Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[carpedm9587]

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

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

It's neither appealing OR appeaking.

You missed the "more." When faced with the choice between doggie poop and tofu - tofu has more appeal than doggie poop. That does not make it "appealing," or "desirable" or "something you're going to run out and buy tomorrow." It is simply, by some quality, a "better choice" in your mind than "doggie poop."

I'm guessing it's the taste...

Or maybe its point of origin?

[Cow Poke]

When all else fails, play the race card!

[Cow Poke]

You missed the "more." When faced with the choice between doggie poop and tofu - tofu has more appeal than doggie poop. That does not make it "appealing," or "desirable" or "something you're going to run out and buy tomorrow." It is simply, by some quality, a "better choice" in your mind than "doggie poop."

I'm guessing it's the taste...

Perhaps you have experience in this area?

[carpedm9587]

When all else fails, play the race card!

Turning out a defined demographic with a history of voting Democratic is "playing the race card?"

I cannot say that I've looked at his ads, so maybe he is. But targetting a specific demographic is not in and of itself a "race card." Some ads target women. Some target college educated people. Some target an ethnicity - or a race - or a specific religion. Targeted political advertising is not exactly new.

[carpedm9587]

Perhaps you have experience in this area?

Umm...actually...

[Sparko]

it's not that one is more appealing, but that one is less disgusting.

[Adrift]

(what I have called "temporary" slavery - to the horror of most here).

As a reminder, we only find it a horror that you're misusing the English language, not because we're really concerned that you think its actual slavery.

[Adrift]

That pretty much described the 2016 presidential election. But if one seems decidedly worse than the other then wouldn't it sort of be your duty to try to limit the damage and vote for the one you thought would be less deleterious to decrease the chance that the worse of the two wouldn't get in?

No. I think if it comes down for the Christian between choosing evil, or choosing a greater evil, then we probably should not choose at all.

[carpedm9587]

it's not that one is more appealing, but that one is less disgusting.

Most of this exchange has been tongue in cheek, but I think people are working too hard to distinguish these two things. To point - a glass is half full or half empty - and it is the same glass and the same condition. When you vote, saying you are voting for someone because they are "less disgusting" is not really quantitatively different from saying they are "more appealing." Same vote - same condition. If you want to focus on your level of disgust (glass half empty), so be it. If someone says you're choosing the candidate that appeals more - they are just looking at the water instead of the empty space.

Many voted for Trump because he was apparently "less disgusting" than Clinton. They were also voting because something about Trump was more appealing than Clinton. That doesn't make them fans of Trump. Doesn't mean they love Trump.

However, what has been happening since the vote is telling. Some people who voted for Trump are actually challenging Trump on some of his antics and choices. Those are the votes he is likely to lose. Since he only won by about 80,000 votes, he cannot afford too many of these defecting.

Some people, however, are defending pretty much every move he makes - he can do no wrong. Those are his "base" and they are not likely to be swayed from that support. That core, I suggest, actually voted FOR Trump because they approve of him and wanted him in office, and their behavior since strongly suggests this.

[Sparko]

No. I think if it comes down for the Christian between choosing evil, or choosing a greater evil, then we probably should not choose at all.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

[carpedm9587]

As a reminder, we only find it a horror that you're misusing the English language, not because we're really concerned that you think its actual slavery.

Noted. Disagreed with - but noted.

[JimL]

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

That didn't mean that you should actually vote for evil. What's wrong with you?

[Sparko]

That didn't mean that you should actually vote for evil. What's wrong with you?

You did.

[Adrift]

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

He's not, as far as I can tell, really pro-life. Most of his talking points on the subject line up closer to the sort of things you regularly hear pro-choicers say. So, for instance, often times you'll hear pro-choicers agree that they'd rather less abortion in this nation, and that abortion should be a last ditch effort, and that's why we should support places like Planned Parenthood.

[Adrift]

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

When good men support evil, they're not longer good. Choosing not to be a part of the process is not exactly doing nothing.