Roy Moore gets accused Sexual Enounter

[Gulo Blue]

you mean like Bill Clinton? You do realize the only reason Franken and Conyers were sacrificed was so that the Democrats could claim the moral high ground like you're attempting to do here. If there was any risk either of those candidates would be replaced with a Republican, no way in hell they're pressured to step down.

That's what I said 3 weeks ago in the Al Franken thread.

I also think the reverse holds in a lot of cases. People defending Moore don't actually give a crap about him. It's a proxy defense of Trump.

 

[sggatecl]

Okay, there has hardly been consensus support among Republicans for Moore.

Pretty much, what is known as the Republican "establishment" has been calling for Moore to concede the nomination to a different Republican.

As far as I know, Moore's Republican support comes primarily from the shameless Commander in Chief.

EDIT:

Republicans Call on Moore to Step Aside

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/roy-moore-donald-trump.html

RNC fully funding his campaign and election bid.

 

[tinselwolverine]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/roy-moore-donald-trump.html

RNC fully funding his campaign and election bid.

The article is a lot more about Trump than the RNC; also, the article describes a last minute reversal of the RNC's previous stance on distancing itself from Moore at the behest of the president, in contrast with what is described as the Republican establishment, ostensibly led by the highest ranking elected Republican after the president, senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell:

"Yet Mr. Trump disregarded, and irritated, some of his more cautious advisers on Monday in prompting the R.N.C. to restore get-out-the-vote funds to Mr. Moore, according to one Republican in contact with the president. The Senate Republican campaign arm, which is controlled by Mr. McConnell, had no plans to offer financial help to Mr. Moore, officials said."

Nowhere in the article does the verbiage "fully funded" or "fully funding" appear.

The article doesn't get into the details of to what degree of significance the restoration of the get out the vote funds is or isn't.

 

[sggatecl]

The article is a lot more about Trump than the RNC; also, the article describes a last minute reversal of the RNC's previous stance on distancing itself from Moore at the behest of the president, in contrast with what is described as the Republican establishment, ostensibly led by the highest ranking elected Republican after the president, senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell:

"Yet Mr. Trump disregarded, and irritated, some of his more cautious advisers on Monday in prompting the R.N.C. to restore get-out-the-vote funds to Mr. Moore, according to one Republican in contact with the president. The Senate Republican campaign arm, which is controlled by Mr. McConnell, had no plans to offer financial help to Mr. Moore, officials said."

Nowhere in the article does the verbiage "fully funded" or "fully funding" appear.

The article doesn't get into the details of to what degree of significance the restoration of the get out the vote funds is or isn't.

Fully funded as in the same amount they were giving prior to all the bullshit, probably worded that poorly.

As far as Republicans calling for him to back out, there were many that did but also quite a few that waffled with a "We'll see what happens" statement. A quick Google search brought up flaccid responses from Capito, Johnson, Corker, and Cotton to whether they supported Moore or not. I'm sure there were more but I didn't go beyond the first page.

It's not unanimous support, but Moore still has plenty. And saying "Oh, it's just Trump" and not the GOP is disingenuous. He represents them, for better or worse. Unless all of those #notmypresident lines were from the GOP this whole time, then that's my mistake.

 

[Michchamp]

conjecture I've read is that the GOP is just backing Moore as far as the election, and the senate is already planning to expel him over ethics issues as soon as he's elected. then the Republican governor of Alabama can appoint a more... uh... normal (?) GOP stooge to replace him for the remainder of the term.

 

[sggatecl]

conjecture I've read is that the GOP is just backing Moore as far as the election, and the senate is already planning to expel him over ethics issues as soon as he's elected. then the Republican governor of Alabama can appoint a more... uh... normal (?) GOP stooge to replace him for the remainder of the term.

That's also what I've gathered. Several GOP members have even stated that they expect the ethics committee to trash him. I still just don't see how that one, half term seat is valuable enough to tarnish your party with such a scumbag.

 

[Michchamp]

That's also what I've gathered. Several GOP members have even stated that they expect the ethics committee to trash him. I still just don't see how that one, half term seat is valuable enough to tarnish your party with such a scumbag.

1. for some not-insignificant portion of voters (and even more so among white voters in Alabama), if the end result is "owning teh libs" ALL means to that end are justified.

2. another portion of voters won't remember who Roy Moore was by the next election cycle.

1. + 2. >>>> the number of votes GOP loses by supporting a creep like Moore. and 2020 is basically another epoch to most voters.

 

[turok]

Such a catchy song written by the Allman Bros, for such a poor state. One would think that it, along with its sister red states of the deep South, would have under mostly Republican leadership, gradually become socioeconomic powerhouses, since the populace switched majority party in the late 60s. They are also a fed tax recipient state, getting more funds returned than were collected. After all, what the GOP has long believed in and has boasted about, is that their policies, planks, and platforms, being best for Murka, should also be demonstrably effective on smaller scales, in state forms.

Alabama Has the Worst Poverty in the Developed World, U.N. Official Says

http://www.newsweek.com/alabama-un-poverty-environmental-racism-743601

 

[Spartanmack]

That's what I said 3 weeks ago in the Al Franken thread.

I also think the reverse holds in a lot of cases. People defending Moore don't actually give a crap about him. It's a proxy defense of Trump.

Agreed and just to clarify, I'm not saying Republicans are doing the right thing with Moore. As sgg says, the seats really only at risk for a couple years - that's two years of abortion on demand "yay" votes but still only 2 years.

I'm also not saying Dems are doing the right thing with Franken and Conyers - this whole trend of guilty until proven innocent is bit disturbing. Maybe in the end, the taint of the accusations is enough to make cleaning house the better option but it seems it's all court of public opinion with no actual due process at all. I believe Al Franken is a horrible human being who got his seat through voter fraud but I don't think he should lose his seat for something he's not actually guilty of - and maybe he is guilty, but is he getting a chance to defend himself? Conyers has a couple settlements with accusers which makes his case pretty tough.

 

[Spartanmack]

conjecture I've read is that the GOP is just backing Moore as far as the election, and the senate is already planning to expel him over ethics issues as soon as he's elected. then the Republican governor of Alabama can appoint a more... uh... normal (?) GOP stooge to replace him for the remainder of the term.

Sounds interesting but I doubt it. The Senate ethics committee is completely toothless which is why at first, Senate Dems called for an ethics committee investigation of Franken and why he agreed to it. They haven't punished anyone (not even a censure) in over 9 years.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...l-has-issued-no-punishments-9-years/79704196/

 

[turok]

Jones won the Senate seat over Moore.

First time an AL Democrat has done so in 25 years.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...y-democrat-jones-in-alabama-s-u-s-senate-race

 

[JScottWriter]

I guess a majority of people from Alabama aren't that dumb.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Jones won the Senate seat over Moore.

First time an AL Democrat has done so in 25 years.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...y-democrat-jones-in-alabama-s-u-s-senate-race

When we get to the "there's a special place in hell" place it's time for everybody who considers themselves to be sane to just take a liiiiiitle step back and breathe...

 

[tinselwolverine]

Agreed and just to clarify, I'm not saying Republicans are doing the right thing with Moore. As sgg says, the seats really only at risk for a couple years - that's two years of abortion on demand "yay" votes but still only 2 years.

I'm also not saying Dems are doing the right thing with Franken and Conyers - this whole trend of guilty until proven innocent is bit disturbing. Maybe in the end, the taint of the accusations is enough to make cleaning house the better option but it seems it's all court of public opinion with no actual due process at all. I believe Al Franken is a horrible human being who got his seat through voter fraud but I don't think he should lose his seat for something he's not actually guilty of - and maybe he is guilty, but is he getting a chance to defend himself? Conyers has a couple settlements with accusers which makes his case pretty tough.

I think Franken kinda got boned over too; Leanne didn't call for his ouster; she continues to claim that that should be up to the people of Minnesota. That said, additional allegations from others were coming to light afterward; maybe he realized that his balls were suddenly in the vice grip. Anyways, his Democrat colleagues ran his ass off. Possibly they got a deal cookin' with Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senatorial leadership regarding Roy Moore; who knows...?

I liked Franken as a comic. I really didn't care about his politics - why would I? - I don't live in Minnesota, eh? -

I'm kinda bummed that he looks like he might be the creep that he's turning out to look like, since I liked him on TV - wouldn't be my first disappointment though.

I remember a radio interview I heard him do, like, from years ago - he was talking about sitting on a plane next Barbara Bush, and trying to come with a bunch of reasons for her to like him.

Creative people can be kind of odd.

 

[turok]

When we get to the "there's a special place in hell" place it's time for everybody who considers themselves to be sane to just take a liiiiiitle step back and breathe...

Bannon is the billionaire heiress Bekah Mercer's protege, both he and Kellyanne Conway are used to manipulate Trump. He has professed an admiration for the late V.I. Lenin, considers himself to be a Traditionalist, and has devised a so-called "Fourth Turning" theory/strategy, where a US-European ideological sea-change occurs every century. He hardly strikes me as someone who can be a spokesman for any Diety.

Moore refuses to concede:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/13/roy-moore-refuses-to-concede-alabama-senate-race-its-not-over.html

 

[Spartanmack]

I guess a majority of people from Alabama aren't that dumb.

can't say for sure - so far Jones only has a plurality, not a majority.

 

[Spartanmack]

Righties like to claim that the KKK are leftists, typically ignoring that the former Dixiecrats crossed over in the 60s b/c of LBJ's support of the Civil Rights Act and Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

this is a myth. Why would they "crossover" when there was overwhelming support for the Civil Rights Act among Republicans (just look at the votes). The racist southern democrats stayed racist southern democrats until their deaths. and the south didn't become republican until much later - as it became less racist. Just look at senate seat history for those states. Here's Alabama for an example. From 1879 to 1994 there was just 1 Republican senator who served from 1980 to 1986. Solid Democrat from 1879 to 1980 and again from 1986 to 1994.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...om_Alabama#Senators'_timeline_(1818_–_Present)

Here's Mississippi - solid Democrat 1880 til 1978, then split for 10 years, only been both Republican since 1989...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Mississippi

Louisiana - solid Democrat from 1883-2005 then split for 10 years, only been 2 Republicans the last 2 years...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Louisiana

Georgia - solid Democrat from 1873 to 1981 then split from 1987 to 1993, both R since 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Georgia

The South became less racist as it became more Republican, Republicans made it so. That's causation, not correlation.

The only crossover that opposed civil rights I'm aware of was Strom Thurmond of South Carolina which now has a black Republican in his old seat. The Dems have Robert Bird though.

Almost forgot, there's George Wallace but he renounced his prior positions on segregation before becoming a Republican.

 

[turok]

In a June 10, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia article, Carole Emberton, associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, noted that the "party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today."


"Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ?Dixiecrats? flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," she said. "By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ?reform,? supporting a variety of ?liberal? causes, including civil rights, women?s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century."


http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ing-claim-kkk-was-founded-military-arm-democ/

 

[turok]

"The Great Depression in the 1930s depleted the Klan?s membership ranks, and the organization temporarily disbanded in 1944. The civil rights movement of the 1960s saw a surge of local Klan activity across the South, including the bombings, beatings and shootings of black and white activists. These actions, carried out in secret but apparently the work of local Klansmen, outraged the nation and helped win support for the civil rights cause. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson delivered a speech publicly condemning the Klan and announcing the arrest of four Klansmen in connection with the murder of a white female civil rights worker in Alabama. The cases of Klan-related violence became more isolated in the decades to come, though fragmented groups became aligned with neo-Nazi or other right-wing extremist organizations from the 1970s onward. In the early 1990s, the Klan was estimated to have between 6,000 and 10,000 active members, mostly in the Deep South."

http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

 

[Spartanmack]

In a June 10, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia article, Carole Emberton, associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, noted that the "party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today."


"Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," she said. "By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ‘reform,’ supporting a variety of ‘liberal’ causes, including civil rights, women’s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century."


http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ing-claim-kkk-was-founded-military-arm-democ/

Sounds like Carole Emberton is a real moron. Her assertions aren't backed up by the facts like the simple fact that the Republican party overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights act. Just look at the links I posted from Wikipedia, those states didn't turn red until the 90s and the dixiecrats, with the exception of Thurmond stayed Dixiecrats forever. You're being snowed if you believe this nonsense.