Roy Moore: allegations of sexual misconduct with minors

[tyrlaan]

You, and other progressives I've come across, have an incredible talent for looking for the worst possible motives that a person might have, and just assuming that's the motive that drives them. Are there any conservatives you would consider honorable adversaries, or do you expect that one day conservative leaning people will be defeated and progressives will finally prevail? I get that point of view can be comforting for people; to just assume that you're the only moral camp in town, but that's an awfully naive world view if you ask me.

I'd hazard a guess that this trend you are witnessing is a result of consistent disingenuous or willfully ignorant commentary from Trump supporters. And the ideology that fuels that kind of garbage needs to be squashed.

The problem is that the GOP can't decide if and when it does or doesn't want to be identified with Trump and all that represents. If conservatives exist that want to be classified as honorable adversaries, as you say, then they need to make it clear and distinct that they are not part of the Trump brigade. To date there's been not much more than talk and certainly very little action along these lines.

You're right in that it's a two-way street, but the problem is not simply progressives not willing to compromise. Not by a long shot.

[cubby]

I'm sure people will cry "foul" in a close vote, either way. But I doubt the RNC will stomach actual fraud in this highly scrutinized case.

I do not share your optimism. There is no way the AL establishment, all of whom are GOP, will allow a Dem to win that seat. Their best course is to get Moore in, disqualified, then appoint another, and then have yet another special election. In that scenario, Jones will be ineligible because of the Sore Loser Law.

[mvaliz]

Democrats have their problems. But Compared to Roy-fucking-Moore getting RNC backing? Compared to this shit about Muller? No. Not even close. Not within a light-year. That's not even 'moving to the right'. That's abandoning morality AND patriotism. The far right at the moment, which has betrayed conservatism, has neither.

I wish I could find it, but a long time ago I said that if Osama Bin Laden was discovered alive and well - and was somehow able to run for President of the USA, at least 40-50% of the current "Republicans" would vote for him. You can say "Evangelicals wouldn't vote for him" - but then again, look at evangelicals and the Pedophile? Jsut like him, they'll outright dismiss his crimes, and they might even say Bin Laden was put there by God as a sign of Christian strength over Muslims or somesuch nonsense.

[Mormolyce]

Convinced most people who mattered in election, duh. Ones that got up and voted where it could sway elections.

Those extra millions in California were worthless, yes.

Erm, that's not actually how the EC works lol.

In fact the election was mostly decided by thin margins in Florida and Ohio. This whole "all the Democrats are in California" thing is a ridiculous false narrative.

You literally cannot "campaign for the EC", outside of simply campaigning in Florida and Ohio like both sides do every election.

[mvaliz]

I do not share your optimism. There is no way the AL establishment, all of whom are GOP, will allow a Dem to win that seat. Their best course is to get Moore in, disqualified, then appoint another, and then have yet another special election. In that scenario, Jones will be ineligible because of the Sore Loser Law.

This requires tact and thought. Look at our Dumbass-in-chief? It would be smart of the Republican congress to remove him immediately and replace with another SANE muppet president who backs their every want. Do they do it? >_<

[cubby]

This requires tact and thought. Look at our Dumbass-in-chief? It would be smart of the Republican congress to remove him immediately and replace with another SANE muppet president who backs their every want. Do they do it? >_<

So maybe there is still hope . . .

[Skroe]

I wish I could find it, but a long time ago I said that if Osama Bin Laden was discovered alive and well - and was somehow able to run for President of the USA, at least 40-50% of the current "Republicans" would vote for him. You can say "Evangelicals wouldn't vote for him" - but then again, look at evangelicals and the Pedophile? Jsut like him, they'll outright dismiss his crimes, and they might even say Bin Laden was put there by God as a sign of Christian strength over Muslims or somesuch nonsense.

Yep. Exactly. Because these people are not about principles or patriotism. They're about power and grievences.

They feel aggrieved because *gasp* somethings don't go their way.
And they want power, by any means necessary.

Everything else is just window dressing.

[downnola]

I'd hazard a guess that this trend you are witnessing is a result of consistent disingenuous or willfully ignorant commentary from Trump supporters. And the ideology that fuels that kind of garbage needs to be squashed.

The problem is that the GOP can't decide if and when it does or doesn't want to be identified with Trump and all that represents. If conservatives exist that want to be classified as honorable adversaries, as you say, then they need to make it clear and distinct that they are not part of the Trump brigade. To date there's been not much more than talk and certainly very little action along these lines.

You're right in that it's a two-way street, but the problem is not simply progressives not willing to compromise. Not by a long shot.

Yes, Trumpism and the alt-right ideology (if you can call it ideology) needs to be defeated. My point is that if you're willing to throw the intellectually honest members of the right (the ones me and Daelek are arguing about) in the same camp as Trump apologists, then you're not really serious about defeating the alt-right "for the sake of democracy, and the sake of the unrelenting pursuit of human rights and human dignity." You're just playing an ideologically fueled game when you argue in that way.

I'm not entirely sure what people like Buckley, Friedman, et al., need to do to distance themselves from people like Steve Bannon and Donald Trump if you just claim that their motive for doing so is to mask their bigotry and contempt for the poor. That argument is placing an non-removable label on a person with no way out. The only thing a person could do in that spot is to disregard any convictions and principles they may have and completely switch sides. Sorry, but that ain't fucking happening.

I've completely given up on the GOP, but let's be real here: we need principled conservatives and libertarians to defeat Trump and his gang. If people like Daelek think we can bring sanity back to this country without them, then he's not thinking seriously about the problem. He's still stuck in a Red vs. Blue mode of thinking that lead us to this goddamn point to begin with. I'm beyond sick and tired of politically biased narratives that do nothing but present a surface level view of complex problems. It's boring, divisive, and wrong. I'm not claiming that only one side does it, but it doesn't matter where it comes from; it's exhausting.

[Skroe]

Yes, Trumpism and the alt-right ideology (if you can call it ideology) needs to be defeated. My point is that if you're willing to throw the intellectually honest members of the right (the ones me and Daelek are arguing about) in the same camp as Trump apologists, then you're not really serious about defeating the alt-right "for the sake of democracy, and the sake of the unrelenting pursuit of human rights and human dignity." You're just playing an ideologically fueled game when you argue in that way.

I'm not entirely sure what people like Buckley, Friedman, et al., need to do to distance themselves from people like Steve Bannon and Donald Trump if you just claim that their motive for doing so is to mask their bigotry and contempt for the poor. That argument is placing an non-removable label on a person with no way out. The only thing a person could do in that spot is to disregard any convictions and principles they may have and completely switch sides. Sorry, but that ain't fucking happening.

I've completely given up on the GOP, but let's be real here: we need principled conservatives and libertarians to defeat Trump and his gang. If people like Daelek think we can bring sanity back to this country without them, then he's not thinking seriously about the problem. He's still stuck in a Red vs. Blue mode of thinking that lead us to this goddamn point to begin with. I'm beyond sick and tired of politically biased narratives that do nothing but present a surface level view of complex problems. It's boring, decisive, and wrong. I'm not claiming that only one side does it, but it doesn't matter where it comes from; it's exhausting.

PERFECTLY put.

[mvaliz]

I'm not entirely sure what people like Buckley, Friedman, et al., need to do to distance themselves from people like Steve Bannon and Donald Trump if you just claim that their motive for doing so is to mask their bigotry and contempt for the poor..

How about not support Dumbass Dump and his retinue, publically denouncing him as president and making a vow to not support anything he does until he's removed?

I mean, even @Skroe gets the idea. Supporting Dumbass Dump's decisions, weither it's something you wanted or not, is still ultimately supporting Dumbass Dump. Their first goal is to get his fukwit evil ass out of the chair and replaced with a SANE Republican (...).

[alexw]

Look, Daelek posted a wild condemnation of conservative roots and of conservative media that are generally regarded as having a high standard of accuracy in reporting, suggesting conservatism as a whole is steeped in racism and bigotry. That's what I responded to, nothing more, nothing less.

When my entire political ideology is basically just a racist point of view, when that's his position, that is a position that renders meaningful discourse on issues we disagree over unsalvageable.

This is somewhat equivalent to saying that the Democrat Party today is borne out of KKK support who just want to subjugate minorities and keep them dependant on government. And you know what, that is a pants-on-head ridiculous thing to say that should be rejected out of hand, similar to his wild conclusion about conservative roots.

Like it or not there is a large degree of truth in what Daelek is saying. Back in the 1940's and 50's the democrats WERE the party of racists. They dominated in the old slave states. The democrats then led the desegregation and kicked the racists out so that they were politically homeless. The republican party saw an opportunity there and they took it. They pandered to the racists with a whole boatload of dog whistles and racist innuendos thereby bringing them into the republican party.

There is a reason Reagan gave his state's rights speech near where three civil rights activists were murdered. Honestly, what do you think the old southern slave states took that speech to mean, given that they'd just been forced against their will to desegregate? Reagan did this knowingly and purposefully. It was a tactic designed to court the southern racists, and it worked. Then there was his message about "strapping young bucks" (i.e. big burly black men) buying T-bone steaks using public welfare money. There are multiple examples of him and other republican leaders and presidential candidates over the years using racist dog whistles in a similar fashion. Trump is simply those dog whistles taken to such an extreme that they are not whistles anymore. Its screamed out loud. And where were people like Buckley when this was going on? Did they condemn Reagan for racism? Did they condemn Bush Snr when he did the same? No. Not in the slightest.

You see the conservative review and other ideologically aligned groups are/were primarily about shifting wealth and economic power to the wealthy, and Reagan and Bush Snr using racist dog whistles was a great way to get that to happen. Make an alliance with racists and blame and scapegoat people of colour to get elected for positions x,y,z, then use those positions to legislate to transfer wealth from the poor (a very large proportion of whom are non-white) and middle class to the wealthy, with the provision that the poor non-whites get hit the hardest. That is not to say these reaganite type groups are racists, they are not, but they did align themselves with racists, and have turned a blind eye to their party leaders using racist dog whistles because it enabled them to get what they want. The election of Trump is a textbook example of this process in action. He used racist scapegoating throughout his campaign, and now what are the republicans doing? They are giving tax cuts to the rich which is to be paid for by cutting help to the poor! But Trump has taken right wing racism to such an extreme that even the conservative review is aghast. But apparently it was OK when Reagan and Bush Snr did it because it wasn't said so overtly and visibly, which turns it from a-OK to something ghastly.......

[downnola]

Like it or not there is a large degree of truth in what Daelek is saying. Back in the 1940's and 50's the democrats WERE the party of racists. They dominated in the old slave states. The democrats then led the desegregation and kicked the racists out so that they were politically homeless. The republican party saw an opportunity there and they took it. They pandered to the racists with a whole boatload of dog whistles and racist innuendos thereby bringing them into the republican party.

There is a reason Reagan gave his state's rights speech near where three civil rights activists were murdered. Honestly, what do you think the old southern slave states took that speech to mean, given that they'd just been forced against their will to desegregate? Reagan did this knowingly and purposefully. It was a tactic designed to court the southern racists, and it worked. Then there was his message about "strapping young bucks" (i.e. big burly black men) buying T-bone steaks using public welfare money. There are multiple examples of him and other republican leaders and presidential candidates over the years using racist dog whistles in a similar fashion. Trump is simply those dog whistles taken to such an extreme that they are not whistles anymore. Its screamed out loud. And where were people like Buckley when this was going on? Did they condemn Reagan for racism? Did they condemn Bush Snr when he did the same? No. Not in the slightest.

You see the conservative review and other ideologically aligned groups are/were primarily about shifting wealth and economic power to the wealthy, and Reagan and Bush Snr using racist dog whistles was a great way to get that to happen. Make an alliance with racists and blame and scapegoat people of colour to get elected for positions x,y,z, then use those positions to legislate to transfer wealth from the poor (a very large proportion of whom are non-white) and middle class to the wealthy, with the provision that the poor non-whites get hit the hardest. That is not to say these reaganite type groups are racists, they are not, but they did align themselves with racists, and have turned a blind eye to their party leaders using racist dog whistles because it enabled them to get what they want. The election of Trump is a textbook example of this process in action. He used racist scapegoating throughout his campaign, and now what are the republicans doing? They are giving tax cuts to the rich which is to be paid for by cutting help to the poor! But Trump has taken right wing racism to such an extreme that even the conservative review is aghast. But apparently it was OK when Reagan and Bush Snr did it because it wasn't said so overtly and visibly, which turns it from a-OK to something ghastly.......

He was writing articles like this:

It is, by now, well known—or should be—that conservatives do not peddle solutions to social problems, for the simple reason that there are no “solutions” to social problems. Edmund Burke enunciated this in his famous aphorism, There are no permanent victories as there are no permanent defeats. But this is less than a counsel of despair. And over the weekend I listened to an American of extraordinary personal achievements (among other things, he has visited the moon), who encouraged his conversational companion to think out loud about certain problems that we know exist.

Take, for instance, the matter of illegal immigration. There is Mexico, to the south of us, for whose people we desire only the best, our war with Mexico having concluded 135 years ago. But we cannot accept all the Mexicans who would like to live in America, for reasons it is vulgar to go into. And yet, although we have laws, we all know that these laws are not being enforced, because, given the existing situation, they are unenforceable. The existing situation is that any Mexican who chooses to come into the country illegally has very little trouble in doing so. Occasionally they are caught; indeed, south of San Diego, one Mexican was caught seven times. He must have been extraordinarily informal, because usually it isn’t necessary to be caught. All you need to do is wear a red wig, or whatever.

Is there a solution?

Well, my friend said, why not a wall? Instantly the mind turns to a Berlin Wall. But a wall designed to keep people from coming in—the kind of wall you would build around Fort Knox—need not be so punitive in character as such a wall as you would construct to keep people from getting out—of Sing Sing, for instance—with watchtowers, and machine guns.

Do we want to build a two-thousand-mile-long wall, with barbed wire and land mines, to keep illegals from coming into the country? Who says A, must say B. If you desire an end, you must accept the means necessary for the realization of that end. Just a thought.

Another question. What about the illegal drugs pouring into this country? It is estimated that somewhere between 85 per cent and 95 per cent of the stuff that comes up from Latin America reaches U.S. consumers, and the returns are measured in broken families, broken bodies, suicide, theft, muggings, and murder. Our Coast Guard stops a lot of vessels, finds the dope, makes arrests, seizes the booty, and in due course the vendors are released, and they go out again. But the important datum is that if your chances are 85 per cent of getting through, you are encouraged to continue in the enterprise.

So, my inquisitive friend said, why not shoot down the vessels that carry the stuff?

You mean after you get the people off the boat?

No no no. You miss my point! The people stay on the boat.

How would you—old shoe—reconcile that policy with the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees fair trials, etc. etc.?

Well, you see, the Constitution of the United States authorizes Congress to grant “letters of marque and reprisal.” So that you might consider deputizing free-enterprise counter-pirates to stop the drug traffic, which is itself a form of aggressive piracy. These entrepreneurs would go out to sea, stop vessels coming up from Latin America, and search them. If drugs were discovered, a frogman from the counter-pirate fleet would descend to the keel of the drug-smuggler boat and plant an explosive on it. The apprehending vessel would withdraw, and in a couple of minutes the pirates’ boat would go down, with all hands.

But—but, you would in effect be sanctioning the continuing execution, without trial, of a lot of people!

I don’t think so. You see, precisely the point is that there wouldn’t be a lot of people, after the first, oh, dozen sinkings. The drug smugglers would decide that, on the whole, it was more pleasant to stay home. But the congressional grant would remain in force—as required to dull the appetite. I’d guess that would stop most of the drug trade. That was the point of the discussion, wasn’t it?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ng-consitution

This was written in 1983, but it could be reprinted today to the same effect.

[Milchshake]

That image doesn't support your claim. Eyeballing it seemed fishy, so I actually opened it with paint.net and checked pixel lengths. All 3 graphs are 182 pixels wide. The medians are the following lengths from the left side of that graph (I might be off by one or so):

'94: D: 92 R: 109
'04: D: 72 R: 90
'14: D: 55 R: 118

From '94 to '04, BOTH sides shifted left by about ~18 pixels, or about 10% of the total. From '04 to '14, the Democrats again shifted left by ~18 pixels, but the Republicans shifted back to the right by 28 pixels.

Society as a whole was getting more liberal from '94 to '04, but from '04 to '14 the Republicans bucked that trend and moved more conservative at almost DOUBLE the speed society was going left, while democrats kept going liberal at the same rate.

3 data points is not a good sample size, but what limited data was presented in that image was not to the GOP's benefit.

An important point, that study is of the electorate. Also Alan Murray, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who now heads the Pew Center has been trying to soft pedal polarization for years. Studies of party elites and lawmakers show much more asymmetric polarization. Especially when you look at issues like , immigration, taxes, and healthcare.



Buried in the actual pew report has other nuggets that fail to get cherry picked. One group is much more polarized against compromise.

[Skroe]

How about not support Dumbass Dump and his retinue, publically denouncing him as president and making a vow to not support anything he does until he's removed?

I mean, even @Skroe gets the idea. Supporting Dumbass Dump's decisions, weither it's something you wanted or not, is still ultimately supporting Dumbass Dump. Their first goal is to get his fukwit evil ass out of the chair and replaced with a SANE Republican (...).

Pretty much.

I think Democrats should hold the budget hostage, pending passing and signing of a law that impliments one of the two bills in Congress right now that prevents the President from firing the special counsel without judicial review. They're broadly popular. If Republicans want a Countinuing Resolution past December 22nd, that should be Democrats asking price.

And that should only gets them 3 months.

Now consider everything I have ever written about government, about defense, about the budget. That is seriousness with which I view Trump as a threat. There is legitimately nothing more important going on in the country today than allowing Mueller and the Justice League to do their job without interference or fear of reprisal. Everything else goes on hold, probably for years.

Does this absolutely suck? Oh you but. But only children believe they get to pick when and where they get to fight every battle. I hate that this happened. It breaks my heart. It makes me angry. But it happened. Time to deal with it. The other things I want? I got a long life ahead of me to see them come about. There's no rush.

[alexw]

He was writing articles like this:



This was written in 1983, but it could be reprinted today to the same effect.

Oh come off it, that is NOT the same as condemning republican leaders when they have appealed to racists to win elections.

[downnola]

Oh come off it, that is NOT the same as condemning republican leaders when they have appealed to racists to win elections.

I didn't say it was the same, I gave an example of what he was writing about at that time. Mind you, it isn't littered with cliches like "dog whistling" in every paragraph, so I can see why it wouldn't be worth your time.

[Mormolyce]

The goal of a campaign is to influence people

And Hillary influenced more people than Trump.

[alexw]

I didn't say it was the same, I gave an example of what he was writing about at that time. Mind you, it isn't littered with cliches like "dog whistling" in every paragraph, so I can see why it wouldn't be worth your time.

None of which answers the points I made. The Buckley's of conservatism looked the other way when their leaders for years chased the votes of southern racists because it advanced their agenda.

[downnola]

None of which answers the points I made. The Buckley's of conservatism looked the other way when their leaders for years chased the votes of southern racists because it advanced their agenda.

Right...

[Ghostpanther]

Erm, that's not actually how the EC works lol.

In fact the election was mostly decided by thin margins in Florida and Ohio. This whole "all the Democrats are in California" thing is a ridiculous false narrative.

You literally cannot "campaign for the EC", outside of simply campaigning in Florida and Ohio like both sides do every election.

It was very close in Fla. In Ohio however, Trump won by 8% points. Which is not considered to be a thin win. Like Florida, It was very close in Michigan and Wisconsin.