|
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 December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you.
lol. interesting that you think supporting a cause for keeping a child molestor out of our congress is a sign of jettisoning ones principles. i think most would see it as quite the opposite, assuming they think there’s a good to be had in leading the country besides just ‘winning.’
as a republican, i assume he subscribes to ‘family values’ in which supporting a child molestor would seemingly be where he loses his principles, I’d be interested to hear your take on how any republican would ever support both family values and Roy Moore.
I would then like your take on how principled one needs to be to fight child molestors in congress. is simply sitting out really good enough for you? that seems far below the bar of ‘the least one could do’ if you actually cared at all about family values. is there a line between supporting child molestation and not caring about your family values that you’d like to elaborate on?
|
United States41995 Posts
On December 06 2017 06:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 05:50 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 05:41 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 05:23 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english French culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english French social structure was constituted by and was constitutive of english/western "culture" These were Angevins folks. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The Barons couldn't read English. They read Latin and Anglo-Norman. yeah ok true. but then the question is: is modern england really "french?" its not as if proud englishmen have disavowed john's signing of the magna carta on the grounds that he didnt speak middle english I'll happily say that the French Magna Carta was part of the basis for what became England. It's part of our history and culture, just as it is part of the American history and culture of what became the Thirteen Colonies. But to say English culture produced the Magna Carta is, as you concede, simply not accurate. It's a French document that endured in the Plantagenet rump of England. There's also an argument to be made that a lot of British global capitalism came with the Dutch in the Glorious Revolution. While the Magna Carta came before a lot of British liberalism, it's unfair to say that there is no strain of liberalism in British culture (as far back as at least the 15th Century+). The Levellers for example are very much a product of Britain (granted, they're 17th Century, but nonetheless). It's also unfair to say that British capitalism is a dutch formation, when, more than likely it is some combination of Locke, The Corn League, Mill, Ricardo, etc.
Sure, my point is that the British culture that became known for these things pulled them from a broad selection of other cultural influences.
I certainly didn't mean to imply the English weren't doing trade before 1688, or that they wouldn't have continued had the Dutch takeover not happened. But the Glorious Revolution did bring together Dutch finance and institutions and English resources to make colonialism and trade far more profitable. The economic British empire wasn't Dutch, but it did incorporate Dutch elements in a decisive early merger.
|
United States41995 Posts
Child molesters are as good a place as any to cross the line between consent through inaction and opposition.
|
I'm not sure Jeff Flake endorsing a democrat actually helps the democrat with anyone
|
On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you.
so, they dislike him because he's like nearly all politicians?
are you being sarcastic? when you say "Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party?" it sounds like you might be trying to indicate sarcasm.
and it's pretty easy to rationalize: there are hierarchies of badness, and some bad things are worse than others. I don't see how it would be hard to rationalize at all. do you actually not see how it would be rationalized, or are you just making some sort of point?
|
|
|
On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you.
Weird, I see this as the exact opposite. He is standing up for what he believe in. He is an American first, conservative second. Apparently that's a bad thing.
|
United States41995 Posts
It's possible that he's setting a good example to principled Republicans. Does anyone here actually support Roy Moore?
|
Only true Republicans, that's who. Anyone who dares buck the party line for any reason shall be branded a RINO, and cast aside.
|
A principled conservative doesn't vote for someone they believe is fundamentally bad for the country. You can, wait for it...stay home. Flake's criticisms lately exclusively focus on his own party and somehow get him great media coverage, as he leaves office as one of the least popular senators in the country.
If it was merely about keeping a child molester out it would be easy. This thread is in such a rush to give the benefit of the doubt and best possible coverage of any Republican that undermines their own party that it can't see why Flake is going way above and beyond. "This guy is so bad I have to launch everything I believe in to oppose him" was not an argument that was popular among anti-Trumpers like Flake during the campaign. Fascinating it works now.
|
On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you.
Because the other side is a fucking child molester...
|
On December 06 2017 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. Because the other side is a fucking child molester...
Flake's previous actions and statements make this seem like more of stunt, as Danglars and I have discussed before. You have to be a fool to believe Flake's bs.
|
On December 06 2017 07:13 KwarK wrote:
It's possible that he's setting a good example to principled Republicans. Does anyone here actually support Roy Moore?
If you rephrase the question to something like "Would anyone here vote for Roy Moore over Doug Jones?" you might get a better range of responses. No one is going to support that guy as a person, but I'm sure the usual suspects here could still justify voting for him over his opponent.
|
On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you.
The whole idea of "staying home instead of voting" isn't actually "real" though. It is entirely self-serving pat on the back nonsense to pretend that abstaining from an election is real. If someone is poised to win, you support that person by not voting for the other guy. Letting someone win, but not voting for them, is no different than voting for them in this case. Roy Moore is the clear favorite to win and if people don't like that, they need to vote against him.
|
On December 06 2017 07:22 Introvert wrote:
A principled conservative doesn't vote for someone they believe is fundamentally bad for the country. You can, wait for it...stay home. Flake's criticisms lately exclusively focus on his own party and somehow get him great media coverage, as he leaves office as one of the least popular senators in the country.
If it was merely about keeping a child molester out it would be easy. This thread is in such a rush to give the benefit of the doubt and best possible coverage of any Republican that undermines their own party that it can't see why Flake is going way above and beyond. "This guy is so bad I have to launch everything I believe in to oppose him" was not an argument that was popular among anti-Trumpers like Flake during the campaign. Fascinating it works now.
How is staying at the home the 'principled' thing to do? If you think Roy Moore is so bad for the country that he's not worth voting for, he's also surely so bad for the country that he's worth voting against.
|
On December 06 2017 07:30 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:22 Introvert wrote:
A principled conservative doesn't vote for someone they believe is fundamentally bad for the country. You can, wait for it...stay home. Flake's criticisms lately exclusively focus on his own party and somehow get him great media coverage, as he leaves office as one of the least popular senators in the country.
If it was merely about keeping a child molester out it would be easy. This thread is in such a rush to give the benefit of the doubt and best possible coverage of any Republican that undermines their own party that it can't see why Flake is going way above and beyond. "This guy is so bad I have to launch everything I believe in to oppose him" was not an argument that was popular among anti-Trumpers like Flake during the campaign. Fascinating it works now. How is staying at the home the 'principled' thing to do? If you think Roy Moore is so bad for the country that he's not worth voting for, he's also surely so bad for the country that he's worth voting against.
Becuase Jones is so bad he's nto worth voting for. That's easy.
Mohdoo, I'm not sure anyone wants to re litigate "lesser of two evils" from all of last year. Not voting for either is legit. But maybe that's just me, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't donate to Hillary Clinton either.
|
On December 06 2017 07:22 Introvert wrote:
A principled conservative doesn't vote for someone they believe is fundamentally bad for the country. You can, wait for it...stay home. Flake's criticisms lately exclusively focus on his own party and somehow get him great media coverage, as he leaves office as one of the least popular senators in the country.
If it was merely about keeping a child molester out it would be easy. This thread is in such a rush to give the benefit of the doubt and best possible coverage of any Republican that undermines their own party that it can't see why Flake is going way above and beyond. "This guy is so bad I have to launch everything I believe in to oppose him" was not an argument that was popular among anti-Trumpers like Flake during the campaign. Fascinating it works now.
maybe he just wants to leave congress as a job that people still admire as to not tarnish his resume with ‘Congressmen’ and share such a title with child molestors.
this seems like a very normal thing to do. Roy Moore winning this seat immediately lessens the value of the title. some people actually care about running the country and take pride in their service. it’s hard to take pride in your service while your colleague is a known kid diddler.
embarrassing to the party as a whole that you’d take issue with anyone actually putting country before party. very embarrassing.
|
On December 06 2017 07:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. Because the other side is a fucking child molester... Flake's previous actions and statements make this seem like more of stunt, as Danglars and I have discussed before. You have to be a fool to believe Flake's bs.
Yeah, it's called being American and voting to keep antisemitic, child molesters out of the Senate. Apparently good conservatives are lack the spine to put county and their fellow Americans before their own beliefs. Glad I finally have that confirmed for me.
|
United States41995 Posts
On December 06 2017 07:22 Introvert wrote:
A principled conservative doesn't vote for someone they believe is fundamentally bad for the country. You can, wait for it...stay home. Flake's criticisms lately exclusively focus on his own party and somehow get him great media coverage, as he leaves office as one of the least popular senators in the country.
If it was merely about keeping a child molester out it would be easy. This thread is in such a rush to give the benefit of the doubt and best possible coverage of any Republican that undermines their own party that it can't see why Flake is going way above and beyond. "This guy is so bad I have to launch everything I believe in to oppose him" was not an argument that was popular among anti-Trumpers like Flake during the campaign. Fascinating it works now.
This is a two party simple plurality contest. Not voting for Jones is a vote for Moore. You can't pretend that abstention is a form of opposition.
Mathematically there is no difference between
Vote for Roy Moore = 1 vote for Roy Moore
Staying home = 0 votes for Roy Moore
Vote for Doug Jones = 1 vote for Doug Jones
and
Vote for Roy Moore = 1 vote for Roy Moore
Staying home = 0 votes for Roy Moore
Vote for Doug Jones = -1 vote for Roy Moore
In simple plurality you either support or oppose. The only way to oppose someone in a two party simple plurality vote is to vote for the other guy. That's the reality of it. And if you don't vote for the other guy then you cannot claim to have opposed the first guy.
A principled conservative is not somehow above electoral game theory. Staying at home is not principled. Ever.
Picture great moral struggles throughout history. The Civil War perhaps. Or the struggle to defeat Nazism. Would you consider neutrality in either of those cases a principled position?
If you believe abortion is murder and would rather have a child abuser in the Senate voting against abortion than a pro-choice guy then I can see that being a principled stand. But neutrality in the face of child abuse? Never that.
|
On December 06 2017 07:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:30 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 06 2017 07:22 Introvert wrote:
A principled conservative doesn't vote for someone they believe is fundamentally bad for the country. You can, wait for it...stay home. Flake's criticisms lately exclusively focus on his own party and somehow get him great media coverage, as he leaves office as one of the least popular senators in the country.
If it was merely about keeping a child molester out it would be easy. This thread is in such a rush to give the benefit of the doubt and best possible coverage of any Republican that undermines their own party that it can't see why Flake is going way above and beyond. "This guy is so bad I have to launch everything I believe in to oppose him" was not an argument that was popular among anti-Trumpers like Flake during the campaign. Fascinating it works now. How is staying at the home the 'principled' thing to do? If you think Roy Moore is so bad for the country that he's not worth voting for, he's also surely so bad for the country that he's worth voting against. Becuase Jones is so bad he's nto worth voting for. That's easy. Mohdoo, I'm not sure anyone wants to re litigate "lesser of two evils" from all of last year. Not voting for either is legit. But maybe that's just me, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't donate to Hillary Clinton either.
Before anything else, I want to at least commend you not voting for Trump. And putting aside how bad Jones is or is not, does this question not expose a serious budding problem with the 2-party system? Because while I know which one I'd rather have in office at this moment, Trump vs. Hillary was very race-to-the-bottom-y. That said, it takes a large partisan slant to say that someone like Jones is on equal footing with a fucking pedophile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/France_1154-en.svg/800px-France_1154-en.svg.png)
![[image loading]](https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/bl/global/magna%20carta/collection%20items/magna-carta-anglo-norman-french-add-32085-f102-b20152-44.jpg)
