Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Mountain Man]

That seems like a terrible reason to vote. If it comes down to choosing one evil over another, then don't be a part of the process.

Calling it "voting for the lesser of two evils" is overly cynical for my taste (and I can be pretty darn cynical). I see it more as voting for the candidate you think will do the most good even if they're not your ideal choice.

[carpedm9587]

You call yourself pro-life, but you would vote for a guy in favor of murdering full-term babies?

I think we have been around this horn several times, MM. Abortion is a neutral issue for me. Vote "pro-choice" and I am supporting the killing of children. Vote pro-life and I am supporting the state's intrusion on self-autonomy of women (what I have called "temporary" slavery - to the horror of most here). Because both sides are unacceptable, they essentially cancel each other out and do not factor into my voting decisions.

The only viable solution for the abortion issue, IMO, is to inject solutions BEFORE that point of decision is to be reached, by providing the right kinds of education, making safe birth control resources available and affordable, and changing our support structure for pregnant mothers to make adoption a more attractive choice. History shows us that these are powerful factors in significantly reducing abortions - and I am more interested in results than ideologies. A candidate that supports these kinds of initiatives will usually get a check in my "plus" column.

[carpedm9587]

That's really an oversimplification. Sometimes there's a candidate (like HRC) whose values and polices and corruption are so egregious that one might resort to voting for a candidate they might not otherwise support.

That means the candidate they are voting FOR has more policies that align than the egregious one, CP.

Look, I know we rationalize how we vote six ways to Sunday, but the voting process is fairly simple: two or more candidates, and we choose the one that best aligns with us on the most crucial values we hold. Saying, "well, I wouldn't vote for X if Y wasn't so bad" is just another way of saying, "I find X to have more about them that is appealing than Y."

[carpedm9587]

Calling it "voting for the lesser of two evils" is overly cynical for my taste (and I can be pretty darn cynical). I see it more as voting for the candidate you think will do the most good even if they're not your ideal choice.

(the first in agreement of the overall sentiment - the second in agreement with the parenthetical )

[JimL]

Fortunately, not being a resident of Alabama, I don't have to make that choice. If I were a resident of Alabama, I'd probably sit that one out.

Well we no that's bull, you voted for Trump using the same (lesser of 2 evils) logic, so why wouldn't you vote for Moore. And thanks CP, for finally, and accidentally, admitting that in your opinion Roy Moore is guilty of the accusations against him.

[Cow Poke]

Well we no that's bull, you voted for Trump using the same (lesser of 2 evils) logic, so why wouldn't you vote for Moore.

I don't have as much at stake in that election, Jimmy.

And thanks CP, for finally, and accidentally, admitting that in your opinion Roy Moore is guilty of the accusations against him.

I think he's creepy, as I've said before. Your "logic" and powers of deduction truly suck, as usual. Why don't you go back to defending NAMBLA.

[JimL]

That's really an oversimplification. Sometimes there's a candidate (like HRC) whose values and polices and corruption are so egregious that one might resort to voting for a candidate they might not otherwise support.

Like Trump! Ever here of the adage "you have eyes but can not see?" It's speaking to you CP. And again, thanks for finally admitting that you do indeed support Trump.

[Cow Poke]

That means the candidate they are voting FOR has more policies that align than the egregious one, CP.

That's a dumb "glass half full" argument.

Look, I know we rationalize how we vote six ways to Sunday, but the voting process is fairly simple: two or more candidates, and we choose the one that best aligns with us on the most crucial values we hold. Saying, "well, I wouldn't vote for X if Y wasn't so bad" is just another way of saying, "I find X to have more about them that is appealing than Y."

Sometimes, you find somebody so bad you feel you need to vote against them even if it means you wouldn't otherwise vote "for" the "other guy".

But, do feel free to continue to spin this.

[Cow Poke]

Like Trump! Ever here of the adage "you have eyes but can not see?" It's speaking to you CP. And again, thanks for finally admitting that you do indeed support Trump.

Thanks for proving you can type with your head up your butt.

[carpedm9587]

That's a dumb "glass half full" argument.

Sometimes, you find somebody so bad you feel you need to vote against them even if it means you wouldn't otherwise vote "for" the "other guy".

But, do feel free to continue to spin this.

Which means you're voting for your preferred candidate of those offered...

[Cow Poke]

Which means you're voting for your preferred candidate of those offered...

If I'm really hungry (and I'd have to be REALLY hungry), and my only two choices are doggie poop and tofu, I guess you'd accuse me of "voting for" tofu. Somebody really dumb might claim I was a "tofu supporter".

[Sparko]

If I'm really hungry (and I'd have to be REALLY hungry), and my only two choices are doggie poop and tofu, I guess you'd accuse me of "voting for" tofu. Somebody really dumb might claim I was a "tofu supporter".

I got tricked into eating tofu once. It tasted like fried sponge, but worse. Or how I imagine a fried sponge would taste like.

[Cow Poke]

I got tricked into eating tofu once. It tasted like fried sponge, but worse. Or how I imagine a fried sponge would taste like.

Yeah, you'd have to be pretty desperate to eat it on purpose.

[carpedm9587]

If I'm really hungry (and I'd have to be REALLY hungry), and my only two choices are doggie poop and tofu, I guess you'd accuse me of "voting for" tofu. Somebody really dumb might claim I was a "tofu supporter".

I said nothing about being a "supporter." But in the doggie poop/tofu choice, there is apparently something about tofu that makes it more appealing to you than doggie poop - so you choose tofu. That doesn't mean you like tofu. It doesn't mean you are excited about tofu. It doesn't mean you're going to champion tofu. It doesn't mean you would still choose tofy if you had another option. It means simply that tofu is MORE appealing to you than doggie poop - so you choose it when faced with that choice.

If that were not true - you would choose the doggie poop.

[Cow Poke]

I said nothing about being a "supporter."

I know, Jimmy is trying (and failing miserably) to piggback off your argument.

But in the doggie poop/tofu choice, there is apparently something about tofu that makes it more appealing to you than doggie poop - so you choose tofu.

Nope - nothing appealing at all.

attractive or interesting.
"the rural life is somehow more appealing"
synonyms: attractive, engaging, alluring, enchanting, captivating, bewitching, fascinating, tempting, enticing, seductive, irresistible, winning, winsome, charming, desirable; More

That doesn't mean you like tofu. It doesn't mean you are excited about tofu. It doesn't mean you're going to champion tofu. It means that tofu is more appeaking to you than doggie poop - so you choose it.

It's neither appealing OR appeaking.