|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 15 2017 02:19 Orome wrote:
So, uh, how does this Moore situation work exactly? What stops a third-party/independent person saying 'I love Jesus, I love guns, I hate illegral immigrants and I also never molested a teenager, vote for me'? Is it just the political reality that anyone without a R or D after their name can't ever win? Is it financial? Too close to the election? Or is there an actual law to stop you from doing that if you're not affiliated with a major party?
I'm just very confused on how a system puts voters in a situation like this. I have little in common with Moore voters, but even I can understand that the prospect of voting for everything you don't believe in or voting for a child molestor is not a fun one. Frankly it feels like a situation no functioning democracy should ever put a voter in. Coming from a country with 7 presidents from 4 parties, I find the US' brand of a 2-party system a little hard to understand.
Libertarian party once again fumbled a major opportunity by not getting the signatures to be listed on the ballot. Even before the pedophile accusations, a competent Gary Johnson type would have been flooded with establishment support and money. Instead they don't have ballot access, and thus nothing. The only people who could won a write in are Nick Saban and Jeff Sessions.
|
On November 15 2017 03:02 JumboJohnson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 02:46 IyMoon wrote:On November 15 2017 02:44 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2017 02:19 Orome wrote:
So, uh, how does this Moore situation work exactly? What stops a third-party/independent person saying 'I love Jesus, I love guns, I hate illegral immigrants and I also never molested a teenager, vote for me'? Is it just the political reality that anyone without a R or D after their name can't ever win? Is it financial? Too close to the election? Or is there an actual law to stop you from doing that if you're not affiliated with a major party?
I'm just very confused on how a system puts voters in a situation like this. I have little in common with Moore voters, but even I can understand that the prospect of voting for everything you don't believe in or voting for a child molestor is not a fun one. Frankly it feels like a situation no functioning democracy should ever put a voter in. Coming from a country with 7 presidents from 4 parties, I find the US' brand of a 2-party system a little hard to understand. Too close to the election to persuade voters you support social and fiscal conservatism ... to even convince people you will fight and not cave. His name will be on the ballot. He was the Republican Party nominee. People still distrust the allegations (though at this point really shouldn’t). Ideally this comes out in the primaries and it causes a different candidate to represent the Republican voters on the ballot. You’re basically right on three or four points here. He has to understand that even if he wins he will be an outcast in the Senate, he will never have any influence and will be expected to just vote and shut up. How can he want that life? Why the fuck is he still going for this I've heard the Senate may just vote him out. Takes a two-thirds majority to do so.
Seems like a reasonable solution if they can just replace him with another Republican.
|
|
|
So don't republicans actually want Moore to win? If he wins, they can just eject him and replace him with some other republican, right? Make yourself look outraged --> make sure he still wins --> replace him with a yes man.
I just feel like the idea of losing a seat to a democrat would bring their agenda to such a grinding hault that they have no choice.
|
Expelling him pisses off a large part of the base that either does not care or can't accept that he is a pedophile.
For them the best scenario is,he drops out. Second best is he loses. 2nd worst option is,he wins and gets expelled for reasons and worst is if they don't have the votes to do it because they will be the political party with a pedophile serving in the senate.
|
United States44373 Posts
On November 15 2017 02:19 Orome wrote:
So, uh, how does this Moore situation work exactly? What stops a third-party/independent person saying 'I love Jesus, I love guns, I hate illegral immigrants and I also never molested a teenager, vote for me'? Is it just the political reality that anyone without a R or D after their name can't ever win? Is it financial? Too close to the election? Or is there an actual law to stop you from doing that if you're not affiliated with a major party?
I'm just very confused on how a system puts voters in a situation like this. I have little in common with Moore voters, but even I can understand that the prospect of voting for everything you don't believe in or voting for a child molestor is not a fun one. Frankly it feels like a situation no functioning democracy should ever put a voter in. Coming from a country with 7 presidents from 4 parties, I find the US' brand of a 2-party system a little hard to understand.
This is what they did in Minnesota when the Republican governor candidate was discovered to have had his 12 year old daughter + her 13 year old friends come to his alcohol pool party, gone skinny dipping with his own preteen daughter, and tried to force his daughter's friends to get naked.
The Republican he defeated in the primary ran as a write-in candidate in the election and won, defeating both the Republican and Democratic candidates.
|
On November 15 2017 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
So don't republicans actually want Moore to win? If he wins, they can just eject him and replace him with some other republican, right? Make yourself look outraged --> make sure he still wins --> replace him with a yes man.
I just feel like the idea of losing a seat to a democrat would bring their agenda to such a grinding hault that they have no choice.
They want that, but they don't want to say it. The party itself saying "vote for him so the governor will replace him with a generic R" spits in the face of the primary process and, you know, democracy. It's like when Kasich and Cruz pretty much said "vote for the other guy in X state so Trump can't get a majority of delegates"-everyone is thinking it, but people going on record saying it feels like they're gaming the system too clearly.
I'm also not sure they want to go on record voting to eject a Republican, they'd rather he just resign (not that he will).
|
On November 15 2017 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
So don't republicans actually want Moore to win? If he wins, they can just eject him and replace him with some other republican, right? Make yourself look outraged --> make sure he still wins --> replace him with a yes man.
I just feel like the idea of losing a seat to a democrat would bring their agenda to such a grinding hault that they have no choice.
They don’t really have a plan beyond that it is bad for them in if he is the Senate. It is unclear if they could expel him from a Senate, since he hasn’t be convicted of anything. But they could with a 2/3 majority, but that would be pretty crazy. It has not been done in modern history. We are very much in uncharted waters.
|
On November 15 2017 03:09 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 02:19 Orome wrote:
So, uh, how does this Moore situation work exactly? What stops a third-party/independent person saying 'I love Jesus, I love guns, I hate illegral immigrants and I also never molested a teenager, vote for me'? Is it just the political reality that anyone without a R or D after their name can't ever win? Is it financial? Too close to the election? Or is there an actual law to stop you from doing that if you're not affiliated with a major party?
I'm just very confused on how a system puts voters in a situation like this. I have little in common with Moore voters, but even I can understand that the prospect of voting for everything you don't believe in or voting for a child molestor is not a fun one. Frankly it feels like a situation no functioning democracy should ever put a voter in. Coming from a country with 7 presidents from 4 parties, I find the US' brand of a 2-party system a little hard to understand. Libertarian party once again fumbled a major opportunity by not getting the signatures to be listed on the ballot. Even before the pedophile accusations, a competent Gary Johnson type would have been flooded with establishment support and money. Instead they don't have ballot access, and thus nothing. The only people who could won a write in are Nick Saban and Jeff Sessions.
from what little i've seen of the libertarian party, they really don't have that many like Gary johnson. so they might not have anyone near that level of competence to run.
|
On November 15 2017 03:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
So don't republicans actually want Moore to win? If he wins, they can just eject him and replace him with some other republican, right? Make yourself look outraged --> make sure he still wins --> replace him with a yes man.
I just feel like the idea of losing a seat to a democrat would bring their agenda to such a grinding hault that they have no choice. They don’t really have a plan beyond that it is bad for them in if he is the Senate. It is unclear if they could expel him from a Senate, since he hasn’t be convicted of anything. But they could with a 2/3 majority, but that would be pretty crazy. It has not been done in modern history. We are very much in uncharted waters.
would it really be bad for them if he is in the Senate? Sure they are all outraged now because every person with even just a tiny bit of selfrespect left will recognize that that's a bad thing and you have to be against him right now but I don't see this being an issue once the election is over.
People will forget about it, people on the left will maybe continue talking about it for a week but noone gives a fuck after it's over, epsecially not the people voting for him.
I can easily imagine people who (will have) voted for him explain away their vote with some kind of bullshit even if he does end up convicted.
|
On November 15 2017 03:49 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 03:09 cLutZ wrote:On November 15 2017 02:19 Orome wrote:
So, uh, how does this Moore situation work exactly? What stops a third-party/independent person saying 'I love Jesus, I love guns, I hate illegral immigrants and I also never molested a teenager, vote for me'? Is it just the political reality that anyone without a R or D after their name can't ever win? Is it financial? Too close to the election? Or is there an actual law to stop you from doing that if you're not affiliated with a major party?
I'm just very confused on how a system puts voters in a situation like this. I have little in common with Moore voters, but even I can understand that the prospect of voting for everything you don't believe in or voting for a child molestor is not a fun one. Frankly it feels like a situation no functioning democracy should ever put a voter in. Coming from a country with 7 presidents from 4 parties, I find the US' brand of a 2-party system a little hard to understand. Libertarian party once again fumbled a major opportunity by not getting the signatures to be listed on the ballot. Even before the pedophile accusations, a competent Gary Johnson type would have been flooded with establishment support and money. Instead they don't have ballot access, and thus nothing. The only people who could won a write in are Nick Saban and Jeff Sessions. from what little i've seen of the libertarian party, they really don't have that many like Gary johnson. so they might not have anyone near that level of competence to run.
We would be well served by remembering the libertarian debate. The party is a joke. When your ideals rely on strict expression of core axioms, they are probably shit. Remember the topic of driver's licenses?
|
why are we assuming senate dems vote yes to eject Moore? Moore having an R next to his name is the second best outcome. They have nothing to gain by replacing him with another R. it would have to cost some political capital somewhere to have them vote yes, wouldn’t it?
Moore on the ballot is just a lose lose for the GOP.
|
On November 15 2017 03:54 brian wrote:
why are we assuming senate dems vote yes to eject Moore? Moore having an R next to his name is the second best outcome. They have nothing to gain by replacing him with another R. it would have to cost some political capital somewhere to have them vote yes, wouldn’t it?
Moore on the ballot is just a lose lose for the GOP.
This is a really good point, why would dems vote to get rid of someone so toxic from the R ranks
|
On November 15 2017 03:51 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 03:45 Plansix wrote:On November 15 2017 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
So don't republicans actually want Moore to win? If he wins, they can just eject him and replace him with some other republican, right? Make yourself look outraged --> make sure he still wins --> replace him with a yes man.
I just feel like the idea of losing a seat to a democrat would bring their agenda to such a grinding hault that they have no choice. They don’t really have a plan beyond that it is bad for them in if he is the Senate. It is unclear if they could expel him from a Senate, since he hasn’t be convicted of anything. But they could with a 2/3 majority, but that would be pretty crazy. It has not been done in modern history. We are very much in uncharted waters. would it really be bad for them if he is in the Senate? Sure they are all outraged now because every person with even just a tiny bit of selfrespect left will recognize that that's a bad thing and you have to be against him right now but I don't see this being an issue once the election is over. People will forget about it, people on the left will maybe continue talking about it for a week but noone gives a fuck even, epsecially not the people voting for him. I can easily imagine people who (will have) voted for him explain away their vote with some kind of bullshit even if he does end up convicted.
it'd probably hurt them a bit if he's in the senate. basically, because every election cycle the dems will try to tar them by association.
|
On November 15 2017 03:54 brian wrote:
why are we assuming senate dems vote yes to eject Moore? Moore having an R next to his name is the second best outcome. They have nothing to gain by replacing him with another R. it would have to cost some political capital somewhere to have them vote yes, wouldn’t it?
Moore on the ballot is just a lose lose for the GOP.
You've gone way off the wagon if you think that Dems are going to vote to keep Moore in the senate out of hardcore partisanship. It would be a trump level move and they would get painted as supporting keeping a pedo in congress.
I mean wow guys really seriously considering keeping a pedo in congress beacuse it'll make the other party look bad? you've got to really reach for that logic.
|
On November 15 2017 03:55 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 03:54 brian wrote:
why are we assuming senate dems vote yes to eject Moore? Moore having an R next to his name is the second best outcome. They have nothing to gain by replacing him with another R. it would have to cost some political capital somewhere to have them vote yes, wouldn’t it?
Moore on the ballot is just a lose lose for the GOP. This is a really good point, why would dems vote to get rid of someone so toxic from the R ranks
I can not imagine a scenario where democrats openly fight to keep Moore around. That would be the most childish thing ever and would make them look like a joke.
|
these votes don’t happen in a contextual vacuum. i don’t think voting no on ejection comes off as fighting to keep him around, alternatively they come off as not subverting the democratic process. politics is a game. i also don’t anticipate Fox & Friends copping to Moore being a child molestor, which would be step 1 in blaming the dems for it.
but i don’t see senate republicans getting a free pass to name your own senator. i’m just saying i’d expect there to be a cost.
|
On November 15 2017 03:54 brian wrote:
why are we assuming senate dems vote yes to eject Moore? Moore having an R next to his name is the second best outcome. They have nothing to gain by replacing him with another R. it would have to cost some political capital somewhere to have them vote yes, wouldn’t it?
Moore on the ballot is just a lose lose for the GOP.
Because the line 'Democrats refuse to kick pedophile from Senate" isn't a good thing to have in the news?
|
Norway28908 Posts
On November 15 2017 03:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 02:19 Orome wrote:
So, uh, how does this Moore situation work exactly? What stops a third-party/independent person saying 'I love Jesus, I love guns, I hate illegral immigrants and I also never molested a teenager, vote for me'? Is it just the political reality that anyone without a R or D after their name can't ever win? Is it financial? Too close to the election? Or is there an actual law to stop you from doing that if you're not affiliated with a major party?
I'm just very confused on how a system puts voters in a situation like this. I have little in common with Moore voters, but even I can understand that the prospect of voting for everything you don't believe in or voting for a child molestor is not a fun one. Frankly it feels like a situation no functioning democracy should ever put a voter in. Coming from a country with 7 presidents from 4 parties, I find the US' brand of a 2-party system a little hard to understand. This is what they did in Minnesota when the Republican governor candidate was discovered to have had his 12 year old daughter + her 13 year old friends come to his alcohol pool party, gone skinny dipping with his own preteen daughter, and tried to force his daughter's friends to get naked. The Republican he defeated in the primary ran as a write-in candidate in the election and won, defeating both the Republican and Democratic candidates.
I think I read that Alabama had a 'sore loser law' preventing the primary loser from running, but maybe it was just about running as an independent and that he could still be a write-in candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
