from the It's-Fake-News-until-the-Fat-Man-Sings dept.
Democrat Doug Jones won a remarkable upset victory over controversial rival Roy Moore in the diehard Republican state of Alabama on Tuesday to win election to the US Senate.
By a margin of 49.5 to 48.9 with 91% of precincts reporting, Jones dealt a major blow to Donald Trump and his efforts to pass tax reform on Capitol Hill. Jones was able to become the first Democrat in a decade to win any statewide office in Alabama by beating Moore, who had faced multiple allegations of sexual assault during a campaign which exposed Republican party faultlines.
The Democratic victory will reduce the Republican majority in the Senate to 51-49 once Jones takes his seat on Capitol Hill. This significantly reduces the margin for error as Republicans attempt to push through a major corporate tax cut.
takyon: The final count is:
Doug Jones - 671,151 votes (49.9%)
Roy Moore - 650,436 votes (48.4%)
Write-ins (total) - 22,819 votes (1.7%)
The margin for an automatic recount in Alabama is 0.5%. Roy Moore has yet to concede.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Sulla on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:10PM (24 children)
In an era where the entire media proclaimed a man guilty of being a pedophile and harped on it for weeks the Democrats were only able to pull off a win by ~2%. Hopefully for the Democrats they run someone equally as terrible next election or I doubt the Dems will be able to maintain the seat.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 5, Insightful) by quacking duck on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:20PM (4 children)
Fixed that for you.
It's a disgrace that it was even this close of a race.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:30PM (3 children)
So if Mitch McConnell believes something, it must be true?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:42PM
About one of his homeboys? Yeah I'd believe it.
(Score: 5, Touché) by fyngyrz on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:44PM (1 child)
The man is clearly an expert on turtles. We just have to take him at his turtley word on turtles unless we have consensually experiential, repeatable, falsifiable evidence to the contrary. If Mitch McConnell says it's turtles all the way down, I don't want to hear any blasphemy about elephants, you hear me? It's turtles.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @12:25AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhfuGNDcdaA [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:21PM
A win by 2% in AL is a twenty-plus points win for a D.
Unless the story about Moore being banned from the mall is false, it's not just the media.
The fact that he got removed twice from the AL Supreme Court (hopefully that's a record), for putting his religion ahead of his duties tell me I'd rather have another man in office, R or D...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:22PM (11 children)
Anything can be reframed:
In a state where Democrats lose routinely by wide margins and never hope to win major elections, Republicans managed to gloriously screw things up.
The 7 most inflammatory things Roy Moore has said [politico.com]
Roy Moore's incredible 'even though we had slavery' quote [cnn.com]
As for the "pedophilia" (call it ephebophilia if you prefer):
Roy Moore on whether he dated teenage girls: “Not generally, no” [vox.com]
Genius.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by stretch611 on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:44PM (1 child)
Also...
A state Trump won by nearly 30 percentage points. (The biggest republican stronghold in the country according to one news report I read.)
Had the support of Trump and most republicans despite the accusations.
In a state that allowed marriages to 16 year olds at the time of the accusations. (But not 14, which was the age of one accuser.)
And the biggest issue that Moore's campaign was pointing out was abortion in a deeply religious population.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:42PM
What's more, until yesterday, Alabama hadn't *elected* a Democratic candidate for the Senate [en.wikipedia.orgwiki] (Democrats hold one of six seats in the Alabama delegation to the House) in 27 years.
And a Democratic presidential candidate hasn't won in Alabama in over forty years [wikipedia.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:46PM (7 children)
Moore specifically advocating getting rid of all constitutional amendments after the Bill of Rights. That would include:
- Ending slavery. I get the impression Mr Moore would be fine and dandy with slavery, and might be interested in buying a few pickaninnies for late-night visits to the slave quarters
- Applying the federal Bill of Rights to state law, and giving all people equal protection under the law. Mr Moore is clearly interested in not giving all people equal protection under the law, regardless of his time as judge.
- Giving black people the right to vote. He clearly would like to put a stop to this.
- Direct election of senators. If Moore had his way, he wouldn't have needed the approval of those pesky voters
- Giving women the right to vote. Because what could they know, get back in the kitchen woman!
- Ending of poll taxes. Again, more tools to keep the unqualified masses from voting.
- Ending the limit on 2 terms for a president. Trump uber alles!
- Making it impossible for an incapacitated but not dead president to be replaced, or for the VP to be replaced if that office end up vacant for some reason. Again, Trump uber alles!
- Giving people aged 18-21 the right to vote. Stupid kids, wanting a say in whether we draft them into the army and send them off to fight halfway around the world for no reason.
- Making it legal for Congress to vote themselves a raise whenever they want. Because if there's one thing our Congresscritters need, it's more money out of the public treasury!
Either he didn't know what he was saying, or he doesn't believe in democracy or in America. Based on his history, I'm thinking the latter is the case.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:50PM
Those stupid meddling kids voted for liberal Doug Jones! [washingtonpost.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:09PM
This guy sure is a crackpot.
I don't like telling other states what to do, but this guy sure is a crackpot and hopefully they see that.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:19PM (4 children)
We need to send congress to live a year in Liberia.
They will either love it there and work even more fervently towards making America the White Liberia. Or they will finally understand what it is they have been working towards and consider a *SLIGHTLY* less conservative political stance.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:38PM (3 children)
...or to Trump's favorite country, Nambia. [google.com]
"I am very smart." --Donald J. Trump, Sr. [google.com]
"Donald Trump was the dumbest goddamn student I ever had." --William T. Kelley, Trump's marketing professor at Wharton [alternet.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday December 14 2017, @02:14AM (2 children)
That sounds exactly like the kind of shit a professor would say when one of his own students makes him look like a dumbass. Maybe Trump had too many street smarts to tolerate jargon and bullshit?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @02:39AM
Just keep rationalizing, no way your guy could be wrong
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 14 2017, @09:04AM
Yeah, what AC said. Remember, he's the damned court fool who ran against the evil witch. IMO, the court fool was the better choice, but not a hell of a lot better. Where Hillary would have sold the nation to any buyer, Trump is busy selling the nation to rich Americans. We're still sold down the river, but at least we know how to navigate our own river.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @12:01AM
Mark Foley is an ephebophile [slate.com]
That article was written in 2006, before Foley became a federal judge in Alabama.
He was boinking his court clerk while he was married to someone else.
He divorced the 1st wife and married the clerk.
He beat the 2nd wife (caught on a 9-1-1 call).
He resigned his judgeship when it became clear that he could be impeached.
Alabama grows some real gems.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:25PM (5 children)
Yep. With that logic, John Gotti [wikipedia.org], prior to his conviction, should have been able to get at least 70% of the (R) (and he was a NY Republican voter) vote if he ran for the senate. Because he was just an honest businessman being harassed by the media until then.
and speaking of Gotti's conviction, Mr. Noun, Verb, 9/11 [wikipedia.org] should totally have been elected President. Except he was a bigoted, hateful anti-liberty scumbag who mistook his trained-in prejudices [artsy.net] for the laws of nature.
I don't see a hell of a lot of difference (leaving aside all the icky/rapey/molesty stuff) between Moore and Guiliani. It heartens me that in a state as strongly R as Alabama, a plurality (albeit a small one. more's the pity) sets a higher bar than having an (R) next to their name for those they choose to represent them than you do.
I choose to hold candidates to a *slightly* higher standard. It's not enough for me that they haven't been convicted (yet) to support someone, regardless of their party affiliation.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:07PM
That's not enough? :P
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:34PM (3 children)
As someone who grew up in Ozone Park/Howard Beach, and know people associated with Gotti and other mafioso's, you are probably correct. After his arrest and conviction many in the neighborhood were upset and for years afterward claimed the neighborhood was safer when Gotti was around.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @12:32AM (2 children)
I lived in Carrol Gardens for many years (mid 80s-mid 90s) and it was quite safe, likely because of all the mafiosi who lived there.
A (likely apocryphal) story that went around the neighborhood for years was that a young, black kid who snatched a woman's purse on Court street was found dead on the same spot where he snatched the purse not too long after.
I personally observed (the only time I saw this in the neighborhood in nearly ten years) a car with its window smashed (remember those days?) as I walked to the subway one morning. A uniformed police officer was in the process of writing a summons for the car (apparently its registration had expired -- it was a bad day for that car's owner!) and I somewhat snarkily asked the cop, "I thought that sort of thing didn't happen around here?" He replied, "That's only certain cars," with complete seriousness.
And while it's true that the neighborhood was very safe (and a very nice place to live in general), even regular residents were afraid of the mafiosi,. who did whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted. And if you had a problem with that, you'd better keep your mouth shut or there might be some unfortunate consequences.
Regardless, I prefer it when murderous scum (like Gotti and some of the wiseguys I knew in Carrol Gardens) go to prison, even if it makes the neighborhood a bit less safe from your run-of-the-mill scumbags.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday December 14 2017, @02:16AM (1 child)
AKA Guinea Eggplant?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @09:05AM
Young, not old. New Guinea Eggplant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:16PM (15 children)
will this Doug Jones concede the victory to Roy Moore then?
Or do the ends justify all kinds of means these days?
(Score: 4, Touché) by Osamabobama on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:23PM (8 children)
I, for one, long for the days when politicians didn't slander their opponents. Those were good times...alas, I can no longer remember them, but I assume things were once better then they are now.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:46PM (1 child)
I'm there there are dozens of others between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists as well.
Mudslinging between self righteous assholes is a time honored tradition in america, as is disadvantaging the poor. Many forget that only landowners could vote in early America. It wasn't just african-americans, women, etc who couldn't vote in the old days, but even poor white men who didn't own property. Your property WAS your citizenship. And if you couldn't buy in, you weren't really a citizen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @03:26PM
You forget that there wasn't much of anything for the federal government to do in early America. There was no massive welfare state, there was no world-wide network of military bases, there was no income taxation, and there was no restrictions on the manufacture, sale, keeping, or bearing of arms.
If I had a button that I could push which would mulch the size of the US fedgov back down to pre-1791 levels, I'd push it without hesitating - and then I'd shoot the first person who mumbled a word about going out and getting hisself a slave in the face.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:00PM (2 children)
Dirty campaigns go all the way back to 1800 with Jefferson against Adams.
The website this links to is awful but an interesting read
http://mentalfloss.com/article/19668/election-1800-birth-negative-campaigning-us [mentalfloss.com]
Perhaps you should go back to Europe if you want to not deal with negative campaigns as they are part of the American experience whether you like them or not, only problem I guess is that Europe loves them too.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 5, Touché) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:03PM (1 child)
They go back way further than that, as a Roman politician [wikipedia.org] like yourself should know.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Sulla on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:07PM
Hey now those proscriptions were perfectly valid and necessary to save the Republic
*Adds Thexalon to the list
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:00PM
It's not slander if it's true.
That said, as far as I can tell the least slander-filled American presidential elections were likely 1952 and 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower was up against Adlai Stevenson. Part of the reason for that was that both those guys really respected each others' accomplishments (Ike had of course beaten the Nazis, Stevenson was a key player in forming the United Nations). And even then, Richard Nixon (then Ike's running mate) called Stevenson an "egghead", while Harry Truman said about Eisenhower “The general doesn’t know any more about politics than a pig knows about Sunday.”
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:32PM
Let me quote from a previous campaign:
"Ma, ma, where's my pa?
Gone to the whitehouse, ha, ha, ha"
"Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine,
Continental liar from the state of Maine."
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @03:57PM
I too wasn't around in 1792.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/inside-americas-first-dirty-presidential-campaign-1796-style/ [constitutioncenter.org]
(Score: 5, Touché) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:25PM
"Not generally, no."
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tizan on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:42PM (3 children)
if one person alleges ...then you can have serious doubts
if 9 persons allege + people around him knew he was "dating" your girls + he was banned from mall...
you have to have a collusion of sorts that i have never seen before...because usually such collusion fails as one or the other
will come out and leak the real story...
Think of why fake moon landing theories are not believable...if it were really fake somebody in the group would leak it out...Even NSA leaks.
9 women aligning their stories + many of them have talked about it to others well before this episode...points to high probability that Moore is what the women said he is.
As we have seen over and over again over zealous religious kind are thus because of some kind of guilt they carry.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:54PM (1 child)
What happened to the yearbook accusation? Oooh, we're not supposed to talk about that now. ;-)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:02PM
No, we should still talk about it [snopes.com] because apparently people like you still think there is something to it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 14 2017, @01:26AM
I follow your logic, and actually I agree with it. The more dirt thrown by more people tends to make a story more believable, that much is true. On the other hand, we've had so many "me too" stories and accusations - sometimes it just looks like women trying to grab their fifteen minutes of fame.
But, voters don't have to vote according to some standard of evidence. Voters only have to be convinced to their own standard of evidence. Many voters assume that any dirt on Party A has to be true, and dirt on Party B has to be false, and need no other evidence. Which, while dishonest and unethical, is perfectly legal.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:56PM
He did enough things on camera that disqualify him as a candidate that those particular allegations being false shouldn't change the outcome. He was literally kicked off the Alabama supreme court more than once.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:20PM
Nick Saban (the coach for U Alabama football team, you ignint geeks) fucked over the child rapist. Good job.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:21PM (13 children)
God remains in control.
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:34PM
God Hates Fetuses
Thank God For Dead Babies
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:32PM (9 children)
If God is in control that would make God responsible for all the death and suffering in the world, since He has the knowledge and ability to stop it. But doesn't.
And as the saying goes "The greatest evil is when the good do nothing"
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:36PM (5 children)
There are some answers to this classic philosophical problem. Mine is "There ain't no such thing as a benevolent omnipotent god", but there are also answers like "There's an omniscient omnipotent god, but that god isn't benevolent" (This idea is basically Gnosticism) and "The evil that happens in the world is actually an act of benevolence from this god, we just don't understand why" (a lot of evangelical types subscribe to this one).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:01PM
Don't forget "he made it perfect, we screwed it up", leading to "all suffering (& evil) in the world is our fault" so "get on your knees and pray for forgiveness"
Tl;dr: it's all Eve's fault.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday December 14 2017, @02:37AM (2 children)
It's not a philosophical problem.
It's a problem that arises consequent to superstition.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Thexalon on Thursday December 14 2017, @06:15PM (1 child)
You picked the atheistic answer: No benevolent omnipotent god. That does indeed answer the question, it's just not the only answer to the question. Which is why it has been pondered by people who are a lot smarter than either of us, such as Gottfried Leibniz (a.k.a. the bane of Isaac Newton and high school calculus students everywhere). Wikipedia's overview is pretty good [wikipedia.org].
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday December 14 2017, @10:45PM
I picked the sane, rational answer: "No God" is the same answer as "No Easter Bunny" and "No Banshees" and "No ghosts."
When there is no proof of anything, and no science to back it up, it's fantasy (if you simply contemplate it) or superstition (if you actually believe it) until or unless those specific circumstances change.
When you say a choice "isn't atheist", what you're really saying is "it is superstition." Until or unless you have proof. So far, no one, anywhere, anytime, has any proof to offer. You want to claim there's actually an Easter Bunny? Then put it on the table and proceed with the crapping out of Cadbury eggs and plastic basket-grass. A Banshee? Show the haunted tree. A Ghost? Show us. A God? Then (at least) be prepared to produce some miracles on demand under controlled conditions. Until you do, it's just utter nonsense.
When you reach for the "it's philosophy" title here, in the matter of something you claim to have existence in objective reality, you don't get to finish the reach until you prove it. If you want philosophy, you have to start with "here's an idea for which there is no proof and is at best a mental exercise." As soon as you try for "dude but it's real", then you're in the realm of science, and if you can't put up, you'll be treated by people with functional critical thinking skills as if you should have shut up.
The superstitious... yes, well, they're always with us, certainly. But the fact that you can collect a lot of them doesn't make your claim any better at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @10:26AM
Indeed. Sithrak hates us all.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:18PM (2 children)
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? --Epicurus (341 BCE - 270 BCE)
...and the White churchgoers in Alabama are "Sunday Christians".
They gather weekly to celebrate their superiority.
If they were actually embracing the lessons that their Lord taught, their actions wouldn't be pushing segregation and classism.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:42PM (1 child)
Being able but not willing doesn't make him malevolent, he could just not give a flying fuck.
Just because you don't care doesn't make you evil. OTOH, if you assert that he caused it, then that would make him evil. I don't donate to every good cause that comes begging me for money, but that's not because I'm evil. I didn't cause the problems they are addressing, I often don't believe that they are the correct answer, and I have other priorities. But if I caused the problems then it would be my obligation to fix things.
So if you think your god caused the problems, then your two choices are that he's evil or impotent.
A quote from a source I don't remember:
Well, actually my memory of it comes from a Harry Harrison story, but he was quoting someone else.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @05:31AM
If he's omnipotent, then it's of no consequence to him to prevent the evil. Not giving a flying fuck to prevent something that you could prevent at no cost or risk to yourself qualifies as malevolent in my book.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:28PM (1 child)
Which god?
Whose god?
Where is this god?
Show me this "god".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @03:33PM
yadayah.com [yadayah.com]
It's not what you think. Scratch the surface.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:32PM (23 children)
I fully expected Alabama voters to happily elect a molesting pedophile over a Democrat, just because the molester was religious and Trump supported him.
I'm glad I was proven wrong, though not by much considering the narrow margin of victory here.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:04PM (20 children)
Alabama seems to suffer the same fate as most of the rest of us, the party primaries are designed to put forth the most radical of their party and then throw them against each other with the people choosing the lesser evil because they don't understand third parties. In this case there was a democrat that supported abortion that religious folks believe will get them sent to hell if they pay taxes for, or a dirtbag pedo who appears to dislike the constitution who would probably get kicked out and another republican chosen in his case.
I can't imagine many of the Moore voters being too upset today that he lost, as they know they will most likely regain the seat the next election and its not enough time to get any abortion legislation passed.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:10PM (4 children)
"people choosing the lesser evil" Like Cliton vs Trrrrrumph?
(Score: 5, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:07PM (3 children)
A lot, a lot of people THREW AWAY their votes. Because they did what they call a write in. They wrote in the name of somebody who wasn't a candidate. Somebody who lost. If they'd voted for Judge Roy Moore, they'd be voting for a WINNER.
Judge Roy is asking for a recount, they're doing a recount. But it's very difficult, folks. Because the election was rigged very badly. It was rigged to it's very difficult to do a recount. With a lot of cyber voting. Which nobody understands. Cyber is complicated, it doesn't need to be so complicated. The cyber companies make it complicated so it's hard to understand. So folks will buy the support. And the election guys in Alabama said, "this cyber is too hard, let's just do the election and WIPE the records, like with a cloth or something." So maybe, probably, a lot of the election cyber got erased. How do you do the recount? It's very hard. But Roy wants a recount, and I'm behind him 100%. As I've always been.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @12:05AM (2 children)
I understand that you're upset that he lost. Maybe if you ask him nice he'll still get you some dates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @12:43AM (1 child)
Or hit up Jeff Epstein [wikipedia.org] again. He's out of prison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @03:36PM
Hide yo kids! Hide yo wif- Hm, okay just hide yo kids, then.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:37PM (6 children)
Alabama seems to suffer the same fate as most of the rest of us, the party primaries are designed to put forth the most radical of their party and then throw them against each other with the people choosing the lesser evil because they don't understand third parties.
This isn't really true in this case.
First off, as far as I can tell, Doug Jones wasn't "radical" in the least, he looks like a pretty typical centrist Democrat. It was Moore that was a radical, but from my perspective, he seems to epitomize the ideals of many Alabamans, so from their perspective he's not radical.
As for third parties, the problem here is first-past-the-post voting systems: they actively eliminate third parties. There's been plenty of research on this. Voting for a lesser party means one of the two main parties doesn't get your vote, which will actually succeed in helping elect the candidate you dislike the most. That's why people vote for the "lesser evil". The main problem is that the voters haven't demanded better voting systems, mainly because the voters are stupid AFAICT. They whine about the choices, or whine about people not voting third-party, but they never actually demand a better system.
In this case there was a democrat that supported abortion that religious folks believe will get them sent to hell if they pay taxes for
This just shows that the people of Alabama are a bunch of religious morons. If you're actually willing to vote for a candidate who will work against your best interests, and screw you over, just because the other candidate will vote (in a small way) against something your fairy-tale beliefs tell you is wrong, then you're an idiot, and you actually deserve to get screwed over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:22PM (1 child)
Careful with those generalisations, more than half of these voters let the religion aside.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:29PM
Those would largely be the folks who aren't descended from slaveholders, in particular, those whose ancestors were enslaved.
...and that bunch recently got a law pushed through in Alabama which says that folks who have served their prison time are no longer disenfranchised for life.
Ex-convicts added a lot of votes to the other side of the ledger this time.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:22AM (2 children)
First past the post only applies to the Presidential Electoral College. It has nothing to do with Statewide Senate General Election. Thanks for playing though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @05:37AM
No. The term refers to being able to be declared the victor without receiving a majority of the votes cast.
Another name for first-past-the-post is "plurality rules".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:06PM
Where's the "-1 Factually Wrong and stupid" modifier?
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday December 15 2017, @02:59AM
Don't know about down there, but up here in Canada, the people do seem to want to get rid of the first past the post system. The politicians, not so much as they'll probably never get another majority and have to compromise.
The Liberals won the last Federal election, partially based on their promise of no more first past the post elections. Didn't take long to announce they weren't going to implement election reform due to it being too decisive. Partially true as the opposition was really railing against it and insisting on referendums. (Our Constitution doesn't say much about how elections are run, just that they have to happen within 5 years)
Last Provincial election here was similar, with the 2nd place party making an agreement with the third party (the Greens) who won enough seats in a tight election to hold the balance of power and bring down and replace the government (Parliamentary system where whoever controls the legislature forms the government or there's an election). This will be a referendum only needing a simple majority. Last time the threshold was 60% and the vote was something like 59% in favour of changing the voting system. The opposition keeps going on that it should take a super majority.
Personally I love minority governments as the opposition parties can keep the government a bit more honest and stop them from bulldozing their agenda through.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:59PM (1 child)
Doesn't seem to be the case. The big difference in this case came from 22k voters that were so unwilling to vote for a Democrat that they wrote other candidates in rather than vote for what was clearly the better candidate.
You can't blame that on the primaries. It's a state with enough purposefully ignorant hicks that any method of primaries would cause that result even without gerrymandering.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:19PM
More than 22k voters made a difference here.
Here's the last several Alabama Senate election results:
A Democrat hadn't cracked 40% of the vote since 1996.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by HiThere on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:45PM (5 children)
In US elections, third parties are a snare and a delusion. If we had IRC or Condorcet voting, then I'd agree that you should vote for the best candidate. As it is... the only reason to vote for a third party is because you are so disgusted with both of the candidates that have a chance that you might as well not vote, but you have a habit of voting.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:20PM (2 children)
As it is... the only reason to vote for a third party is because you are so disgusted with both of the candidates that have a chance that you might as well not vote, but you have a habit of voting.
That's not true. Those other parties will never have a chance of taking over from either of the dominant parties if no one ever votes for them, plus parties get federal matching funds and other benefits after they get to a certain percentage of the vote.
So, if you live in a place that very reliably votes a certain way, and you're quite sure your vote won't be missed in a particular election (this Jones vs. Moore election is not a good example obviously), then go ahead and vote 3rd party. For instance, if you think the Dems are too centrist or corporate, or you just want to support another party for a change, and you live in Mississippi during a Presidential election, you might as well vote for the Greens or whoever. Your vote for a Democrat candidate will NOT give Mississippi's electoral votes to the Dems because there's just no way MS will choose a Dem in the Presidential election, so you might as well vote for someone else, it won't make a difference to the Dems. Similarly, if you live in DC and normally vote Republican, you're wasting your vote there in the Presidential election as well, so you might as well vote for the libertarians or whoever.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday December 14 2017, @05:46PM (1 child)
I understand your feeling on the matter, and I've felt that way too. But when I look at the history of US politics, all new parties seem to have been founded by splitting one of the major parties after it became totally dominant. Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't manage to start a new party, and that one was nearly a split.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 14 2017, @06:50PM
True, but that doesn't mean that a small party can't rise to dominant status, in tandem with one of the two dominant parties shooting itself in the foot. It just needs enough people to start voting that way.
The other thing that can happen (and has, in the past) is that one of the smaller parties gets enough popularity and votes at the polls that one of the dominant parties starts copying its stances. This happened with the Socialist party decades ago. But again, people need to actually vote for the smaller party to show support for it.
What I described before is a perfectly safe way (esp. in Presidential races) for you to show support for other parties without the risk of "letting the bad one in". If you live in South Caroline, for instance, there is absolutely zero chance that state is going to vote for the Democratic candidate in the 2020 election, so if you lean left you might as well throw in a vote for one of the 3rd parties if you like them. And if you live in Connecticut, there's absolutely zero chance that state is going to vote for the Republican candidate in 2020, so the same applies there if you lean right. This is really the case in *many* states; only a minority of states are so-called "swing states". It's only those states where you need to actually worry that your 3rd-party vote could help the wrong lizard get in.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:28PM
I agree it's not nearly as effective as it should be, but it's more than just voting out of habit. There's a lot of people who just never bother to vote, and if your reaction to the selections of the major parties is to just not vote for any of them, then you blend into that group. And nobody cares. But if you vote third party, then you're specifically registering as someone who DOES vote but just doesn't like the choices. And you send a message to the major parties that they might be able to pick up your vote if they adopt certain policies. Generally, they probably still don't care if the race isn't all that close, but just look at this one -- if the Republicans could have picked up those third party votes, Moore would have won.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday December 14 2017, @07:03PM
Some good reasons to vote third party:
1. The office in question has been held by a political machine run by one of the major parties for a very long time (e.g. local offices that are routinely won with 96% support in the general election), and while you aren't in agreement with the other major party you do want to shake things up. Having real threats from some kind of third-party challenger helps keep the politicians on their toes even in cases where voting for the other major party would be seen as unthinkable.
2. You genuinely don't find either major party candidate even tolerable, and so your options are to support the third party you agree with, or not vote. Expressing your preference gives you more power than not voting: Either you'll help your preferred third party gain attention or even matching funds, or you'll give the major party closest to you ideologically some idea of what they would need to do to win you over.
That first reason is why I'm a strong supporter of third parties at the local level: Most cities have Democratic machines, many rural areas have Republican machines, and those machines can and should be challenged by presenting what are seen by the voters as reasonable alternatives. For example, I want to see the biggest city nearest me get more Green Party city council members, mostly because the Democrats are way too comfortable and entrenched and end up fairly corrupted as a result.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday December 14 2017, @12:00AM (1 child)
Is he really religious, or does he just use religion to con the rubes who are likely to vote that way?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 14 2017, @01:45AM
Almost always, religion is just one of the many planks in a candidate's platform. The candidate isn't in church on Sunday (or Saturday, depending on religion). His business dealings don't reflect his "faith". It's just propaganda for the chumps he is courting.
In Moore's case, I think he's a believer. His beliefs align with the Mormons, and their offshoot cults more than with American Christianity. Moore probably really believes that he has every right in the world to boink 13 year old girls. "If they're old enough to bleed, they're old enough to breed!"
Incidentally, Moore is being accused (by some) of being a pedo. That is inaccurate, of course - pedos like prepubescent children. I'm having a brain fart, can't think of the proper term for guys who like post-pubescent children, but you get the idea.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:04PM (5 children)
Roy Moore is not a pedophile. He is an Ephebophile [wikipedia.org]!
Roy Moore Met Wife Kayla When She Was a Minor, and He Was 30, at a Girls’ Dance Recital [newsweek.com]
Get your facts straight. Roy Moore is an ephebophile. That's not illegal (neither is pedophilia, technically speaking).
Smooth, no wrinkles, innocent. Aged to perfection. Gotta have a little Moore than a look before they spoil.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:23PM
He be dead in a month in a pent. Even the worst of criminals need to look down on someone, and that's pedophile.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:40PM (1 child)
It's not illegal as long as there's no actual sexual contact, but dating usually does lead to that pretty quickly, so it's safe to assume that someone who expresses romantic interest in minors has that as their intention.
It's definitely very creepy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @03:21AM
Age of consent in alabama is 16 so maybe it was legal, you don't know?
(Score: 2) by tizan on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:49PM
Pedophilia is not illegal, it is a brain condition may be, unless you do something about it..
Same thing with Ephebophilia ...the law is 16 in alabama...trying to kiss and touch a 14 year old is illegal by any definition, irrespective of the state of the brain of the person.
Just like i envy a Lamborghini......not illegal....taking one from those rich buggers without their permission is illegal sadly.
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:53PM
Had her middle initial also been K, he would have married her on the spot?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:46PM (9 children)
That's what you do after an election, right?
We should set cars on fire, assault democrats, set buildings on fire, block roads... or is that only a democrat thing?
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:01PM (8 children)
Alabamians prefer to bomb black churches. [chicagotribune.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:33PM (3 children)
Looking at this Washington Post1 exit poll result [postimg.org], I would say that racists could easily blame black people for the outcome.
So maybe Alabamians will continue to practice their favored bombing activity. Those results look pretty clear.
1so it must be fake news
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 14 2017, @10:00AM (2 children)
but the demographic breakdown holds even more gems. I think the NY Post story I read mentioned that (and these numbers are made up, but believably ballparky) the blacks represented only ~28% of the voting population, but contributed ~35% of the votes cast. And your stat tells us what they did with all those lovely tokens of enfranchisement. So definitely the blacks need to be thanked for sticking at least one middle finger up to Trump (even if that wasn't their intention. I'm sure their intention was not to foward the liberal democratic gay rights agenda, they're fairly anti-gay as a demographic, according to everything that comes out of Pew). It would be nice to see similar stats to yours from previous elections. Which segment had the biggest swing?
Alas, the pessimist in me sees a dead-pool-type hit list in the future - they just need to bump off 2 more republicans, and get a determined democracy to fill the gaps. It's not as if there's a lack of crazies who would do such a thing.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday December 14 2017, @07:09PM (1 child)
Let's imagine I was black, and I had a choice between a guy who puts Klansmen in jail, and a guy who has expressed a hope for the return of slavery. Even completely ignoring the other factors in this election, I think that would be a pretty easy choice, and I'd be pretty motivated to make sure my choice was the one who won.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday December 15 2017, @05:37AM
Was your post attempting to agree or disagree with mine? Neither does it question what I wrote. How am I supposed to respond? It was a "reply" to mine but apparently doesn't address anything in mine to either agree or disagree with it. If you have other original thoughts, feel free to create a new thread for them.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:44PM (3 children)
That was democrats.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:51PM (1 child)
Which party do they reside in today? Republican.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday December 14 2017, @07:25PM
Yup: Those that use the fact that southern Democrats were racist as all get out between 1870 and 1964 to excuse the racism currently entrenched in the Republican Party are carefully blind to everything that's happened in the last 50 years.
Specifically, in 1964, Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and said to an aide "We've just lost the south for a generation". Because he knew that the racists were going to leave the Democratic Party over this permanently (they had left in 1948 over Harry Truman's anti-racism efforts, backing Strohm Thurmond). Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was to welcome those racists into the Republican fold with open arms, and they've been there ever since.
I'll believe the Democrats are the party of racism again when I hear their candidates openly longing for a return to slavery, when the KKK and Neo-Nazis are singing the praises of Democratic leaders to anyone who will listen, and when racist pundits are able to get plum jobs in a Democratic White House. All of which currently applies to the Republicans.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:28AM
Did you know that Doug Jones was the U.S. Attorney for northern Alabama and prosecuted Thomas Edwin Blanton Jr. and Bobby Frank Cherry, 2 of the KKK jackasses that bombed that church in 1963?
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:55PM (2 children)
Screw Moore and the horse he literally rode in on!
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:18PM (1 child)
Look at you, getting all judgy when you like to screw horses.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:52PM
It's quite a bit more difficult now that they've banned me from the stall.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:06PM (5 children)
"who had faced multiple allegations of sexual assault"
i've only heard of him being accused of "dating" teenagers. he admits at least some of it and says it was always with parental consent. the laws used to be more lax in regard to age, as people used to get married earlier. you were expected to get out and take care of yourself. getting knocked up by some old loser was a meal ticket. if it were completely socially acceptable to "date" teenagers today, you would see a higher occurrence of it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:14PM
https://qz.com/1147348/these-nine-women-have-accused-roy-moore-of-sexual-misconduct/ [qz.com]
4 accusations of sexual assault, and the rest are harassment or dating.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MostCynical on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:12PM (3 children)
"parental consent"
So, it's okay, so long as the girls' parents agree?
Isn't there a name for that?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @11:22PM (2 children)
Fucking rad, dude! Gonna get dat young pussy without getting shot by the parents.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday December 14 2017, @02:44AM (1 child)
Good enough for Elvis!
https://www.biography.com/people/groups/elvis-and-priscilla-presley [biography.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 14 2017, @10:09AM
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/161950#map=11/34.2558/-88.4056
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves