Doug Jones Wins Bama

  • Thread starter Thread starter HCTC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In general people don’t spend so much time time thinking about sex with minors and sexual assault of minors to have to have specific definitions of all the different kinds. They aren’t calling Moore a child molester for political reasons, they’re calling him a child molester because he molested a child. Different definitions might be important to clinicians in order to treat victims of child sexual abuse but for the rest of us aren’t going to spend a lot of effort to try to minimize the harmful actions of a serial sexual predator.
 
ChunkMonk said:
o be perfectly honest, I don’t really understand the “dressing up” that people tried here. Isn’t sexual assault of a minor bad enough? D
Click to expand...
I don’t think people are trying to dress anything up. When it comes to sexual behaviour some people primarily dichotomize age related issues instead of mentally organizing it as three or more categories. If one person is older (outside of the age group) and the other person is under the age of consent then its seen as a moral violation and an assault on someone that was underage. In everyday language (which is less technical than legal language) this gets labeled as “child molestation.” A common understanding is that the younger person in such a case is not at the age of consent. I don’t think that anything about whether or not the younger person has gone through puberty is assumed. Also people that have not yet reached the age at which they are considered a legal adult are often referred to as a “child.”

Not that I suggest you go around asking about this (as it might cause people to raise questions about you) but if you could ask a large number of people a question on how they would label sexual touching of a person below the age of consent I don’t think they are going to spend a lot of time qualifying the age of the victim to choose the correct technical term for it.
 
ChunkMonk said:
See this guy gets it. Only his problem is that he’s looking at it from only one perspective. Sure, bad men can also provide radical change, but radical change in and of itself is not bad. Anyway, this election is evidence, to me at least, that we’re not “better than that” at all.
Click to expand...
Woman, but anyway… Change, especially in the way of a third party, might be good. However undermining the institutions of this country. Cynical moves like refusing to confirm Judges for 6 years so as to stuff the bench later. Grouping all sources of critical media despite easily demonstrated journalistic standards and calling them fake. Some parts of the “establishment” are critical for the functioning others have been abused; but that doesn’t mean constantly throwing political bombs is good for the country in the long term, especially for a country that is a huge part of the social, military, and financial fabric of the world.
 
Last edited:
I can’t blame the GOP nationally. None of them wanted to be anywhere near Moore. Trump’s initial semi-endorsement pretty much made it impossible for the RNC not to endorse Moore, without looking completely out of step with the President.
 
And in 2016 Shelby won by 64%
Like I said earlier in this post or another, 2020 and 2022 Elections will be interesting in Bama.
 
HarryStotle said:
I suspect the timing of the Weinstein allegations is their crucial feature. The purpose behind them is another thing entirely.

And don’t misread this as my thinking that the timing relates to Moore specifically. That isn’t my point. There is something else, much larger, brewing. The point of manipulating society is that society is the patsy being manipulated.

Stand back from the entirety of what is going on, taking a neutral perspective and just observe. There is a whole lot of motivated investment in the promotion of “correct” ideas and forcing a polarization of anyone with divergent ideas to choose a side. Why would that be?
Click to expand...
It may be, just maybe, that women finally got sick of the status quo when it comes to sexual harassment. We finally reached critical mass. Can you see that that just might be what’s going on?
 
JoshuaIsLord said:
And in 2016 Shelby won by 64%

Like I said earlier in this post or another, 2020 and 2022 Elections will be interesting in Bama.
Click to expand...
If the GOP nominates a semi-qualified, non-reprehensible candidate who is reasonably morally sound, they will take back the seat. It was only their failure to do that this time that gave Jones room to win.
 
niceatheist said:
I can’t blame the GOP nationally. None of them wanted to be anywhere near Moore. Trump’s initial semi-endorsement pretty much made it impossible for the RNC not to endorse Moore, without looking completely out of step with the President.
Click to expand...
But there in lies the problem with the current Republican party and nearly to some degree the Democrats. Trump lobotomized the Republican party and took over the mindless host left over. The rest of the body went along because it had no other choice; even though it tired at times to reject the transplant. Until the Senate and house stand up to things that compromise their supposed values, we are in for a long ride or a Democratic take over.
 
The problem for the GOP is that their base is sticking stubbornly to Trump. Nothing he has said or done thus far has shaken their faith in the man, and so long as that base remains loyal Trump supporters, the Republicans are caught between a rock and a hard place. Trump is going to make it much harder to grab swing voters (which ultimately deliver a party power), but if they abandon or even distance themselves from Trump, they could lose a big enough portion of their base.

Squaring this circle has become a Sisyphean task.
 
PJH_74 said:
Trump lobotomized the Republican party and took over the mindless host left over.
Click to expand...
The DOW hit another record high today, so not everybody agrees with the “total disaster” view of Trump. How many historic highs does that make so far? Isn’t it seventy-something? Do you really think the Wall Streeters are “mindless”?
 
niceatheist said:
The problem for the GOP is that their base is sticking stubbornly to Trump. Nothing he has said or done thus far has shaken their faith in the man, and so long as that base remains loyal Trump supporters, the Republicans are caught between a rock and a hard place. Trump is going to make it much harder to grab swing voters (which ultimately deliver a party power), but if they abandon or even distance themselves from Trump, they could lose a big enough portion of their base.

Squaring this circle has become a Sisyphean task.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t easy in 2016, and it won’t be easy in the future either. But people do pay attention to their taxes and their 401ks. How much additional wealth has the market created since Trump won? Isn’t it about five trillion? People might care more about things like that than whether Trump intended a double entendre with Gillibrand.
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
niceatheist:
The problem for the GOP is that their base is sticking stubbornly to Trump. Nothing he has said or done thus far has shaken their faith in the man, and so long as that base remains loyal Trump supporters, the Republicans are caught between a rock and a hard place. Trump is going to make it much harder to grab swing voters (which ultimately deliver a party power), but if they abandon or even distance themselves from Trump, they could lose a big enough portion of their base.

Squaring this circle has become a Sisyphean task.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t easy in 2016, and it won’t be easy in the future either. But people do pay attention to their taxes and their 401ks. How much additional wealth has the market created since Trump won? Isn’t it about five trillion? People might care more about things like that than whether Trump intended a double entendre with Gillibrand.
Click to expand...
You’re putting a lot of faith in tax reforms that are currently very unpopular.
 
Ridgerunner said:
But people do pay attention to their taxes and their 401ks. How much additional wealth has the market created since Trump won? Isn’t it about five trillion?
Click to expand...
And they should, except this tax bill is well know to favor the rich. Also calling it a job creation bill is absurd, unemployment is at bout 4% and “real” unemployment (anyone above 16 who is a stay at home parent, in school, retired, disabled, under employed, retired, or has stopped looking) is at a near record low of 7.9%. As for the rise n the stock market, Trump is no Buddha statue you can rub for good stock market success; it’s speculation on relaxed regulation and (surprise) not really necessary corporate tax cuts. The stuff about the US having the highest corporate tax is deceiving tax deductions, lack of a VAT tax, and creative accounting accounting well make up for that.
 
You have to be filthy rich to get any benefit from the new tax bill.
 
PJH_74 said:
And they should, except this tax bill is well know to favor the rich. Also calling it a job creation bill is absurd, unemployment is at bout 4% and “real” unemployment (anyone above 16 who is a stay at home parent, in school, retired, disabled, under employed, retired, or has stopped looking) is at a near record low of 7.9%. As for the rise n the stock market, Trump is no Buddha statue you can rub for good stock market success; it’s speculation on relaxed regulation and (surprise) not really necessary corporate tax cuts. The stuff about the US having the highest corporate tax is deceiving tax deductions, lack of a VAT tax, and creative accounting accounting well make up for that.
Click to expand...
Remarkable that it’s “well known” that the bill favors the rich, given that the final version is still in flux. But I knew from the first that Dems would say it favors the rich even if it doubled their taxes. As I understand the various twists and turns it has taken, I’m guessing it will favor some and disfavor some of the “rich”.

And the U-6 “real” unemployment rate does not count any of the people you say it does other than possibly those who have stopped looking for work. If it’s now at 7.9%, that’s about two points lower than it was a year and a half ago.

I would agree that anticipated corporate tax cuts have almost certainly influenced the market, but that’s not all that changed with the change of administration. Certainly, some regulations have been relaxed. But possibly the one thing that changed the most is employer, lender, and investor optimism. I know a lot of business people and most were just plain afraid of the Obama administration. That’s why such enormous amounts of cash were just “sitting on the sideline”. I genuinely believe that the “Trump rally” in employment and investment is more due to Obama not being in office than it is in Trump being in office.
 
Last edited:
It’s quite incredible to see the GOP so inept that they lost an election in a ruby red state. Rest in pieces, Republican Party. Good run, somewhat.
 
anikins said:
It’s time to admit that sexually assaulting a fourteen year old girl is child molestation.
Click to expand...
That’s probably true, legally, in every state and, in my opinion, rightly so.

Democrat Justice Ginsberg, however, would disagree with you. At least in the past she favored 12 as the legal “age of consent”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top