.
Moore is only ahead of Jones by 6 points in at least one poll.
Not that I have more than the tiniest shred of optimism, but it reinforces that the Democrats need to strongly contest this seat, if only for all the optics of tying Moore’s bigoted and otherwise crazy views to other national Republicans for future elections.
Oh I hope they do. Throw millions and millions at it.