Jump to content

US politics: Alabama Jones and the Temple of Moore


IheartIheartTesla

Recommended Posts

Just now, Week said:

Doesn't the Right have some capable gumshoes that cut their teeth on the Comet Pizza investigation that could get to the bottom of this??

In all seriousness, Mike Cernovich (of Pizzagate bullshit fame) is actually heading down to Alabama to stir shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now there are apparently robocalls in Alabama purporting to be from a WaPo reporter named "Bernie Bernstein" offering $5,000-7,000 (or is it 5,000-7,000$?) for women in their mid-fifties to mid-sixties to provide "dirt" on Moore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

You may not have the resources to personally determine whether the allegations against Moore are true or false, but plenty of other organizations do, and I think it's safe to assume that many different people and organizations are fact checking the Washington Post story.

And ordinarily this would provide an extra perspective... but McConnell being on the same side as the Democrats means that it is almost certainly is not the case. It's not a secret that most of the media is controlled by a relatively small group of people and when they're all on one side, the people who might have been able to present a counterpoint generally don't have the resources to do it either (especially not on short notice).

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

Even Moore's own denials, have been pretty weak.  For example, he hasn't denied dating high school girls aged 16-18 while he was a 30 something year old district attorney.  While not necessarily illegal per se, I find it at a minimum to be hugely problematic that a 30 plus year old district attorney, a person of authority, would be constantly pursuing relationships with high school girls that are legally considered minors.  There's overwhelming evidence that he's done this.  Are you saying that you don't find this behavior truly objectionable?  Would you vote for a politician that admitted to this behavior if you agreed with his positions on policy issues?  Or are you saying that you think there's only about a 25% chance that this allegation is true?  If you think that this behavior is objection but it only has a 25% chance of being true, how did you come up with that number when there's tons of evidence that the allegations is true and no (that I'm aware of) evidence that it's false?

The 25% is for something that is actually illegal. I also personally find the behavior described in your second sentence distasteful, but you have to remember that "Ethically questionable, but not illegal!" might as well be the unofficial motto of modern US politics. Is dating on the order of 10 women who are clearly too young 40 years ago worse than voting for policies which directly and logically lead to the loss of their livelihoods for hundreds of thousands or sometimes even millions of Americans? Of course, ideally I would prefer a candidate who does not have drawbacks of this nature, but given current Congressional reality, yes, I'd take one with that kind of behavior over the usual slime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

So now there are apparently robocalls in Alabama purporting to be from a WaPo reporter named "Bernie Bernstein" offering $5,000-7,000 (or is it 5,000-7,000$?) for women in their mid-fifties to mid-sixties to provide "dirt" on Moore.

So this is where Greg Marmalard ended up after he got out of prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

GHW Bush was gracious in that clip and took Carvey's jokes in stride. Just can't see 45 in situation like that.  The next early morning twitter rage would be something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone here watch the Session's questioning by Congress today? Holy Shit! Does Congress have any sort of aparatus or means of holding this guy in contempt? Or labeling him a hostile witness or something? This guy is pathetic. Just rambling on endlessly without answering a question directly, burning the various questioners time before they can get to anything substantive, it's just fucking crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Altherion said:

And ordinarily this would provide an extra perspective... but McConnell being on the same side as the Democrats means that it is almost certainly is not the case. It's not a secret that most of the media is controlled by a relatively small group of people and when they're all on one side, the people who might have been able to present a counterpoint generally don't have the resources to do it either (especially not on short notice).

The 25% is for something that is actually illegal. I also personally find the behavior described in your second sentence distasteful, but you have to remember that "Ethically questionable, but not illegal!" might as well be the unofficial motto of modern US politics. Is dating on the order of 10 women who are clearly too young 40 years ago worse than voting for policies which directly and logically lead to the loss of their livelihoods for hundreds of thousands or sometimes even millions of Americans? Of course, ideally I would prefer a candidate who does not have drawbacks of this nature, but given current Congressional reality, yes, I'd take one with that kind of behavior over the usual slime.

I don't buy the conspiracy theory that both the liberal and conservative mass market media are out to destroy Moore and function simply as tools of a small group of people that don't like him.  While owners of these companies certainly have influence, they don't have complete editorial control and can't restrict all the reporters and editors from doing their jobs.  It would come out if the owners were trying to squash fact checking of this big of a story.  Regardless, Breitbart has the resources and has sent reporters out to debunk the claims.  I doubt they'll find anything of significance.  McConnell and other Republicans are with Democrats because the evidence is overwhelming.  You can see how almost all of them initially qualified their statements with the phrase "if true", but many have now dropped the phrase now that they've had time to review the evidence.

Even if the 25% number was for doing something illegal, I think that's too low if you accept that Moore actively dated and pursued relationships with highschool girls while he was a 30 something district attorney.  At least a couple of the women have accused him of sexual assault, which includes things like unwanted groping.  Given that he was acting in a predatory manner to begin with, I think the allegations that he groped some of them without permission are credible.  No one has presented a credible explanation for why these women would be lying.  I don't see why you would believe Moore's denials over the accusations by these women.  At worst, it should be a 50% chance that Moore did something illegal.

Personally, I would have an extremely hard time voting for someone I found morally repugnant, but I suppose it would depend on how repugnant I found the act.  If I thought a Democrat sexually assaulted women, I can't see myself voting for that person based on economic policy arguments or other policy positions of that nature.  It would have to be something extraordinarily bad in their opponent for me to consider voting for the sexual predator.  I'd have to be somehow convinced that their opponent was going to be the next Hitler, or something else on that level of horrendousness.  A tax plan or job creation plan isn't going to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

It would have to be something extraordinarily bad in their opponent for me to consider voting for the sexual predator.  I'd have to be somehow convinced that their opponent was going to be the next Hitler, or something else on that level of horrendousness.  A tax plan or job creation plan isn't going to do it.

That’s entirely reasonable and the way I’d approach the issue but we have to keep in mind that hard right media is absolutely bonkers and Jones is a Democrat.  That (D) will be considered something extraordinarily bad to a lot of conservative voters because being a Democrat isn’t about policy quibbles it’s about wanting open borders, taking your guns, lacking patriotism, ushering in socialism, being anti-Christian, pro baby killer, and sacrificing American sovereignty to the NWO.  

That’s the way this is framed in Bannonland.  It won’t be guy who had inappropriate contact with underage girls vs. a guy who happens to be a Democrat, it’s guy whose been accused of liking young women (probably by liberal plants) vs. candidate who will go along with the destruction of America.  

Obviously this scandal really hurts Moore’s chances, but I’m not gonna let myself be taken by surprise if Alabama voters pull a collective “hold my beer” and elect Moore anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Altherion said:

Unless you believe that unprovable allegations regarding events that happened 40 years ago somehow coincidentally turned up in a national newspaper weeks before the election, there can be little doubt that there is a propaganda campaign against Moore. However, I guess what you're really asking is whether I believe that the allegations are true -- after all, propaganda can be perfectly truthful -- and the answer to that is more nuanced. On the one hand, whoever is running these attacks did a very good job: this is a far cry from, for example, the half-baked, anonymous accusations against Trump in the fall of 2016. Of course, they can't prove anything, but they've done about as well as possible in the given situation and their case is fairly persuasive.

On the other hand, however... there are two strong factors against them. The first is simply the timing and I've already mentioned it above. The second is the sheer number of scumbags lined up on the side of this propaganda. They usually take opposite sides on an issue so one has to choose between them, but in this case, the Democrats and mainstream Republicans are on the same sides and if that coalition claimed that the sky is blue, I would be tempted to go outside and double check just to make sure that it hasn't mysteriously changed color. I do not have the resources to determine whether the allegations are true or false, but, on the balance between all of these things, I would guess there is about a 25% chance that Moore did something truly objectionable.

No, I would not. However, this is because I disagree with several of his positions rather than because of the propaganda.

Thanks.  I actually was not really intending to ask if you believe the allegations are true, or at least that was only a small part of my ask.  I was mainly intending to ask 2 things:

1.  Do you believe Moore is "plucky underdog" with basically evil Dem/"mainstream" Rep empires hell bent on stopping him with overwhelming PR force.  Based on your answer, I think the answer to this is yes you do believe that.  I on the other hand believe that any evangelical social ultra-conservative who speaks out against people who are non-white/non-christian can never be considered an underdog when he is in Alabama.  Now move him to my hometown of San Francisco and he'd be so much of an underdog that people would actually not get it and applaud him as a comedy act.  Separately, I believe it is far less clear that this is some giant masterminded PR campaign.  Many powerful or at least well-known people have suddenly had credible accusers from long past come forward.  It's a bit of a wave.  And of course Moore had prior unsavory allegations/statements from cops already - they just weren't as blatant as this.

2.  I was also asking whether you support Moore in totality, and it sounds like the answer is no because of his positions (edited to add:  on the issues!).  On that at least, if on little else, I'm happy to say we agree.

In any case, thanks again for your answers.  That helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Does Congress have any sort of aparatus or means of holding this guy in contempt? Or labeling him a hostile witness or something?

Sure - contempt of Congress.  Don't hold your breath on any forthcoming citation though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Anyone here watch the Session's questioning by Congress today? Holy Shit! Does Congress have any sort of aparatus or means of holding this guy in contempt? Or labeling him a hostile witness or something? This guy is pathetic. Just rambling on endlessly without answering a question directly, burning the various questioners time before they can get to anything substantive, it's just fucking crazy.

Such actions would require Republicans to have morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

And ordinarily this would provide an extra perspective... but McConnell being on the same side as the Democrats means that it is almost certainly is not the case.

So you're saying that because McConnell believes the allegation, he's part of the anti-Moore campaign. Basically, your position is that anyone who is not supporting Moore is conspiring against him. You've gone full-on Conspiracy Theory 101, tinfoil hat and all, on no more solid basis than generic distrust of 'the establishment'. No attempt to assess the evidence, just an axiomatic 'anyone on this side is a liar, by virtue of being on that side'.

Do you expect anyone to take that seriously? It would be laughable if it wasn't for the nature of the allegations. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be obvious to any open-minded person that the accusations against Moore are true. We are not in a court of law, and only two questions matter here: do the accusations fit Moore's proven behavior pattern (they do), and was he caught lying or contradicting himself (he was). Here is a good article on the topic: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/11/the_mountain_of_evidence_against_roy_moore.html

Also, I am confident that Jones will win the election. Special elections are all about turnout. There are no other elections on that day, no other ballot questions, the whole election is about Moore vs Jones. Republican voters have to force themselves to leave house on election day, go to the polling station, and cast their vote for a pedophile, and all this for what? Control over 1/100 of the US Senate? Some Senate vote on a random future issue which may come to a 50/50 split?

The only way Moore can win is if his supporters somehow manage to paint Jones as some scary demon who must be kept out of office at all costs (the Clinton strategy), but I don't see how that is possible. From what I've read of him, Jones is a personally religious, non-offensive moderate whose main issues are health care, civil rights and raising the minimum wage, and who mostly stays quiet about abortions and guns (two hot-button issues capable of mobilizing the Republican turnout).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what conservative clowns say, the basic logic behind adverse selection problems is pretty strong, even if conservative clowns really, really, and I mean really, really, want to cut taxes on the wealthy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/14/upshot/obamacares-insurance-mandate-is-unpopular-so-why-not-just-get-rid-of-it.html

Quote

Even many of Obamacare’s authors had to be talked into the mandate. As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama campaigned on a health plan that didn’t punish people who went without health coverage. Mitt Romney, whose Massachusetts health reform bill was the blueprint for Obamacare, had also initially hoped for a plan without a mandate.

Now it turns out that getting rid of the mandate could help Republicans as they tackle the difficult math of tax reform. According to a recent Congressional Budget Office estimate, eliminating the mandate could lower the deficit by $338 billion over a decade. A third of a trillion dollars can help pay for a lot of tax cuts. Which is why Senate Republicans, trying to find funding and keep their promise to dismantle Obamacare, are now vowing to add a mandate repeal to their tax bill.

.................................

Now conservative sorts of people, just in case you haven't noticed, I’m a full employment Democrat.

The kind of full employment Democrat that just doesn’t run away, when conservative man criticizes achieving full employment, with whatever dubious argument conservative man is going to make, with fiscal and monetary policy.

For some god only knows reason the Democratic Party took out the full employment plank out its platform in 1992 and it stayed out for about 24 years. Maybe some liberal decided it needed to go out cause, well, they were afraid some conservative would say something mean or rude about liberals or something. Well, who in the hell knows.

There is not much about Ronald Reagan, I’d agree with, but I’d agree with him that the best social programs is a job (a decent paying one of course), to a large extent.

And over the years, conservative sorts of people have been screwin’ up my beloved full employment with a plethora of dubious arguments ie inflation!, the gubment can’t create jobs (cause Rush Limbaugh says so!), skills gap!, the deficit!, and in their last iteration asset mispricing (and yes I do take issues around asset mispricing seriously. I just don't take conservative concern trolling over it seriously.)

With regard to asset mispricing, how are equities doing, at this time? Here:

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2017/november/stock-market-valuation-and-macroeconomy/

Quote

Before labeling the latest run-up in the CAPE ratio as another speculative bubble, it’s worth considering whether the current elevated value can be explained by “favorable macroeconomic factors.” In theory, the fundamental price of a stock is determined by the present value of expected future earnings distributions, or cash flows, that accrue to shareholders. The discount rate used in the present value calculation is composed of a risk-free rate of return and compensation for perceived risk, called a risk premium. All else being equal, a lower risk-free rate or a lower risk premium would imply that future cash flows are discounted less, causing the fundamental price to rise. Another variable that can influence the fundamental price is the expected growth rate of future cash flows, with higher growth implying a higher price.

 

Quote

One measure of the risk-free rate of return is the natural rate of interest, or r-star (r*)

 

Quote

While r-star and the CAPE ratio appear to move in opposite directions over the longer run, some additional insight can be gained by examining shorter-run movements, say over 5 years, or 20 quarters. Figure 3 shows that shorter-run movements in r-star generally go in the same direction as the CAPE ratio. The correlation between the two series is strongly positive. This pattern is consistent with the idea that upward movements in r-star tend to be observed during booms or recoveries, which are periods of lower macroeconomic uncertainty (Lansing 2017). Lower uncertainty stimulates investors’ demand for risky assets like stocks, contributing to a rise in the CAPE ratio. Likewise, downward movements in r-star tend to be observed during recessions or crises, which are periods of higher uncertainty. Higher uncertainty stimulates investors’ demand for safe assets like U.S. Treasury securities while stock prices tend to fall, contributing to a decline in the CAPE ratio. Using the projected path for r-star from Figure 1, the projected path for the 20-quarter change in r-star shows a continued increase for a time, followed by a reversal as r-star levels off at 1%.

 

Quote

Figure 4 plots fitted values of the CAPE ratio from the regression model through 2017:Q3. The fit is quite good, accounting for 70% of the variance in the actual CAPE ratio over the past five decades. All of the explanatory variables are statistically significant. The estimated coefficients on r-star and inflation are negative, while the estimated coefficients on potential GDP growth and the 20-quarter change in r-star are positive. At the end of the data sample, the actual CAPE ratio is about 8% above the fitted ratio. In contrast, the actual ratio is about 40% above the fitted ratio in early 2000, corresponding to the peak of the Internet bubble. Hence, compared with the previous bubble episode, the current elevated value of the CAPE ratio appears far less anomalous in light of the prevailing macroeconomic environment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...