PLEASE READ!!!

***** ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions. If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. *****

Author Topic: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)  (Read 15957 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2567
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #240 on: December 05, 2017, 12:11:41 PM »
^^ There is no pro life position in the abortion movement.  Illegal abortions will not stop abortions.  It's not a hard concept/.

As a pragmatic conservative, I often find it laughable that one would suggest reducing abortions will be affected without an increase in contraceptives.

The conservative view seems to be make abortion illegal.  Don't teach sex ed in school.  Although, the democratic philosophy is the one that has reduced abortions.  Kinda weird for absolutists huh?

Waco, TX experimented with abstinence-based sex ed from 2005 - 2014, they led the country in teenage pregnancies per capita for 3 of those 10 years.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #241 on: December 05, 2017, 12:13:44 PM »
^ tell me again who hold pro-life views.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #242 on: December 05, 2017, 12:15:14 PM »
life comes at you fast:


Offline 327

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6906
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #243 on: December 05, 2017, 12:16:21 PM »
First, it is perfectly consistent to say that the government has the obligation to keep you from being killed but not the obligation to provide for your material well-being

We're talking about children though.  How in the Dickens are they supposed to pull their own weight?

They aren't.  And as I said, many conservative Christians are OK with various welfare programs for family support.  Those that aren't, though, take the view that that responsibility falls on the family.

As a general rule, the social conservative vision of America depends on strong families reinforced by strong institutions committed both legally and morally to keeping families strong and intact.  Most social conservative thought leaders are highly aware of the threat to the viability of their vision posed by widespread family breakdown.  This is getting a bit far afield from the discussion of Moore specifically, though.

It's been suggested that Moore's economic positions are what's causing the breakdown of families. That's why people who oppose Moore find his abortion stance to be, at best, poorly thought through-- even those who agree with that particular stance.

^ tell me again who hold pro-life views.

It doesn't break down cleanly by party or by gender, that's what makes it such a tough issue.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 12:21:17 PM by 327 »

Online surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7162
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #244 on: December 05, 2017, 12:17:54 PM »
^ But Doug Jones is not aborting anyone and Roy Moore raped children.  Your attempt to compare the two is way off.

I wasn't comparing the two individuals in that post.  I was comparing the evils of child molestation and legal abortion.  I have already done my comparing of the two men above.  Doug Jones would be an abortion rights absolutist.  Therefore, while Roy Moore does not deserve to be one of the 100 most powerful legislators on the planet, in the eyes of a great many Alabamans, neither does Doug Jones.  Yet somehow the electoral process managed to put this choice to the voters of Alabama.

Are you sure of that? From what I read it sounds like he supports late-term restrictions.

Offline mu2010

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #245 on: December 05, 2017, 12:25:00 PM »
Abstinence-only sex education and opposition to contraceptives is the big problem for me with the pro-life religious right. I believe that there are a lot of people who are sincere in their opposition to abortion because they believe it is murder. I personally have a hard time with abortion myself and I would not want to partake in one, though I would defer to the woman ultimately. I don't agree with the view that abortion should be like visiting your doc with a sinus infection.

But there are a whole other heap of people in the movement who are prudes, reacting to the sexual revolution. They don't think you should be able to have sex without the 'consequences' and they see abortion and contraceptives as a way to avoid the consequence. These people see the child as a deserved punishment on the parents. That is the only way to interpret the advocacy for abstinence only sex education (which I was forced to sit through at a public high school in Cuyahoga County in the early 2000s) and opposition to contraceptives.

Just a bunch of people with sexual hangups trying to project them on the world. Why do you think there are so many sex scandals among hard right pastors?

Then you also have the harm reduction worldview vs the conservative strict hierarchical worldview. If legalizing a drug could decrease the harm of that drug, should we legalize it? Or hypothetically, if legalizing murder could decrease innocent deaths, should we legalize murder? I would say yes. It's the same with abortion. Safe legal rare.

Conservatives (especially populist Trumpians) love rules and strict punishments and living under hierarchical orders, so they say no, it's more important to have the rule than to consider the actual effect of the rule, because of the "message" you send if you legalize.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 12:32:03 PM by mu2010 »

Online surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7162
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #246 on: December 05, 2017, 12:38:23 PM »
Abstinence-only sex education and opposition to contraceptives is the big problem for me with the pro-life religious right. I believe that there are a lot of people who are sincere in their opposition to abortion because they believe it is murder. I personally have a hard time with abortion myself and I would not want to partake in one, though I would defer to the woman ultimately. I don't agree with the view that abortion should be like visiting your doc with a sinus infection.

But there are a whole other heap of people in the movement who are prudes, reacting to the sexual revolution. They don't think you should be able to have sex without the 'consequences' and they see abortion and contraceptives as a way to avoid the consequence. These people see the child as a deserved punishment on the parents. That is the only way to interpret the advocacy for abstinence only sex education (which I was forced to sit through at a public high school in Cuyahoga County in the early 2000s) and opposition to contraceptives.

I'm very much in agreement. There's a lot of deserved criticism, certainly. The problem I have is that however easy it is to label someone a hypocrite, it shouldn't automatically disparage the cause they're supporting. I'd like to believe that most people in the middle of the big issues aren't that way.

Like, I work with a lot of enviro-types, and consider myself one too. I'm sometimes dealing with some fringe people who believe a tree is a spirit goddess and that certain birds are angels. I may think that's laughable, but that doesn't mean we don't have a lot of overlapping interest on the issues. Or that they're bad people.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5830
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #247 on: December 05, 2017, 12:53:51 PM »
First, it is perfectly consistent to say that the government has the obligation to keep you from being killed but not the obligation to provide for your material well-being

We're talking about children though.  How in the Dickens are they supposed to pull their own weight?

They aren't.  And as I said, many conservative Christians are OK with various welfare programs for family support.  Those that aren't, though, take the view that that responsibility falls on the family.

As a general rule, the social conservative vision of America depends on strong families reinforced by strong institutions committed both legally and morally to keeping families strong and intact.  Most social conservative thought leaders are highly aware of the threat to the viability of their vision posed by widespread family breakdown.  This is getting a bit far afield from the discussion of Moore specifically, though.

It's been suggested that Moore's economic positions are what's causing the breakdown of families. That's why people who oppose Moore find his abortion stance to be, at best, poorly thought through-- even those who agree with that particular stance.

The opposite has also been suggested, too: that it is more than coincidental that the skyrocketing rates of out-of-wedlock births flows from the War on Poverty in the 1960s that allowed marriage to become a softer institution concerned with romance and self-actualization rather than a more hard-nosed institution of mutual support and interdependence, which then both led to and was amplified by the liberalization of divorce laws in the 1970s to the point of almost universal no-fault divorce.

Like I said, though, this is getting a long way afield from the Moore discussion, even though those competing narratives or historical frames of reference are definitely relevant to the background of the Christian right that seems likely at this point (though still not guaranteed) to send Moore to D.C.

ETA:

Abstinence-only sex education and opposition to contraceptives is the big problem for me with the pro-life religious right. I believe that there are a lot of people who are sincere in their opposition to abortion because they believe it is murder. I personally have a hard time with abortion myself and I would not want to partake in one, though I would defer to the woman ultimately. I don't agree with the view that abortion should be like visiting your doc with a sinus infection.

But there are a whole other heap of people in the movement who are prudes, reacting to the sexual revolution. They don't think you should be able to have sex without the 'consequences' and they see abortion and contraceptives as a way to avoid the consequence. These people see the child as a deserved punishment on the parents. That is the only way to interpret the advocacy for abstinence only sex education (which I was forced to sit through at a public high school in Cuyahoga County in the early 2000s) and opposition to contraceptives.

Just a bunch of people with sexual hangups trying to project them on the world. Why do you think there are so many sex scandals among hard right pastors?

Then you also have the harm reduction worldview vs the conservative strict hierarchical worldview. If legalizing a drug could decrease the harm of that drug, should we legalize it? Or hypothetically, if legalizing murder could decrease innocent deaths, should we legalize murder? I would say yes. It's the same with abortion. Safe legal rare.

Conservatives (especially populist Trumpians) love rules and strict punishments and living under hierarchical orders, so they say no, it's more important to have the rule than to consider the actual effect of the rule, because of the "message" you send if you legalize.

I actually do agree with the Trumpian concern about the normalizing effects of law.  They're not wrong about this, or at least certainly not completely wrong.  There is strong evidence for it.  Liberalizing divorce laws didn't just make people more likely to divorce because they were chomping at the bit to get out of their marriages; it also altered what social psychologists sometimes refer to as the "permission structure" around divorce, basically severely diluting the stigma of being divorced and other social pressures that aren't directly enforced by the courts but nevertheless are influenced by changes in the law.

On the issue of contraceptives, I have no idea where Moore stands.  That said, there is no serious movement in Washington for outright bans on non-abortifacient contraceptives anymore.  Even if Moore is against them personally, he will not be a decisive vote on that.  Not even close.  One should not confuse support for repealing the contraceptive mandate with actual support for banning them.  The contraceptive mandate was nearly the maximalist position: every employer, regardless of private faith-based objections, compelled by law to provide them or pay for insurance that would provide them with zero copayment (regardless of any copays for other services), placing contraceptives in a uniquely exalted position in the hierarchy of medical services.

Even as a fairly conservative Catholic, I agree that there is very little reason for the secular law to ban contraceptive use, both because of its use in preventing unwanted pregnancies and, regardless of use, simply because unfertilized zygotes are not humans and the law's legitimate sphere of protecting human life cannot logically extend to them.  Such a principle would make the average teenage girl guilty of one involuntary manslaughter a month and the average teenage boy guilty of at least one mass murder a day.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 01:06:17 PM by Gramarye »

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2464
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #248 on: December 05, 2017, 01:48:20 PM »
This probably deserves to be put in the Abortion thread, but we've gone a bit off-topic here (though still slightly on-topic I suppose).

I have two main issues with the "pro-life" right.  1 - They seemingly don't care about babies after they're born (unless they're white, preferably to an upper class family).  They are anti-BLM, a movement centered around improving relations with police to prevent unnecessary deaths of black people.  The current GOP (in Congress) is apparently anti-CHIP.  I suspect there's a lot of crossover of people who are "pro life" but also anti-food stamps, anti-welfare spending, etc. etc.  In short - they seem to care about all fetuses being born but don't give a crap about the quality of life for all people in this country.  It's kind of a "pick and choose" who to care about and when.

2 - The pro-life movement focuses almost exclusively on the result - no abortions ever.  Ok, fine.  I think in a utopian world, there would be no need for abortions.  But is the pro-life movement exerting any time or resources on better sex ed?  I'm talking about the people who don't get a proper sex education in school, don't know what condoms are or how they work, don't know they can get access to birth control, don't really know much of anything.  There are plenty of people out there like this.  So wouldn't it be better to boost sex ed to help ensure there aren't unwanted pregnancies to begin with?  Don't worry so much about the result - go to the cause.

Quote
A December report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that less than half of U.S. high schools and only one-fifth of middle schools are meeting the CDC's recommendations for educating kids about sex.

http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-sex-education-cdc-report.html

I'd respect the pro-life movement more if they were focused on bridging that gap - helping adolescents (even uneducated adults) learn about their options to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.  Maybe they do already, I don't know.  What I mostly see are posting billboards and marching on Washington.  They'd be much more effective teaching in the classroom and communities - but of course, this would also have to be adopting the viewpoint that condoms and birth control can prevent pregnancies which I'm not sure is likely to happen.

Offline eastvillagedon

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5116
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #249 on: December 05, 2017, 02:02:56 PM »
hey, I've got a good idea. Instead of indoctrinating kids with sex "education" and with every new-fangled form of social engineering that comes down the pike, why not actually teach them stuff that schools have traditionally done--you know, readin', writin', etc. What a novelty! And we wonder why our public schools are in the toilet compared to the rest of the world ::)

U.S. schoolchildren tumble in international reading exam rankings, worrying educators

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/12/05/u-s-schoolchildren-tumble-in-international-reading-exam-rankings-worrying-educators/?utm_term=.866ba31f4d00

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9057
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #250 on: December 05, 2017, 02:05:07 PM »
This probably deserves to be put in the Abortion thread, but we've gone a bit off-topic here (though still slightly on-topic I suppose).

"  They are anti-BLM, a movement centered around improving relations with police to prevent unnecessary deaths of black people. 

Here’s the thing, that’s not how pretty much anyone to the right of Hillary sees “BLM”.  They aren’t about “improving relations with the police”, they are about making the police dramatically change the way they do things, in a manner that would put themselves and the law abiding public at risk.  While modifying the behavior of civilians not one bit.   Meanwhile, with a very few exceptions (Art McKoy being one), they couldn’t care less about white victims of the police or victims of black-on-black crime.  The latter costs more black lives every week than the police do in a year or more.

Getting more or less back on topic, my problem with abstinence-only education is it inevitably says “wait until marriage”, which teenagers know that extremely few people actually do.  Teenagers are allergic to perceived hypocrisy.   Plus, most to expect to get married until they are much older.  I suspect a “wait until adulthood” approach would work better.  That’s a fixed target, and presumably a time when smarter decisions are going to be made.


Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #251 on: December 05, 2017, 02:08:00 PM »
hey, I've got a good idea. Instead of indoctrinating kids with sex "education" and with every new-fangled form of social engineering that comes down the pike, why not actually teach them stuff that schools have traditionally done--you know, readin', writin', etc. What a novelty! And we wonder why our public schools are in the toilet compared to the rest of the world ::)

U.S. schoolchildren tumble in international reading exam rankings, worrying educators

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/12/05/u-s-schoolchildren-tumble-in-international-reading-exam-rankings-worrying-educators/?utm_term=.866ba31f4d00

One can teach sex education and the basics one does not preclude the other.  Also, education costs money and Mississippi and Alabama have no use in investing in such left wing indoctrination aka learning.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5830
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #252 on: December 05, 2017, 02:22:01 PM »
I would make a guess that if one polled the average education of Roy Moore and Doug Jones voters, they'd be similar.

Equating learning and left wing indoctrination is rather telling, freefourur, though probably not for the reason that you meant it.  In fact, quite likely for precisely the opposite reason.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #253 on: December 05, 2017, 02:23:53 PM »
I took the word indoctrination directly from EVD.  So therefore it is very telling.  I agree.

Offline eastvillagedon

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5116
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #254 on: December 05, 2017, 02:32:33 PM »
propagandizing. That's a better word!  :P

Offline Foraker

  • Rhodes Tower 629'
  • ***
  • Posts: 610
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #255 on: December 05, 2017, 03:01:40 PM »
I actually do agree with the Trumpian concern about the normalizing effects of law.  They're not wrong about this, or at least certainly not completely wrong.  There is strong evidence for it.  Liberalizing divorce laws didn't just make people more likely to divorce because they were chomping at the bit to get out of their marriages; it also altered what social psychologists sometimes refer to as the "permission structure" around divorce, basically severely diluting the stigma of being divorced and other social pressures that aren't directly enforced by the courts but nevertheless are influenced by changes in the law.

Surprisingly, I would also agree that we should be concerned about the normalizing effects of laws. Roy Moore is a big fan of the NRA and pulled a gun from his pocket at a September rally to demonstrate his bona fides.  http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/352410-roy-moore-pulls-out-gun-while-speaking-at-rally

The NRA policy of liberalizing gun laws didn't only make people more likely to carry murder weapons around, and they didn't only do so so that they could kill other people because they were chomping at the bit to commit murder.  Liberalizing gun laws also made it socially acceptable to kill anyone you were afraid of. 

Liberalizing gun laws also means that gun manufacturing is booming, now over 10 million firearms produced a year.  At a time when there are already more guns than people in the US, how much is enough?
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-manufacturing-atf-report-2015-7

Liberalizing gun laws have led to too many gun owners that don't respect the serious nature of guns.  There's no education course required for gun ownership or demonstration of knowledge or experience about how to properly handle, clean, and store a gun -- just a purchase price.  And a background check if you're buying new from a dealer.  So now we have "accidental" gun injuries and deaths, too often of children who "find" an unattended gun. And under the NRA-endorsed gun laws, there are rarely any legal consequences for the gun owner's negligence -- "it was just an accident."  These "accidents" and I-feared-for-my-life killings happen every day -- and we just accept it as something that can't be changed. 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

If cars were guns, the NRA would be pushing to abolish speed limits, lines on the highway, and any and all limitations on car safety.  They'd probably argue that you would be within your rights to run anyone over who looked like a threat.   

Roy Moore wants to support the NRA, and hopefully Alabama decides they don't want to support Roy Moore.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2464
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #256 on: December 05, 2017, 03:14:52 PM »
I would make a guess that if one polled the average education of Roy Moore and Doug Jones voters, they'd be similar.

Equating learning and left wing indoctrination is rather telling, freefourur, though probably not for the reason that you meant it.  In fact, quite likely for precisely the opposite reason.

https://www.npr.org/2016/04/30/475794063/why-are-highly-educated-americans-getting-more-liberal

Quote
A report from the Pew Research Center finds a wide partisan gap between highly educated and non-highly-educated Americans. Not only that, but the share of college grads and post-graduates who are "consistently liberal" (based on their answers to a series of policy questions) has grown sharply in the last 20 years.

Chicken or the egg question sort of.  But the data is out there - the higher the education you get the more likely you are to be liberal.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2464
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #257 on: December 05, 2017, 03:17:36 PM »
Just to recap on Roy Moore:

-alleged child molester
-fairly-widely known "creep" (at best) / pedo
-believes gay people should be locked up simply for being gay
-believes Muslims should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. Congress
-honors the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, even as a public servant
-Co-authored a course as recently as 2011 contending that women should not be allowed to run for public office

What a highlight reel.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #258 on: December 05, 2017, 03:25:26 PM »
Doug Jones says "when you see me with a gun, I'll be climbing in and out of a deer blind . . . not prancing around on a stage in a cowboy suit"

lol

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2464
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #259 on: December 05, 2017, 03:29:36 PM »
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/many-women-never-molested-by-roy-moore-spokesperson-says.html

Quote
“We need to make it clear that there’s a group of non-accusers, that have not accused the judge of any sexual misconduct or anything illegal,” explains one of Moore’s campaign spokespeople on CNN.

Ok?  Like wtf?  Moore's defense here is that, "LOOK AT ALL THESE MILLIONS OF WOMEN HE DIDN'T SEXUALLY ASSAULT."   Good Lord.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5830
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #260 on: December 05, 2017, 03:44:16 PM »
I would make a guess that if one polled the average education of Roy Moore and Doug Jones voters, they'd be similar.

Equating learning and left wing indoctrination is rather telling, freefourur, though probably not for the reason that you meant it.  In fact, quite likely for precisely the opposite reason.

https://www.npr.org/2016/04/30/475794063/why-are-highly-educated-americans-getting-more-liberal

Quote
A report from the Pew Research Center finds a wide partisan gap between highly educated and non-highly-educated Americans. Not only that, but the share of college grads and post-graduates who are "consistently liberal" (based on their answers to a series of policy questions) has grown sharply in the last 20 years.

Chicken or the egg question sort of.  But the data is out there - the higher the education you get the more likely you are to be liberal.

True, but multiple counters in slightly different directions to this:

(1) I didn't say that those with higher levels of education are not more likely to be liberal.  That trend is well-documented at this point.  I was specifically talking about the electorate in Alabama.  The rafts of liberal-leaning Ph.D.'s that drive up that "educated = liberal" stat are unlikely to be a material presence there.  If this were a House district in Silicon Valley or suburban NYC, I wouldn't have said that.

(2) While it's true that further education is correlated with increasing levels of liberalism, not all the reasons for that stat are particularly flattering.  Finding employment in the fields into which liberals tend to gravitate (including, of course, academia itself) is increasingly difficult without a Ph.D. and less and less certain and lucrative even with one.  Meanwhile, the increasingly dogmatic liberal bias of higher academia frequently deters intelligent conservative undergrads from pursuing further education.  The corporate world pays better than a lot of Ph.D.s can expect (especially in the most liberal fields like sociology or all the various ethnic and gender studies fields, but largely across the board in the humanities and social sciences), and is less ideologically hostile.  (Many doctoral students and junior faculty might say that they do it for the love of their field and not the love of money, of course, but I suspect that comes with an asterisk or two.)

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9057
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #261 on: December 06, 2017, 08:47:50 AM »
I actually do agree with the Trumpian concern about the normalizing effects of law.  They're not wrong about this, or at least certainly not completely wrong.  There is strong evidence for it.  Liberalizing divorce laws didn't just make people more likely to divorce because they were chomping at the bit to get out of their marriages; it also altered what social psychologists sometimes refer to as the "permission structure" around divorce, basically severely diluting the stigma of being divorced and other social pressures that aren't directly enforced by the courts but nevertheless are influenced by changes in the law.

Surprisingly, I would also agree that we should be concerned about the normalizing effects of laws. Roy Moore is a big fan of the NRA and pulled a gun from his pocket at a September rally to demonstrate his bona fides.  http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/352410-roy-moore-pulls-out-gun-while-speaking-at-rally

The NRA policy of liberalizing gun laws didn't only make people more likely to carry murder weapons around, and they didn't only do so so that they could kill other people because they were chomping at the bit to commit murder.  Liberalizing gun laws also made it socially acceptable to kill anyone you were afraid of. 

Liberalizing gun laws also means that gun manufacturing is booming, now over 10 million firearms produced a year.  At a time when there are already more guns than people in the US, how much is enough?
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-manufacturing-atf-report-2015-7

Liberalizing gun laws have led to too many gun owners that don't respect the serious nature of guns.  There's no education course required for gun ownership or demonstration of knowledge or experience about how to properly handle, clean, and store a gun -- just a purchase price.  And a background check if you're buying new from a dealer.  So now we have "accidental" gun injuries and deaths, too often of children who "find" an unattended gun. And under the NRA-endorsed gun laws, there are rarely any legal consequences for the gun owner's negligence -- "it was just an accident."  These "accidents" and I-feared-for-my-life killings happen every day -- and we just accept it as something that can't be changed. 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

If cars were guns, the NRA would be pushing to abolish speed limits, lines on the highway, and any and all limitations on car safety.  They'd probably argue that you would be within your rights to run anyone over who looked like a threat.   

Roy Moore wants to support the NRA, and hopefully Alabama decides they don't want to support Roy Moore.


Just so you know, Jones is pro-gun, although somewhat wishy washy on the topic.   His views are close to Kasich's.

Offline bfwissel

  • Key Tower 947'
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #262 on: December 06, 2017, 08:51:04 AM »
"Pro-gun" is a bit of an odd description.  I guess I'm pro-gun in that I own a handgun and feel like responsible Americans should be able to own guns.  However, I also believe there should be licensing, tracking, ownership limits, insurance requirements, bans against convicts as well as the mentally unstable, etc....  Moore is more of a "gun-nut".
"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9057
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #263 on: December 06, 2017, 08:54:39 AM »
I would make a guess that if one polled the average education of Roy Moore and Doug Jones voters, they'd be similar.

Equating learning and left wing indoctrination is rather telling, freefourur, though probably not for the reason that you meant it.  In fact, quite likely for precisely the opposite reason.

https://www.npr.org/2016/04/30/475794063/why-are-highly-educated-americans-getting-more-liberal

Quote
A report from the Pew Research Center finds a wide partisan gap between highly educated and non-highly-educated Americans. Not only that, but the share of college grads and post-graduates who are "consistently liberal" (based on their answers to a series of policy questions) has grown sharply in the last 20 years.

Chicken or the egg question sort of.  But the data is out there - the higher the education you get the more likely you are to be liberal.

True, but multiple counters in slightly different directions to this:

(1) I didn't say that those with higher levels of education are not more likely to be liberal.  That trend is well-documented at this point.  I was specifically talking about the electorate in Alabama.  The rafts of liberal-leaning Ph.D.'s that drive up that "educated = liberal" stat are unlikely to be a material presence there.  If this were a House district in Silicon Valley or suburban NYC, I wouldn't have said that.

(2) While it's true that further education is correlated with increasing levels of liberalism, not all the reasons for that stat are particularly flattering.  Finding employment in the fields into which liberals tend to gravitate (including, of course, academia itself) is increasingly difficult without a Ph.D. and less and less certain and lucrative even with one.  Meanwhile, the increasingly dogmatic liberal bias of higher academia frequently deters intelligent conservative undergrads from pursuing further education.  The corporate world pays better than a lot of Ph.D.s can expect (especially in the most liberal fields like sociology or all the various ethnic and gender studies fields, but largely across the board in the humanities and social sciences), and is less ideologically hostile.  (Many doctoral students and junior faculty might say that they do it for the love of their field and not the love of money, of course, but I suspect that comes with an asterisk or two.)

Also, these types of statistics are misleading because they give equal weight to degrees in Oppression Studies as Computer Engineering.   Let’s be honest, you can literally get a degree in being “progressive” at some universities.

That said, when the right was in the ascendancy among college students during the Reagan era, most actively rejected the idea of entering academia because it was full of tenured dogmatic lefties and beginning to be contaminated with “political correctness”.  So we left it to them.  That may have been a strategic era comparable to theirs regarding Watergate.   It helped bring the above situation about.


Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9057
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #264 on: December 06, 2017, 08:56:48 AM »
"Pro-gun" is a bit of an odd description.  I guess I'm pro-gun in that I own a handgun and feel like responsible Americans should be able to own guns.  However, I also believe there should be licensing, tracking, ownership limits, insurance requirements, bans against convicts as well as the mentally unstable, etc....  Moore is more of a "gun-nut".

He's more of a "nut", period.  Jones describes himself as a "Second Amendment guy".  I'm not sure about his sincerity, but remember I say the same about Trump.

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9057
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #265 on: December 06, 2017, 09:00:03 AM »
^ Thus proving that the GOP cares nothing about their rhetoric about family values, fiscal responsibility, or personal responsibility. But those of us with IQs higher than room temperature knew this already.

Is this the direction the board is going?

This is the direction our national politics is going.  I'll stand by my comment that if you defend a child molester I have to question your brain function.

Leaving aside the fact that your comment was about the GOP in general, that leaps across a line we've more or less held in this forum for years.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5830
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #266 on: December 06, 2017, 09:01:14 AM »
Well, in the spirit of posting potential contrary authority to my own point, one Huffington Post columnist argues that abortion is actually not the main reason Republicans still aren't switching to Doug Jones:

WARNING: IRKSOME AUTOPLAYING VIDEO

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doug-jones-abortion-poll_us_5a25473fe4b03c44072eca22

Granted, this poll was taken before the sexual harassment allegations against Moore came to light, which is a pretty major asterisk.  But at least before that, general tribalism (general dislike of the other) was the main reason most Republicans wouldn't consider switching (about 36% of respondents); only 8% specifically cited abortion as the primary reason.  I do wonder if those numbers would change now, considering that many people who might have cited general likeability before may consider Moore less likeable given the new allegations.

Offline mu2010

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #267 on: December 06, 2017, 09:21:02 AM »
Academia is undoubtedly full of hard leftists especially in social science type fields. However, lots of Republican profs in business and engineering colleges which is probably what a plurality of people get degrees in anyways. I'm also going to go on a limb here and suggest plenty of libertarians in the hard sciences and computer fields.

But then you have the fact that the Republican party has become so incredibly anti-intellectual, they're going to drive away whatever conservative academics existed. There's only so much expert-bashing these people can take when they generally value and respect experts. Case in point, my physicist brother who was always right-leaning through his undergrad studies is now done with the GOP and now is basically a technocrat Democrat.

The right wing meme of marxist academia really only applies to certain fields, that the vast majority of people maybe take one or two electives in at most. Same with the meme of "liberal snowflake college students protesting everything." The students protesting everything are such a small percentage of the college population it's wouldn't even be worth mentioning if they weren't so loud. But it benefits the GOP and Fox News to use the blanket term "college students" as a type of class warfare, because of their white working class viewers who are already predisposed against college educations and young people. It's all part of their goal of vilifying and discrediting every institution of American society in order to consolidate power over their true believers.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 09:30:56 AM by mu2010 »

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #268 on: December 06, 2017, 09:31:45 AM »
Academia is undoubtedly full of leftists especially in social science type fields. However, lots of Republican profs in business and engineering colleges which is probably what a plurality of people get degrees in anyways. I'm also going to go on a limb here and suggest plenty of libertarians in the hard sciences and computer fields.

But then you have the fact that the Republican party has become so incredibly anti-intellectual, they're going to drive away whatever conservative academics existed. There's only so much these people can take. Case in point, my physicist brother who was always right-leaning through his undergrad studies is now done with the GOP and now is basically a technocrat Democrat.

The right wing meme of marxist academia really only applies to certain fields, that the vast majority of people maybe take one or two electives in at most. Same with the meme of "liberal snowflake college students protesting everything." The students protesting everything are such a small percentage of the college population it's wouldn't even be worth mentioning if they weren't so loud. But it benefits the GOP and Fox News to use the blanket term "college students" as a type of class warfare, because of their white working class viewers who are already predisposed against college educations and young people. It's all part of their goal of vilifying and discrediting every institution of American society in order to consolidate power over their true believers.

A lot of good points.  Something else to consider is that people at college age are also trying to find their place in life and are more likely to be involved in protests.  Once people start working and have a family they become politically active in different ways.  The GOP elite has really pushed this anti-education rhetoric which I think is doing a disservice to theory constituency.  The GOP elite mostly have degrees from elite instutitions as well and they send their children to these institutions. 

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2567
Re: U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore (R)
« Reply #269 on: December 06, 2017, 09:32:18 AM »
^ As a Conservative with an advanced degree, it was pretty clear that we became "anti-intellectual" because certain facts hurt our platform. Climate data, et al. have now thrust scientists into politics in a way not seen since the Scopes Monkey Trials or Galileo - both of which situations proved science to be the more reliable.

The same exists from the left in some aspects of finance, but the denial of fact is significantly more egregious from my side of the aisle.