Jump to content

Let's be fair about Roy Moore voters


Craig234
 Share

Recommended Posts

If the same facts existed for Bill Clinton or Obama, and he were running against trump for the presidency, who would you vote for?

 

Most Democrats would vote for the Democrat, I expect. I'd vote for the Democrat easily. And I'd defend that as the right choice.

 

Issues involving trillions of dollars, the well-being of the American people, war, democracy, outweigh the wrongful actions by so many millions of times it's not a close contest - as much as I'd be disgusted by their behavior and like to see them punished for it.

And Republican voters likewise will vote for someone who supports their POLICIES regardless of the wrongdoing, it's likely, as much as we want to condemn them for it.

 

The issue isn't putting policy first - it's how wrong they are on policy, how they SUPPORT things like taking healthcare from 25 million, and distributing trillions more to the top 1%.


I think we need to keep that the most important issue.

If we switch entirely to, 'you are voting for a child molester, I'm SHOCKED, you hypocrites' we'll get to wag our finger and they'll get to cause great harm electing Moore.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Craig234 said:

If the same facts existed for Bill Clinton or Obama, and he were running against trump for the presidency, who would you vote for?

 

Most Democrats would vote for the Democrat, I expect. I'd vote for the Democrat easily. And I'd defend that as the right choice.

 

Issues involving trillions of dollars, the well-being of the American people, war, democracy, outweigh the wrongful actions by so many millions of times it's not a close contest - as much as I'd be disgusted by their behavior and like to see them punished for it.

And Republican voters likewise will vote for someone who supports their POLICIES regardless of the wrongdoing, it's likely, as much as we want to condemn them for it.

 

The issue isn't putting policy first - it's how wrong they are on policy, how they SUPPORT things like taking healthcare from 25 million, and distributing trillions more to the top 1%.


I think we need to keep that the most important issue.

If we switch entirely to, 'you are voting for a child molester, I'm SHOCKED, you hypocrites' we'll get to wag our finger and they'll get to cause great harm electing Moore.

 

If the same facts existed for Clinton or Obama, I would NOT vote for them.   I wouldn't vote for a pedophile regardless of their politics. 

 

We have to start putting our votes behind GOOD candidates who will fight to change our government back to one that is by the people, FOR the people......not force candidates onto the voters who are simply a little better than "the other guy."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RollingRock said:

If the same facts existed for Clinton or Obama, I would NOT vote for them.   I wouldn't vote for a pedophile regardless of their politics. 

 

We have to start putting our votes behind GOOD candidates who will fight to change our government back to one that is by the people, FOR the people......not force candidates onto the voters who are simply a little better than "the other guy."  

 

Ya, fight against them hard in the primary, but if it's them or a Republican, it's a million to one easy call for the molester Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Craig234 said:

If the same facts existed for Bill Clinton or Obama, and he were running against trump for the presidency, who would you vote for?

 

If the Democratic Party ever sunk so low as to put forth a Moore type candidate,  I'd start looking at emigration to one of the Democratic Socialist countries in which to live and vote.  Probably Canada or New Zealand.

 

12 hours ago, Craig234 said:

Most Democrats would vote for the Democrat

 

Not this Democrat.

 

12 hours ago, Craig234 said:

Issues involving trillions of dollars, the well-being of the American people, war, democracy, outweigh the wrongful actions by so many millions of times it's not a close contest - as much as I'd be disgusted by their behavior and like to see them punished for it.

 

If Bill Clinton or Obama had characters and thought processes, similar to Roy Moore, I for one, would not be able to trust either of them.  Egregiously depraved and corrupt behavior in one's personal life is an indicator of future conduct in the public sector.  Someone of Moore's character should be kept away from anything having to do with the well-being of the American People.  And someone like him should certainly not be allowed to participate in the management  of the trillions of dollars that go into the workings of the Nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

If Bill Clinton or Obama had characters and thought processes, similar to Roy Moore, I for one, would not be able to trust either of them.  Egregiously depraved and corrupt behavior in one's personal life is an indicator of future conduct in the public sector.  Someone of Moore's character should be kept away from anything having to do with the well-being of the American People.  And someone like him should certainly not be allowed to participate in the management  of the trillions of dollars that go into the workings of the Nation.

 

You can't have it both ways in the discussion, changing the premise from 'history of molestation, good policies' to 'history of molestation, Republican policies'. Obviously if they don't have good policies, vote against them. But is not reality and not what the choice would be. As I said to Rock: fight them in the primary and vote for them in the general if you lose.

 

You know who shouldn't be trusted with trillions? A history of molestation has little to do with how they'd budget.


People who are committed to the totally corrupt, plutocratic Republican agenda to take those trillions for the rich: THAT is who not to trust with the trillions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

That makes no sense whatsoever. 

 

How does that make no sense? It couldn't be simpler. You are choosing the Republican. They take trillions from Americans and kill thousands annually with their policies, e.g., ACA repeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Craig234 said:

 

How does that make no sense? It couldn't be simpler. You are choosing the Republican. They take trillions from Americans and kill thousands annually with their policies, e.g., ACA repeal.

No, I rarely vote Republican (Susan Collins is the exception).  I'll vote for whomever the best candidate is.  Things like pedophilia automatically eliminate a candidate with me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

 A history of molestation has little to do with how they'd budget.

 

Fundamentally disagree.  Abuse in one area means there's a good chance that abusive behavior will extend into other activities in which the same individual participates.

 

This can be seen in the larger number of personal abusers in the Republican Party.   The same people who would widen the wealth gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RollingRock said:

No, I rarely vote Republican (Susan Collins is the exception).  I'll vote for whomever the best candidate is.  Things like pedophilia automatically eliminate a candidate with me.  

 

Why are you having such a hard time with this? The hypothetical is, a Democrat who has a history like Moore's with good policies is nominated against a Republican (say, trump).

 

This has nothing to do with whether you 'usually vote Republican'.)

 

It's also not about picking the 'best' Republican where you are ok with them on policy apparently like Collins.

 

The hypothetical is to have you choose between the history of child molestation on the one hand and policies with massive harm on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bludog said:

 

Fundamentally disagree.  Abuse in one area means there's a good chance that abusive behavior will extend into other activities in which the same individual participates.

 

This can be seen in the larger number of personal abusers in the Republican Party.   The same people who would widen the wealth gap.

 

Oh, ok, then there's no difference between trying to force a 16 year old into a sex act at 30 and then voting for every evil policy decades later. THey're exactly the same thing.


You never have to make any hard choices. It's simply impossible to EVER have a tradeoff forced between that history and policy. They're ALL GOOD or ALL BAD. Ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Craig234 said:

 

Oh, ok, then there's no difference between trying to force a 16 year old into a sex act at 30 and then voting for every evil policy decades later. THey're exactly the same thing.


You never have to make any hard choices. It's simply impossible to EVER have a tradeoff forced between that history and policy. They're ALL GOOD or ALL BAD. Ya.

 

Over-the-top exaggeration.  ^   ^   ^

 

But a lack of feeling for others is the common element present in cases of individual abuse and political indifference to the common good .  Of course some people have the capacity to grow and mature emotionally, leaving a sordid past behind.  Others ...  Not so much.   But there's a reason why the party Plutocracy has the most abusers and victimizers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You simply refused the possibility of the point I was making that you could have to choose between someone with a history of abuse like Moore's, and someone with massively worse policies.

 

Instead of acknowledging the hypothetical and responding you simply denied the possibility by insisting that the history of the abuse would mean the person also would have to have terrible policies.

This is quite wrong and prevents discussion of the issue. Was John Kennedy unable to have empathy for others despite his sex life where, for example, he took a teenager's virginity and then arranged an offer of an abortion for here when it was illegal, and slept with the wives of prominent people? Would Nixon or Goldwater have been preferable as a result?

 

And those are arguably less bad Republicans than the choices would be today.


It's not an over-the-top exaggeration to say you simply refused the possibility of a choice between the two instead of discussing the topic...

 

If I missed you somewhere addressing the issue of why Moore's history would be worse than what I described as a trillion dollars taken from people and killing thousands of people a year, let me know.

 

The issue isn't whether there is a correlation between a sexual abuser and bad policy - it was to have to weigh them in the cases you have to choose, since the correlation is not 100%.

 

I defend that in that case policy is the priority. That's not saying you happily vote for that history. And the point I was making is that to Moore supporters, it's that choice in reverse - and that the issue isn't their picking policy over the history, it's that they're on the wrong side on policy. They're getting BOTH wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not fond of Clinton's politics or a lot of his policy. He was a talker as a governor, he was a talker as a president, but that's about it. Yeah, Clinton stepped over the bounds regarding how he treated young women and it's likely he abused women. He deserved impeachment, and actually, I voted for HW Bush, first and only time I can remember voting for a Republican President. The Glass-Steagall act was dismantled during the Clinton Administration, and many say this did not directly lead to the financial collapse of the financial system, which was btw, world wide. This is likely true, however there was no good reason to change that law. The problem is there was no watchful eye regarding the inordinate housing boom which any layperson 

in their right mind could clearly see was a ticking time bomb. To me Clinton was a lackluster governor and not a great president by any measuring stick. He was less-than, let's say a JFK, who also had his own problems regarding womanizing. 

 

Womanizing... I looked up the word in my old Webster's Unabridged - Womanize, 1. to make effeminate, 2. to practice adultery with women (and that's all it says_ words are funny like that). Anyway, that's an old version, things have changed I know since that version has published, I do not wonder why.

 

The comparison between Judge Roy Moore's accused acts and those of Bill Clinton's, I think the would involve a lot lurid findings both of which are not good. Judge Roy Moore was more than kind of theocratic in his judgement regarding the display of the Ten Commandments at his courthouse. Clinton sexually toyed with a White House intern using a cigar and did so in the Oval Office. Other acts {Clinton, (Democrat former Governor, Arkansas)}, might have performed on his own, we can't say for sure. 

 

And clearly, that's what we're talking about here... 

 

Peace!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheOldBarn said:

I was not fond of Clinton's politics or a lot of his policy. He was a talker as a governor, he was a talker as a president, but that's about it. Yeah, Clinton stepped over the bounds regarding how he treated young women and it's likely he abused women. He deserved impeachment, and actually, I voted for HW Bush, first and only time I can remember voting for a Republican President. The Glass-Steagall act was dismantled during the Clinton Administration, and many say this did not directly lead to the financial collapse of the financial system, which was btw, world wide. This is likely true, however there was no good reason to change that law. The problem is there was no watchful eye regarding the inordinate housing boom which any layperson 

in their right mind could clearly see was a ticking time bomb. To me Clinton was a lackluster governor and not a great president by any measuring stick. He was less-than, let's say a JFK, who also had his own problems regarding womanizing. 

 

Womanizing... I looked up the word in my old Webster's Unabridged - Womanize, 1. to make effeminate, 2. to practice adultery with women (and that's all it says_ words are funny like that). Anyway, that's an old version, things have changed I know since that version has published, I do not wonder why.

 

The comparison between Judge Roy Moore's accused acts and those of Bill Clinton's, I think the would involve a lot lurid findings both of which are not good. Judge Roy Moore was more than kind of theocratic in his judgement regarding the display of the Ten Commandments at his courthouse. Clinton sexually toyed with a White House intern using a cigar and did so in the Oval Office. Other acts {Clinton, (Democrat former Governor, Arkansas)}, might have performed on his own, we can't say for sure. 

 

And clearly, that's what we're talking about here... 

 

Peace!

 

 

 

 

I have mixed feelings about Clinton also - I do note he was in office in a pretty different culture. I was simply distinguishing between the sexual abuse issue and the policy issues.

 

People shouldn't be shocked the abuse is overlooked when voting - and I'd say that's even the right thing for a good policy Democrat over a bad policy Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Craig234 said:

Instead of acknowledging the hypothetical and responding you simply denied the possibility by insisting that the history of the abuse would mean the person also would have to have terrible policies.

 

You see, it goes against my grain to acknowledge your hypothetical  but I can try.  I rejected it, in part, at least, because I don't believe Moore voters should be given empathy.  Their motives are atavistic, regressive and reprehensible  ...  Similar to Trump voters.   

 

Moore voters, aware of his trespasses but approving enough to vote for him are not voting for a set of policies, as much as a symbol of regression, which has it's roots in The South's loss of the Civil War.  Southern states have an extensive history of voting for depraved misogynist politicians, for that same reason.  It's even been satirized in fiction ....  The Coen Brother's movie Oh Brother, Where Art Thou comes to mind.

 

On the Democratic side, it's hard to imagine any candidate with a highly controversial record of abuse getting past the primaries.  If one did, but seemed to have a progressive record, I would have to vote for him/her, holding my nose.  I did just that, in the case of Hillary.  I voted for her despite her taking monies from the likes of Goldman-Sachs, Wall St, and Big Pharma ...  Which would surely have resulted in her being hobbled in any effort to narrow the income-gap, from the outset.  I also was forced to overlook Hillary's weak bonafides  on trade ...  She voted for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs.  I disapproved of the dynastic implications of a second Clinton ....  I could go on.

 

Bottom line:  I voted for Hillary to stave off Trump and I would probably vote for a Democrat that had progressive potential, again to stave off a Republican.  Even a Democrat with a questionable history of abuse.  I hope it never comes to that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right - that's why I didn't simply equate the two sides, and went on to say that the real issue with the Moore voters isn't that they're willing to put policy over a history of sexual abuse - something I might defend for a person with good policies - but rather how wrong they are in WHY they support Moore, whether policy or the 'symbol of regression' you mention.

 

It wasn't meant to be a question without uneasiness.:)

 

You addressed the question now - and it seems we agree.

 

One note - Moore's abuse came out after the primary, and might have sunk him if it came out earlier, we don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2017 at 10:01 PM, Craig234 said:

 

I have mixed feelings about Clinton also - I do note he was in office in a pretty different culture. I was simply distinguishing between the sexual abuse issue and the policy issues.

 

People shouldn't be shocked the abuse is overlooked when voting - and I'd say that's even the right thing for a good policy Democrat over a bad policy Republican.

 

Bill Clinton turned the dem party into Republican lite. So fugg him. 

 

As to his sex life - his only saving grace is that he isn't a Bible thumper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zaro said:

 

Bill Clinton turned the dem party into Republican lite. So fugg him. 

 

 

The country was much further to the right then in ways after 12 years of Republicans - it wasn't easy for a Democrat to win (He got 43% in a three way race).

The fact he got a budget through with a tax increase on the rich - without a vote to spare and zero Republican votes - was quite something.

Then he did quite a few bad things as well I don't see a good way to excuse even with the politics.

 

It wasn't a time he could, say, have come out for gay marriage and not been destroyed - Republicans were putting gay marriage on the ballot to win elections a decade later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Craig234 said:

 

The country was much further to the right then in ways after 12 years of Republicans - it wasn't easy for a Democrat to win (He got 43% in a three way race).

The fact he got a budget through with a tax increase on the rich - without a vote to spare and zero Republican votes - was quite something.

Then he did quite a few bad things as well I don't see a good way to excuse even with the politics.

 

It wasn't a time he could, say, have come out for gay marriage and not been destroyed - Republicans were putting gay marriage on the ballot to win elections a decade later.

 

So where are the Dems now on the worst tax bill ever? They are making quite a stink - not!!!!! Other than that they stink to high heaven

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...