MORE ROY

[jpx7]

The Senate does have the tendency to buff the roughest edges off of people who previously did battle in two- and four- year election cycles, as well as putting them less in thrall to constituents and more to big donors. Still, I have a hard time believing that leopards can change their spots.

For what it's worth, I'm not aware that Moore has ever backed away from or clarified his position that homosexuality should be criminalized. That puts him pretty far afield even among his prospective colleagues.

This is one reason I'd like to make House seats four-year staggered (and maybe extend Senate seats to eight-year staggered, but maybe not). I think the two-year cycles of the House bring out the worst in enthralling to a perpetual campaigning (versus the actual business of governing). However, this would only be practicable with a substantial revision to the extent lawmakers can be (and most definitely are) enthralled to big donors, which is a separate problem that's sadly been sliding in the opposite direction of "good".

 

[jpx7]

It's an unpopular view but advances towards late teens by men in their early 30s is more common then people want to admit. I can't excuse the 14 year old. That's just gross but I wouldn't turn down a 18 year old.

My rule is if I can't take her to a bar then it's a no-go.

 

[Runnin]

It's an unpopular view but advances towards late teens by men in their early 30s is more common then people want to admit. I can't excuse the 14 year old. That's just gross but I wouldn't turn down a 18 year old.

I agree with you, especially for a certain kind of man that there are a lot of: a little immature, uneducated and insecure around women. But for a 32 year old law school graduate, already with 6 plus years around college aged girls and women, to be specifically chasing teenagers is a huge red flag, imo. The guy had some serious women issues. Clearly he felt unmansculated around smart, stronger women.

 

[Hawk]

Did you make that up yourself ?

Yes.

If so, have you been saving it ?

No.

 

[Hawk]

My rule is if I can't take her to a bar then it's a no-go.

You don't have to take her to a bar to get her drunk tho.

 

[Hawk]

Quit using racist terms

Trump made me do it.

 

[jpx7]

You don't have to take her to a bar to get her drunk tho.

Drinking is mostly incidental to the discursive space of the bar.

 

[goldfly]

The reality: He'll win (which is sad - but says more about Alabama than it does the Republican party), it'll be treated as the second coming of the apocalypse for a few days, and then the only time we'll ever hear about him again is when he makes an ideologically conservative vote or comment in the Senate.

well, except you know, the republican party now being this by embracing the likes of the orange one and this sack of ****

so weird to sell your soul in the short term

unless the goal is to destroy everything this country was and remaking the country to the ideas of moore and his pathetic ilk

 

[thethe]

well, except you know, the republican party now being this by embracing the likes of the orange one and this sack of ****

so weird to sell your soul in the short term

unless the goal is to destroy everything this country was and remaking the country to the ideas of moore and his pathetic ilk

You identify as a progressive and you are railing on people trying to change America? Thats the very definition of what you believe in. If anything, people like Moore want to keep America what is was and what made us get to this level. And before you do it no this doesn't meant hat we are going back to slavery but I'm sure you'll make this emotional argument.

 

[Julio3000]

Yeah, I think it's a tad Pollyanna to assume that there won't be a bit of tarnishing of the ol' brand that could have consequences in 2018.

 

[thethe]

Yeah, I think it's a tad Pollyanna to assume that there won't be a bit of tarnishing of the ol' brand that could have consequences in 2018.

Its very possible that this is the case but Americans have a short attention span and I'm sure there will be other big news that will distract the voters.

 

[sturg33]

So let's cut to the quick. If you support Donald Trump in any way -- you support Roy Moore.

In effect, you support grown men "bothering" underage girls

"if you support Bernie Sanders in any way, then you support America becoming Venezuela.

In effect, you support mass starvation and death in our country"

 

[Hawk]

well, except you know, the republican party now being this by embracing the likes of the orange one and this sack of ****

so weird to sell your soul in the short term

unless the goal is to destroy everything this country was and remaking the country to the ideas of moore and his pathetic ilk

The Republican party now being what, exactly? Get it up, articulate it.

I'm more concerned with the Republican party supporting a man who, by all accounts, may still believe homosexuality should be illegal.

But (and I raised this point a month ago) we haven't been able to suss out whether there's any currency to this previously expressed belief, because Moore's been too busy riding a wave of electoral capital that people like you have gifted him by making retarded pedophilia accusations and using them as the sole body of reasoning beyond why Moore should not be elected.

Inform yourself: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...4417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.80b1c036b5a5

You are no better than Pizzagate ascribers.

You are just as complicit in this as people actually voting for the man. Perpetuating this bull****.

Calling Roy Moore a pedophile - and making the entire argument about pedophilia - is like Manna from heaven for the man that drags around a veritable sack of ideological atom bombs.

 

[Hawk]

Drinking is mostly incidental to the discursive space of the bar.

Heresy.

 

[jpx7]

Calling Roy Moore a pedophile - and making the entire argument about pedophilia - is like Manna from heaven for the man that drags around a veritable sack of ideological atom bombs.

I said the same thing around the same time. Moore may have been—may even still be—a predatory ephebophile, but there are so many more reasons he's a monstrous choice for the Senate—including many actions he's taken as a jurist, and ideological opinions he's espoused respective to how our government works, that are actually illegal (unlike his high-school-pool dating proclivities, which—if consensual—would have at least been legal when he engaged in them).

 

[Hawk]

I said the same thing around the same time. Moore may have been—may even still be—a predatory ephebophile, but there are so many more reasons he's a monstrous choice for the Senate—including many actions he's taken as a jurist, and ideological opinions he's espoused respective to how our government works, that are actually illegal (unlike his high-school-pool dating proclivities, which—if consensual—would have at least been legal when he engaged in them).

Precisely. And if we're talking about things which would unequivocally tarnish actual, important (and fledgling) Republican brands, it would be wagon-hitching to an admitted gay persecutionist or civil liberties eschewer or any of the other number angles you could absolutely nail Moore on.

That he's skipping away from all of these things, completely unscathed, is disheartening to me on so many levels.

 

[Julio3000]

Precisely. And if we're talking about things which would unequivocally tarnish an actual, important (and fledgling) Republican brand, it would be wagon-hitching to an admitted gay persecutionist or civil liberties eschewer or any of the other number angles you could absolutely nail Moore on.

That he's skipping away from all of these things, completely unscathed, is disheartening to me on so many levels.

Yes, and I think those things should and likely will tarnish that brand, which is why I made the point that he's quite extreme even within his prospective caucus.

I think your point is a very good one, and that I'd be a happier camper in general if Democrats had an economic and social program that was both progressive and persistent and would rail Moore on those grounds alone.

I do have to wonder, though, that in light of Alabama Rs nominating Moore and showing up in overwhelming numbers to support, say, Sessions, the calculation has been made that the perv allegations are the only leverage they can get within the context of this electorate. Wanting a religious test for office, or advocating for the criminalization of homosexuality, or demonstrating a contempt for the rule of law...none of those things made him anathema before, so why would they now?

 

[57Brave]

"if you support Bernie Sanders in any way, then you support America becoming Venezuela.

In effect, you support mass starvation and death in our country"

tell me more !!

like when he said this
and the context of the statement.
Was it a reference to make a point or was he advocating we become Venezuela ?

In his rally in Pensacola this weekend, did he bring it up again ?

 

[Hawk]

Yes, and I think those things should and likely will tarnish that brand, which is why I made the point that he's quite extreme even within his prospective caucus.

I admire your optimism. Republicans were never held accountable for being dragged, kicking and screaming, into modernity by reluctantly 'accepting' gay marriage. If that didn't meaningfully tarnish their brand then I don't see how Moore's stance (at least with respect to this issue) will. Notwithstanding the fact that nobody is talking about Moore's fundamental ideologies - at all. Also notwithstanding my belief that a significant number of Republicans would turn tail on the issue of gay marriage if the political opportunity presented itself.

I do have to wonder, though, that in light of Alabama Rs nominating Moore and showing up in overwhelming numbers to support, say, Sessions, the calculation has been made that the perv allegations are the only leverage they can get within the context of this electorate. Wanting a religious test for office, or advocating for the criminalization of homosexuality, or demonstrating a contempt for the rule of law...none of those things made him anathema before, so why would they now?

That certainly makes sense given that the only thing which was ever going to knock Moore off the pedestal was something akin to a major crime. Nevertheless, I think dragging all of his wackadoodle ideologies onto a national scale and litigating them vis-à-vis the GOP platform/party would've been the more effective route. Alabama was a lost cause from the beginning, for Democrats, but highlighting basic moral superiority on the national scale was a battle that they could have been fought, and probably won, IMO.

 

[goldfly]

The Republican party now being what, exactly? Get it up, articulate it.

I'm more concerned with the Republican party supporting a man who, by all accounts, may still believe homosexuality should be illegal.

But (and I raised this point a month ago) we haven't been able to suss out whether there's any currency to this previously expressed belief, because Moore's been too busy riding a wave of electoral capital that people like you have gifted him by making retarded pedophilia accusations and using them as the sole body of reasoning beyond why Moore should not be elected.

Inform yourself: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...4417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.80b1c036b5a5

You are no better than Pizzagate ascribers.

You are just as complicit in this as people actually voting for the man. Perpetuating this bull****.

Calling Roy Moore a pedophile - and making the entire argument about pedophilia - is like Manna from heaven for the man that drags around a veritable sack of ideological atom bombs.

exactly, i don't know what the republican party is standing for anymore when you have the the likes of trump being the face of the party and has them rallying for the likes of Moore etc

i would only call him a pedophile cause for some reason republicans don't care about the others things that should have disqualified him a LONG time ago

i seriously don't understand the society the gop is fighting for anymore