Why not Vote for Roy Moore?

[Katriona]

@Morgenstern

It’s a beautiful horse. Too bad it didn’t throw that sack of shit off and run away.

Apparently she tried. He managed to stay on for the cameras. In my head, she tossed him on his ass the minute the cameras stopped rolling. I’m not a great rider, but I could see so many things wrong. He doesn’t know how to ride and Sassy was probably in pain. So add animal abuser to his (long) list of transgressions.

[QuickSilver]

@wolfpup

And now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going back to celebrating the defeat of the Republican serial child molester, the one who was twice removed from the Supreme Court.

I’m glad Moore lost. But given everything we know, we must not lose track of the fact that he only lost by 1.5%. This means that roughly 50% of the people in Alabama were just fine voting for a racist, misogynist, pedophile. Not quite the decisive triumph of good over evil, is it?

[septimus]

@ElvisL1ves

But, wolfpup, Lincoln was a Republican!

Our Canadians probably knew that already … though we have it on high authority that many Americans don’t:

@realDonaldTrump. addressing a group of blacks

a lot of people don’t realize Lincoln was Republican

[septimus]

I say potato and you say potahto.

@Sam_Stone

It looks to me like both sides are going off the rails in opposite directions.

(D) Trying to inch the nation’s healthcare toward the model the civilized democracies use, recovering successfully from the worst financial crisis in almost a century, restoring the good name of the U.S., protecting the rights of gays …

(R) Essentially firing or emasculating all government scientists, wholesale rescinding of environmental regulations, making fools of ourselves on the world stage, enacting hundreds of billions in give-aways for the super-rich, then using that as an excuse to destroy Obamacare and other safety nets…

Yeah, the two parties are mirror images of each other. Got it.

[nelliebly]

@QuickSilver

I’m glad Moore lost. But given everything we know, we must not lose track of the fact that he only lost by 1.5%. This means that roughly 50% of the people in Alabama were just fine voting for a racist, misogynist, pedophile. Not quite the decisive triumph of good over evil, is it?

Decisive, no, but significant nonetheless. Many of us have been wondering if red state voters that had been fed a steady diet of better-dead-than-Dem would under ANY conditions pick ethics over party. That many did not is not a surprise, given the Fox-fed, McConnell-led hyper-partisanship of recent years. That a majority, no matter how slight, did reject Moore is an indicator that the tide may be turning.

[QuickSilver]

@nelliebly

Decisive, no, but significant nonetheless. Many of us have been wondering if red state voters that had been fed a steady diet of better-dead-than-Dem would under ANY conditions pick ethics over party. That many did not is not a surprise, given the Fox-fed, McConnell-led hyper-partisanship of recent years. That a majority, no matter how slight, did reject Moore is an indicator that the tide may be turning.

If not for the charges of child molestation, he’d have won running on a platform of bigotry and statements wishing he could repeal all amendments of the constitution beyond the first ten. That’s a position advocating the repeal of abolition of slavery, civil rights, women’s rights, term limits, etc…

Again, glad the worthless asshole lost, but can’t quite bring myself to think well of those who would have voted for him under slightly “better” circumstances.

[ElvisL1ves]

As a friend says, he brought an asshole to a brain fight.

[Tamerlane]

@QuickSilver

This means that roughly 50% of the people in Alabama were just fine voting for a racist, misogynist, pedophile. Not quite the decisive triumph of good over evil, is it?

Roughly 50% of those who voted, which is bad enough. But it is worth noting the Republican turnout was way down - a sizeable number appear to have sat this one out which definitely contributed to Jones’ win.

[QuickSilver]

@Tamerlane

Roughly 50% of those who voted, which is bad enough. But it is worth noting the Republican turnout was way down - a sizeable number appear to have sat this one out which definitely contributed to Jones’ win.

True enough. But as I noted:

@QuickSilver

If not for the charges of child molestation, he’d have won running on a platform of bigotry and statements wishing he could repeal all amendments of the constitution beyond the first ten. That’s a position advocating the repeal of abolition of slavery, civil rights, women’s rights, term limits, etc…

Again, glad the worthless asshole lost, but can’t quite bring myself to think well of those who would have voted for him under slightly “better” circumstances.

[Steve_MB]

@Sam_Stone

Sure. I was responding to a specific request for two or more examples of Democrats who were elected despite being sketchy characters.

Er, no; the specific request was:

Wanna name two who are comparable to Trump and Moore in terms of (a) being morally and ethically unfit for office, and (b) being laughably incompetent

(Is there a way to get blink tags to work in here? I think I might need a blink tag for this one…)

Now, see if you can come up with any actual examples, bearing in mind that that word in big red letters means that the examples have to include both “morally and ethically unfit for office” and “laughably incompetent”.

[DrDeth]

@Steve_MB

Sam, Sam, Sam, try re-reading with the key word emphasized:

Now, see if you can come up with any actual examples, bearing in mind that that word in big red letters means that the examples have to include both “morally and ethically unfit for office” and “laughably incompetent”.

Why are we asking posters to bring up more “whataboutism”? :mad: This thread is about Roy Moore, not Bill Clinton or whoever.

[ElvisL1ves]

We’re trying to *quash *whataboutism. With only mixed success, admittedly.

[septimus]

@DrDeth

Why are we asking posters to bring up more “whataboutism”? :mad: This thread is about Roy Moore, not Bill Clinton or whoever.

Every thread badmouthing a Republican must beget a Tu quoque. They’ve got Roy Moore and Donald Trump. The D’s have Al Franken and Nancy Pelosi. Same-same.

[DrDeth]

@ElvisL1ves

We’re trying to *quash *whataboutism. With only mixed success, admittedly.

You can only do that by ignoring it or posting "“wahtaboutism!!!” as the reply. The truth is useless for those deplorables.

[Saint_Cad]

@kayaker

I’m pretty sure it’s the Dakotas that are divided into a North and a South. Colorado is just one big state.

You’ve never been south of Castle Rock

[SingleMalt]

@Saint_Cad

You’ve never been south of Castle Rock

Or northeast of Fort Collins.

[Sam_Stone]

@wolfpup

I asked for examples of Democrats who were elected despite having the character of the Republicans we were discussing, notably Trump and Roy Moore. Your post tries to show that Democrats have had many such politicians, but on closer examination these would be persuasive only to someone completely lacking knowledge of any context or any sense of how incredibly selectively cherry-picked the examples and incidents are and how badly they misrepresent the actual facts. Someone like a new-born baby or an alien from another planet might be persuaded, or a totally myopic partisan, but no one else.

Ted Kennedy had an exemplary and honorable Senate career marred by a single moment of panic during a life-threatening emotional event precipitated by an accident. Bill Clinton had one of the most successful presidencies of the modern era, marred by a number of incidents of varying degrees of believability which collectively show that, at worst, his otherwise sterling qualities are undermined by being a horndog. Yet you would have us believe that in their ethics and character, Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton were the equivalent of Roy Moore and Donald Trump; this is the stuff not even of Fox News but of Breitbart, yet you say it apparently in all seriousness.

It’s the same with all your other examples. There’s a very significant story to be told in each case, and you fail to tell it, leaving only a single naked cherry-picked fact to hang in the air without context and mislead the reader. Take the example of Robert Byrd, whom you quote to let everyone know that he was an incorrigible racist, yet Democrats kept re-electing him. What you don’t tell us is that he was born in 1917 and began serving in Congress in 1953, and his racism in those early years was the racism of the times, the times of the infamous Negro Motorist’s Green Book which purported to help African-Americans travel cross-country by car without being beaten or killed. What you don’t tell us is that he completely changed starting in the late 50s, hiring one of the first black Congressional aides in Congress, supporting integration, and eventually completely renouncing his previous views and becoming a strong supporter of civil rights throughout his distinguished Senatorial career. Towards the end of that career, the NAACP gave his voting record a 100% score, and at the time of his death the NAACP declared him “a champion for civil rights and liberties” who “came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda”. Is that the racist you were talking about?

And now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going back to celebrating the defeat of the Republican serial child molester, the one who was twice removed from the Supreme Court.

You asked me to name more than one Democrat who was elected despite having similar character flaws. I named a bunch of them. You then proceeded to make excuses for a couple of them on the basis that they were good Senators for your cause, which is kind of the point - it’s easy to excuse the behavior of those doing your bidding. How much legislation Ted Kennedy passed is of no use to Mary Jo Kopechne. And categorizing that incident as just a good, decent guy who made a bad split-second decision is ridiculous. He was intoxicated, he crashed his vehicle, and he ran and didn’t report the accident for fear that he’d be charged. He had no way of knowing if Kopechne was still alive, and he cared more about his reputation and career than he did about getting responders to the scene as quickly as possible.

And since collusion with Russians is what this is all about, let’s not forget that Ted Kennedy attempted to collude with the Soviet Union to stop Reagan’s re-election:

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

And describing Bill Clinton as a mere ‘horndog’ in light of multiple sexual assault claims, a lawsuit in which he perjured himself (and had to pay to settle), and an affair with a young star-struck intern in the White House while he was the most powerful man in the world is just amazing. It reminds me of Gloria Steinem’s ‘one free grope’ rule for powerful Democrats.

[Sam_Stone]

@Steve_MB

Er, no; the specific request was:

(Is there a way to get blink tags to work in here? I think I might need a blink tag for this one…)

Now, see if you can come up with any actual examples, bearing in mind that that word in big red letters means that the examples have to include both “morally and ethically unfit for office” and “laughably incompetent”.

Sorry, I missed that part. But it also didn’t occur to me that it was okay for people to be “morally and unethically unfit for office” so long as they are competent while doing so. I would have thought the first clause was all you’d need. But hey, if that’s what you believe, I will withdraw a couple of those names who were at least competent scumbags, since that’s what seems to matter to you.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone;20663735
And describing Bill Clinton[/QUOTE]

Whataboutism!!:rolleyes:

[Sam_Stone]

You know, that stupid ‘Whataboutism’ thing was old the first time it was used. It’s an obvious attempt to continue attacking people on one side of the fence, while deflecting attacks on your own side by the same criterion.

The next time a Democrat gets caught doing something and Democrats start pointing out Republicans doing the same thing with apparent impugnity, that ‘Whataboutism’ hashtag will vanish down the memory hole so fast you’ll forget it ever existed.