C14N wrote: » That hard reality is that you're right. Being completely logical, a candidate's personal faults, even if severe, are not something you should vote on unless they significantly impact their policy positions. And looking at the Alabama senate election especially, I can see why Doug Jones is having such a hard time getting above 45% in the polls. Even if you do openly believe Roy Moore did what he did, if you are a typical conservative Alabama Republican, Doug Jones really does not offer much of an alternative. Not that he's "weak on crime" or any of that crap like Trump says, but he is a pretty standard Democrat as far as policies go. He's not the kind of conservative blue dog one you'd expect from Alabama who might vote with Democrats on healthcare or social security but be conservative on gun control or abortion.
Noel82 wrote: » Wasn't this a big attack point on Sessions at one point?http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politics/jeff-sessions-russian-officials-meetings/index.html "Washington (CNN)Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not disclose meetings he had last year with Russian officials when he applied for his security clearance, the Justice Department told CNN Wednesday. Sessions, who met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at least two times last year, didn't note those interactions on the form, which requires him to list "any contact" he or his family had with a "foreign government" or its "representatives" over the past seven years, officials said." Now they're reporting thishttp://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/10/politics/jeff-sessions-fbi-russian-contacts/index.html"Washington (CNN)A newly released document shows that the FBI told an aide to Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Sessions wasn't required to disclose foreign contacts that occurred in the course of carrying out his government duties when he was a senator. The FBI email from March bolsters the explanation by the Justice Department for why Sessions didn't disclose contacts with the Russian ambassador in his application for a US security clearance. When the omission of the foreign contacts on the form was first reported by CNN in May, the Justice Department said Sessions' office was advised by the FBI that he didn't need to disclose the meetings. The FBI first released the document to a group called Right Wing Watch under a FOIA request. CNN obtained it separately from the Justice Department. "
Noel82 wrote: » Wasn't this a big attack point on Sessions at one point?http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politics/jeff-sessions-russian-officials-meetings/index.html "Washington (CNN)Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not disclose meetings he had last year with Russian officials when he applied for his security clearance, the Justice Department told CNN Wednesday. Sessions, who met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at least two times last year, didn't note those interactions on the form, which requires him to list "any contact" he or his family had with a "foreign government" or its "representatives" over the past seven years, officials said." Now they're reporting thishttp://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/10/politics/jeff-sessions-fbi-russian-contacts/index.html "Washington (CNN)A newly released document shows that the FBI told an aide to Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Sessions wasn't required to disclose foreign contacts that occurred in the course of carrying out his government duties when he was a senator. The FBI email from March bolsters the explanation by the Justice Department for why Sessions didn't disclose contacts with the Russian ambassador in his application for a US security clearance. When the omission of the foreign contacts on the form was first reported by CNN in May, the Justice Department said Sessions' office was advised by the FBI that he didn't need to disclose the meetings. The FBI first released the document to a group called Right Wing Watch under a FOIA request. CNN obtained it separately from the Justice Department. "
Gbear wrote: » From their perspective, even if they do believe Moore is reprehensible (although I suspect there's a lot of mental gymnastics done so that they can feel like he's not that bad, but that's post-hoc rationalisation rather than it being done because they care one way or the other about the man), in practice they feel like a Democrat will make their day to day lives a lot worse.Now whether that itself is a rational position is another issue; I would attribute it to cult-like behaviour and I think most voting for Moore probably don't have a clue about what either candidate actually represent, but I don't think you can be too critical for them showing conviction in their beliefs. Everyone, good and bad probably agree on the facts of 95% of reality - the sky is blue, rain is wet, there are birds, you can't eat rocks, etc. If someone believes those things and is also an arsehole, it doesn't mean you all of a sudden believe the opposite. I saw a comment from some pseudo-celebrity on twitter saying something like "If your beliefs make you support a child molester then you should re-examine your beliefs", and while it seems superficially like a truism, it is ,in actual fact, nonsense. It reflects very badly on the Republican party, of course, but it's a natural outcome of them having a monopoly on right wing politics. There's no quality control on candidates.
mcmoustache wrote: » So he was telling the truth on one occasion. That's cool and all but it does little to change the fact that he denied meeting with any Russians when asked by Congress. That note specifically covered his security clearance.
Noel82 wrote: » Don't buy it. During his hearing he was asked about contacts as part of the campaign and the CNN "dossier" was brought up as part of that question. Trump gives his congress speech that was well received and the very next day the Democrats ( and their media allies ) freak out about Sessions to divert from it. Most of the attacks have been disingenuous and purely motivated by Politics. I think most people know that even if they won't admit to it.
FRANKEN: […] CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week …. These documents also allegedly say quote, “There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.”Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.
mcmoustache wrote: » What CNN dossier?
Noel82 wrote: » The question he was asked in his hearing brought up the initial report by CNN talking about the dossier that buzzfeed subsequently published. Nothing fuzzy here, go back and read the transcript from C-Span. Franken: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.Franken: Very well.
For Forks Sake wrote: » So there was an attempted bombing in new York this morning. And what's bothering Your Favourite President today? He's engaging in a p1ssing contest with talk show hosts... :rolleyes:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/940223974985871360
C14N wrote: » I should have clarified that I don't think people voting this way are particularly rational people making particularly rational decisions. I think almost nobody is a completely rational person, and most people vote with their "in group" for the most part. I'm just saying that people arguing from the Democratic side are not making convincing arguments to the type of people who would have supported Moore or a generic Republican. I keep up with news and listen to podcasts about it, and I barely knew a thing that Jones stands for without specifically looking it up, and whatever I found was him aligning pretty normally with the general D platform. The only arguments I ever seem to hear in support of him are "Moore is a child molester and Jones prosecuted KKK criminals" which sounds fantastic, but only if you already agreed with Jones on everything, and disliked Moore anyway. I really think the whole KKK prosecuter thing is overblown, because lawyers work for their clients. You could just as easily have a public defender who had to defend the KKK and I wouldn't think less of them for it. Hillary Clinton got attacked for having to defend a child molester as a lawyer, that doesn't mean she supports child molesters. Basically, you'd want to look at it from the other way around. Like, imagine a Bernie Sanders supporter if it came out that he had dated underaged teenagers while he was in his 30s. I'm sure a lot of supporters would be pretty disgusted, but if he was running against a generic Republican who had a completely clean sheet as far as scandals go, but who was a climate change denier, a Confederate monument supporter, had a 100% rating from the NRA, wanted to cut wealth taxes and social security, wanted to repeal Obamacare etc., that same supporter would have a very hard time letting that person take his seat. The "rational" thing once you know what you want as a voter (and what you want might be completely irrational), is to vote for the person who will try and get those things for you. You will generally not vote for someone who wants the opposite of all that just because the person on your side was a criminal or a pervert or whatever.
aloyisious wrote: » Given that x amount of republican voters do think about which candidate to vote for before they cast their ballots, I'm surprised that any of that number would vote for a man who served as a judge and who decided it was OK when he was 30+ in age to date girls in their early teens [below the age of consent] and who used as an excuse "I got the consent of their mothers - it was all consentual" The man, as a judge, must have got some degree of cop-on and a degree of lawdul knowledge on what was not acceptable to try on when it came to early teenage girls.
aloyisious wrote: » What kind of thinking adult would not be mindful of his daughter of minority age being dated by a man more than twice her age? The issue for them surely should not be that Roy is a republican candidate running for office against a democrat but that Roy was involved in behaviour not usual for a person holding office a a judge [here at least]. If they do, then god help their daughters all, afraid to ask of Roy "have you no sense of shame, sir?"
mcmoustache wrote: » You'll have to forgive me for jumping the gun but you were, after all, telling us that this was a 4chan hoax back in January.
vetinari wrote: » Regards the Alabama election, I disagree with the argument that republicans should vote for Moore because he best represents their interests. That line of thinking might make sense if you are focused purely on economic issues. It's pretty irrational to elect a child molester because he agrees with you on social issues! Someone can be pro life and okay with a child molester representing them at the same time?
C14N wrote: » I should have clarified that I don't think people voting this way are particularly rational people making particularly rational decisions. I think almost nobody is a completely rational person, and most people vote with their "in group" for the most part. I'm just saying that people arguing from the Democratic side are not making convincing arguments to the type of people who would have supported Moore or a generic Republican. I keep up with news and listen to podcasts about it, and I barely knew a thing that Jones stands for without specifically looking it up, and whatever I found was him aligning pretty normally with the general D platform.
Noel82 wrote: » Couldn't make it uphttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/11/wife-demoted-doj-official-worked-for-firm-behind-anti-trump-dossier.html Wife of demoted DOJ official worked for firm behind anti-Trump dossier EXCLUSIVE: A senior Justice Department official demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the anti-Trump “dossier” had even closer ties to Fusion GPS, the firm responsible for the incendiary document, than has been disclosed, Fox News has confirmed: The official’s wife worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 election. Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G. Ohr, worked for the opposition research firm last year. The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr’s duties – including whether she worked on the dossier – remains unclear but a review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively on Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016.
Christy42 wrote: » And? I mean why do I care? Man did what he should not have done and gets demoted. Shares political leaning with wife? Vague hints that something is wrong is nothing. What exactly is the big deal being ignored here? How has this affected anything? Simply saying couldn't make it up does not describe why this is a big deal or how it has affected anything. Has the man had a specific effect on the investigation? Was he heavily tied to Mueller's work or the FBI's before him? I have no idea. Maybe, maybe not I am just putting out ideas of what show that this is a big deal. Are any of them applicable or have I missed one?
Noel82 wrote: » So far it might as well be
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Hmmm. Looks like a nothingburger. * As an aside, the Boards spellcheck allowed 'nothingburger'. Right on.
Billy86 wrote: » Alabama election is today, and to help clear Roy Moore's name last night apparently a friend of his at a rally told the anecdote of that time we wound up in a child brothel, but only by accident! It's amazing how frequently this has needed to be said in the last 12 months, but I'm not even joking - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-moore-vietnam-brothel_us_5a2f5432e4b046175432cce3
Leroy42 wrote: » Billy86 wrote: » Alabama election is today, and to help clear Roy Moore's name last night apparently a friend of his at a rally told the anecdote of that time we wound up in a child brothel, but only by accident! It's amazing how frequently this has needed to be said in the last 12 months, but I'm not even joking - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-moore-vietnam-brothel_us_5a2f5432e4b046175432cce3 Well to be fair, it clearly is by accident and he left immediately. Not a story I would have told but you can't say that in any way shows Moore in a bad light.
