Thread: Engaging Roy Moore Supporters Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020379
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I have been astounded by the dissonance of evangelical Christians supporting Roy "I like little girls" Moore. To my mind they should be shouting from the rafters telling him to go home and find God before he reemerges back into the public eye.

Nope. They likes him despite pursuing 14 year old girls. WTF?

This article is an enlightening look into why.

Two basic themes: First presuppositionalism, aka the sources of criticism have hidden agendas of unrighteousness. Given that, they should be ignored until they find the Right (pun intended) version of God.

Second,
quote:
“It’s a means toward a more moral end: reclaiming American as a Christian country, end Roe vs. Wade and gay marriage, go back to a Christian golden age.”
Quoting John Fea in the linked article.

There is a third strain that is not specifically based in religion: We are Alabama Rebels and the rest of y'all can go to hell.

So, how do you dialogue with that?

My first response was "Don't just condemn them for being ignorant tools." That doesn't actually change anything,nor is it compatible with my belief that I am not called upon to judge anyone, but to love them.

What do you Shippies think?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Here's another, older article making several of the same points: On Rural America: Understanding Isn’t The Problem

From this it emerges that being personally confronted with one of these contentious issues is the best hope for changing people's minds.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
A Christian golden age? OMG, we've just spent centuries escaping that particular prison.

[ 26. November 2017, 14:10: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
A psychiatrist recently told me that therapy is oftentimes pushing at hard spots just enough to make the patient engage in examination of their thoughts.

(No it wasn't about me, although I acknowledge I am nuts.)

That seems to mesh with your observation Eutychus.

Given that I only go through Alabama to get to the Redneck Riviera for vacations, one on one engagement seems unlikely. I wonder if acknowledging the legitimacy of their beliefs, even as I disagree with them, could be helpful.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A Christian golden age? OMG, we've just spent centuries escaping that particular prison.
My hunch is that by “Christian golden age,” they mean the 1950s.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
A psychiatrist recently told me that therapy is oftentimes pushing at hard spots just enough to make the patient engage in examination of their thoughts.

(No it wasn't about me, although I acknowledge I am nuts.)

That seems to mesh with your observation Eutychus.

Given that I only go through Alabama to get to the Redneck Riviera for vacations, one on one engagement seems unlikely. I wonder if acknowledging the legitimacy of their beliefs, even as I disagree with them, could be helpful.
I was making a parallel with therapy, as it's been my observation that nobody actually wants to do it, but may be impelled to through some kind of personal catastrophe.

However, I don't think the analogy works all that well, as if economic catastrophe hits populations, they may well veer to the right even more. Of course, they may also veer to the left.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Given that I only go through Alabama to get to the Redneck Riviera for vacations, one on one engagement seems unlikely.
What the article seems to mean by this is that people often rethink their prejudices when they are faced with the issue in question within their family circle, for instance.

I think the internet, especially social and mainstream media, widens the gap between publicly held opinions and actual personal behaviour.

People chime in on social media supporting extreme, prejudiced topics through tribalism and as victims of propaganda, and it's easy for the mass media to refer to this in its stories, which thrive on extremism, and give us this extremist picture as the norm.

The real life picture is often more nuanced.

[ETA queztalcoatl the article I linked to mentions trauma as another way of deeply-held worldviews being challenged, but in and of itself it's hardly an ethical therapeutic instrument...]

[ 26. November 2017, 15:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Given that I only go through Alabama to get to the Redneck Riviera for vacations, one on one engagement seems unlikely.
What the article seems to mean by this is that people often rethink their prejudices when they are faced with the issue in question within their family circle, for instance.]
We have certainly seen this with GOP legislators on LGBTQ issues and health care issues-- they are all about the hard line until their child/grandchild comes out as gay or is diagnosed with a catastrophic illness/pre-existing condition.

Which has caused some of my lefty friends to quip, "we just need some Senator's son to come out as poor and homeless..."
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Here's another, older article making several of the same points: On Rural America: Understanding Isn’t The Problem

From this it emerges that being personally confronted with one of these contentious issues is the best hope for changing people's minds.
The author questions if even this is enough. In defence of the rural, every group has its blind spots. People who think themselves progressive can be blind to where their actions fail to meet their ideals. And often the blindness is [i[because[/i] they hold these ideals.
I think the author is correct in stating we need reasoned discourse. But not because it will reach these people, but that it might reach their children.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Personal trauma certainly helped me change. Wasn't fun, but the result is worthwhile.

As to people changing en masse when trauma hits, Kansas comes to mind.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Europe in the 30s is an interesting example, as some countries obviously moved to the right, e.g. Germany, but really overall, there was a polarization between left and right. In fact, in Germany, there was a very big left wing population, who were crushed of course.

I suppose in the UK you can cite the left/right split now between Tories and Corbyn, and in the US, between Trump and Sanders. Sorry, wrong way round. I don't know enough about Alabama.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I do not think at this point of time anyone can convince Roy Moores supporters to switch sides. Moore is running a campaign on fear of the future, basically. His supporter's fear of the future outweigh their sense of morality.

I think the only way to resolve this will be who can get their vote out. Take the example of Virginia. An ultra-conservative had been projected to win the governor's seat, but the progressives came out in droves and a Democrat was elected by a large margin for a Southern State.

Likewise, look to the urban and minority vote in Alabama. They just might win the day, especially if the Republican vote can be split between Moore and one of several write-ins.

https://www.thenation.com/article/democrats-can-win-in-alabama-and-everywhere/
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
True dat Gramps49. That still leaves engaging Roy Ick Moore supporters.

As someone who is passionate about treating everyone as worthy of compassion, love and acceptance just as they are, I have to include his supporters or be a hypocrit.

So, do I just engage them with compassion, or seek to dialogue, with changing them in mind?

Think I answered my own question. Time to repeat the Serenity Prayer a few times.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It reminds me of the old atheist line about arguing with theists - you can't dissuade someone rationally, if they didn't get persuaded rationally. Same I would think with white supremacists, or whatever you call them. They didn't go through a logical process to get there. I suppose something might shock them out of it, but of course, the danger is that they go further to the right.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Is it unkind of me, to assume that the appeal most likely to have effect will be an appeal to Mammon? Oh yes, it's unkind, so let me get right to the naked appeal to the wallet.

It is worth pointing out that as an entity Alabama is doing itself no favors here. Already everyone reading these words (am I right?) would sooner walk on glass than actually move to Alabama. I can look in the mirror and see why I would never be welcomed in the state, and even if you are not female or a person of ethnicity perhaps you stand in solidarity with persons who are. Would you move your business there? Have your industry convention there? It's already 48th or 49th out of the 50 states in things like child mortality, number of live births, high school graduation rates -- all those rankings that make for a nice place to live or visit.

And now it's going to be a state where a 14-year-old is not going to be safe from predation. Wow, what a great slogan that'll be on the license plates and Chamber of Commerce literature. Only the White House is in your league, Alabama. I know that Mississippi (#50) is rooting for you.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I take it engagement is not something you really want.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
From the OP article;
quote:
Worthen credits Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984), the widely influential evangelical theologian, best known for his crusading opposition to abortion, as the architect of this way of thinking.
I think that's the main reason. I sometimes try to talk with conservative Christians on another message board. During the lead up to the last election I tried several times to just get them to think a little bit about whether or not a Christian should vote for Trump, in view of things like his "locker room talk," and his attitude to immigrants. No matter how nicely I tried to word my posts they viewed me as a troll and called me an "evil" influence.

Every debate, and I use the word loosely, came down to the abortion issue. No matter how long the list of awful things Trump had said and done, nothing was ever as bad as Hillary being pro-choice.

They will back Roy Moore with a clear conscience because they believe that nothing any one man does is as bad as having a liberal in high office and possibly effecting the next appointments to the Supreme Court.

I am so sick of it. I'm sick of the 2nd amendment being the reason we must all live in a world without gun control, and I'm sick of the abortion issue determining that we must have horrible people in government.

I am pro-choice but I would now be willing to say, okay, make abortion illegal again, if it meant an end to this.

Attitudes toward SSM will change as people have gay and transgendered family members, but they wont know if a daughter or cousin has an abortion. I grew all the way up not even knowing what an abortion was, but now it seems to be a sermon subject for evangelicals every other Sunday, alternating with the Adam and Steve sermon. With that sort of indoctrination I can't see much chance of ever changing the belief that an abortion at six weeks is exactly the same as killing an eight year old child. So of course Trump and Roy Moore will win elections.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Tortuf

I am not sure what you meant by engaging Moore supporters. If you are seeking to engage them in order to change their minds, you can't. There is no use trying.

If you want to engage them concerning other non=political issues, you might have better luck but I doubt you will find much common ground.

There are those times when you have to keep your distance from such toxic people.

I lived just across the border of Alabama in Mississippi for three years. I actually trained in the Air Force in Montgomery Alabama and had two other TDYs there.

I just know in rural Alabama you won't be able to say more than hi and bye to them. Their minds are made up. They distrust foreigners (read anyone beyond their county limits) However, I think you will be able to find more openness among the city folk.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Great OP Tortuf. How am I to dialogue with my Muslim neighbours? Ah! There's the magic word. Neighbours. I'm to dialogue with them as a neighbour. If they were rednecks, the same. And I've done that. Lived on the second worst estate in a town where we were the most recent blood since the Danes. Our murder rate was lower. The age structure broader. Pre-war council houses you see. Only 5% - I counted - didn't take care of their front yards. We dialogued just fine. Never talked politics. Or religion. Just celebrated my stepson's 40th. I adore him. He's a Holocaust denier. I could crusade against my neighbours, ostracize my stepson and feel pathologically righteous I'm sure. Or just naively dig up and open the cans of worms beneath us. Why? Oh, what's that Sooty? These aren't analogous to engaging with Roy Moore supporters? They are to me. I've dialogued with a Britain First fascist on FaceBook without compromise and without hate hate. I refused to let him go. We are to be a blessing. Not a patronizing one. Not a superior one. Not a regretful, head shaking one. Just a blessing. ... A subversive one.

We will NEVER win them with confrontation, argument, 'reason', condescension, pleading. But by being good neighbours. What's that Sooty? They're too remote to be considered as neighbours?

That IS a problem. That reinforces them and us. Which is the first step to tyranny. Worked well for Hillary didn't it?

We have to include them. Embrace them. Subvert them. Out of love.

Well that's the theory.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
They are not using dogs on black people this time.

[Quote]Neil Young, Southern Man
[Qb]Southern man
better keep your head
Don't forget
what your good book said
Southern change
gonna come at last
Now your crosses
are burning fast[/url]

Bred in their bones.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I thought this thread was about fundamentalist Christians but it didn't take long to turn into articles and posts stating that all Southerners and all rural people are ignorant racists.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Because that's the way it plays. Racism is the history. Sexism and assault is the present. Christianity of a warped sort is the flaunted foundation.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The OP was wondering about evangelicals supporting Roy (ack) Moore. By definition these are Alabama evangelicals, since those outside the state have no vote in his election.

I say we let them have that word. They can be evangelicals -- the name is too befouled to be attractive to anyone else now, after what they've done to it. We take the name of Christ, and go somewhere else. They can join us if they want, but we're not going to go in there with them.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Twilight

Where have I said all Southerners and all rural people are racists? The topic is not about racism. It is about Moore supporters. What I am saying is Moore's support is stronger in rural Alabama than in urban areas of Alabama. I am also saying in rural Alabama there is a strong distrust among his supporters of anyone from the outside trying to engage them.

I want to see him defeated. I think it can be done if Democrats can get out the vote in the urban areas and motivate the minorities to vote for Jones--and by "minorities" I mean more than a racial vote.

I think once Moore is defeated maybe his supporters will take their blinders off and re-examine their positions.

A point should be made that in the Deep South it is not unusual for early teens to be married. While officially, a person has to be 18 to give consent, a judge can allow for 14-year-olds to be married. I believe this is an underlying attitude being displayed among Moore supporters too.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought this thread was about fundamentalist Christians but it didn't take long to turn into articles and posts stating that all Southerners and all rural people are ignorant racists.
What people write says as much about them as the writings say about the subject. There are nuanced posts that do not denegrate people. There are other posts that replace nuanced thinking with prejudices displayed for all to read.

Gramps, I didn't read your posts as making harsh generalizations. I do read them as political statements, but I believe that was your intention.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If you care to invest a Post click, here's an article about the group that the election is said to turn on: suburban women They are, some of them, being persuaded, and you can read how. Everything hinges on whether there'll be enough of them.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
quote:
Gramps, I didn't read your posts as making harsh generalizations. I do read them as political statements, but I believe that was your intention.
I am confused, are you saying I was making a political statement or that I was intending to say all Southerners and all rural people are racist?

I compliment you if you were reading my mind and divinizing I was saying All Southerners and all rural people are racist. Simply put, I was only speaking of Moore supporters.

But to break down Twilights statement a little bit more

quote:
I thought this thread was about fundamentalist Christians but it didn't take long to turn into articles and posts stating that all Southerners and all rural people are ignorant racists.
I would agree that most of Moore's supporters come from a fundamentalist background. However, not all evangelicals are supporting him so I think that is an overgeneralization.

Second, Twilight thinks we are talking about all Southerners, no, we are talking about Alabamans, 26% of which are African American. Again, an overgeneralization.

Then too, 84% of all Alabamans have a high school degree, 23% have a bachelors degree, so not all rural Alabamans are ignorant.

I can't speak to the level of racism in Alabama, that is not the question of your original post. I am only speaking of Moore's supporters.

[ 27. November 2017, 02:33: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Lets give Alabama voters the chance to express their choice in the ballot box before condemning them for electing Roy Moore. If they do elect him, have at it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Lets give Alabama voters the chance to express their choice in the ballot box before condemning them for electing Roy Moore. If they do elect him, have at it.
They voted for Trump so I've already condemned them. Let's see if they redeem themselves, say rather.
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
I have been astonished to see the right wing "family values" folk who came out of the woodwork to castigate the. Morals of any Democrat, abandoning those values, destroying their credibility and splitting the evangelical Movement over this.Abortion and gay marriage have become their idols. Funny thing, they haven't been effective in achieving their goals in over 30 years.of "values voting".
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Thank God we're not as party spirited as these 'publicans eh?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Tortuf--

What do you mean by "engaging"? And for what purpose?

IMVHO:

If you're specifically trying to make them see the light about Moore, I doubt that it will work. And approaching someone with that kind of purpose will probably put them off, and make them *less likely* to let go.

If you want to treat them well, show them Christian love, etc., then that can probably be done without bringing up Moore or politics at all. Just treat them decently, as you would anyone else.

If *they* bring it up, consider whether it's really worthwhile to have a discussion. If it is, then stay calm, listen to them, and state your own opinions simply.

FWIW, YMMV.

[ 27. November 2017, 09:33: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
GK, your point exactly. My reference to the Serenity Prayer above was a recognition of what you just posted. To be less opaque, the part about change what I can means me, not anything else.

Gramps, you read a lot more into my post than was there. OTOH, your follow up post was a classic example of what little Billy Shakespeare was getting at in Hamlet: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Twilight

Where have I said all Southerners and all rural people are racists? The topic is not about racism. It is about Moore supporters. for Jones--and by "minorities" I mean more than a racial vote.

I wasn't directing my post at you, Gramps.

It was the link in Eutychus's post set me off, it was very sweeping about the implacable ignorance of rural people. NP's song lyrics were pretty harsh, too.

I've lived in Georgia, rural Ohio and West Virginia and the most racist, anti-gay, fear of immigrants, right wing rhetoric I've ever heard were on my short visits to Minnesota. So, when someone pretends that the sort of thinking in Roy Moore's supporters, only exists in the south, I wonder if they've been wearing ear plugs.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
They're Neil Young's lyrics. They respond in part to using Christianity to justify racism and segregation. If you listen to the lyrics of "Sweet Home Alabama", Leonard Skynyrd specifically names Neil Young, responding to this song. Leonard Skynyrd has the better tune, Young has the better lyrics.

When they mask the brutality of racism or 32 year olds having sex with 14 year olds with Christianity, worry about harshness and hurt feelings aren't the priority. It's a morally bankrupt culture. They need to repent.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Surely there must be pro-life candidates who aren't child molesters?

If you believe that abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide, and that electing pro-life politicians necessarily reduces the number of abortions, then I can see how your moral calculus might conclude that a pro-life child molester is preferable to a pro-choice candidate, if those are the only two options available. But surely they can't be? Surely there must be some mechanism whereby Alabama Republicans can deselect Mr Moore and replace him with an equally pro-life candidate who doesn't molest minors?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Surely there must be pro-life candidates who aren't child molesters?

If you believe that abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide, and that electing pro-life politicians necessarily reduces the number of abortions, then I can see how your moral calculus might conclude that a pro-life child molester is preferable to a pro-choice candidate, if those are the only two options available.
I'm not sure you grasp the 'logic' of the American anti-abortion movement. The whole point is to spare its adherents from moral accountability and give them a false sense of heroism. As long as your opponents are involved in the worst possible evil (and for them abortion is defined as the worst possible evil) then anything else is 'good' by comparison. A child molester is one of the 'good guys' if he also favors criminalizing abortion.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But surely they can't be? Surely there must be some mechanism whereby Alabama Republicans can deselect Mr Moore and replace him with an equally pro-life candidate who doesn't molest minors?
That mechanism was the Republican primary. The voters of Alabama decided to reject Luther Strange in favor of Roy Moore.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
In fairness, the primary took place before Moore's true sleaziness was disclosed. If it had all come out sooner, Strange might now be on the ballot today.

The election is two weeks from today. That's plenty of time for more twists and turns. No emoticon for popcorn, disappointing.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure you grasp the 'logic' of the American anti-abortion movement. The whole point is to spare its adherents from moral accountability and give them a false sense of heroism. As long as your opponents are involved in the worst possible evil (and for them abortion is defined as the worst possible evil) then anything else is 'good' by comparison. A child molester is one of the 'good guys' if he also favors criminalizing abortion.
Um, that seems to be repeating exactly what I said in the bit you quoted.

quote:

That mechanism was the Republican primary. The voters of Alabama decided to reject Luther Strange in favor of Roy Moore.
OK but is there no mechanism whereby the party could withdraw the whip? (I'm thinking of the London mayoral elections some years ago where the Tories un-endorsed Jeffrey Archer after a bunch of perjury allegations.) I suppose if that happened it would now be too late to put up a replacement Republican.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Surely there must be pro-life candidates who aren't child molesters?

If you believe that abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide, and that electing pro-life politicians necessarily reduces the number of abortions, then I can see how your moral calculus might conclude that a pro-life child molester is preferable to a pro-choice candidate, if those are the only two options available.
This sort of reasoning got the army to support Hitler in 1933. There's no sane moral calculus involved.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's tribal. Best left alone. Stand with the victims. You know the drill. There is no hope in these situations. Apart from the wisest thing.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK but is there no mechanism whereby the party could withdraw the whip?
Only if Moore withdraws, becomes incapacitated or dies.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
While They're admittedly just a subgroup of conservative Evangelics, keep in mind that there are some who approve of/encourage marriages between teen girls and older men because of their obsession with female " purity." Which IMHO is simply a justification for these lecherous old goats to get off deflowering virgins...but it all sounds more highminded if you cite Bible stories and appeal to Jesus (?) for approval.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I don't know any Roy Moore supporters, but can see zero point in engaging them if I did.

If someone is prepared to support a guy who's been thrown out of his judgeship twice, and now appears to have posed a threat to barely-post-pubescent girls, they're too far gone for me to reach them. There are better uses for my time and energy.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In fairness, the primary took place before Moore's true sleaziness was disclosed. If it had all come out sooner, Strange might now be on the ballot today.

...
But it WAS known that Moore had defied court orders TWICE. Not the sort of thing judges are supposed to do. In terms of his role as a (future) senator, that's actually more damning, IMHO, than his skeezy "dating".

And I'd just like to give a shout-out to the Mall-cops, who apparently were the only people in the entire fucking state of Alabama who spotted this predator and did what they could to stop him.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
But it WAS known that Moore had defied court orders TWICE. Not the sort of thing judges are supposed to do.
He defied them in the name of God and in the direction his supporters prefer. It is only wrong if you are a Godless Heathen Atheist® who is trying to destroy America and sell it out to the commies. But not in the good way, like the Cheeto did.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The Post has a nice roundup of abortion and its importance in Alabama politics. The state has had a long history of being racked by demagogues, racists (remember George Wallace? Segregation yesterday, today, and forever?) and outright con men. Roy Moore is one in a long and sordid line.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought this thread was about fundamentalist Christians but it didn't take long to turn into articles and posts stating that all Southerners and all rural people are ignorant racists.
Are you suggesting it is prejudicial to imply all Southerners or rural people are ignorant racists, but it's OK to say that about Christian fundamentalists? Must be an irregular verb.

[ 30. November 2017, 15:42: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
None of this is about "all southerners". The only people who can vote for Moore are in Alabama. No one else's opinion matters.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought this thread was about fundamentalist Christians but it didn't take long to turn into articles and posts stating that all Southerners and all rural people are ignorant racists.
Are you suggesting it is prejudicial to imply all Southerners or rural people are ignorant racists, but it's OK to say that about Christian fundamentalists? Must be an irregular verb.
OK, Not all fundies are racist and not all Southern Americans are. BUT both those are factors in several problems. Because of slavery, the American Civil War and its aftermath, racism is a bit more enculturated in the South. And fundamentalism doesn't encourage questioning or nuance.
So whilst it is inaccurate to paint all of any group with the same brush, it is also inaccurate to ignore the influence of culture on the people who are in it.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If you have a strong stomach, go and read this rightwinger's explanation of why all right-thinking Christians should vote for Moore. The gist is that it's moral to vote for a molester because he's pro-life. The rights of the unborn override the well-being of any living 14-year-old girl.

[ 30. November 2017, 19:48: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And one more fine free link, in which Moore does a Bible study proving that women should not hold elected office or serve in the military. There are so very very many men in the world who would benefit from meeting my daughter. She is a major in the US Army Reserve, and could be relied upon to show them why women should be in the military. And also why we need Obamacare, because then they would need hospitalization.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Brenda--

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you have a strong stomach, go and read this rightwinger's explanation of why all right-thinking Christians should vote for Moore. The gist is that it's moral to vote for a molester because he's pro-life. The rights of the unborn override the well-being of any living 14-year-old girl.
I'm not reading the article, because I'll get too upset.

But...someone who is an avid child molester wants *more* children to be born...
[Projectile]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
On tonight's (Thursday's) Jimmy Kimmel show, Jimmy totally owned Moore. Details and transcript there. Quite a deal.

**This will be a SPOILER**, if you haven't yet watched tonight's show. It'll be on here in about an hour. The transcript is so good that I'll definitely watch.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Not sure this link will work. It should take you to a Twitter page with a photograph of a church sign. In Alabama, needless to say.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Well, we do not have to worry about Roy Moore anymore.

Doug Jones won! By 20,000 votes 50% to Roy Moore, 48%.

Note: there were 23,000 write-in votes for someone other than the above two.

Notably, there was an unusual turn out of black voters.

College educated Alabamans went for Doug Jones

Young Adults ages 18-41 went for Doug Jones by 61%

57% of the female vote 57% went for Jones

During the presidential election, Trump won the state by 28%. The Senate election shows that his support has vanished.

The previous elected holder of the seat, Jeff Sessions, won it by 97%. Talk about an earthquake for the Republican party.

Look for a number of Republican Senators opting to retire in the next year.

Am I crowing? You bet!

The Senate is now 49 Democrats to 51 Republicans.

Look for the Republican Tax Plan to crash and burn.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
It's great. But Moore is calling for a recount.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Wah-HOO! There IS hope!
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
You can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
If only the Democrats can hang on in Missouri, Indiana, West Virginia and North Dakota next year? And take Nevada and Arizona?

THAT would be the end of the beginning. This is the beginning of the beginning.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It's worth saying that that mainstay of the vote was the overwhelming number of black voters who turned out for Jones.

And that juuuuust enough white folk then voted Dem or a write-in to swing it.

Well done, white people! [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Brenda--

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you have a strong stomach, go and read this rightwinger's explanation of why all right-thinking Christians should vote for Moore. The gist is that it's moral to vote for a molester because he's pro-life. The rights of the unborn override the well-being of any living 14-year-old girl.
I'm not reading the article, because I'll get too upset.

But...someone who is an avid child molester wants *more* children to be born...
[Projectile]
Skimmed it. The basic argument is that both candidates are bad but one is less bad than the other because of their stance on abortion. Which is different to your takeaway.

The writer also makes the unpopular, but possibly accurate, point that older guys dating much younger girls wasn't such a big thing back then.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Hmmm. There enough black folk and liberal Republicans in the West? Even so, if Alabama can go Democrat so can Tennessee and Texas.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Not sure this link will work. It should take you to a Twitter page with a photograph of a church sign. In Alabama, needless to say.
Saving you the bother of scrolling

Tubbs
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. There enough black folk and liberal Republicans in the West?
Maybe not, but there are plenty of Hispanics.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The writer also makes the unpopular, but possibly accurate, point that older guys dating much younger girls wasn't such a big thing back then.
"Dating" is an interesting euphemism to use for some of the accusations against Moore. In fact, using that term instead of "sexually preying on" or similar seems to be doing a lot of the behind-the-scenes work in that argument.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Christianity Today mourns the terrible damage that these campaigns are doing to the faith and devotes much wordage to the meanness of those awful librul Christians, insisting upon defending women, children and the oppressed. Why cannot they be kinder to Roy Moore supporters, whose only desire is to increase the number of abusers of women in Washington DC?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's worth saying that that mainstay of the vote was the overwhelming number of black voters who turned out for Jones.

And that juuuuust enough white folk then voted Dem or a write-in to swing it.

Well done, white people! [Disappointed]
Yeah. Though it is good he lost, it is sad that it was by so small a margin.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
That he won at all, in ruby-red Alabama, is an astonishment and a wonder. They haven't voted for a Democrat in a generation. And he won by a big enough margin that there can't be an automatic recount. (I think if you win by less than 1% they have to recount.) If Moore wants a recount, he has to pay for it. And, naturally, he has to pay his lawyers (including the Jewish one! all my Jewish friends are wishing this unknown solon a happy Hannukah) if he wants to litigate.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Still it bothers me that he refused to concede. Reminds me of someone (who in the end didn’t lose and wasn’t put to the point).
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The writer also makes the unpopular, but possibly accurate, point that older guys dating much younger girls wasn't such a big thing back then.
"Dating" is an interesting euphemism to use for some of the accusations against Moore. In fact, using that term instead of "sexually preying on" or similar seems to be doing a lot of the behind-the-scenes work in that argument.
Fair point. And one that I should have picked up. Thanks for the correction.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
That he won at all, in ruby-red Alabama, is an astonishment and a wonder. They haven't voted for a Democrat in a generation.
The last Democrat Alabama elected to the U.S. Senate was Richard Shelby in 1992. Shelby is still in the Senate but he's a Republican these days.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And he won by a big enough margin that there can't be an automatic recount. (I think if you win by less than 1% they have to recount.)
0.5 percentage points, actually.

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Still it bothers me that he refused to concede. Reminds me of someone (who in the end didn’t lose and wasn’t put to the point).
Andy Richter put it thusly:

quote:
Roy Moore not conceding reminds me of something I’ve noticed: a certain kind of white man, having grown used to creating realities to his liking, when confronted with a reality not to his liking tantrums like a goddamned baby

 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And he won by a big enough margin that there can't be an automatic recount. (I think if you win by less than 1% they have to recount.) If Moore wants a recount, he has to pay for it.
According to the Guardian, the State Supreme Court had just with remarkable haste overruled a judgement calling for voting records to be preserved to facilitate a recount if one were called for. That was at a stage when it was expected that Moore would probably win and any recount would be called for by the Democrats.
Funny how things work out.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
According to the Post 80% of white evangelicals voted for Moore. A quote:

Political partisanship and a disdain for outsiders have become unifying driving factors for white evangelicals instead of the gospel of Jesus Christ, said Birmingham-based Collin Hansen, editorial director for the Gospel Coalition, a network popular among conservative evangelicals.

“You could preach almost any Trinitarian heresy and not one person is going to notice it,” Hansen said. “If you touch on the political things on things they care about like gun control or racism, they’ll have your head.”

Recent political changes, Hansen said, have exposed “the moral and theological rot” in the evangelical church. “There will not be a coherent evangelical movement to emerge from this political season,” Hansen said.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
According to the Post 80% of white evangelicals voted for Moore.
Well, 80% of the white evangelicals who voted cast their ballot for Moore. That's not quite the same thing. Turnout seems to have been key to this election. For reference, going by the (non-final) vote totals over at CNN Doug Jones got 92% of the number of votes that were cast for Hillary Clinton in Alabama in 2016, which is pretty phenomenal for a special election. Roy Moore got 49% of the vote that Donald Trump received in Alabama last year. As a rough guide, it seems like about half of last year's Trump voters simply decided to sit out this election.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
From the Post article linked above:

quote:
For decades, Moore rose to national prominence by painting a portrait of Christianity under attack. He espouses the view that America should ultimately be governed by “biblical law.” Under Moore, the law would punish homosexuality. He has expressed fear that sharia law is being imposed “in Illinois, Indiana — up there. I don’t know.”
OK, do Moore's supporters really not understand that biblical law is Christian sharia law? Whatever happened to the Establishment Clause? Are they so obsessed with the 2nd Amendment that they've forgotten about the 1st? Is this Christian nationalism a states' rights thing?

In the USA, officials may place their hand on the Bible to take the oath of office, but they are swearing to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible. These people are fundamentally opposed to one of the founding principles of their country. They don't need engagement, they need fucking civics lessons. And their kids need better textbooks.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Someone divided up last night Senate special election numbers by congressional district and finds that despite winning the most votes, Democrats would only win 1 out of Alabama's 7 House seats. "That's how gerrymandered Alabama is."
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Moore famously has ignored that clause in the Constitution. He's the one, remember, tossed out of the judiciary for insisting on a large Ten Commandments stone in the courthouse.

There is a very funny video around of one of his minions on TV being interviewed by CNN. The fellow's jaw drops open when the reporter tells him that it is not law that you are sworn in on a Bible, that other volumes (the book of Mormon, the Koran) are allowable. It is clearly the first time the notion has ever been presented to him and he is dumbstruck.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
OK, do Moore's supporters really not understand that biblical law is Christian sharia law?
Apples to oranges. Biblical law was handed down from God, Sharia law wasn't.

(Or so I imagine the answer would go.)
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is a very funny video around of one of his minions on TV being interviewed by CNN. The fellow's jaw drops open when the reporter tells him that it is not law that you are sworn in on a Bible, that other volumes (the book of Mormon, the Koran) are allowable. It is clearly the first time the notion has ever been presented to him and he is dumbstruck.
*Obnoxious pedant alert!!!*

I think that most LDS government officials are sworn in using the Bible.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
OK, do Moore's supporters really not understand that biblical law is Christian sharia law?
Apples to oranges. Biblical law was handed down from God, Sharia law wasn't.

(Or so I imagine the answer would go.)
Thing is, much of Shariah is derived from the Bible. That's why the nastier ends of both are so alike.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
OK, do Moore's supporters really not understand that biblical law is Christian sharia law?
Apples to oranges. Biblical law was handed down from God, Sharia law wasn't.

(Or so I imagine the answer would go.)
I suppose if the answerer were intellectually capable of understanding the comparison is actually apples to apples, there would be fewer problems.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is a very funny video around of one of his minions on TV being interviewed by CNN.
Happy to oblige
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
You gotta love these family values villains. They got standards. It's not okay to do an abortion. But screwing children, well that's another matter, after all Joseph was screwing Mary, oh jeez, wrong example. They mean more in Numbers 31:17 etc:
quote:
Now therefore kill every boy, and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man. 20 But all the young women who have not had sexual intercourse with a man will be yours.
Well you know: spare the lambs, spoil the goats, and do the girls.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's worth saying that that mainstay of the vote was the overwhelming number of black voters who turned out for Jones.
Interestingly, a black pastor and activist from the SF Bay Area went there to be part of a team to defeat Moore. Heard him on NPR. I'm a little surprised that anyone there would be interested in what someone from here had to say...but maybe African-Americans in Alabama are more open that way.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Which has caused some of my lefty friends to quip, "we just need some Senator's son to come out as poor and homeless..."
Well the current crisis in much of Americal is the opioid addiction epidemice afflicting poor white people. Not many cared when it was a crack epidemic of poor black addicts.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
American evangelical Christianity (the Southern version,at any rate, which is the version that's taken over the whole country) was always at the root a rural white identity movement. It's not theology, really--I've worked with a lot of these folks in therapy, and I know more about their supposed theology than they do. Being a "Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christian" is entirely about Us vs. Them.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The Republicans for Doug Jones FB page has 2000 likes and followers.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Mrs. Moore mentioned having rabbis as friends. So Devra First, of the Boston Globe, set out to find them.
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
American evangelical Christianity (the Southern version,at any rate, which is the version that's taken over the whole country) was always at the root a rural white identity movement. It's not theology, really--I've worked with a lot of these folks in therapy, and I know more about their supposed theology than they do. Being a "Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christian" is entirely about Us vs. Them.
I find this very interesting, as my own observation as a therapist is that people commonly have unseen motivations, or you might say, unknown. I'm not surprised if some Christians are into Us/Them, but then probably many people are. Oh the joys of the unconscious, or the black lagoon.

I was trying to remember one of those ghastly Freudian phrases, 'reaction formation', ('Reaktionsbildung'), which sort of means that we outwardly put on a mask which contradicts our inner thoughts. Freud somewhere has a gruesome quote about Christians advocating universal love, which guarantees conflict. Cynical, moi?

[ 14. December 2017, 10:52: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Mrs. Moore mentioned having rabbis as friends. [...]
I read that as 'rabbits'. - Which might perhaps explain his urges?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
This horrible man clearly thinks he stands up for morality in the US. Which is utterly shocking when you think of the anti-everything platform he stood on.

[Roll Eyes] [Frown]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This horrible man clearly thinks he stands up for morality in the US. Which is utterly shocking when you think of the anti-everything platform he stood on.
Possibly, but then he came to religion as an adult, and some of his pronouncements make it sound like it functions as a locus of power rather than an attempt at genuine morality.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Moore seems to share Trump's narcissism. It seems that Moore sees himself as infallible, whether it is maintaining the Ten Commandments stone in his court house or refusing to accept judgments from appeals courts overturning his decisions, or even now, refusing to concede.

Moore seems to see himself as above the law, thank you Alabama for bringing him down.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You would have to work with both hands to construct a better antithesis to Jesus than Moore. (Or Crooked Don.)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Moore seems to share Trump's narcissism. It seems that Moore sees himself as infallible, whether it is maintaining the Ten Commandments stone in his court house or refusing to accept judgments from appeals courts overturning his decisions, or even now, refusing to concede.

Moore seems to see himself as above the law, thank you Alabama for bringing him down.
No. Thank you black women of Alabama. Black people, despite laws making it difficult to vote, turned out to send him off. And still the fucker made a strong showing.
So, no, Alabama does not get a moment in the sun over this.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
American evangelical Christianity (the Southern version,at any rate, which is the version that's taken over the whole country) was always at the root a rural white identity movement. It's not theology, really--I've worked with a lot of these folks in therapy, and I know more about their supposed theology than they do. Being a "Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christian" is entirely about Us vs. Them.
I find this very interesting, as my own observation as a therapist is that people commonly have unseen motivations, or you might say, unknown. I'm not surprised if some Christians are into Us/Them, but then probably many people are. Oh the joys of the unconscious, or the black lagoon.

I was trying to remember one of those ghastly Freudian phrases, 'reaction formation', ('Reaktionsbildung'), which sort of means that we outwardly put on a mask which contradicts our inner thoughts. Freud somewhere has a gruesome quote about Christians advocating universal love, which guarantees conflict. Cynical, moi?
Freud had some weird ideas, but also some helpful ones. (okay I made some of that up, a bit)

I'm not sure we can allow unconscious defence mechanisms to be the explanation for people who should know better: they're not entitled to that. There is a difference between being uninformed or unknowledgeable about yourself and being manipulative, or put more plainly, between stupidity and evil. Of course some people are both, though I don't think the man whose name appears in the thread title nor his #1 fan are stupid.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Fall out from the Roy Moore debacle:
Two federal district judge nominations by Trump have been dropped.

The individual that was nominated to be the chemical czar in the EPA--a man who constantly fought the EPA on chemical regulations has now lost the support of the majority of the Senate, though his name has not been withdrawn yet.

At least four Republican Senators have now said they will not support it as written. Count McCain, who is hospitalized, and may not be able to vote, and the Tax Bill is dead. Only three Republican voting against it will kill it.

And now the news is out that Speaker Paul Ryan will not run for re-election in 2018. He plans on retiring.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I wonder if Ryan is a) thinking there may be 2 empty offices above him, and succession will move him into the Oval Office; b) thinking of putting together an exploratory committee for actually running for president; or c) running away screaming?
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Commentators are saying Ryan is looking at running for President in 2020 and it would not look good if he had lost his race for his seat in Congress.


He is facing some pretty stiff opposition in his district.

I am opting for running away screaming. He is such a LOSER (to co-opt a certain person).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Let him try and run. (sfx: knife whetting on steel)

In the Post today, students at seminaries backpedalling from the term 'evangelical.' Moore especially has tainted it, and if your goal is to actually have your congregation hear your preaching, you can't use a label that instantly repels. Well, the term had a good run. I only hope we don't lose the word 'Christian' as well.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Something that sticks in my craw: The ridiculously large number of write-in votes for Alabama football coach Nick Sabin.In other words, a significant number of Alabama voters, faced with a choice between a racist, pedophilic , apnti-
Constitutional buffoon like Moore and Doug Jones, a competent and decent public servant, were either so flippant about the entire election or so knee- jerk anti- Democratic Party that they basically threw away their vote. How imbecilic and irresponsible is that?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Well, yes, but if you look at the raw numbers, those write-ins saved the day. If we assume all the right-ins were traditional Republican voters who ordinarily would vote the straight GOP ticket, and couldn't bring themselves to vote Dems, then the write-ins were enough that it would have given Moore the win had they voted GOP. I've talked to a couple of them-- they knew what they were doing, knew they were in essence voting for Jones, it was a statement (to the GOP) not a throw-away. And yes, most would not vote for a pro-choice candidate-- but bless them for not being willing to vote for a pro-pedofilia candidate either. I am grateful for them.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the NYTimes, America's new evangelical religion is led by Fox News.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
From a NYT op-ed by a progressive evangelical:
quote:
The regular Fox News viewer, whether or not he is a churchgoer, takes in a steady stream of messages that conflate being white and conservative and evangelical with being American.

The power of that message may explain the astonishing findings of a survey released this month by LifeWay Research, a Christian organization based in Nashville. LifeWay’s researchers developed questions meant to get at both the way Americans self-identify religiously and their theological beliefs. What they discovered was that while one-quarter of Americans consider themselves to be “evangelical,” less than half of that group actually holds traditional evangelical beliefs. For others, “evangelical” effectively functions as a cultural label, unmoored from theological meaning.
Which pretty much accords with my observations.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Excellent; I believe your link is the same as mine so people should click on one only.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Something that sticks in my craw: The ridiculously large number of write-in votes for Alabama football coach Nick Sabin.In other words, a significant number of Alabama voters, faced with a choice between a racist, pedophilic , apnti-
Constitutional buffoon like Moore and Doug Jones, a competent and decent public servant, were either so flippant about the entire election or so knee- jerk anti- Democratic Party that they basically threw away their vote. How imbecilic and irresponsible is that?
I don't know if this is useful, but my experience as a Deputy Returning Officer reviewing spoiled ballots (in Canada, we don't have a provision for write-ins, but that doesn't stop voters from spoiling ballots with a write-in) suggests that write-in voters are often protesting, rather than actually voting for the person whose name they wrote in. This would explain votes for Goofy and Porky the Pig, as well as dead candidates, all of which I encountered.

Spoiled ballots, I have long thought, are not wasted votes. They are clear expressions of a lack of dissatisfaction with the political process and/or the selection of candidates. In each case they involve getting to the poll and making the gesture-- I have always thought that this was superior to not voting at all. Expressed choices, however much we might not like them are legitimate choices. In this case, I would wonder (having met a few people from this region) if they were perhaps not ironic in their selection.

In jurisdictions where write-ins are permitted, this can result in some interesting results (as in Alaska), but in this case had the democratically-useful function of telling a party that they could have won the seat with a better candidate. I would argue that the write-in vote in Alabama had a double effect, of objectively voting for Jones, and of giving Republican party managers a very sharp lesson, and that these voters knew darn well what they were doing. Perhaps not imbecilic and irresponsible at all??

[ 16. December 2017, 15:23: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

Spoiled ballots, I have long thought, are not wasted votes.
Depends on your definition of waste. They are typically most beneficial to the candidate the spoiled ballot voter least wants.
quote:

They are clear expressions of a lack of dissatisfaction with the political process and/or the selection of candidates.
Completely disagree. They might make the news for a day or two and matter to political geeks, but all which will by remembered by voters is who won and who lost.

[ 16. December 2017, 16:12: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

Spoiled ballots, I have long thought, are not wasted votes.
Depends on your definition of waste. They are typically most beneficial to the candidate the spoiled ballot voter least wants.
quote:

They are clear expressions of a lack of dissatisfaction with the political process and/or the selection of candidates.
Completely disagree. They might make the news for a day or two and matter to political geeks, but all which will by remembered by voters is who won and who lost.
If you believe that a vote cast for anyone but the winning candidate is a waste, then our definitions are really very far apart. I don't know if we can meet on this one.

Alas, election geeks are not the only ones who will remember such phenomena. First are the candidates whose future was determined by them--- Judge Moore among them. Senator-elect Jones will likely be thinking a great deal about how he will both indicate his debt to African-American voters while acknowledging the concerns of Republican dissidents.

Then there are the political parties which are very much about winning, and spend an astonishing amount of energy and money determining why they lost. One of my regular cappucino buddies is on a lucrative contract right now advising a certain political party how they can direct fringe-party voters into their stable.

Students of the Alabama campus of the Beerhall School of Public Administration as well as the Montgomery and Mobile Golf and Country Club Institute of Political Chatter will almost certainly be hearing about the write-in voters for some time to come, all the way to election day in 2018 if not beyond. If we could only direct research grants to ferret out the details!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
If you believe that a vote cast for anyone but the winning candidate is a waste, then our definitions are really very far apart. I don't know if we can meet on this one.
This isn't what I believe. What I observe is that write-in votes of a prior election don't get much play in the next. The motives of write-ins can be difficult to pin down and reasons often vary. This election it is fairly clear that they would have voted for Moore if he had been just a little less sleazy. Not good, but less bad.
Typically, just what about the real candidates the write-in doesn't like is less clear.
One of the people on the ballots going to win. Affecting change is voting for the candidate who best aligns with what you want and holding their feet to the fire as much as possible. But this involves getting involved.
But people do not get involved and politicians are starting to take greater advantage. The recent American net neutrality decision writes this large. Despite being wanted to remain by the vast majority of the people the FCC is supposed to represent, it was killed.
Because people throw voting tantrums but do not actually become involved.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
If you believe that a vote cast for anyone but the winning candidate is a waste, then our definitions are really very far apart. I don't know if we can meet on this one.
This isn't what I believe. What I observe is that write-in votes of a prior election don't get much play in the next. The motives of write-ins can be difficult to pin down and reasons often vary. This election it is fairly clear that they would have voted for Moore if he had been just a little less sleazy. Not good, but less bad.
Typically, just what about the real candidates the write-in doesn't like is less clear.
One of the people on the ballots going to win. Affecting change is voting for the candidate who best aligns with what you want and holding their feet to the fire as much as possible. But this involves getting involved.
But people do not get involved and politicians are starting to take greater advantage. The recent American net neutrality decision writes this large. Despite being wanted to remain by the vast majority of the people the FCC is supposed to represent, it was killed.
Because people throw voting tantrums but do not actually become involved.
Ah... that is clearer to me. I certainly agree that people throw voting tantrums-- they certainly have been known to do that in my own province as well. Still, we don't need to get decency and virtue from all voters... just enough of them.

It is rare that write-in candidacies get anywhere-- the most notable example I can think of is that of Senator Murkowski in Alaska. But I do like the idea that irresponsible behaviour on the part of political parties can (sometimes) get its comeuppance from voters.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0