re: The "Morality" of not voting for Moore. The turth of the results

This election is not on the women, it falls again to the independents deciding who wins. Those of us that don’t prescribe to party, and aren’t 1 issue voters. There’s a small subset of the voting bloc that uses common sense and logic to make decisions, and our votes make the difference.

For all of Moore’s faults his perception as a pedophile did him in. As a father of a daughter I could never have pulled the lever for him. Shane on anyone who could or did.

quote:

---

The Glenn Beck and Mike Lee types. If it was left to them we would have Hillary and another communist on the Supreme Court, but they would have their principles. Self righteous idiots that don't realize they would have their principles, but lose their country.

---

I guess it's a good thing that the founding fathers had the foresight to create a government with separation and balance of powers then. No one party can get too powerful or have too much influence for too long. It's why that even though republicans control both houses of congress and the presidency, they haven't been able to push through any real meaningful legislation and Trump is becoming the "Presidential Order" president. It's also why I don't get too upset when the "other side" wins. Checks and balances exist on our government and they work very well.

The honest truth is most people in the country are moderates that plant their flag on one or two issues. There are some things I'm conservative about (a strong 2nd amendment) and some things I'm liberal about (a strong first amendment). I'll vote for the candidate(s) that I think are most likely to uphold those tenets of the Constitution, regardless of Party (and I voted a mixed ticket in the last presidential election).

I'm all for people voting their moral conscience. The "problem" is everyone has their own moral compass. And who's to say theirs is right and someone else's is wrong? In this day and age, I'm in the minority with that view. These days everyone wants to "be right" and/or push their views on others. It's one of the reason's I'm not on social media FB/Twitter/etc (other than a few forums like this). I just think the country works better when we have a plethora of views, social, political, economic, etc.

This election (and the 2016 presidential campaign) should be a "wake up call" to BOTH parties to run better candidates. To me it seems that both parties would rather "Win" than be "right". And by right I mean sticking to their core values. Politics these days is more about maintaining control, and keeping the $$$$$ rolling in that actually doing anything to move the country forward. It seems like the two major parties will run any candidate they think will/can win regardless of their "flaws".

What I thought was an excellent example of this was last years presidential election. We asked our then 5 y/o son who we should vote for. Obviously, this was the first presidential election he was old enough to remember. Now, I'll preface his response to say we were sending him to a Catholic kindergarten at the time (even though were protestant) because 1) it was all day and 2) we like the fact that he got some basic religion taught every day in school (including going to mass once a week). His reply was, "I don't like Trump." When we inquired as to why he said, "He says bad words." Truth from the mouth of babes. Even a 5 y/o knows that there is a certain amount of social decorum that is acceptable in our society. The point is, regardless of his politics, Trump was not the strongest candidate the republicans could of run. I know there are tons of folks that love him, but even his biggest supports must agree, his style is not very "presidential". Honestly, it's my biggest criticism of him.

If you look at the 2016 presidential returns for my state, you'll see that borne out. In one of the reddest states in the country, Trump got less than 50% of the vote. He still won the state, but there were many here, mainly Mormon republicans, that simply could not swallow Trumps crude and crass style and voted for a 3rd party alternative (McMullin). The politics of choice aside, I must commend those voters for doing what ultimately ever voter should do, and that's voting with their moral compass and not with their party simply because they want to win.

The Republican party's obsession with abortion is destroying the party.

If someone comes out pro-life then you idiots will elect them no matter how big-government, anti-liberty they are.

Moore isn't a clown in your world?

Do you expect people to respect your opinion after typing that statement?

And I'll add one thing that I left out.

We need term limits for congress. That would solve a lot (ok some) of this mess. Congress men and women will do/say anything to STAY elected. If they knew they only had a certain amount of time in office, they just MIGHT do the right thing for the country and step over the party line every now and again. Vote their moral conscience to stay on the theme of the thread so to speak...

There's a shining example of this from my adopted state. In 1976, during his first Senate campaign, Sen Orin Hatch taunted then-incumbent Sen. Frank E. Moss, D-Utah with, “What do you call a Senator who’s served in office for 18 years? You call him home.” Now, 40 years later, he's starting his 8th campaign. You've done a great service Sen Hatch, but you've done your duty and it's time to come home.

We also think we need some type of campaign finance reform, but I'm torn on this one. As I alluded to before, I would not want to infringe on anybody's freedom of expression. And that includes political speech. On the flip side, money can buy access to media which makes some voices louder than others.

Who would have thought that a majority of voters didn't want to return to the stone age?

quote:

---

There it is. Plain spoken. And the reason why Fascists like Obama/Hillary are able to gain power.

---

How about we use your logic except we apply it to MY candidate!


The reason Ron Bishop lost is because people like you vote for "change" when the reality is just more of the same. Ron Bishop would have sided with tax cuts, conservative court nominees, and the minimization of the role of federal gov't.

quote:

---

Not to really disagree, but what about cases of Rape? Obviously no choice was involved there.

---

If we can agree on all the other cases beside rape then we can talk about those two cases.
But your side of the argument uses those cases to justify all the others.

But let us examine Abortion numbers versus rape cases and see what they really look like.

There were around 84k rapes reported in the US last year.
There are 1.25million abortions per year in the US.

Even if every rape resulted in a pregnancy the rate of abortion because of rape would be less than 1 in 15.
Given a woman's cycle, she can only become pregnant 5 to 6 days a month. So therefore the chance of pregnancy from rape is now 1 in 75

Given that the day after pill(Plan B) is now available and taken within 24 hours reduces the chance of pregnancy by 95%. Taken within a 3 days it is 89%.

So worst case scenario a woman would get pregnant from rape and need an abortion to end that pregnancy(provided she doesn't mind compounding evil with more evil) would be 1 in 750 rape cases.
Of course all of those numbers are artificially high since over 20% of women in child bearing years are currently on birth control.
Also rape does not only occur against women in child bearing years.

The real figures of pregnancy from rape are easily in the range of 1 in 5000

But even taking the worst case scenarios abortion from rape only could lower the number of innocent death significantly.

1.25 million abortions per year would be decreased to less than 100.

People like myself would be happy to fund Plan B pills in the case of rape or incest.

quote:

---

Unproven
30-40 years old accusations
Some have been disproved
No real evidence other than word of mouth.
*did we find a link to being paid to come forward?
Odd timing
Both establishments wanted it to happen

There WAS no moral choice here. This was simply establishment vs the people.

---

The flaw in your argument is that you presume that the only issue with Moore was the accusations that came to light during the election.

He claimed that a Muslim shouldn't be allowed in office - apparently being elected to office be damned.

He backed an organization that stated that women shouldn't be allowed to run for public office.

He - twice - got booted off of the Alabama Supreme Court for considering himself above the rule of law.


Moore was a shitastic candidate long before the accusations came to light.

Moore was not some lofty, Christian man who got persecuted. He was a consummate politician in the vein of George Wallace who basically spouted out what he thought the people around him wanted to hear. In this case, it was the words "God" and "Jesus" upteen million times. Actually following their examples, however, was irrelevant to him.