Honestly, so many things worth discussing going on, it’s hard to pick one to discuss, but I’ll go with Roy Moore, since in a couple days he’ll either be one of the sleaziest guys to ever win election to the US Senate*, or the guy who managed to had the Dems a Senator in one of the reddest states.

(11-27-2017 05:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is a good place for this.

Almost certainly, Project Veritas has been caught red handed trying to get the Washington Post to publish a false story about a woman who was impregnated by Roy Moore. Unfortunately for PV, the Post has some journalistic integrity, did their research, realized this woman was lying, and is now calling out the woman and her likely ties to PV for this.

Not surprised at all to read this, knowing the lengths PV has gone to supposedly fight the biased MSM, when they actually are the ones who are incredibly biased and willing to do unethical things to tarnish the name of respected media organizations.

Quote:A woman who falsely claimed to The Washington Post that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager appears to work with an organization that uses deceptive tactics to secretly record conversations in an effort to embarrass its targets.

In a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore's candidacy if she went public.

The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.

But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/i...story.html

This was fairly stunning – not only was it an unethical sting to try and discredit legit journalists, it was also to discredit real victims/accusers for purely political purposes. And that purpose was to get an accused child molester and serial predator elected to the US Senate. On a Christian/family values platform.

Speaking of “Fake News,” Fox tweeted this headline: “Roy Moore accuser admits she forged part of yearbook inscription attributed to Alabama senate candidate.” Problem is, it’s completely false.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/363990...y-headline

I’ll give them credit for somewhat retracting the story, but note that this would seem to imply they just blindly regurgitate stuff from Gateway Pundit and Breitbart without checking.

And Alabama evangelical pastors defending him:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2...story.html

--------------
“Wise said he would support Moore even if the allegations were true and the candidate was proved to have sexually molested teenage girls and women.
“There ought to be a statute of limitations on this stuff,” Wise said. “How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line.
“Plus,” he added, “there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”
------------------
Or that Moore pursued underage women because of their “purity”. Eeeewww. Not creepy at all.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/flip-...e-married/

And people wonder why young people are turning away from religion?

Thing is, Moore was “deplorable” even before all this stuff came out. Here he is saying that the last time America was great was in the days of slavery:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/r...index.html
He also refers to Native Americans and Asians as “Reds and Yellows”.

This is the man the RNC has endorsed and Trump is campaigning for. (Though only from across the border. Brave move there Donnie.)



*I'm sure there have been plenty of equally sleazy Senators - but his sleaziness is well known *before* the election.

(12-10-2017 10:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Honestly, so many things worth discussing going on, it’s hard to pick one to discuss, but I’ll go with Roy Moore, since in a couple days he’ll either be one of the sleaziest guys to ever win election to the US Senate*, or the guy who managed to had the Dems a Senator in one of the reddest states.

(11-27-2017 05:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is a good place for this.

Almost certainly, Project Veritas has been caught red handed trying to get the Washington Post to publish a false story about a woman who was impregnated by Roy Moore. Unfortunately for PV, the Post has some journalistic integrity, did their research, realized this woman was lying, and is now calling out the woman and her likely ties to PV for this.

Not surprised at all to read this, knowing the lengths PV has gone to supposedly fight the biased MSM, when they actually are the ones who are incredibly biased and willing to do unethical things to tarnish the name of respected media organizations.

Quote:A woman who falsely claimed to The Washington Post that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager appears to work with an organization that uses deceptive tactics to secretly record conversations in an effort to embarrass its targets.

In a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore's candidacy if she went public.

The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.

But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/i...story.html

This was fairly stunning – not only was it an unethical sting to try and discredit legit journalists, it was also to discredit real victims/accusers for purely political purposes. And that purpose was to get an accused child molester and serial predator elected to the US Senate. On a Christian/family values platform.

Speaking of “Fake News,” Fox tweeted this headline: “Roy Moore accuser admits she forged part of yearbook inscription attributed to Alabama senate candidate.” Problem is, it’s completely false.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/363990...y-headline

I’ll give them credit for somewhat retracting the story, but note that this would seem to imply they just blindly regurgitate stuff from Gateway Pundit and Breitbart without checking.

And Alabama evangelical pastors defending him:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2...story.html

--------------
“Wise said he would support Moore even if the allegations were true and the candidate was proved to have sexually molested teenage girls and women.
“There ought to be a statute of limitations on this stuff,” Wise said. “How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line.
“Plus,” he added, “there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”
------------------
Or that Moore pursued underage women because of their “purity”. Eeeewww. Not creepy at all.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/flip-...e-married/

And people wonder why young people are turning away from religion?

Thing is, Moore was “deplorable” even before all this stuff came out. Here he is saying that the last time America was great was in the days of slavery:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/r...index.html
He also refers to Native Americans and Asians as “Reds and Yellows”.

This is the man the RNC has endorsed and Trump is campaigning for. (Though only from across the border. Brave move there Donnie.)



*I'm sure there have been plenty of equally sleazy Senators - but his sleaziness is well known *before* the election.

Glad I am not an Alabama voter. The choice is very similar to the one I had in November 2016. Only the crimes are different. No good choice. I resolved that dilemma by not choosing one. I expect most Alabama Republicans will not switch - they will either stay home or vote Moore.

This is a Scylla and Charybdis choice.

Of course a lot of Alabamians are straight ticket Scylla voters.

Really? By all accounts Jones is a middle of the road Democrat. His claim to fame is prosecuting the Klansman who murdered four girls in a church bombing.

How is that even remotely comparable to Moore?

BTW, in addition to criticizing the RNC and Trump for supporting Moore, I should also give credit to Jeff Flake, Richard Shelby, Tim Scott, and the other Republicans who have refused to support him.

(12-10-2017 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 10:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Honestly, so many things worth discussing going on, it’s hard to pick one to discuss, but I’ll go with Roy Moore, since in a couple days he’ll either be one of the sleaziest guys to ever win election to the US Senate*, or the guy who managed to had the Dems a Senator in one of the reddest states.

(11-27-2017 05:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is a good place for this.

Almost certainly, Project Veritas has been caught red handed trying to get the Washington Post to publish a false story about a woman who was impregnated by Roy Moore. Unfortunately for PV, the Post has some journalistic integrity, did their research, realized this woman was lying, and is now calling out the woman and her likely ties to PV for this.

Not surprised at all to read this, knowing the lengths PV has gone to supposedly fight the biased MSM, when they actually are the ones who are incredibly biased and willing to do unethical things to tarnish the name of respected media organizations.

Quote:A woman who falsely claimed to The Washington Post that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager appears to work with an organization that uses deceptive tactics to secretly record conversations in an effort to embarrass its targets.

In a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore's candidacy if she went public.

The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.

But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/i...story.html

This was fairly stunning – not only was it an unethical sting to try and discredit legit journalists, it was also to discredit real victims/accusers for purely political purposes. And that purpose was to get an accused child molester and serial predator elected to the US Senate. On a Christian/family values platform.

Speaking of “Fake News,” Fox tweeted this headline: “Roy Moore accuser admits she forged part of yearbook inscription attributed to Alabama senate candidate.” Problem is, it’s completely false.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/363990...y-headline

I’ll give them credit for somewhat retracting the story, but note that this would seem to imply they just blindly regurgitate stuff from Gateway Pundit and Breitbart without checking.

And Alabama evangelical pastors defending him:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2...story.html

--------------
“Wise said he would support Moore even if the allegations were true and the candidate was proved to have sexually molested teenage girls and women.
“There ought to be a statute of limitations on this stuff,” Wise said. “How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line.
“Plus,” he added, “there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”
------------------
Or that Moore pursued underage women because of their “purity”. Eeeewww. Not creepy at all.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/flip-...e-married/

And people wonder why young people are turning away from religion?

Thing is, Moore was “deplorable” even before all this stuff came out. Here he is saying that the last time America was great was in the days of slavery:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/r...index.html
He also refers to Native Americans and Asians as “Reds and Yellows”.

This is the man the RNC has endorsed and Trump is campaigning for. (Though only from across the border. Brave move there Donnie.)



*I'm sure there have been plenty of equally sleazy Senators - but his sleaziness is well known *before* the election.

Glad I am not an Alabama voter. The choice is very similar to the one I had in November 2016. Only the crimes are different. No good choice. I resolved that dilemma by not choosing one. I expect most Alabama Republicans will not switch - they will either stay home or vote Moore.

This is a Scylla and Charybdis choice.

Of course a lot of Alabamians are straight ticket Scylla voters.

I thought the choice in November was so hard because of who Clinton was, not what team she played on.

(12-11-2017 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 10:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Honestly, so many things worth discussing going on, it’s hard to pick one to discuss, but I’ll go with Roy Moore, since in a couple days he’ll either be one of the sleaziest guys to ever win election to the US Senate*, or the guy who managed to had the Dems a Senator in one of the reddest states.

(11-27-2017 05:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is a good place for this.

Almost certainly, Project Veritas has been caught red handed trying to get the Washington Post to publish a false story about a woman who was impregnated by Roy Moore. Unfortunately for PV, the Post has some journalistic integrity, did their research, realized this woman was lying, and is now calling out the woman and her likely ties to PV for this.

Not surprised at all to read this, knowing the lengths PV has gone to supposedly fight the biased MSM, when they actually are the ones who are incredibly biased and willing to do unethical things to tarnish the name of respected media organizations.

Quote:A woman who falsely claimed to The Washington Post that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager appears to work with an organization that uses deceptive tactics to secretly record conversations in an effort to embarrass its targets.

In a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore's candidacy if she went public.

The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.

But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/i...story.html

This was fairly stunning – not only was it an unethical sting to try and discredit legit journalists, it was also to discredit real victims/accusers for purely political purposes. And that purpose was to get an accused child molester and serial predator elected to the US Senate. On a Christian/family values platform.

Speaking of “Fake News,” Fox tweeted this headline: “Roy Moore accuser admits she forged part of yearbook inscription attributed to Alabama senate candidate.” Problem is, it’s completely false.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/363990...y-headline

I’ll give them credit for somewhat retracting the story, but note that this would seem to imply they just blindly regurgitate stuff from Gateway Pundit and Breitbart without checking.

And Alabama evangelical pastors defending him:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2...story.html

--------------
“Wise said he would support Moore even if the allegations were true and the candidate was proved to have sexually molested teenage girls and women.
“There ought to be a statute of limitations on this stuff,” Wise said. “How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line.
“Plus,” he added, “there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”
------------------
Or that Moore pursued underage women because of their “purity”. Eeeewww. Not creepy at all.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/flip-...e-married/

And people wonder why young people are turning away from religion?

Thing is, Moore was “deplorable” even before all this stuff came out. Here he is saying that the last time America was great was in the days of slavery:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/r...index.html
He also refers to Native Americans and Asians as “Reds and Yellows”.

This is the man the RNC has endorsed and Trump is campaigning for. (Though only from across the border. Brave move there Donnie.)



*I'm sure there have been plenty of equally sleazy Senators - but his sleaziness is well known *before* the election.

Glad I am not an Alabama voter. The choice is very similar to the one I had in November 2016. Only the crimes are different. No good choice. I resolved that dilemma by not choosing one. I expect most Alabama Republicans will not switch - they will either stay home or vote Moore.

This is a Scylla and Charybdis choice.

Of course a lot of Alabamians are straight ticket Scylla voters.

I thought the choice in November was so hard because of who Clinton was, not what team she played on.

I get the sense from my Democratic friends that they think it would be tantamount to supporting Moore for an Alabamian who normally votes Republican to simply abstain or write in a random name rather than going the extra mile and voting for Jones. This is hogwash IMO. I think everyone has the right to make the candidate earn his/her vote, and if both of the two major candidates fall short, then so be it. No special obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils, which, it may be noted, still involves voting for evil.

(12-11-2017 04:07 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 10:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Honestly, so many things worth discussing going on, it’s hard to pick one to discuss, but I’ll go with Roy Moore, since in a couple days he’ll either be one of the sleaziest guys to ever win election to the US Senate*, or the guy who managed to had the Dems a Senator in one of the reddest states.

(11-27-2017 05:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is a good place for this.

Almost certainly, Project Veritas has been caught red handed trying to get the Washington Post to publish a false story about a woman who was impregnated by Roy Moore. Unfortunately for PV, the Post has some journalistic integrity, did their research, realized this woman was lying, and is now calling out the woman and her likely ties to PV for this.

Not surprised at all to read this, knowing the lengths PV has gone to supposedly fight the biased MSM, when they actually are the ones who are incredibly biased and willing to do unethical things to tarnish the name of respected media organizations.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/i...story.html

This was fairly stunning – not only was it an unethical sting to try and discredit legit journalists, it was also to discredit real victims/accusers for purely political purposes. And that purpose was to get an accused child molester and serial predator elected to the US Senate. On a Christian/family values platform.

Speaking of “Fake News,” Fox tweeted this headline: “Roy Moore accuser admits she forged part of yearbook inscription attributed to Alabama senate candidate.” Problem is, it’s completely false.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/363990...y-headline

I’ll give them credit for somewhat retracting the story, but note that this would seem to imply they just blindly regurgitate stuff from Gateway Pundit and Breitbart without checking.

And Alabama evangelical pastors defending him:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2...story.html

--------------
“Wise said he would support Moore even if the allegations were true and the candidate was proved to have sexually molested teenage girls and women.
“There ought to be a statute of limitations on this stuff,” Wise said. “How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line.
“Plus,” he added, “there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”
------------------
Or that Moore pursued underage women because of their “purity”. Eeeewww. Not creepy at all.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/flip-...e-married/

And people wonder why young people are turning away from religion?

Thing is, Moore was “deplorable” even before all this stuff came out. Here he is saying that the last time America was great was in the days of slavery:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/r...index.html
He also refers to Native Americans and Asians as “Reds and Yellows”.

This is the man the RNC has endorsed and Trump is campaigning for. (Though only from across the border. Brave move there Donnie.)



*I'm sure there have been plenty of equally sleazy Senators - but his sleaziness is well known *before* the election.

Glad I am not an Alabama voter. The choice is very similar to the one I had in November 2016. Only the crimes are different. No good choice. I resolved that dilemma by not choosing one. I expect most Alabama Republicans will not switch - they will either stay home or vote Moore.

This is a Scylla and Charybdis choice.

Of course a lot of Alabamians are straight ticket Scylla voters.

I thought the choice in November was so hard because of who Clinton was, not what team she played on.

I get the sense from my Democratic friends that they think it would be tantamount to supporting Moore for an Alabamian who normally votes Republican to simply abstain or write in a random name rather than going the extra mile and voting for Jones. This is hogwash IMO. I think everyone has the right to make the candidate earn his/her vote, and if both of the two major candidates fall short, then so be it. No special obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils, which, it may be noted, still involves voting for evil.

Did I suggest otherwise?

But I don't remember OO suggesting the issue with the two evils during the election was Clinton being a Dem, but that she was Clinton. And so in this election, unless there is something similar about Jones, it doesn't sound like the choice of two evils, but the choice between evil and a different political party.

(12-11-2017 04:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I don't remember OO suggesting the issue with the two evils during the election was Clinton being a Dem, but that she was Clinton. And so in this election, unless there is something similar about Jones, it doesn't sound like the choice of two evils, but the choice between evil and a different political party.

I don't live or vote in Alabama any more, so it's not my circus, not my monkeys.

But what I don't understand is that there has been nothing but negative campaigning. If I were still there, the Moore people tell me why I should not vote for Jones, and the Jones people tell me why I should not vote for Moore, but neither of them tell me why I should vote FOR their candidate. I have friends I respect on both sides and neither can tell me a reason for voting for their guy except that he's not the other guy. Since I respect both groups of friends, I wouldn't vote for either one.

With Jones, it's not the political party, except as coincidence. The real problem is that he doesn't support issue positions that I do, and I would not be inclined to send someone to represent me in Washington who is going to vote differently from how I want him to vote. That's his only job, if he's not going to do that one to suit me, then why should I vote for him?

The real problem is that there is no attractive candidate. Jones is basically a nobody who got lucky to draw Moore as an opponent. He represents few, if any, values that will resonate with the majority of Alabama voters. I would expect him to be essentially Chuckie Schumer's lapdog, because he has no power base to support his doing otherwise.

Why didn't somebody like Charles Barkley run?

I expect Jones to be a loyal footsoldier in the Democratic Army, saluting the top brass and following orders. That is what is bad about him.

Clinton was anathema to me on many counts, not just moral or party grounds.

The only Democrats I could consider voting for are the most conservative ones, or the most middle of the road if you prefer that designation. But the Democrats won't even come close to running those kinds. I don't care for the far right Republicans either, but the Republicans come closer to running the middle of the roaders more often. A conservative Democrat would get my vote over a far right Republican. Haven't seen a race like that in forever.

Even without the sex claims, Moore would not be an attractive candidate for me. The only plus he has if that he would not be a toady for Schumer, which I do expect Jones to be.

In any case, I am glad I do not have to vote in Alabama tomorrow. if I did, I may well have stayed home. If Clinton-Trump were the only race to vote on last November, I would have stayed home for that one too.

Alabama will elect somebody bad tomorrow.

(12-12-2017 01:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I expect Jones to be a loyal footsoldier in the Democratic Army, saluting the top brass and following orders. That is what is bad about him.
Clinton was anathema to me on many counts, not just moral or party grounds.
The only Democrats I could consider voting for are the most conservative ones, or the most middle of the road if you prefer that designation. But the Democrats won't even come close to running those kinds. I don't care for the far right Republicans either, but the Republicans come closer to running the middle of the roaders more often. A conservative Democrat would get my vote over a far right Republican. Haven't seen a race like that in forever.
Even without the sex claims, Moore would not be an attractive candidate for me. The only plus he has if that he would not be a toady for Schumer, which I do expect Jones to be.
In any case, I am glad I do not have to vote in Alabama tomorrow. if I did, I may well have stayed home. If Clinton-Trump were the only race to vote on last November, I would have stayed home for that one too.
Alabama will elect somebody bad tomorrow.

Exactly.

I'm reminded of something an English friend said. Someone commented that Labour seemed to have the more attractive candidates. He said, "Of course, they have to, otherwise they couldn't win an election, because Conservatives have the better ideas."

In this case Jones is by far the more attractive person. But Alabama doesn't want Chucky Schumer's ideas.

Either way, somebody bad wins.

(12-12-2017 01:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I expect Jones to be a loyal footsoldier in the Democratic Army, saluting the top brass and following orders. That is what is bad about him.

Clinton was anathema to me on many counts, not just moral or party grounds.

The only Democrats I could consider voting for are the most conservative ones, or the most middle of the road if you prefer that designation. But the Democrats won't even come close to running those kinds. I don't care for the far right Republicans either, but the Republicans come closer to running the middle of the roaders more often. A conservative Democrat would get my vote over a far right Republican. Haven't seen a race like that in forever.

Even without the sex claims, Moore would not be an attractive candidate for me. The only plus he has if that he would not be a toady for Schumer, which I do expect Jones to be.

In any case, I am glad I do not have to vote in Alabama tomorrow. if I did, I may well have stayed home. If Clinton-Trump were the only race to vote on last November, I would have stayed home for that one too.

Alabama will elect somebody bad tomorrow.

I don’t know much about Jones, as Owl#s said, we’ve only really heard knocks on the candidates, and the overwhelming majority are about Moore.

What is it about Jones that suggests he would be a stooge of Schumer and not a more conservative Democrat? I keep seeing that talking point being repeated by everyone on the right, but no one really backs it up with evidence. Being that he is from Alabama, logic would indicate he would likely be a more conservative Dem, but like I said, I’m admittedly a bit ignorant about him.

(12-11-2017 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 04:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I don't remember OO suggesting the issue with the two evils during the election was Clinton being a Dem, but that she was Clinton. And so in this election, unless there is something similar about Jones, it doesn't sound like the choice of two evils, but the choice between evil and a different political party.

I don't live or vote in Alabama any more, so it's not my circus, not my monkeys.

But what I don't understand is that there has been nothing but negative campaigning. If I were still there, the Moore people tell me why I should not vote for Jones, and the Jones people tell me why I should not vote for Moore, but neither of them tell me why I should vote FOR their candidate. I have friends I respect on both sides and neither can tell me a reason for voting for their guy except that he's not the other guy. Since I respect both groups of friends, I wouldn't vote for either one.

With Jones, it's not the political party, except as coincidence. The real problem is that he doesn't support issue positions that I do, and I would not be inclined to send someone to represent me in Washington who is going to vote differently from how I want him to vote. That's his only job, if he's not going to do that one to suit me, then why should I vote for him?

The real problem is that there is no attractive candidate. Jones is basically a nobody who got lucky to draw Moore as an opponent. He represents few, if any, values that will resonate with the majority of Alabama voters. I would expect him to be essentially Chuckie Schumer's lapdog, because he has no power base to support his doing otherwise.

Why didn't somebody like Charles Barkley run?

(12-12-2017 07:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I expect Jones to be a loyal footsoldier in the Democratic Army, saluting the top brass and following orders. That is what is bad about him.
Clinton was anathema to me on many counts, not just moral or party grounds.
The only Democrats I could consider voting for are the most conservative ones, or the most middle of the road if you prefer that designation. But the Democrats won't even come close to running those kinds. I don't care for the far right Republicans either, but the Republicans come closer to running the middle of the roaders more often. A conservative Democrat would get my vote over a far right Republican. Haven't seen a race like that in forever.
Even without the sex claims, Moore would not be an attractive candidate for me. The only plus he has if that he would not be a toady for Schumer, which I do expect Jones to be.
In any case, I am glad I do not have to vote in Alabama tomorrow. if I did, I may well have stayed home. If Clinton-Trump were the only race to vote on last November, I would have stayed home for that one too.
Alabama will elect somebody bad tomorrow.

I don’t know much about Jones, as Owl#s said, we’ve only really heard knocks on the candidates, and the overwhelming majority are about Moore.
What is it about Jones that suggests he would be a stooge of Schumer and not a more conservative Democrat? I keep seeing that talking point being repeated by everyone on the right, but no one really backs it up with evidence. Being that he is from Alabama, logic would indicate he would likely be a more conservative Dem, but like I said, I’m admittedly a bit ignorant about him.

It's more what about congress than about Jones. He's been pretty guided about his views, except that he is decidedly pro-abortion, which 65% of Alabamians strongly oppose. He's almost a stealth candidate, with his whole campaign based on loathing of Moore.

As for about congress, he would arrive as the single junior member of the entire state, with no national or statewide power base. In that situation, he would have no option but to become Chuck Schumer's lapdog if he wanted to have any say about anything.

(12-12-2017 09:35 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 04:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I don't remember OO suggesting the issue with the two evils during the election was Clinton being a Dem, but that she was Clinton. And so in this election, unless there is something similar about Jones, it doesn't sound like the choice of two evils, but the choice between evil and a different political party.

I don't live or vote in Alabama any more, so it's not my circus, not my monkeys.
But what I don't understand is that there has been nothing but negative campaigning. If I were still there, the Moore people tell me why I should not vote for Jones, and the Jones people tell me why I should not vote for Moore, but neither of them tell me why I should vote FOR their candidate. I have friends I respect on both sides and neither can tell me a reason for voting for their guy except that he's not the other guy. Since I respect both groups of friends, I wouldn't vote for either one.
With Jones, it's not the political party, except as coincidence. The real problem is that he doesn't support issue positions that I do, and I would not be inclined to send someone to represent me in Washington who is going to vote differently from how I want him to vote. That's his only job, if he's not going to do that one to suit me, then why should I vote for him?
The real problem is that there is no attractive candidate. Jones is basically a nobody who got lucky to draw Moore as an opponent. He represents few, if any, values that will resonate with the majority of Alabama voters. I would expect him to be essentially Chuckie Schumer's lapdog, because he has no power base to support his doing otherwise.
Why didn't somebody like Charles Barkley run?

If it were Barkley against Moore, and I still lived in Alabama, I'd vote Barkley. I'd probably vote Barkley against just about every single Alabama politician, because most are pretty bad. Barkley has generally claimed to be a republican, and once said he wanted to be governor some day. He was once asked about his position on welfare, and said the they needed to get off their butts and go to work.

(12-12-2017 09:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 07:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I expect Jones to be a loyal footsoldier in the Democratic Army, saluting the top brass and following orders. That is what is bad about him.
Clinton was anathema to me on many counts, not just moral or party grounds.
The only Democrats I could consider voting for are the most conservative ones, or the most middle of the road if you prefer that designation. But the Democrats won't even come close to running those kinds. I don't care for the far right Republicans either, but the Republicans come closer to running the middle of the roaders more often. A conservative Democrat would get my vote over a far right Republican. Haven't seen a race like that in forever.
Even without the sex claims, Moore would not be an attractive candidate for me. The only plus he has if that he would not be a toady for Schumer, which I do expect Jones to be.
In any case, I am glad I do not have to vote in Alabama tomorrow. if I did, I may well have stayed home. If Clinton-Trump were the only race to vote on last November, I would have stayed home for that one too.
Alabama will elect somebody bad tomorrow.

I don’t know much about Jones, as Owl#s said, we’ve only really heard knocks on the candidates, and the overwhelming majority are about Moore.
What is it about Jones that suggests he would be a stooge of Schumer and not a more conservative Democrat? I keep seeing that talking point being repeated by everyone on the right, but no one really backs it up with evidence. Being that he is from Alabama, logic would indicate he would likely be a more conservative Dem, but like I said, I’m admittedly a bit ignorant about him.

It's more what about congress than about Jones. He's been pretty guided about his views, except that he is decidedly pro-abortion, which 65% of Alabamians strongly oppose. He's almost a stealth candidate, with his whole campaign based on loathing of Moore.

As for about congress, he would arrive as the single junior member of the entire state, with no national or statewide power base. In that situation, he would have no option but to become Chuck Schumer's lapdog if he wanted to have any say about anything.

Yes, Jones is pro-choice. I'm pretty shocked that you use the very partisan term pro-abortion to describe Jones, as evidence doesn't suggest that he is out promoting women to get abortions, but rather supporting a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if they want to.

And I'm glad to see that the only evidence that Jones would follow Schumer in lockstep is that he would be a junior senator. I agree with the fact that Jones, at least from a national perspective, has run a very quiet campaign that has relied on anti-Moore sentiment, but because of that, there isn't much evidence to suggest what exactly Jones would do in Congress, once elected. He could be someone like Manchin who toes the party line and, on a not irregular basis, does not vote in lockstep with the rest of the Dems. As you said, we just don't know enough about Jones to know that yet.

(12-12-2017 10:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 09:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 07:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I expect Jones to be a loyal footsoldier in the Democratic Army, saluting the top brass and following orders. That is what is bad about him.
Clinton was anathema to me on many counts, not just moral or party grounds.
The only Democrats I could consider voting for are the most conservative ones, or the most middle of the road if you prefer that designation. But the Democrats won't even come close to running those kinds. I don't care for the far right Republicans either, but the Republicans come closer to running the middle of the roaders more often. A conservative Democrat would get my vote over a far right Republican. Haven't seen a race like that in forever.
Even without the sex claims, Moore would not be an attractive candidate for me. The only plus he has if that he would not be a toady for Schumer, which I do expect Jones to be.
In any case, I am glad I do not have to vote in Alabama tomorrow. if I did, I may well have stayed home. If Clinton-Trump were the only race to vote on last November, I would have stayed home for that one too.
Alabama will elect somebody bad tomorrow.

I don’t know much about Jones, as Owl#s said, we’ve only really heard knocks on the candidates, and the overwhelming majority are about Moore.
What is it about Jones that suggests he would be a stooge of Schumer and not a more conservative Democrat? I keep seeing that talking point being repeated by everyone on the right, but no one really backs it up with evidence. Being that he is from Alabama, logic would indicate he would likely be a more conservative Dem, but like I said, I’m admittedly a bit ignorant about him.

It's more what about congress than about Jones. He's been pretty guided about his views, except that he is decidedly pro-abortion, which 65% of Alabamians strongly oppose. He's almost a stealth candidate, with his whole campaign based on loathing of Moore.

As for about congress, he would arrive as the single junior member of the entire state, with no national or statewide power base. In that situation, he would have no option but to become Chuck Schumer's lapdog if he wanted to have any say about anything.

Yes, Jones is pro-choice. I'm pretty shocked that you use the very partisan term pro-abortion to describe Jones, as evidence doesn't suggest that he is out promoting women to get abortions, but rather supporting a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if they want to.

And I'm glad to see that the only evidence that Jones would follow Schumer in lockstep is that he would be a junior senator. I agree with the fact that Jones, at least from a national perspective, has run a very quiet campaign that has relied on anti-Moore sentiment, but because of that, there isn't much evidence to suggest what exactly Jones would do in Congress, once elected. He could be someone like Manchin who toes the party line and, on a not irregular basis, does not vote in lockstep with the rest of the Dems. As you said, we just don't know enough about Jones to know that yet.

I see no evidence that Jones would NOT be Schumer's lap dog. He seems to be a very cookie cutter Dem. In what ways does he differ from the national party line?

I don't care how he or anybody stands on abortion. Pro-abortion, pro-choice mean the same thing as do anti-abortion and pro-life. just dressing it up.

"What was Alabama back then? And what is Alabama right now?"

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/pol...ma-racism/

(12-12-2017 10:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, Jones is pro-choice. I'm pretty shocked that you use the very partisan term pro-abortion to describe Jones, as evidence doesn't suggest that he is out promoting women to get abortions, but rather supporting a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if they want to.

Pro-choice? Does he support choice in other areas, or just in abortion? Does he, for example, support school choice? I think not.

If the only area where he favors choice is abortion, then he is not pro-choice, he is pro-abortion.

I'm pro-choice. I favor choice in all areas, with, of course, appropriate limitations. You don't have the ability to choose Harvard if you are a functional illiterate.

I'm sorry, but pro-abortion is the proper term for someone who favors choice only in the area of abortion. Just as anti-abortion is the proper term for someone who opposes abortion but is not pro-life in other areas.

(12-12-2017 07:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Alabama will elect somebody bad tomorrow.

Exactly.


Either way, somebody bad wins.

Do you guys not recognize the tone-deafness of describing a guy who has said America was last great during slavery, among many other racist and bigoted things and the guy who prosecuted the klansmen who murdered four children in a church as both "bad"? Or a man accused of molesting children vs. the prosecutor of an abortion clinic bomber?

To illiniowl's point, I have no problem with doing what Shelby did - writing in a different Republican - as opposed to actively voting for or supporting Jones.

I *do* have an issue with the implication that Jones is just as bad as a racist child molester simply because he's a Democrat.

(12-12-2017 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 10:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, Jones is pro-choice. I'm pretty shocked that you use the very partisan term pro-abortion to describe Jones, as evidence doesn't suggest that he is out promoting women to get abortions, but rather supporting a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if they want to.

Pro-choice? Does he support choice in other areas, or just in abortion? Does he, for example, support school choice? I think not.

If the only area where he favors choice is abortion, then he is not pro-choice, he is pro-abortion.

I'm pro-choice. I favor choice in all areas, with, of course, appropriate limitations. You don't have the ability to choose Harvard if you are a functional illiterate.

I'm sorry, but pro-abortion is the proper term for someone who favors choice only in the area of abortion. Just as anti-abortion is the proper term for someone who opposes abortion but is not pro-life in other areas.

That's a rather interesting statement - does he support choice in other areas. What does that even mean? You bring up one policy area, school choice, but how far do we have to reach until we can accurately say that Jones does not support choice in other areas? And also, what sort of perspective should we take? I mean, at some point, giving one person a choice to do something will take away the choice of another person to do something else (see: requiring contraception to be covered by employer healthcare), so isn't it about perspective? On environment, regulating what an industry can/cannot pollute does give others more choice on where they can live and what resources they can use without increased risk of cancer or other adverse health effects. Supporting gay marriage (I say this since Moore is opposed) provides more people with the choice of being legally married. Supporting the decision to allow transgender troops serve in the military provides more choices for how transgender individuals can serve our country. I'm not 100% sure where Jones stands on these examples, but I imagine he is in line with some of them.

Looking at the "Priorities" section on his webpage, something that is always full of equally abstract platitudes, I quickly find that he explicitly supports choice via expanding alternative sentencing options for criminals and removing mandatory minimums to increase the choices for judges.

And to your explanation about your "pro-abortion" term, I find that faulty as well. Apply a "pro-" label to something adds context that you are in favor of. There are plenty of people who are not in favor of abortion, and would like to see the number of abortions decrease, but who are pro-choice because they believe that they, nor others, nor the government, should dictate how a woman should act in a situation should she desire to have one. So I fully refute the notion that "pro-abortion" is used as anything but a way to subtly smear people who support a woman's right to choose because it provides the context I mentioned above.