Hmmmm. Well, no. It's not "their" issue. They can vote for who they want. If they send Moore to the US Senate it's going to be the country's issue. I mean, I have no problem calling out stupidity and ignorance, I'm just pointing out that doing so can have a political cost (e.g. the deplorable comment). That's why Moore's opponent isn't insulting the people of Alabama the way Kimmel is.
Oh, for sure, Moore's election would be an issue for the country at large. I meant "it's their issue" in the sense that at some point they can't keep blaming everyone else for their ignorance, and can't keep riding on the "mean coastal liberals are insulting us" as their excuse for their behavior, forever. Their refusal to acknowledge blatant facts when they're staring them right in the face, and being so openly proud of their ignorance, is a big part of the problem, too.
I mean, seriously, your whole comment is...if they don't like what Kimmel says, tough. They have to shut up and take it. Well, actually, no, they don't. Again, they can say fuck you at the ballot box. Then how funny is Kimmel?
No, I'm not saying they have to shut up and take it. I'm just noting that this is what they wanted, a country where people said what they wanted without regard for anyone else's feelings. They can complain about Kimmel and his preaching and whatnot all they want. I'm just pointing out how ludicrous it is for them to complain about that, considering they see nothing wrong with people like Trump or Moore going around insulting people, and cheer them on when they do.
Anyway, none of that is Kimmel's concern. He's not a leader of the resistance. He's not a hero. He's a comedian on TV.
This is true. I appreciate him not staying quiet on these issues and making noise, but yeah, "hero" is a term that shouldn't be tossed around lightly.
Well, there's more to it than just "sticking it to liberals." They're making a choice to send someone who they might find personally reprehensible, but is pro-life (something VERY important to them), pro-Trumps agenda, and will vote for more conservative justices on the court. What are the supposed to do? Send someone to the Senate who is going work contrary to their own political values? Send a reliable pro-choice vote to Congress who is going to vote against Trump's judicial appointees? Really?
Or, they could do a write-in vote instead, or wait for another race where somebody who doesn't have Moore's baggage can run to push their agenda.
There's also the fact that even if the Democratic candidate running is pro-choice, there are some other Democrats out there who are pro-life as well. And there's also plenty of pro-choice Democrats who would be willing to work with pro-lifers and find good compromises to make both sides happy to some degree. So it's not exactly like they'd have no opportunity to get any of what they want going forward if the other guy wins.
There's just no defense for supporting Moore. None. I don't care if a voter agrees 100% with his policies. He's an absolute creep who has zero regard for the law in general, and he has no business being in office.
Let's put it another way. Suppose for a moment that Franken was accused of what Moore is, and he was running for re-election against a Republican with a squeaky clean personal life but politically is aligned with Trump. The Senate is at a razor thin margin and Franken's could be the deciding vote. And that seat could mean control of the Senate in a couple years. The lives of millions of people in terms of tax and social policy could be impacted for generations. This person could be crucial in whether the next SCOTUS justice gets confirmed, something that will redound for decades.
And you're going to...what? Vote for the Republican because he doesn't have personal baggage? Or will you just not vote, which is a defacto vote for the Republican? Is your personal problem with something a guy was accused of doing decades ago more important than the future of the country? Is your own precious sense of morality more important than stopping Trump's agenda?
I probably wouldn't vote for the Republican if they were full on Trump-level/far-right politically aligned, no. In that case, I'd put down a write-in vote instead. I just could not vote for a Democrat who was accused of molesting young girls. I don't care how long ago the accusations were. There's some lines you just do not cross.
Please don't take this personally, I'm not having a go at you, I'm just telling you...that's the choice they're making in Alabama. And make no mistake, that's how they look at it. Sticking it to people like Kimmel is just a nice side-effect. You and I may disagree with their political priorities and values, but why should they send a guy to the Senate from a party they otherwise despise?
Because he's not being accused of child molestation. Simple.
Especially when they've probably concluded that Congress is already full of sexual sleazebags (and who could blame them).
Indeed, they would be right in that assumption. So my question in that case is, why send more and further add to that messy situation?
I think they're slightly more sophisticated as voters then we give them credit for. That's strategic voting. There's going to be a lot of self-righteous talk on social media if Moore wins about about what hypocritical Christians Alabamans are for voting for someone like Moore, but I'll call bullshit on that, when from their POV the alternative is sending someone who will be a consistent pro-choice vote in Congress.
And as I've said before, this is the deal progressives and feminists made with Bill Clinton in the 90's. Whatever issues they might have with his sleazy personal life, they were willing to overlook them because he advanced their agenda. No, I'm not comparing Clinton to Moore...but the principal remains the same. You're sticking with the guy who's going to advance the political agenda you believe in, rather than helping the other side.
And I just think at some point there needs to be a line. We can't keep excusing people's horrid behavior just so we can get our way politically. That's how we wind up with nutjobs like Trump.
The Moore voters can learn to work just fine with a pro-choice candidate who, for all we know, may agree with them, or be willing to work with them on other important issues. The pro-choice candidate could also remind them that there are other valid ways to try and reduce the amount of abortions out there, ways that are far less outlandish than what Moore proposes and which would actually work. This would be a positive opportunity to show that being pro-choice =/= being pro-abortion. If pushing their agenda is what conservative Alabamans truly care about, then there's all sorts of other things they could do going forward that don't involve supporting Moore in this election.
And forget about the "how can they call themselves Christians?" angle,
I'd go even farther and argue that it's awfully hypocritical to claim to care so much about saving and protecting unborn children while simultaneously voting for a guy who's been accused of molesting young girls.
As for Clinton, I was eight in 1992 when he was elected, so thankfully I didn't have to be involved in that difficult choice back then. But I think both Democrats and Republicans need to learn to set lines with this kind of stuff going forward. If my refusal to vote for a Democrat means the Republican wins, sure, that sucks for me and others on the left. But in that case, I will simply then continue to do my part to protest any legislation that Republican passes that I disagree with. Or, if the Republican happens to be a moderate one, maybe I could find a way to work and compromise with them where possible. And I would continue to participate in future elections and continue to support other Democrats where possible, in order to try and help get the balance back in our favor. It may not solve all the problems, no, but at least I'd be trying to do what I could.
I get what you're saying on many levels. Believe you me, I want our country to move back to the left as much as the next Democrat/liberal. I long for the day when we can leave this whole Trump/Moore style mess behind and get back to a less crazy world. But I just do not think my conscience could handle knowing I voted for a Democrat who was accused of child molestation, or rape, or other similar crimes, simply because I wanted more liberal policies.
There's also the fact that if somebody is that abusive to people before entering political office, then they're probably not going to be decent enough human beings to do much to politically benefit my side, let alone the country at large, in general anyway. Somebody that abusive and cruel and disrespectful is in it for themselves and themselves alone, as has been made abundantly clear with Trump.
All that said, of course Moore may still lose, I hope he does.
Agreed.
I will grant the possibility of people being in denial about the accusations, because that does tend to be a common reaction in general when this issue comes up. Even taking the denial or the belief that the molestation claims could be false into account, though, the fact remains that Moore has proven himself to be a complete asshole in the past in other ways, and has refused to cooperate with laws and been flagrantly disrespectful in many ways. Clearly he does not give a damn about listening to others and following the rules of the job he's elected to do. So how can voters think he'll give a shit about them here now?
surreal 
