Mitch McConnell Changes His Mind About Roy Moore Now That His Poll Numbers Look Fine

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

55 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

must have miss heard, i'm one quip away from a permanent vacation.

I will stand in the breach with you sister. I can't imagine you offending anyone. You are far flung almost socialist liberal,  but I give you points for being able to talk about something besides Trump waaaaaaaa .

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

58 minutes ago, bcking said:

So if I understand correctly...

 

Trump originally supported Luther Strange

Roy Moore gets accused by (how many is it now?) like 6 or 7 women of a variety of things (sexual harassment, assault, some with young teens)

Trump now supports Roy Moore

 

So Trump wasn't willing to support Roy Moore originally, but now that he has been accused by multiple women, he feels he is able to support him? I think Trump's morals are a little backwards. Maybe it's because he realizes now that they are kindred spirits.

You nailed it in a bizzare twisted parallel universe kind of exactly what didn't happen kind of way.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

You nailed it in a bizzare twisted parallel universe kind of exactly what didn't happen kind of way.

So Trump didn't endorse Roy Moore after Moore was accused of sexual assault a half dozen times?

 

I could spell it all out chronologically, but I think it's easier to just say "I'm right".

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

7 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I will stand in the breach with you sister. I can't imagine you offending anyone. You are far flung almost socialist liberal,  but I give you points for being able to talk about something besides Trump waaaaaaaa .

you're making me nervous. 

[jg121783 3,915]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

So if I understand correctly...

 

Trump originally supported Luther Strange

Roy Moore gets accused by (how many is it now?) like 6 or 7 women of a variety of things (sexual harassment, assault, some with young teens)

Trump now supports Roy Moore

 

So Trump wasn't willing to support Roy Moore originally, but now that he has been accused by multiple women, he feels he is able to support him? I think Trump's morals are a little backwards. Maybe it's because he realizes now that they are kindred spirits.

Yeah Trump supported Moore only because of the allegations. You nailed it on the head. It couldn't be that his choice lost the primaries and he is simply supporting the nominee for his party. That is too simple and logical of an explanation to make sense for the lefties.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, jg121783 said:

Yeah Trump supported Moore only because of the allegations. You nailed it on the head. It couldn't be that his choice lost the primaries and he is simply supporting the nominee for his party. That is too simple and logical of an explanation to make sense for the lefties.

I didn't say he only supported Moore because of them. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

He supported Moore AFTER the allegations surfaced. He did not support him before.

 

There was a period of at least a month I believe between his choice losing the Primary and the first sexual assault allegations. Trump didn't endorse him during that time period. Why not?

[jg121783 3,915]

Just now, bcking said:

I didn't say he only supported Moore because of them. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

He supported Moore AFTER the allegations surfaced. He did not support him before.

 

There was a period of at least a month I believe between his choice losing the Primary and the first sexual assault allegations. Trump didn't endorse him during that time period. Why not?

That is clearly what you and others were implying.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

 

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

I didn't say he only supported Moore because of them. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

He supported Moore AFTER the allegations surfaced. He did not support him before.

 

There was a period of at least a month I believe between his choice losing the Primary and the first sexual assault allegations. Trump didn't endorse him during that time period. Why not?

He did not realize before that time that Roy might make a good wingman

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

That is clearly what you and others were implying.

This has happened before. You seem to frequently misconstrue what I am implying. Honestly all I can say is that I did not intend to imply that. I am leaving the options open because, to be honest, NONE of us here now Trump's actual priorities or motivations.

 

I can only explain the chronology of events as they exist. Trump, to my knowledge, had not endorsed Roy Moore prior to the allegations. There was a month in between Moore winning the primary and the first allegation surfaced and during that time Trump didn't endorse him (If he did, provide the source. I'm not aware of him doing it but I could be wrong).

 

He only chose to publicly endorse him now, which is AFTER the allegations have all surfaced.

 

Of course the reality is likely that Trump is endorsing him because he fears the Republican majority is in jeopardy, or at least that they are already struggling to get enough of their agenda done that they can't take the risk. Most likely Trump is endorsing him IN SPITE of the allegations, however it does seem morally bankrupt to have never supported him before, and to only support him after the guy gets accused by half a dozen or more women. 

 

If I was on the fence about someone and they got accused by 6+ women of sexual assault, I'm pretty sure I know which side of the fence I would "fall" into...But then again I have a moral compass.

Edited December 5, 2017 by bcking

[TBoneTX 45,294]

A couple of posts have been removed as personal attacks, along with posts quoting.  Palliative administrative action has been applied.

 

Reminder:  Anyone suspecting a troll is to report same, with rationale as to the suspicion.

 

TBoneTX

VJ Moderation

[Dunngary 37]

7 hours ago, bcking said:

This has happened before. You seem to frequently misconstrue what I am implying. Honestly all I can say is that I did not intend to imply that. I am leaving the options open because, to be honest, NONE of us here now Trump's actual priorities or motivations.

 

I can only explain the chronology of events as they exist. Trump, to my knowledge, had not endorsed Roy Moore prior to the allegations. There was a month in between Moore winning the primary and the first allegation surfaced and during that time Trump didn't endorse him (If he did, provide the source. I'm not aware of him doing it but I could be wrong).

 

He only chose to publicly endorse him now, which is AFTER the allegations have all surfaced.

 

Of course the reality is likely that Trump is endorsing him because he fears the Republican majority is in jeopardy, or at least that they are already struggling to get enough of their agenda done that they can't take the risk. Most likely Trump is endorsing him IN SPITE of the allegations, however it does seem morally bankrupt to have never supported him before, and to only support him after the guy gets accused by half a dozen or more women. 

 

If I was on the fence about someone and they got accused by 6+ women of sexual assault, I'm pretty sure I know which side of the fence I would "fall" into...But then again I have a moral compass.

Our politicians starting with Trump are missing a moral compass. They fool the believers and blind them with division and partisanship.

[Dashinka 24,505]

9 hours ago, Dunngary said:

Our politicians starting with Trump are missing a moral compass. They fool the believers and blind them with division and partisanship.

Name me a politician that really has a moral compass?  For that matter, you might be able to say the same thing about Washington media types and the glitterati in Hollywood.

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Name me a politician that really has a moral compass?  For that matter, you might be able to say the same thing about Washington media types and the glitterati in Hollywood.

This is why I don't particularly like the concept of a "moral compass".

 

Almost everyone has a moral compass. By that I mean - deep down everything has some concept of right and wrong. We may disagree on some things but we all have something that points in two ways (good/bad).

 

The only people who don't have any system like that would be people with antisocial PD (sociopaths). Now you could argue some have a compass but it isn't calibrated appropriately and doesn't actually point to good/bad (possibly those with narcissistic PD, where their compass is more about good for them/bad for them).

 

That is why I like the phrase "morally bankrupt" more. It is more an issue of how you use your morals and less about whether you have them at all. Basically - you have a compass, but do you look at it?

 

You're right in that most politicians are fairly bankrupt. Some more than others, and some display it more publicly than others.

 

Just because it is a high expectation doesn't mean we shouldn't set it. I'm sure people on both sides are capable of the same things, and I'll judge them each as the situations present themselves. The situation currently involves people willing to support a man who has had multiple well supported allegations. Some of those people even said previously they believe the women (McConnell), and yet are still supporting him. Others specifically didn't  support him before, campaigned against him, but then in the wake of these allegations have actually changed their mind and support him. Those are great examples of moral bankruptcy. I'm sure we'll get more in the future from both political parties.

[Dashinka 24,505]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

This is why I don't particularly like the concept of a "moral compass".

 

Almost everyone has a moral compass. By that I mean - deep down everything has some concept of right and wrong. We may disagree on some things but we all have something that points in two ways (good/bad).

 

The only people who don't have any system like that would be people with antisocial PD (sociopaths). Now you could argue some have a compass but it isn't calibrated appropriately and doesn't actually point to good/bad (possibly those with narcissistic PD, where their compass is more about good for them/bad for them).

 

That is why I like the phrase "morally bankrupt" more. It is more an issue of how you use your morals and less about whether you have them at all. Basically - you have a compass, but do you look at it?

 

You're right in that most politicians are fairly bankrupt. Some more than others, and some display it more publicly than others.

 

Just because it is a high expectation doesn't mean we shouldn't set it. I'm sure people on both sides are capable of the same things, and I'll judge them each as the situations present themselves. The situation currently involves people willing to support a man who has had multiple well supported allegations. Some of those people even said previously they believe the women (McConnell), and yet are still supporting him. Others specifically didn't  support him before, campaigned against him, but then in the wake of these allegations have actually changed their mind and support him. Those are great examples of moral bankruptcy. I'm sure we'll get more in the future from both political parties.

You are correct.  We really shouldn't be using the term "moral compass" since it is more of a comparative term relative to the observers own views on right and wrong. 

 

As specifically to the Roy Moore item, the thing that would trouble me if I were an Alabama voter is that if he is a pedophile, where are the recent allegations?  Almost 100% of true pedophiles are incapable of being rehabilitated and continue to prey on the young (boys and girls), but instead all the Moore allegations to my knowledge are 30-40 years old.  Many people often joke about the type of male female relationships that occurs in places like Alabama, Arkansas, West Virginia, etc., so could this be an instance where there was a general acceptance of these types of relationships in Alabama 30-40 years ago?  Otherwise, Roy Moore is one of the rare examples of a rehabilitated pedophile.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

note for all - calling another member a troll can get you suspended...........