Moore or Strange?

[homersapien 11,367]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Jones is either hopelessly naive or quixotic. I read his website last night, agreed with him and wrote off his candidacy.

It does appear he is going out of his way to emphasis his political weaknesses.

But at least he's straight up.  

I think such contrasts represents the extreme political polarization of the American electorate and I think that polarization is largely due to the Republican Party.  Due to the archaic architecture of our process, such polarization allows a minority to exert power over the majority.

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not trying to argue the issue of abortion, which we - in particular - don't need to do.  I am just trying to explore the fact why Democrats have no chance in states such as Alabama (and South Carolina for that matter). 

Obviously, the traditional reason one party - or the other - is totally non-competitive in Alabama and similar deep south states is race - specifically support of segregation and opposition to civil rights.   Personally, I think this is still one of the underlying reasons for domination of the Republican Party, even if on a subliminal basis.   But you are essentially saying that taking a hard line on legal abortion has replaced race as the key differentiating factor.  You may be right, but I can't help but wonder what the results would be if you simply took abortion off the table as a practical, political issue.  Now, you would probably respond it is a political issue so it's pointless to even consider it.  If so, then I would suggest that Alabamians have allowed a basically irrelevant, religious-based issue to dominate their political process in totality, which is a sad commentary on the system and/or the people of Alabama.

While I think Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, this is obviously one of the negative results of taking the question out of the political arena. In fact, I am starting to come to the conclusion it might be better for our society from a political standpoint to repeal Roe v. Wade and throw the question back into the political process.  If the people of Alabama really want to criminalize abortion, then let them do so and experience the consequences. 

At least, perhaps the prospect of doing that would make people consider the issue more seriously, particularly the female population.  It might not have as much support as a real issue as it does a symbolic one.

IMO, such a step would be a huge set back for individual rights vs. the power of the state, which is hardly seems a conservative position.  It would be equivalent to allowing Alabama to establish a theocracy controlled by Christians. 

But looking at the future senator Moore, maybe that's what they really want?

 

I obviously don't see it through the same lens you do.  I think it's less "anti individual rights" and more "standing up for the defenseless" and a view that all human life has inherent worth and dignity and that all people have an inherent right not to be killed when they've done nothing to deserve it.

But, I think in this case "abortion" is a cipher for "social issues" in general.  It just happens to be a big one.

States like Alabama are socially conservative.  If you run a socially liberal candidate in a state like that, you're going to lose.  States like Oregon and California are socially liberal.  If you run a socially conservative candidate in a state like that, you are going to lose.  It's not that states like Alabama are focusing on this one social issue to the detriment of all others.  It's that no matter what either side wishes to pretend, there are a ton of single-issue or "social issues first" voters out there on both sides of the aisle.  

 

 

[homersapien 11,367]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I obviously don't see it through the same lens you do.  I think it's less "anti individual rights" and more "standing up for the defenseless" and a view that all human life has inherent worth and dignity and that all people have an inherent right not to be killed when they've done nothing to deserve it.

But, I think in this case "abortion" is a cipher for "social issues" in general.  It just happens to be a big one.

States like Alabama are socially conservative.  If you run a socially liberal candidate in a state like that, you're going to lose.  States like Oregon and California are socially liberal.  If you run a socially conservative candidate in a state like that, you are going to lose.  It's not that states like Alabama are focusing on this one social issue to the detriment of all others.  It's that no matter what either side wishes to pretend, there are a ton of single-issue or "social issues first" voters out there on both sides of the aisle.  

 

 

Well, like I said, I think race is a larger part of the contrast than abortion.  One of the reasons the abortion issue is so popular with "conservatives" is that opposing legal abortion is a lot easier than defending racial discrimination.  

And like I said, I already know and recognize your view and I respect it. But you cannot simply ignore the fact your position necessarily gives the state control over the woman's body.  It's a genuine true paradox. And that is exactly why I feel it should be a personal decision and not a state-enforced law.  You should have the freedom to persuade women to your beliefs - which not everyone shares - but not force them to accept it.

Meanwhile, polarization of the populace by encouraging the perspective that contrary views are evil (on a religious basis) is not good for the country.  At end, that choice becomes between a secular government or a theocratic one. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, like I said, I think race is a larger part of the contrast than abortion.  One of the reasons abortion is so popular as a "conservative" issue is that it's (making it illegal) is a lot easier to defend racial discrimination.

I think you attribute racism to too many people with this take.  I talk with conservatives all the time, including many people who voted for Trump in the end.  They feel comfortable around me and don't feel a need to filter.  And race (or its code issues like "welfare") hardly ever come up.  But what does stop people of this persuasion cold in their tracks is a candidate who is willing to allow people to kill the unborn.  It's a bridge too far.  

 

Quote

And like I said, I already know and recognize your view and I respect it. 

I appreciate that.  And I'm glad we can be civil discussing a sensitive issue.

 

Quote

But you cannot simply ignore the fact your position necessarily gives the state control over the woman's body.   That is exactly why I feel it should be a personal decision and not a state enforced law.  You should have the freedom to persuade women to your beliefs - which not everyone shares - but not force them to accept it.

I think if we were talking about things such as cosmetic surgery, a hysterectomy, mastectomy, or tubal ligation, then I'd track with you.  Such decisions ultimately involve only the woman and dominion over her body and no one else.  But from the position of people who feel as I do, there isn't just one human being involved here.  So to let her kill an unborn child is to give state sanction to her having control over another's body - indeed, another's very life.  

 

Quote

Meanwhile, polarization of the populace by encouraging the perspective that contrary views are evil (on a religious basis) is not good for the country.  At end, the choice is between a secular government or a theocratic one. 

I think that's a false dichotomy as well as a false characterization of the respective sides/choices, and assumes that a secular government is by default better than one with certain religious influences.  

[homersapien 11,367]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But, I think in this case "abortion" is a cipher for "social issues" in general.  It just happens to be a big one.

I agree. 

But I would also put opposition to homosexual rights (for example) in the same "religious" issue as abortion.

We seem to be becoming more polarized as a country into the religious and the secular.  That's not good, but it's not surprising either.

[homersapien 11,367]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I think you attribute racism to too many people with this take.  I talk with conservatives all the time, including many people who voted for Trump in the end.  They feel comfortable around me and don't feel a need to filter.  And race (or its code issues like "welfare") hardly ever come up.  But what does stop people of this persuasion cold in their tracks is a candidate who is willing to allow people to kill the unborn.  It's a bridge too far.   

I disagree.  We are still a largely segregated country and race still plays as much of a part as it ever has in politics. 

Trump is an obvious and blatent example of how "conservatives" play on racial tension for political gain.  But Republicans in general do the same as Trump - only more skillfully.  The laws on voter regulation have nothing to do with fraud, they are all about reducing the support of the opposing party.   The fact there is a racial divide in party support in the first place is a general indicator of the importance of race in our society.

[homersapien 11,367]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I think if we were talking about things such as cosmetic surgery, a hysterectomy, mastectomy, or tubal ligation, then I'd track with you.  Such decisions ultimately involve only the woman and dominion over her body and no one else.  But from the position of people who feel as I do, there isn't just one human being involved here.  So to let her kill an unborn child is to give state sanction to her having control over another's body - indeed, another's very life.  

No, I think that's a false distinction that disregards the physical and emotional impact of giving birth for the woman.

You cannot simply ignore - or minimize - the fact that banning legal abortion compels a women to give birth against her will.  It may seem reasonable for you to subordinate a woman's sovereignty to an unborn fetus, but that's not your call to make. It's her's.

That's exactly why - respecting your position - I called the conflict a "true paradox".    A dilemma.

[homersapien 11,367]

31 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think that's a false dichotomy as well as a false characterization of the respective sides/choices, and assumes that a secular government is by default better than one with certain religious influences.  

No, it's an unfortunate dichotomy that happens to be true.  Many of these social issues are ultimately grounded on a difference in opinion of what represents "God's will" versus what nature reveals.

I have no problem with religious influence being expressed in our culture.  Hell, that is a part of culture.

I recognize that the electorate is necessarily informed by their culture and that culture is largely informed by religious beliefs.  But that's the extent of how religion should determine legislation.

Now you might argue that providing an unborn fetus with individual rights is more of a cultural value than it is a specific religious belief which is certainly possible.  But my understanding is that making abortion illegal is not supported by a majority of the electorate.  Until it is, I think it's fair to categorize it as a religious issue.  The religious certainly characterize it that way.

Bottom line,  I think the founders got it right.  Laws respecting a religion should be unconstitutional.  

 

[alexava 6,973]

Doug needed to get closer to the middle on some issues. His only chance now is to debate and hit Moore hard in the mouth. Longshot at best but im trying.

[homersapien 11,367]

16 minutes ago, alexava said:

Doug needed to get closer to the middle on some issues. His only chance now is to debate and hit Moore hard in the mouth. Longshot at best but im trying.

I'd say the only possibility is that Moore will finally go full bozo in a public debate, which I expect is a real possibility if he handles it well.   

You could eliminate Moore by the questions you ask and how they are phrased.

[TexasTiger 12,833]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I'd say the only possibility is that Moore will finally go full bozo in a public debate, which I expect is a real possibility if he handles it well.   

You could eliminate Moore by the questions you ask and how they are phrased.

You mean like Trump did?

[TexasTiger 12,833]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

It does appear he is going out of his way to emphasis his political weaknesses.

But at least he's straight up.  

I think such contrasts represents the extreme political polarization of the American electorate and I think that polarization is largely due to the Republican Party.  Due to the archaic architecture of our process, such polarization allows a minority to exert power over the majority.

 

I hope he makes a focused sustained positive message on decency, compassion and those kind of good country folk values I used to believe marked the culture. His positions won't do it. He needs to be clearly seen as the best man in the race, even by his critics.

[homersapien 11,367]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You mean like Trump did?

Trump doesn't care about Moore being a religious nut. I don't really know why he supported Strange. Presumably it was due to some world class ass kissing.

[TexasTiger 12,833]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Trump doesn't care about Moore being a religious nut. I don't really know why he supported Strange. Presumably it was due to some world class ass kissing.

Mo Brooks slighted him months before.

[DKW 86 7,419]

22 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah, but you know as well as I do you can book it.  Our next senator will be Roy Moore.  Part of that is because the GOP electorate has lost it's damn mind and keeps propping up terrible candidates.  But you can also thank the Alabama Democratic Party for having its head up its own ass.  They refuse to grasp that you cannot run a candidate in a deep red state like Alabama whose views are basically indistinguishable from a Democrat running in California or the Northeast.  Until they get that through their heads, they'll continue to serve as a sacrificial lamb to whatever brain dead mouthbreather the GOP wants to serve up.

Ditto. This is the state in which we unfortunately live.

[DKW 86 7,419]

18 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

To be elected to a statewide race in Alabama, you cannot be in full support of legalized abortion and stand with Planned Parenthood.  I would think this is common sense.  It is no different than a Republican trying to win a Senate race in California running on a platform of opposition to abortion and defunding Planned Parenthood.  It doesn't really matter whether you or I agree with the position taken or not.  You have to know your electorate in the state you're in.

Jones will get litmus tested right out of a chance to win. As soon as he says Pro-Choice, his chance of winning in Alabama go to all but zero. I am supporting Jones because I know the Republican will say he is Pro-Life and doesnt mean a word of it. Republicans have been saying they are Pro-Life for decades and have done exactly zero over three decades.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

On 9/28/2017 at 6:50 AM, DKW 86 said:

Jones will get litmus tested right out of a chance to win. As soon as he says Pro-Choice, his chance of winning in Alabama go to all but zero. I am supporting Jones because I know the Republican will say he is Pro-Life and doesnt mean a word of it. Republicans have been saying they are Pro-Life for decades and have done exactly zero over three decades.

I would say that Moore, despite my various problems with him, is firmly against abortion.  I believe he sincerely sees it for the horror it is and would make attempts to restrict it when possible.

That said, I stop short of saying he's pro-life because pro-life has to be broader than opposing legalized abortion and I've seen no indication of that from him.

[DKW 86 7,419]

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

This vs a guy who successfully prosecuted  kkk members for murdering three black children 40 years later. .......... it's a no brainer... Alabama will go with the idiot. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

I'm optimistically cautious about Jones chances. His movement is growing and he is gaining support on social media from people like George Takei and Debra Messing. His prosecution of KKK members is a leg up on Moore's double removal from office for breaking the law. That said, Alabama elected this idiot as their GOP candidate. Hopefully a December election will keep some of these morons from voting. I'm going to hope and vote Doug Jones. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

On 9/30/2017 at 10:10 AM, GiveEmElle said:

I'm optimistically cautious about Jones chances. His movement is growing and he is gaining support on social media from people like George Takei and Debra Messing.

Approximately nine people in the state of Alabama give a rat's ass what George Takei or Debra Messing think.  And hordes would hear what they think and proceed to do the exact opposite.

 

On 9/30/2017 at 10:10 AM, GiveEmElle said:

His prosecution of KKK members is a leg up on Moore's double removal from office for breaking the law. That said, Alabama elected this idiot as their GOP candidate. Hopefully a December election will keep some of these morons from voting. I'm going to hope and vote Doug Jones. 

Jones has some commendable traits.  It's too bad he and the ADC live in some alternate reality where they think a candidate with his platform has any chance in Alabama.  Moore's win in the primary gave them an opening if they ran a candidate who could realistically sway less rabid Republicans and conservatives.  They chose not to seize the opportunity.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Approximately nine people in the state of Alabama give a rat's ass what George Takei or Debra Messing think.  And hordes would hear what they think and proceed to do the exact opposite.

 

Jones has some commendable traits.  It's too bad he and the ADC live in some alternate reality where they think a candidate with his platform has any chance in Alabama.  Moore's win in the primary gave them an opening if they ran a candidate who could realistically sway less rabid Republicans and conservatives.  They chose not to seize the opportunity.

There is a HUGE social media movement happening to support Jones. There have been several close elections in red states and AL is in the spotlight so Jones is getting endorsements from all over the US. While I agree with you about the ADC, Jones isn't controlled by them. His "kitchen table" policies may sway voters his way. Again, I'm cautiously optimistic. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

23 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

There is a HUGE social media movement happening to support Jones. There have been several close elections in red states and AL is in the spotlight so Jones is getting endorsements from all over the US. While I agree with you about the ADC, Jones isn't controlled by them. His "kitchen table" policies may sway voters his way. Again, I'm cautiously optimistic. 

I"m sure there is.  And much will be made of this or that poll showing him within 6-8 points.  And in December, Moore will win easily.  He won't come close to Sessions' 26-point margin in the 2008 race, but he'll still win by about 13-15 points.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I"m sure there is.  And much will be made of this or that poll showing him within 6-8 points.  And in December, Moore will win easily.  He won't come close to Sessions' 26-point margin in the 2008 race, but he'll still win by about 13-15 points.

Thanks Sunshine. ?

[DKW 86 7,419]

Sent my money in. 

I believe that we can win!