U.S. Politics 2017: Yes Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus

[Bonnot OG]

43 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Alabama will still vote for the predatory asshole like they voted in another predatory asshole straight into the white house. At least Moore loves god, loves the law, hates people of color and the lgbt community and is a republican, so what if he rapes kids? At least he isn't a democrat.

Fuck the GOP and Republicans.

I wasn't wrong. 

After a long pause, Alabama Bibb County Republican chairman Jerry Pow said he'd vote for Roy Moore even if Moore did commit a sex crime against a girl. 

"I would vote for Judge Moore because I wouldn't want to vote for Doug," he says. "I'm not saying I support what he did."

Literally, child rapists are better than Dems mentality.

[S John]

Just now, Paladin of Ice said:

According to an update in a Washington Post article, Moore can back out of the race if he and the party agree to do so, however his name would still appear on the ballot because he's beyond the point where it can be removed, and if Moore got the most votes after dropping out of the race, that would make the Democrat the winner.

I wonder what the odds are of the Republican party holding their nose and going through with this just to avoid the near certainty of having a Democratic Senator from Alabama should Moore be forced out. Sadly, I think the odds of them doing just that are quite high.

I think the odds of that are 99.9%.  They have to consider the balance of the Senate as well and they are already having enough trouble with their slim majority over the Democrats.  I'm sure having a seat flip on them is not on the agenda.  

The only other way out of this to get an R to replace Sessions would be to encourage a write-in candidate and that seems like a recipe for losing as well, even in Alabama.  Not everyone will get the memo.  

But it depends on how deep the rift in the party goes.  I think there's a lot of resentment towards Bannon and Moore is very much Bannon's guy, maybe they'd even prefer a Democrat and a blow to Bannon over the continued hijacking of the party by Trumpism.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I’d imagine it’s a lot more complicated. But some people like myself have to start out slowly, or we might get utterly confused and have a helmet fire or something.

But, anyway, most of this tax stuff and international tax stuff, that I know is mainly from highly abstract  models. I’m not well versed as I’d like to be in how the mechanics of all this stuff actually goes down in practice. So its interesting to hear the perspective somebody that knows this stuff well.
 

This of course seems sensible to me.

LOL.  I don't actually practice in the cross border planning area - I'm really more of an M&A attorney.  But I know enough about this stuff to be dangerous because I run into it a fair bit in the context of deals involving multinationals/carve-out transactions.

 

2 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

I wasn't wrong. 

After a long pause, Alabama Bibb County Republican chairman Jerry Pow said he'd vote for Roy Moore even if Moore did commit a sex crime against a girl. 

"I would vote for Judge Moore because I wouldn't want to vote for Doug," he says. "I'm not saying I support what he did."

Literally, child rapists are better than Dems mentality.

Another amazing quote:

Quote

“Take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus. There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here. Maybe just a little bit unusual.”

— Alabama state auditor Jim Ziegler (R), quoted by the Washington Examiner, defending Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore, who is accused of engaging in sexual relations with teenage girls.

 

[Kalbear]

Another amazing defense is that technically only ONE of the cases was rape because everyone else was 16 or older. 

Seriously, we have gotten to the point where Republicans will almost certainly vote for a Republican who is a pedophile than a Democrat. This isn't even after the fact, either - they're going to go and vote for him knowing this. 

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Sword of Doom said:

Alabama will still vote for the predatory asshole like they voted in another predatory asshole straight into the white house. At least Moore loves god, loves the law, hates people of color and the lgbt community and is a republican, so what if he rapes kids? At least he isn't a democrat.

 

That's not too far off from what I understand was in the minds of some of my distant in-laws re voting for Trump. Is he a Demcorat? No. Is he Hillary Clinton? No. Is he Republican? Yes. OK that's all I need to know, everything else is irrelevant. The only issue of importance keeping Democrats out of the White House and especially if that Democrat is called Clinton. Allowing Democrats to have 3, and possibly 4 ,consecutive presidential terms is simply unthinkable.

[The Anti-Targ]

47 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Another amazing quote:

Quote

“Take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus. There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here. Maybe just a little bit unusual.”

— Alabama state auditor Jim Ziegler (R), quoted by the Washington Examiner, defending Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore, who is accused of engaging in sexual relations with teenage girls.

 

Waiiit a minute. Mary was a virgin. Is this guy saying he doesn't believe in the purity of Mary? Someone alert the media!

Couple thousand years ago I don't think there were consent laws or an age of consent, and women were largely chattle. Seems like a legit comparison, right?

I don't know the details here. Is Moore accused of statutory rape, or is he being accused of rape due to the sex being non-consensual? 

EDIT

Quote

Another amazing defense is that technically only ONE of the cases was rape because everyone else was 16 or older. 

Seriously, we have gotten to the point where Republicans will almost certainly vote for a Republican who is a pedophile than a Democrat. This isn't even after the fact, either - they're going to go and vote for him knowing this. 

OK, so at least one case is statutory rape.

Holy hell, how does the party of moral values (especially sexual moral values) sleep at night?

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

"I would vote for Judge Moore because I wouldn't want to vote for Doug," he says. "I'm not saying I support what he did."

Literally, child rapists are better than Dems mentality.

The whole thing is just disgusting and nasty.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

According to an update in a Washington Post article, Moore can back out of the race if he and the party agree to do so, however his name would still appear on the ballot because he's beyond the point where it can be removed, and if Moore got the most votes after dropping out of the race, that would make the Democrat the winner.

I wonder what the odds are of the Republican party holding their nose and going through with this just to avoid the near certainty of having a Democratic Senator from Alabama should Moore be forced out. Sadly, I think the odds of them doing just that are very high.

 

I think it's rather unlikely that Moore pulls out unless there's some type of smoking gun. Keep in mind this is the guy who had to be kicked off of the Alabama Supreme Court. Twice. He doesn't strike me as the type that backs down easily. And if he wins and is removed from the Senate, I'd bet you top dollar that he'd run again in the primary if he could (idk what the state party's rules are).

I think the chances of mounting a successful write-in campaign are slim to none and it would probably deliver the race to Jones. Oddly enough, IMO that's what they should be hoping for. They can claim that there was an oddity that cost them the seat and try to spin it as not being that big of a deal. Then they'd just have to hold tight for a year and hope that they can expand their control in the Senate in 2018. From a political strategy standpoint, I'd much prefer that than having a known pedophile as a member of caucus. 

50 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Another amazing defense is that technically only ONE of the cases was rape because everyone else was 16 or older. 

Seriously, we have gotten to the point where Republicans will almost certainly vote for a Republican who is a pedophile than a Democrat. This isn't even after the fact, either - they're going to go and vote for him knowing this. 

When the news first broke I was going to crack a joke about this. Apparently it wasn't wrong. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's not too far off from what I understand was in the minds of some of my distant in-laws re voting for Trump. Is he a Demcorat? No. Is he Hillary Clinton? No. Is he Republican? Yes. OK that's all I need to know, everything else is irrelevant. The only issue of importance keeping Democrats out of the White House and especially if that Democrat is called Clinton. Allowing Democrats to have 3, and possibly 4 ,consecutive presidential terms is simply unthinkable.

Yep that's about right. It's also important to note that Republicans/conservatives have developed the mindset that the White House inherently belongs to them. There have been 13 presidential elections since the last realignment, and Republicans have won 8 of them and on top of that, they've basically created an excuse for why they lost the 5. Carter only won because of Watergate. Clinton only won because of Perot. Clinton only won again because we didn't nominate a true conservative and the media was unfair to us. Obama, well, there's a ton there. And they've also developed a revisionist history for the 60's. Kennedy only won because he cheated and Johnson only won because were still mourning Kennedy. It's kind of become ingrained at this point, especially for the older Republicans. 

[Ormond]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yep that's about right. It's also important to note that Republicans/conservatives have developed the mindset that the White House inherently belongs to them. There have been 13 presidential elections since the last realignment, and Republicans have won 8 of them and on top of that, they've basically created an excuse for why they lost the 5. Carter only won because of Watergate. Clinton only won because of Perot. Clinton only won again because we didn't nominate a true conservative and the media was unfair to us. Obama, well, there's a ton there. And they've also developed a revisionist history for the 60's. Kennedy only won because he cheated and Johnson only won because were still mourning Kennedy. It's kind of become ingrained at this point, especially for the older Republicans. 

I'm not sure the above isn't a general human problem rather than a Republican/conservative one. I certainly have heard Democrats/liberals say Reagan "only" beat Carter because of the Iranian hostage crisis, Bush 41 "only" beat Dukakis because of the unfair Willie Horton ads, and Bush 43 "only" beat Gore because of the Supreme Court. And of course right now many say Trump "only" beat Hillary Clinton because of the Russians. I think any statement about a particular election result that uses the word "only" is bound to be oversimplified hyperbole myself. 

[Morpheus]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Numerous GOP senators, including McConnell, are calling for Moore to step down.

Most of those Senators have added the caveat "if true" when talking of him stepping down. McCain is the only one I have seen demand that he withdraw without any demands that a decades old crime be proven.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I'm not sure the above isn't a general human problem rather than a Republican/conservative one. I certainly have heard Democrats/liberals say Reagan "only" beat Carter because of the Iranian hostage crisis, Bush 41 "only" beat Dukakis because of the unfair Willie Horton ads, and Bush 43 "only" beat Gore because of the Supreme Court. And of course right now many say Trump "only" beat Hillary Clinton because of the Russians. I think any statement about a particular election result that uses the word "only" is bound to be oversimplified hyperbole myself. 

There's certainly some truth to this, and your last point is absolutely correct. The only caveat I'd add is that it seems like those opinions are near universal for Republicans while only some Democrats engage in this type of hyperbolic rhetoric. 

6 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Most of those Senators have added the caveat "if true" when talking of him stepping down. McCain is the only one I have seen demand that he withdraw without any demands that a decades old crime be proven.

True, but still, it's more than I expected. I assumed that they'd push the same line they have for Trump and say that the accusers are lying.

[Ormond]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The only caveat I'd add is that it seems like those opinions are near universal for Republicans while only some Democrats engage in this type of hyperbolic rhetoric. 

I'd have to see polling data on that to believe it. It has not been my personal experience that this is "near universal among Republicans."

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There's certainly some truth to this, and your last point is absolutely correct. The only caveat I'd add is that it seems like those opinions are near universal for Republicans while only some Democrats engage in this type of hyperbolic rhetoric. 

True, but still, it's more than I expected. I assumed that they'd push the same line they have for Trump and say that the accusers are lying.

They basically are saying that with the 'if true' part. 

[Bonnot OG]

Roy Moores public contact number for his campaign.  
 

(334) 549-9985

They told me he denies it, they stand by him and that Jesus forgives. 
 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

12 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Roy Moores public contact number for his campaign.  
 

(334) 549-9985

They told me he denies it, they stand by him and that Jesus forgives. 
 

In Birmingham they love the Gov'nor, boo-hoo-hoo
Now we all did what we could do
Now Watergate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you, tell the truth

[Ormond]

By the way, I know I am probably about to get into big trouble here, but I wish people would stop calling Roy Moore a "pedophile."

The definition of a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. You cannot be diagnosed with "pedophilia" as a psychiatric disorder unless you exhibit:

• Recurrent, intense sexual fantasies, urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger) for a period of at least 6 months.
• These sexual urges have been acted on or cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
• The person is at least age 16 and at least 5 years older than the child in the first category. However, this does not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

A man in his 30s having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old is gross, illegal, and morally reprehensible. And of course sexually touching someone of any age without their consent is wrong. But it is not the same thing as pedophilia. I think that as a psychologist who teaches a course in human sexuality it's my obligation to point that out. Even when it's someone who I utterly detest as much as Roy Moore, I don't think he should be labeled with a term that does not fit him. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia

[Kalbear]

Sorry; is child rapist better? Or maybe  child molester? What would you prefer?

[Week]

5 minutes ago, Ormond said:

By the way, I know I am probably about to get into big trouble here, but I wish people would stop calling Roy Moore a "pedophile."

The definition of a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. You cannot be diagnosed with "pedophilia" as a psychiatric disorder unless you exhibit:

• Recurrent, intense sexual fantasies, urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger) for a period of at least 6 months.
• These sexual urges have been acted on or cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
• The person is at least age 16 and at least 5 years older than the child in the first category. However, this does not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

A man in his 30s having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old is gross, illegal, and morally reprehensible. And of course sexually touching someone of any age without their consent is wrong. But it is not the same thing as pedophilia. I think that as a psychologist who teaches a course in human sexuality it's my obligation to point that out. Even when it's someone who I utterly detest as much as Roy Moore, I don't think he should be labeled with a term that does not fit him. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia

Wouldn't ephebophile be the proper term? 

That said, I'm not sure that the word would be commonly used. I can understand the view that it is splitting hairs between two unacceptable sexual proclivities even though it is more appropriate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Agree with Ormond here. I'd say Statutory Rapist is the more appropriate/accurate term for Moore in this case.