The Cost of Virtue

[Frelga]

I don't see how any of that stuff changes the basic fact that if it was up to the white voters, Moore would have won by a landslide.

That's true and maybe interesting, but it's just one of a bunch of different stories you could tell based on different breakdowns. e.g. Moore would have won by a landslide if it were up to voters who describe themselves as "very conservative" (I assume), therefore it's the moderate and liberal Republicans who are to thank. Is this story more true or meaningful than the other?

I don't know how true it is. Someone pointed out that the Black voters in Alabama are church goers and as much value voters as the White Christians (they were specifically talking about Black women, but I assume that applies to men as well). They didn't go for Jones because they necessarily wanted to elect a Democrat, they went against Moore.

It would be interesting to see how the Black voters describe themselves in terms of party preference or general progressiveness.

[Dave_LF]

It really make me see red to be lectured on morality by a man who rapes teenagers. That is all.

[River]

I think the only people who can take it are the people who don't believe the accusers.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

In response to a question from one of the only African Americans in the audience — who asked when Moore thought America was last “great” -- Moore acknowledged the nation’s history of racial divisions, but said: “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.”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... y,amp.html

That's the reason I never name an era I think is good or had virtue. Ever era had some things good and some things bad, except for the Woodrow Wilson administration in which nothing was good. The problem is, if I (or anyone) were to say "this era had some good traits that are worthy of remembering or even emulating, in spite of it having bad traits elsewhere" critics, stupid fools, will say "A-ha, you are praising the bad traits of that era" even though I am explicitly not praising the bad traits.

Moore was foolish enough to fall for that simple trap. He deserves what he got as a result even though he was not praising slavery in any way.

[Frelga]

Roy Moore in 2011: Getting rid of amendments after 10th would 'eliminate many problems'

Alabama Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore appeared on a conspiracy-driven radio show twice in 2011, where he told the hosts in an interview that getting rid of constitutional amendments after the Tenth Amendment would 'eliminate many problems' in the way the US government is structured.

Amendment 13 – Slavery Outlawed
Amendment 15 – Voting Rights for All Races
Amendment 19 – Voting Rights for Men and Women
Amendment 24 – Voting Rights Protected from Taxes
Amendment 26 – Voting Rights for All Citizens Eighteen or Older

[Griffon64]

Roy Moore and his ilk happily ignore the 1st Amendment, or really, Article 6, Clause 3 of the actual Constitution. They'd have to tear the whole dang thing down before they can shoehorn their brand of false religion and false patriotism into what is American.

Cenedril_Gildinaur is right - there's no point in time in human history that was "the good old days" for everybody. So, if you are going to say "this era had some good traits that are worthy of remembering or even emulating, in spite of it having bad traits elsewhere" - you better be damn specific about what goes into your "good traits" and "bad traits" buckets or people will rightfully be about what you said. One person's "good traits" may well be another person's "bad traits", we're not all the same. If you make a statement like that, open to interpretation, don't go crying when people interpret it.

Of course, in Roy Moore's case he would have been fine if he had said "What we need in this country today is people who care for each other." Why was slavery even in that sentence, even in his mind? All he ended up doing was sounding to a lot of people like he said: "If I had a magic wand to wave to restore families to my idea of 'united' and the country to my idea of 'direction', but slavery would be a side effect, I would wave that wand. My idea of united families does not include families who might be torn apart by enslaving a race of people and selling them like possessions."

[yovargas]

In response to a question from one of the only African Americans in the audience — who asked when Moore thought America was last “great” -- Moore acknowledged the nation’s history of racial divisions, but said: “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.”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... y,amp.html

That's the reason I never name an era I think is good or had virtue. Ever era had some things good and some things bad, except for the Woodrow Wilson administration in which nothing was good. The problem is, if I (or anyone) were to say "this era had some good traits that are worthy of remembering or even emulating, in spite of it having bad traits elsewhere" critics, stupid fools, will say "A-ha, you are praising the bad traits of that era" even though I am explicitly not praising the bad traits.

Moore was foolish enough to fall for that simple trap. He deserves what he got as a result even though he was not praising slavery in any way.

A thoughtful and nuanced way of looking at our shared histories. Sadly, this is not at all representative of the foolish MAGA sloganeering, or in the ridiculously insensitive words of Moore.

[River]

Frelga, you missed Amendment 14. That's the one with that guarantees birthright citizenship and has the equal protection clause.

[Frelga]

Right, thank you, River.

IB Times reported the price of Senator Corker's virtue.

"Sen. Corker recently flipped to support the tax bill. A provision was snuck in to benefit owners of real estate LLCs. Corker makes up to $7 million a year from them. Trump cashes in big time as well. https://t.co/mrhWdSvprX"

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In a stunning development, the high profile attorney general of New York, Eric Schneiderman, a vocal supporter of the me-too movement and frequent thorn in the side of President Trump, resigned just hours after a report came out that he was physically abusive towards at least four women. From what I have heard, the accusations are both highly credible and extremely disgusting, ranging from slapping and choking the women to threats to use his legal authority against him. I'm glad he resigned (for the record, he strongly disputed the accusations), but this is yet another example of just how widespread this problem is.

[Inanna]

It’s depressing. And at the same time, I’m
Not surprised. Which is also depressing.

He did admit to “role-playing and other consensual sexual activity”, denied the harsher charges.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Trump reportedly tweeted back in 2013 that Schneiderman would prove to be "worse than Spitzer or Weiner." That's kinda scary, actually.

[Frelga]

There was a 1999 article quoting Trump as saying he knows what all the important people were up to in his hotel, with the implication that he can blackmail all of them. Maybe that explains some things.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

So Trump did know.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... rman-women

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The more I think about this (and after reading the letter that the lawyer, Mr. Gleason, filed in the Cohen search warrant case), the more bizarre it seems, and the more angry about it I get. Why did this lawyer think it was a good idea to pass this information on to Mr. Trump, who at the very least already had the reputation of being himself abusive to women? Of course, all that Trump did was immediately send out that cryptic tweet about Schneiderman. At best, Mr. Gleason led these women badly astray. At worse, he abused their trust.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Gleason has straight out said in an interview that the reason the concerns were brought to Trump was because Schneiderman was suing Trump over the Trump University fraud. So Gleason basically was using these women as pawns and treating their confidential communications as bargaining chips. He should be immediately disbarred.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Inanna]

And Gleason was the women’s lawyer?

ETA: yes, I see that he was. This is just disgusting and pathetic.

And a typical example of bloody old boy network.

[yovargas]

(What ever did happen to the Trump University lawsuit?)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It was settled for $25 million soon after Trump took office.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Gleason's actions are particularly despicable because he dissuaded the women from reporting Schneiderman to the authorities by convincing them that nothing would be done. He is apparently part of the 'deep state' conspiracy crowd (which perhaps also explains why he went to Trump). Now maybe it is true that their would have been reluctance to go after Schneiderman, but I think it more likely that the right officers/prosecutors would have been outraged. Not only would these two women who apparently turned to Gleason for help potentially gotten justice, perhaps other women who were (at least allegedly) victimized by Schneiderman might not have been.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk