See, this is why people view you as electorally shallow. If i were in Alabama I would feel beholden to actual learn about the candidates with regard to a more mature and relevant measure...in other words, not because party, but because merit. Unfortunately Dems want to measure merit by superfluous units while republicans tend to stick with the game at hand...a game Dems are losing.
Oh, subs. You’ve painted yourself into a corner once again, so now you’re going to accuse everyone else of doing the electorally shallow thing that you admit you would yourself resort to:
subgenius wrote:... to be fair, I haven't bothered to learn much about (the Democratic candidate), either.
Which means, like you, I would just be voting in Alabama on party affiliation, because that's much easier than thinking about actual issues...
canpakes wrote:Oh, subs. You’ve painted yourself into a corner once again, so now you’re going to accuse everyone else of doing the electorally shallow thing that you admit you would yourself resort to:
Nope, just accusing you.
canpakes wrote:
subgenius wrote:... to be fair, I haven't bothered to learn much about (the Democratic candidate), either.
Which means, like you, I would just be voting in Alabama on party affiliation, because that's much easier than thinking about actual issues...
Actually when reading my post you see that this is a reason I am not imposing my "how you should vote" on the voters of Alabama...which is why I have not bothered to learn much about either candidate...that is Alabama's business. For such a simple post you seem to have gotten terribly confused....no wonder you vote Democrat.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
MeDotOrg wrote:At a rally in Florence, Alabama in September, an African American asked Roy Moore when he thought the United States was great.
I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another…. Our families were strong, our country had a direction
Slave wedding vows were changed to read ''Till death or distance do we part". Slaves families were frequently separtated. Women and daughters separated from their husbands, often being raped by the slave master of their new home.
This ignorant Puke, from a slave state, does not know the first goddamn thing about the history of slavery if he thinks it was a good time for African American families. How the hell can someone that ignorant, a United States Candidate for Senate, say that in the 21st Century?
As to how out country could be considered great at a time when 1 out of 7 Americans was owned by another American, ask Roy Moore. I want to see how much of his foot can fit inside his mouth.
It was a good time for white immoralists. That's all he cares about.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Back to the OP. [I see that Gray Ghost has had the same idea].
Yup, what follows is true. A person who praises the 'strong' families of a time and place in American history when most well-off white families owned slaves and depended on them for services and income, with the said slaves having no right to stable family life at all, is either an idiot or a horrible person.
Nostalgia for an imagined past is no excuse, especially when the person in question is running for an important elected office. Someone who votes for such a person may reasonably be thought of as sharing a degree of responsibility for the stupidity or horribleness of their chosen candidate, especially since it has been well publicised.
MeDotOrg wrote:At a rally in Florence, Alabama in September, an African American asked Roy Moore when he thought the United States was great.
I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another…. Our families were strong, our country had a direction
Slave wedding vows were changed to read ''Till death or distance do we part". Slaves families were frequently separtated. Women and daughters separated from their husbands, often being raped by the slave master of their new home.
This ignorant Puke, from a slave state, does not know the first goddamn thing about the history of slavery if he thinks it was a good time for African American families. How the hell can someone that ignorant, a United States Candidate for Senate, say that in the 21st Century?
As to how out country could be considered great at a time when 1 out of 7 Americans was owned by another American, ask Roy Moore. I want to see how much of his foot can fit inside his mouth.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
subgenius wrote:. . . selecting a candidate based upon where he may have wanted to put his pens 40+ years ago is just being a smart voter, right?
??? Can you think of a single voter in the history of this country who has selected a candidate based on where he puts his pens?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
They include number 13: Abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
number 15: Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.
number 19: Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex.
Now why would any decent person want to get rid of those?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
3 polls with a decent reputation released recently show Moore +9, Tie, and Jones+10 respectively. They have wildly divergent methodology, each with its own pitfalls. The pro Jones poll probably more accurately captures cell-only voters that make up half the electorate. The robocalls on the other hand might better capture people ashamed about voting Moore.
If I were gambling, I just wouldn't bet on this race.
EAllusion wrote:3 polls with a decent reputation released recently show Moore +9, Tie, and Jones+10 respectively. They have wildly divergent methodology, each with its own pitfalls. The pro Jones poll probably more accurately captures cell-only voters that make up half the electorate. The robocalls on the other hand might better capture people ashamed about voting Moore.
If I were gambling, I just wouldn't bet on this race.
The Fox poll has Jones up by 10, which I have a hard time believing. I bet there are a lot of people that are reticent about telling pollsters they're for Moore.
I I had to guess, I would say Moore will win, but this is a very difficult race to prognosticate. Alabama's on East Coast Time, so we should probably be getting results early tomorrow night...
Joe Arpaio is considering for Jeff Flake's Senate seat. If Moore wins, I think you might see him put his hat in the ring.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
EAllusion wrote:3 polls with a decent reputation released recently show Moore +9, Tie, and Jones+10 respectively. They have wildly divergent methodology, each with its own pitfalls. The pro Jones poll probably more accurately captures cell-only voters that make up half the electorate. The robocalls on the other hand might better capture people ashamed about voting Moore.
If I were gambling, I just wouldn't bet on this race.
The Fox poll has Jones up by 10, which I have a hard time believing. I bet there are a lot of people that are reticent about telling pollsters they're for Moore.
I I had to guess, I would say Moore will win, but this is a very difficult race to prognosticate. Alabama's on East Coast Time, so we should probably be getting results early tomorrow night...
Joe Arpaio is considering for Jeff Flake's Senate seat. If Moore wins, I think you might see him put his hat in the ring.
The numbers are all over the place because of different methods trying to capture an electorate that is poorly understood since races are never competitive in the state. My instinct tells me Moore is a modest favorite, but an honest prediction is that we have no idea how it is going to shake out. Everything from a strong Moore victory to a strong Jones victory wouldn't surprise me at all.
The Fox Poll is a live interview method. So you might be getting shy Moore voters who either won't respond to the poll, distorting the sample, or won't tell the pollster their real intentions. On the other hand, Fox's pollsters call cellphones which landline robocalls miss. A huge % of voters, disproportionately Jones voters, only have cellphones. In the Fox poll, that group was Jones +30. To figure out cell phone voter intentions, landline polls use models to predict the electorate in an election that models might whiff on.
SurveyMonkey released 10 versions of the same online poll with different electorate assumptions showing everything from Moore +10 to Jones +9.
