Roy Moore

[JohnnySavage]

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.


He meets the requirements and, just like with Trump, if the voters, knowing what they know about him, elect him anyway, that's their right.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Meanwhile, we'll find out about Moore in roughly 40 hours. Grab the popcorn.

In Alabama it’s pork rinds. Popcorn is too urbane.

 

[about_average]

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.


He meets the requirements and, just like with Trump, if the voters, knowing what they know about him, elect him anyway, that's their right.

Funny that Roy Moore doesn't believe that.

 

[adrina]

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.


He meets the requirements and, just like with Trump, if the voters, knowing what they know about him, elect him anyway, that's their right.

A discussion about rights is one sided without mentioning responsibilities and consequences.

In the case of Trump, yes he was elected. And republican party identification has dropped 5% points. As just one consequence.

In the case of Ray Moore, the republicans will opt for a child molester instead of a democrat. It will then be very easy to hang the party over country label around their neck. The hypocrisy of "family values" will be exposed for the sham it is. If the evangelicals opt for Moore, they open themselves up for rightful condemnation and derision. The RNC, already in trouble after their embrace of Trump, will find themselves having to defend moral bankruptcy in their support of Moore.

Yes, he meets the requirements, and they have their rights. It does not mean there are no responsibilities or consequences.

 

[MagnusRichard]

In the case of Trump, yes he was elected.

Yes, Moore meets the requirements

It was hard for you to say, but good for you!

Good girl, yes? You deserve a friendly pat on the bum.

 

[Hypoxia]

In the case of Trump, yes he was elected.

Tromp was elected by political hacks aka the electoral college, not by the USA's voters, ten million more of whom voted against than for him. More would have voted against him had they not been disenfranchised and suppressed. Tromp won the game but lost the nation.

And yes, there are indeed consequences. It's hard to accomplish stuff when you're widely hated. One consequence for Gup legislators is the do-or-die dilemma into which they've squeezed themselves. Support massively unpopular Tromp and end your political career because you'll be voted out? Or splinter into factions, pass nothing, lose your corporate $$$ support, and be voted out?

Support of Moore solidifies the Gups as the party of a dying demographic. It's their Armageddon. Sick old assholes vote (R) with their last gasp.

 

[BobBalouski]

I always read about how much America is a democracy, that they are free to elect their representatives. So why does it seem like so many here are campaigning against that democratic way of American life? How can pro-choice folks endorse abortion but not the choice to vote for whomever one wishes? And celebrate that right to vote overall, instead of whom is voted for? Voting for whomever one cares to is also American free speech, isn't it? I hate who you vote for but support with my life your right to vote for them? Why does it so many times seem like America's true strength lies in so many of its citizens so apt at speaking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time?

 

[adrina]

I always read about how much America is a democracy, that they are free to elect their representatives. So why does it seem like so many here are campaigning against that democratic way of American life? How can pro-choice folks endorse abortion but not the choice to vote for whomever one wishes? And celebrate that right to vote overall, instead of whom is voted for? Voting for whomever one cares to is also American free speech, isn't it? I hate who you vote for but support with my life your right to vote for them? Why does it so many times seem like America's true strength lies in so many of its citizens so apt at speaking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time?

Please point to a single post where it has been stated people don't have the right to vote for Ray Moore.

Rights do however come with responsibilities and consequences. That's just reality.

 

[Aglaopheme]

A discussion about rights is one sided without mentioning responsibilities and consequences.

In the case of Trump, yes he was elected. And republican party identification has dropped 5% points. As just one consequence.

In the case of Ray Moore, the republicans will opt for a child molester instead of a democrat. It will then be very easy to hang the party over country label around their neck. The hypocrisy of "family values" will be exposed for the sham it is. If the evangelicals opt for Moore, they open themselves up for rightful condemnation and derision. The RNC, already in trouble after their embrace of Trump, will find themselves having to defend moral bankruptcy in their support of Moore.

Yes, he meets the requirements, and they have their rights. It does not mean there are no responsibilities or consequences.

I always read about how much America is a democracy, that they are free to elect their representatives. So why does it seem like so many here are campaigning against that democratic way of American life? How can pro-choice folks endorse abortion but not the choice to vote for whomever one wishes? And celebrate that right to vote overall, instead of whom is voted for? Voting for whomever one cares to is also American free speech, isn't it? I hate who you vote for but support with my life your right to vote for them? Why does it so many times seem like America's true strength lies in so many of its citizens so apt at speaking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time?

See the above post by Adrina. She answered your questions rather well.

Voting is a form of free speech and we shall soon hear what Alabama has to say.

How can prolife folks even consider voting for a person that abuses children?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Please point to a single post where it has been stated people don't have the right to vote for Ray Moore.

Rights do however come with responsibilities and consequences. That's just reality.

Rat Moore should stick.

 

[phrodeau]

I always read about how much America is a democracy, that they are free to elect their representatives. So why does it seem like so many here are campaigning against that democratic way of American life? How can pro-choice folks endorse abortion but not the choice to vote for whomever one wishes? And celebrate that right to vote overall, instead of whom is voted for? Voting for whomever one cares to is also American free speech, isn't it? I hate who you vote for but support with my life your right to vote for them? Why does it so many times seem like America's true strength lies in so many of its citizens so apt at speaking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time?

Only certain people are allowed to vote. You need to be a citizen, having reached a certain age, and never convicted of a felony. In many places you need to be listed on a register.

It wasn't so long ago that you could not vote if you were a female. Once, only those who owned property could vote. Many districts are defined so that if you move two yards to the left you're in a different district, with a different slate of candidates.

 

[adrina]

Rat Moore should stick.

In so many ways.

 

[BobBalouski]

See the above post by Adrina. She answered your questions rather well.

Voting is a form of free speech and we shall soon hear what Alabama has to say.

How can prolife folks even consider voting for a person that abuses children?

I would think asking that question of prodeath folks who voted for Bill and Hillary Clinton might give you a more relevant answer.

 

[BobBalouski]

Only certain people are allowed to vote. You need to be a citizen, having reached a certain age, and never convicted of a felony. In many places you need to be listed on a register.

It wasn't so long ago that you could not vote if you were a female. Once, only those who owned property could vote. Many districts are defined so that if you move two yards to the left you're in a different district, with a different slate of candidates.

So you're saying all that infamous democracy stuff is just another pile of American poo?

 

[Hypoxia]

How can prolife folks even consider voting for a person that abuses children?

Anti-choicers can support molesters the same as family-values folks can support swinish amoral braggarts like Tromp -- because they think he'll deliver something they want.

And they DO deliver. Fundy jeezoids and corporate pimps got Gorsuch. Haters get suppression of queers, foreign-looking folks, and uppity women. A Senate with Moore and without Franken can dismantle ACA, Social Security, Medicare, environmental and financial and legal protections -- the whole return-to-1920 playlist.

It's the last gasp of a dying demographic and mindset. Will they take America down with them?

 

[adrina]

I would think asking that question of prodeath folks who voted for Bill and Hillary Clinton might give you a more relevant answer.

It's ironic to use the term pro-death when the republicans can see their way clear to give tax cuts to the wealthy but not fund CHIP.

But please do stand on that moral "high ground" and tell us all about this culture of "life" for children you support.

 

[MagnusRichard]

It's ironic to use the term pro-death

No, it's just accurate, yes?

Ironic is Look at my cock calling every man gay.

 

[phrodeau]

So you're saying all that infamous democracy stuff is just another pile of American poo?

Yep. Democracy is a goal, but the reality is that America is a republic.

 

[MagnusRichard]

Where were you people when Ted Kennedy was alive? Protesting?

 

[phrodeau]

Where were you people when Ted Kennedy was alive? Protesting?

Ted was convicted.

 

[BobBalouski]

Please point to a single post where it has been stated people don't have the right to vote for Ray Moore.

Would you literally give your life to protect their right to vote for Ray Moore?

Rights do however come with responsibilities and consequences. That's just reality.

But that reality isn't affected my your opinions, nor are either the responsibilities or consequences pertaining to how Alabama folks vote within your realm of determination. But, addressing what you are individually accountable for: how responsible were you voting for Bill and Hillary Clinton? What were the consequences of you voting for two people who epitomize sexual assault/abuse and its activist enabling at the highest level of American politics? You voted for such folks, why slam any others for voting the same way you did, not in honest, moral respect for allegations and charges, but on simple political partisanship?

 

[BobBalouski]

Yep. Democracy is a goal, but the reality is that America is a republic.

But isn't this specific Senate race a perfect example of "a republic" not being the case in reality? The way I read it, your Constitution's determination as a republic was specifically chosen in purposeful rejection of establishing a democracy instead. Your Senators were constituted to be elected republicanly, by representatives of their respective state legislators, not democratically, directly by the people of their respective states. Yet, you amended your Constitution so that U.S. Senator elections are now totally democratic. So, really, which is it? Are you a democracy or a republic? Which obviously reverts directly back to my observation regarding how you guys are so expert at speaking from both sides of your mouth at the same time. So if, as you claim, democracy is a goal, totally contrary to what your political founders sought, why not just amend the rest of your Constitution to actually make it one?

 

[adrina]

Would you literally give your life to protect their right to vote for Ray Moore?



But that reality isn't affected my your opinions, nor are either the responsibilities or consequences pertaining to how Alabama folks vote within your realm of determination. But, addressing what you are individually accountable for: how responsible were you voting for Bill and Hillary Clinton? What were the consequences of you voting for two people who epitomize sexual assault/abuse and its activist enabling at the highest level of American politics? You voted for such folks, why slam any others for voting the same way you did, not in honest, moral respect for allegations and charges, but on simple political partisanship?

Would you give your life to protect someone's right to vote for Hillary?

You keep going to this fallback position of asserting someone, anyone has said that people can't vote for Moore when no one has said that.

The rest of your post is so full of partisan bile it's not even funny. It's ironic that you hold the Clintons to a standard you do not hold Trump (or Moore) to.

Perhaps you'd like to bring up pro deathers again.

As an FYI, HRC didn't win. Trump did. You know, the one that has 19 accusations of sexual assault. Currently.

 

[phrodeau]

But isn't this specific Senate race a perfect example of "a republic" not being the case in reality? The way I read it, your Constitution's determination as a republic was specifically chosen in purposeful rejection of establishing a democracy instead. Your Senators were constituted to be elected republicanly, by representatives of their respective state legislators, not democratically, directly by the people of their respective states. Yet, you amended your Constitution so that U.S. Senator elections are now totally democratic. So, really, which is it? Are you a democracy or a republic? Which obviously reverts directly back to my observation regarding how you guys are so expert at speaking from both sides of your mouth at the same time. So if, as you claim, democracy is a goal, totally contrary to what your political founders sought, why not just amend the rest of your Constitution to actually make it one?

Republicans are opposed to democracy, hence the name.

 

[Hypoxia]

Yep. Democracy is a goal, but the reality is that America is a republic.

The two are neither mutually exclusive. One includes the other. USA is a 'republic' with representatives, not kings and nobles, nor priests and god-emperors. USA is 'democratic' because those representatives are elected by popular vote, not selected from noble families or corporate cliques or a church hierarchy.

Republics can be democratic, aristocratic, dictatorial, kleptocratic, theocratic, etc. Democracies can be republics, monarchies, theocracies, whatever. 'Republic' is representative gov't. 'Democracy' is how those reps are chosen.