|
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 07:48 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:44 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler? Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for. i'd still like an answer on the stalin ally question. and what did jones do that's SO bad he falls below the floor?
No, I don't. I don't see how that analogy is very good here. What is Jones going to do for the nation? He may stop a child feeler, but his actions in Congress, from a conservative perspective, would be all bad.
|
United States43536 Posts
On December 06 2017 07:49 Lmui wrote:
Let's put it in a different context.
If this was a primary battle between Jones and Moore, as a left wing Republican vs Moore in his current state, it wouldn't even be close. There'd be no contest and the GOP would happily throw Moore under the bus in favour of Jones. The only reason that Moore even has a chance is that there's an R next to his name.
In fairness this is Alabama. Jones is a known anti KKK activist whereas Moore just likes to play ball before the grass has grown on the field.
|
United States43536 Posts
On December 06 2017 07:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:48 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:44 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler? Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for. i'd still like an answer on the stalin ally question. and what did jones do that's SO bad he falls below the floor? No, I don't. I don't see how that analogy is very good here. What is Jones going to do for the nation? He may stop a child feeler, but his actions in Congress, from a conservative perspective, would be all bad.
So support Moore. If that's what you feel is best for the country from a conservative perspective then go ahead.
|
On December 06 2017 07:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:48 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2017 07:39 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:34 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2017 07:27 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 06:51 Plansix 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. you do this plansixian reductionism all the time and it's super obnoxious. Also I don't see anything in that other posted statement that was antisemitic. I'd need more context. I'm also a good American if I vote to keep an abortion loving crackpot out of the Senate. See how that logic works? Glad I can clear it up. Moore is anti anyone who isn't Christian. He hates Jews and Muslims. Anyone with half a brain reads what he writes and realizes this. He also doesn't think women should hold public office. He is a regressive, child molesting peice of shit. I have little patience for people would won't raise a finger to prevent someone like him from gaining power. Your arguments against Jeff Flake show how singular your political views are, victory at all costs. And no one can call themselves a conservative if they do not subscribe to that mantra. If that was my philosophy then my posting and voting history would be quite different.
The man hates Jews. The man hates Muslims. He is a vile racist. He thinks women shouldn’t hold public office. He attacks teenage girls. But good conservatives stay home.
|
On December 06 2017 07:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:48 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:44 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler? Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for. i'd still like an answer on the stalin ally question. and what did jones do that's SO bad he falls below the floor? No, I don't. I don't see how that analogy is very good here. What is Jones going to do for the nation? He may stop a child feeler, but his actions in Congress, from a conservative perspective, would be all bad.
So in your eyes, considering the country as a whole, the average condition of Americans would be higher with Moore, rather than Jones, as senator?
|
On December 06 2017 07:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:48 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:44 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler? Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for. i'd still like an answer on the stalin ally question. and what did jones do that's SO bad he falls below the floor? No, I don't. I don't see how that analogy is very good here. What is Jones going to do for the nation? He may stop a child feeler, but his actions in Congress, from a conservative perspective, would be all bad.
supporting one bad person to defeat an even worse person. seems pretty on-point to me.
when is it acceptable to affirmatively support one evil, to fight an (arguably) even greater evil?
pretty sure the stuff stalin did after winning also included a lot of bad. so agani, extremely on point.
and you've failed to answer the very reasonable question: what did jones do that's so bad he falls below the floor.
dodging reasonable questions makes you appaer unreasonable.
|
On December 06 2017 07:55 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:52 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:48 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:44 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler? Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for. i'd still like an answer on the stalin ally question. and what did jones do that's SO bad he falls below the floor? No, I don't. I don't see how that analogy is very good here. What is Jones going to do for the nation? He may stop a child feeler, but his actions in Congress, from a conservative perspective, would be all bad. supporting one bad person to defeat an even worse person. seems pretty on-point to me. when is it acceptable to affirmatively support one evil, to fight an (arguably) even greater evil? pretty sure the stuff stalin did after winning also included a lot of bad. so agani, extremely on point. and you've failed to answer the very reasonable question: what did jones do that's so bad he falls below the floor. dodging reasonable questions makes you appaer unreasonable.
If someone believes abortion is baby slaughter, sexually assaulting a kid is clearly not nearly as bad. I would much rather be sexually assaulted than killed. If someone asked me to have either 10 kids killed or touched, I wouldn't kill them.
|
|
|
|
|
On December 06 2017 07:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:52 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:48 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:44 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler? Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for. i'd still like an answer on the stalin ally question. and what did jones do that's SO bad he falls below the floor? No, I don't. I don't see how that analogy is very good here. What is Jones going to do for the nation? He may stop a child feeler, but his actions in Congress, from a conservative perspective, would be all bad. So in your eyes, considering the country as a whole, the average condition of Americans would be higher with Moore, rather than Jones, as senator?
I couldn't possibly see that far into the future. I think the damage Moore does to the conservative cause could be catastrophic.
On December 06 2017 07:55 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:52 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:48 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:44 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler? Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for. i'd still like an answer on the stalin ally question. and what did jones do that's SO bad he falls below the floor? No, I don't. I don't see how that analogy is very good here. What is Jones going to do for the nation? He may stop a child feeler, but his actions in Congress, from a conservative perspective, would be all bad. supporting one bad person to defeat an even worse person. seems pretty on-point to me. when is it acceptable to affirmatively support one evil, to fight an (arguably) even greater evil? pretty sure the stuff stalin did after winning also included a lot of bad. so agani, extremely on point. and you've failed to answer the very reasonable question: what did jones do that's so bad he falls below the floor. dodging reasonable questions makes you appaer unreasonable.
Do you not know why Jones is highly objectionable to conservatives? Let's be honest, the primary issue is abortion, on which Jones is unapologetically a radical. That falls below the floor for pretty much every even kind-of-pro-life conservative.
On December 06 2017 07:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:55 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:52 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:48 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:44 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler? Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for. i'd still like an answer on the stalin ally question. and what did jones do that's SO bad he falls below the floor? No, I don't. I don't see how that analogy is very good here. What is Jones going to do for the nation? He may stop a child feeler, but his actions in Congress, from a conservative perspective, would be all bad. supporting one bad person to defeat an even worse person. seems pretty on-point to me. when is it acceptable to affirmatively support one evil, to fight an (arguably) even greater evil? pretty sure the stuff stalin did after winning also included a lot of bad. so agani, extremely on point. and you've failed to answer the very reasonable question: what did jones do that's so bad he falls below the floor. dodging reasonable questions makes you appaer unreasonable. If someone believes abortion is baby slaughter, sexually assaulting a kid is clearly not nearly as bad. I would much rather be sexually assaulted than killed. If someone asked me to have either 10 kids killed or touched, I wouldn't kill them.
my problem with this logic is in personal action. I don't think a German supporting Hitler is as bad as Hitler. By the same token, I'm not sure, though I could be convinced, that supporting late term abortion is as bad as being a doctor who performs that procedure. In that case one could move me closer to voting for Moore, though not get me there I think.
*****
In all honesty though guys, I don't want to read yet another string about lesser of two evils. If you would like, look at my criticism primarily from the standpoint that Flake is grandstanding on his way out and nothing more.
|
On December 06 2017 04:37 TheYango wrote:
I just can't stand by the idea that because western culture produced all these great ideas and is the dominant culture in the world now, that it has nothing to be gained from exposure to other cultures and any possible integration of ideas from other cultures is automatically some kind of downgrade (and therefore potential exposure to those ideas should be discouraged)
Even if western culture has been the most successful to date, I don't see how it follows that there isn't room for improvement by integration of ideas from other cultures. Western culture is great in a lot of ways but also still shitty in a lot of ways. Just because it's less shitty than some other cultures doesn't mean we can't strive to improve further. Western culture didn't develop in a vacuum, it already became what it is today through integration of ideas from other places (e.g. trade with the Middle and Far East), why should we stop?
The fact that other cultures are "stealing" successful western cultural constructs like capitalism just further lends credence to the idea that cultures are a modular collection of ideas and we should be doing the reverse and taking successful ideas from them too, not isolating ourselves and avoiding exposure to them. Even if we accept that the goal here is cultural superiority, that's not a race that's won by closing all our doors and burying our heads in the sand--it's won by being better than everyone else at taking successful ideas from other people (something that western culture has been damn good at historically).
I'm way behind, but wanted to throw my two cents in here.
I actually agree with your thoughts here, but I'm not convinced that this is how cultural exchange works in practice. A functional political body can dictate its choice of an economic system in a top-down manner (e.g. capitalism), but cultural exchange is fundamentally bottom-up and comes from the integration of peoples and/or their media. It's not something that can really be picked-and-chosen. From the government's perspective, you can really only choose who immigrates, who you conquer, and (if you're willing to emulate NK, China, etc.) the media that your country is exposed to and who you decide to purge/cleanse.
For perfectly rational, disciplined individuals who are self-reflective, I think what you're saying makes sense. But that isn't really a description of how humans tend to behave.
|
I would like to see another publication verify that reporting, but it does sound very much like something Trump would try. And I'm excited for the brave modern future where the president contracts out private intelligence services outside the congressional and judicial oversight. And with this congress, he could get away with it too.
Edit: Please, Grandstanding is how this country was founded. On the soap box, on the corner, shouting about liberty.
|
Is opposing eroding Roe v. Wade to not applying after 20 weeks what makes Jones a "radical" on abortion? Because he's gone on record saying he doesn't support any additional protections for abortion after the Roe v. Wade benchmark at this time, and his initial "radical" response that circulates in right-wing circles is based upon a comment made about a House bill pushing the age back to 20 weeks.
Just curious what is motivating people to consider him radical in light of his official campaign statements in November. Maybe you just believe he's lying about that and really would push for post-24 week protections?
|
On December 06 2017 08:05 Plansix wrote:
I would like to see another publication verify that reporting, but it does sound very much like something Trump would try. And I'm excited for the brave modern future where the president contracts out private intelligence services outside the congressional and judicial oversight. And with this congress, he could get away with it too.
Edit: Please, Grandstanding is how this country was founded. On the soap box, on the corner, shouting about liberty.
The article itself is pretty on the fence about it. Post sensationalist(ish) headline there's a good coverage of the information as is known about including a lot of denial from people.
|
On December 06 2017 08:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Is opposing eroding Roe v. Wade to not applying after 20 weeks what makes Jones a "radical" on abortion? Because he's gone on record saying he doesn't support any additional protections for abortion after the Roe v. Wade benchmark at this time, and his initial "radical" response that circulates in right-wing circles is based upon a comment made about a House bill pushing the age back to 20 weeks.
Just curious what is motivating people to consider him radical in light of his official campaign statements in November. Maybe you just believe he's lying about that and really would push for post-24 week protections?
He did an interview recently (I think Danglars posted a transcript of it) that was pretty telling.
|
On December 06 2017 08:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 08:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Is opposing eroding Roe v. Wade to not applying after 20 weeks what makes Jones a "radical" on abortion? Because he's gone on record saying he doesn't support any additional protections for abortion after the Roe v. Wade benchmark at this time, and his initial "radical" response that circulates in right-wing circles is based upon a comment made about a House bill pushing the age back to 20 weeks.
Just curious what is motivating people to consider him radical in light of his official campaign statements in November. Maybe you just believe he's lying about that and really would push for post-24 week protections? He did an interview recently (I think Danglers posted a transcript of it) that was pretty telling.
I assume you mean the MSNBC interview from September? Because here's what he said November 2nd.
"Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that. It is a personal decision."
I missed Danglar's response when I brought this up earlier, so maybe there was something in the last month I missed? My current searches haven't turned up anything but I could just not be finding what I don't want to find. Over and over this September interview about the 20 week pushback is brought up on Breitbart/National Review articles from the last month, though.
Edit: This is kind of a sticking point to me because it's even worse than ignoring the part of the "basket of deplorables" speech that said Republicans are people too and we need to reach out and understand their point of view and legitimate grievances, which really pissed me off when people refused to read beyond a single sentence (though it was of course still a dumb thing to say). And it HUGELY portrays the utter stupidity of the currently segregated news media spheres.
|
On December 06 2017 08:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 08:11 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Is opposing eroding Roe v. Wade to not applying after 20 weeks what makes Jones a "radical" on abortion? Because he's gone on record saying he doesn't support any additional protections for abortion after the Roe v. Wade benchmark at this time, and his initial "radical" response that circulates in right-wing circles is based upon a comment made about a House bill pushing the age back to 20 weeks.
Just curious what is motivating people to consider him radical in light of his official campaign statements in November. Maybe you just believe he's lying about that and really would push for post-24 week protections? He did an interview recently (I think Danglers posted a transcript of it) that was pretty telling. I assume you mean the MSNBC interview from September? Because here's what he said November 2nd."Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that. It is a personal decision." I missed Danglar's response when I brought this up earlier, so maybe there was something in the last month I missed? My current searches haven't turned up anything but I could just not be finding what I don't want to find. Over and over this September interview about the 20 week pushback is brought up on Breitbart/National Review articles from the last month, though. Edit: This is kind of a sticking point to me because it's even worse than ignoring the part of the "basket of deplorables" speech that said Republicans are people too and we need to reach out and understand their point of view and legitimate grievances, which really pissed me off when people refused to read beyond a single sentence (though it was of course still a dumb thing to say).
i'd have to find it again, but his history is pretty clear. Even in the MSNBC interview, when asked about a ban at 20 weeks, he flatly rejects it.
Even if he has recently backed off then no, I still wouldn't believe him. Though if he wants to win or keep his seat he might be so inclined to moderate himself.
|
On December 06 2017 08:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 08:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 06 2017 08:11 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Is opposing eroding Roe v. Wade to not applying after 20 weeks what makes Jones a "radical" on abortion? Because he's gone on record saying he doesn't support any additional protections for abortion after the Roe v. Wade benchmark at this time, and his initial "radical" response that circulates in right-wing circles is based upon a comment made about a House bill pushing the age back to 20 weeks.
Just curious what is motivating people to consider him radical in light of his official campaign statements in November. Maybe you just believe he's lying about that and really would push for post-24 week protections? He did an interview recently (I think Danglers posted a transcript of it) that was pretty telling. I assume you mean the MSNBC interview from September? Because here's what he said November 2nd."Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that. It is a personal decision." I missed Danglar's response when I brought this up earlier, so maybe there was something in the last month I missed? My current searches haven't turned up anything but I could just not be finding what I don't want to find. Over and over this September interview about the 20 week pushback is brought up on Breitbart/National Review articles from the last month, though. Edit: This is kind of a sticking point to me because it's even worse than ignoring the part of the "basket of deplorables" speech that said Republicans are people too and we need to reach out and understand their point of view and legitimate grievances, which really pissed me off when people refused to read beyond a single sentence (though it was of course still a dumb thing to say). i'd have to find it again, but his history is pretty clear. Even in the MSNBC interview, when asked about a ban at 20 weeks, he flatly rejects it. Even if he has recently backed off then no, I still wouldn't believe him. Though if he wants to win or keep his seat he might be so inclined to moderate himself.
What is this history? If it's so clear, surely you can find a single instance where he suggested we should extend Roe v. Wade or allow for unrestricted abortions after 24 weeks beyond this MSNBC interview, where he was asked about a bill pushing the deadline back to 20 weeks?
As near as I can tell, EVERYTHING on conservative media traces back to this one interview, claiming it means Jones supports partial birth or "full-term" abortion. There's no "he campaigned for this in the past" or anything. I mean, the man was a prosecutor, when would he have had the chance???
(I dug up Danglar's response-there's no second interview, the MSNBC one is the only one in existence where this comes up and he says he thinks Jones walked it back)
|
On December 06 2017 08:03 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2017 07:52 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:48 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:44 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler? Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for. i'd still like an answer on the stalin ally question. and what did jones do that's SO bad he falls below the floor? No, I don't. I don't see how that analogy is very good here. What is Jones going to do for the nation? He may stop a child feeler, but his actions in Congress, from a conservative perspective, would be all bad. So in your eyes, considering the country as a whole, the average condition of Americans would be higher with Moore, rather than Jones, as senator? I couldn't possibly see that far into the future. I think the damage Moore does to the conservative cause could be catastrophic. Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:55 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:52 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:48 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:44 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler? Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for. i'd still like an answer on the stalin ally question. and what did jones do that's SO bad he falls below the floor? No, I don't. I don't see how that analogy is very good here. What is Jones going to do for the nation? He may stop a child feeler, but his actions in Congress, from a conservative perspective, would be all bad. supporting one bad person to defeat an even worse person. seems pretty on-point to me. when is it acceptable to affirmatively support one evil, to fight an (arguably) even greater evil? pretty sure the stuff stalin did after winning also included a lot of bad. so agani, extremely on point. and you've failed to answer the very reasonable question: what did jones do that's so bad he falls below the floor. dodging reasonable questions makes you appaer unreasonable. Do you not know why Jones is highly objectionable to conservatives? Let's be honest, the primary issue is abortion, on which Jones is unapologetically a radical. That falls below the floor for pretty much every even kind-of-pro-life conservative. Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:58 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2017 07:55 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:52 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:48 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2017 07:44 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler? Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for. i'd still like an answer on the stalin ally question. and what did jones do that's SO bad he falls below the floor? No, I don't. I don't see how that analogy is very good here. What is Jones going to do for the nation? He may stop a child feeler, but his actions in Congress, from a conservative perspective, would be all bad. supporting one bad person to defeat an even worse person. seems pretty on-point to me. when is it acceptable to affirmatively support one evil, to fight an (arguably) even greater evil? pretty sure the stuff stalin did after winning also included a lot of bad. so agani, extremely on point. and you've failed to answer the very reasonable question: what did jones do that's so bad he falls below the floor. dodging reasonable questions makes you appaer unreasonable. If someone believes abortion is baby slaughter, sexually assaulting a kid is clearly not nearly as bad. I would much rather be sexually assaulted than killed. If someone asked me to have either 10 kids killed or touched, I wouldn't kill them. my problem with this logic is in personal action. I don't think a German supporting Hitler is as bad as Hitler. By the same token, I'm not sure, though I could be convinced, that supporting late term abortion is as bad as being a doctor who performs that procedure. In that case one could move me closer to voting for Moore, though not get me there I think. ***** In all honesty though guys, I don't want to read yet another string about lesser of two evils. If you would like, look at my criticism primarily from the standpoint that Flake is grandstanding on his way out and nothing more.
yes, I did not knowk offhand why he was so objectionable, which is WHY I asked several times. not sure why you felt the need to ask.
how radical is he? Is he truly radical, or is that just how you describe the general democrat party view? because I doubt he'd be truly radical if he'd fit in normally in the Dem party. and it being the state it's in, it'd seem implausible for his view to be one that the Dems would say goes too far (i.e. dems in red-leaning states tend to be more conservative than dems in blue-leaning states)
I do get the pro-life argument; but I have to note that if you consider your opponents so bad that you'd prefer a chlid molester to them, don't be surprised if they feel that it's impossible to make a deal with you, as you clearly place them so low on the rungs of humanity that you'd imprison/kill them all. not that that's quite how I see it, as it misses some key nuance, but it's somewhat adjacent to where I see it.
I already looked at your criticism on that other viewpoint; and addressed it, was there more you wanted to say on it?
As long as you maintain the other claims you made on the post that started this chain, we're free to criticize those claims, if you're retracting them, then of course i'd be fine with dropping further inquiries on that.
|
On December 06 2017 08:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 08:30 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 06 2017 08:11 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Is opposing eroding Roe v. Wade to not applying after 20 weeks what makes Jones a "radical" on abortion? Because he's gone on record saying he doesn't support any additional protections for abortion after the Roe v. Wade benchmark at this time, and his initial "radical" response that circulates in right-wing circles is based upon a comment made about a House bill pushing the age back to 20 weeks.
Just curious what is motivating people to consider him radical in light of his official campaign statements in November. Maybe you just believe he's lying about that and really would push for post-24 week protections? He did an interview recently (I think Danglers posted a transcript of it) that was pretty telling. I assume you mean the MSNBC interview from September? Because here's what he said November 2nd."Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that. It is a personal decision." I missed Danglar's response when I brought this up earlier, so maybe there was something in the last month I missed? My current searches haven't turned up anything but I could just not be finding what I don't want to find. Over and over this September interview about the 20 week pushback is brought up on Breitbart/National Review articles from the last month, though. Edit: This is kind of a sticking point to me because it's even worse than ignoring the part of the "basket of deplorables" speech that said Republicans are people too and we need to reach out and understand their point of view and legitimate grievances, which really pissed me off when people refused to read beyond a single sentence (though it was of course still a dumb thing to say). i'd have to find it again, but his history is pretty clear. Even in the MSNBC interview, when asked about a ban at 20 weeks, he flatly rejects it. Even if he has recently backed off then no, I still wouldn't believe him. Though if he wants to win or keep his seat he might be so inclined to moderate himself. What is this history? If it's so clear, surely you can find a single instance where he suggested we should extend Roe v. Wade or allow for unrestricted abortions after 24 weeks beyond this MSNBC interview, where he was asked about a bill pushing the deadline back to 20 weeks? As near as I can tell, EVERYTHING on conservative media traces back to this one interview, claiming it means Jones supports partial birth or "full-term" abortion. There's no "he campaigned for this in the past" or anything. I mean, the man was a prosecutor, when would he have had the chance???
Like I said, I'd have to find it, and perhaps I will do so later. But his MSNBC statement is pretty hard to ignore. it's not like abortion is federally restricted after 20 weeks. I believe that's a state by state thing and he opposes any restrictions. he can try to walk it back if he wants, he never expected to be this close to winning I assume.
Also his statement of something like "let me be clear, when they are born that's when I become a right-to-lifer" is pretty hilarious, in a dark sort of way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
