Trump Tweets (no more)

[monir]

Originally Posted by Key Board

Moore hasn't conceded yet. (at this time of posting)
is there going to be a surprise?

The strategy is similar to Trump if Trump went on to lose the election against Hilary. Moore lost it by over 10000 votes. There won't be any surprise. This tantrum by him will only help to make sure he cannot run for any other meaningful political office, uhhm... ever. Btw, Moore rode a horse to the poll. No, I'm not making this up.

edit: Colbert's skit on Roy Moore's riding a horse to the poll...

YouTube

https://youtu.be/HWG0isUVB68

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[GreyZone]

Moore got Herman Cain'ed. Soon the accusers will no longer appear in the media. Jones, who almost nobody really cared about during this entire election becomes a US Senator because he was the "candidate who is not Roy Moore".

The reason Moore lost is probably because he was too passive and only defended himself while relying too much on the fact that he is a republican candidate in a deep red state and that Bannon supported him. The only thing he did was trying to prevent losing votes. He didn't counter-attack at all so Jones essentially turned into a "ghost" metaphorically speaking, i.e. it turned from an election into a public trial for Roy Moore. He waited too long until the public perception of him turned from "accused" to "guilty".

Also it isn't "like Trump". What Trump did is actually using what afterwards would sound like an excuse if he lost, during the election instead. It was a strategy to gain votes during the election. Note that at the same time as shouting "rigged system" on the campaign trail, he told multiple times during 1on1 interviews that he would just go back to his business if he lost. But it seems to have paid off in the end, though we'll never know how much of a contributing factor it was to his victory.

Roy Moore, as far as I recall, didn't speak about anything like an election scewed against him until afterwards, even though he was attacked on all sides, even republicans, during the election. So it really isn't similar at all. In the first place comparing them is comparing reality to a "what-if" scenario. The latter is entirely imaginary and potentially based on wishful thinking, so there really isn't much point in discussing our imagination on the matter.



One more thing to note is you can see the difference between Moore and Trump quite easily on what actually happend. Trump also got accused of sexual assault/rape during his election, in case you didn't remember, but it didn't work out because it got drowned in all the other news.

Now the accusers come back more than a year later, but Trump, in but an instant, through tweeting something forced the media discussion from "did Trump sexually assault/rape women?" to "did Trump just slut-shame a female senator?" - both seems bad, but the former is what the media "prepared", i.e. a rich man terrorizing an innocent, helpless civilian women, while the latter gives this impression of either "another Rosie O'donnel feud" or "just another scuffle between Trump and another politician". It's not even remotely similar, unlike what people might think during the first look at both situations. Trump has fought the media narratives constructed for him like this all the time, because he knows how it works.

Roy Moore failed completely in that regard. His image was formed however the media liked, just like in Herman Cain's case years ago.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

The reason Moore lost is probably because he was too passive and only defended himself while relying too much on the fact that he is a republican candidate in a deep red state and that Bannon supported him.

Moore lost because hitting on underage girls isn't the best selling point for a senator.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Now the accusers come back more than a year later, but Trump, in but an instant, through tweeting something forced the media discussion from "did Trump sexually assault/rape women?" to "did Trump just slut-shame a female senator?"

What an accomplishment for the president of the United States to 'only' slut-shame a woman publicly.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Moore lost because hitting on underage girls isn't the best selling point for a senator.

That's true, and certainly one of the most important factors, but I don't think that by itself would make a Republican lose an election in Alabama, because they don't elect priests, but rather legislators.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

What an accomplishment for the president of the United States to 'only' slut-shame a woman publicly.

Those among the (mainstream) media who are hostile to Trump (i.e. most of them) will definitly only report bad things about Trump and "interpret" statements in a way that make him look evil. The Tweet in question would have definitly been interpreted as merely "talking about buying a politician's votes on bills" if the Senator would have been a white male. But somehow, because the Senator is a woman, that interpretation is not even considered.

Pro-Trump people and some "neutral" ones will not miss this fact. Infact it might strenghten his credibility with them as a "person who was smeared by the media - again". Obviously those who are Anti-Trump and other "neutral" ones will believe the media interpretation and solidify their hatred against Trump. So all this does is make people believe that their current views were confirmed once more. Because there are two equally valid views that depend on who you believe more and that tends to be the one they already prefer at this point anyway, so this scenario really doesn't do any damage to Trump in the end.

The other scenario of giving the media room for focusing on making Trump look like the white rich man public figure who attacks a random innocent female civilian would have potentially been dangerous and might have become another Roy Moore/Herman Cain case in the long term.

[Eisdrache]

So let me get this straight: Republican voters in Alabama would be fine with voting for someone who is 'only' known for going after underage girls. Is that what you're saying?

Because the media is responsible for Trump's long history of attacking anything and anyone that dares to criticize him over twitter with made-up stories and/or very low insults while showing no signs of stopping. It's not that Trump is a victim of the media, he is a victim of his own immaturity.

[The Green One]

A lot of Republicans vote as "Anything that isn't a Democrat." They don't care about the Republican candidate beyond the fact that they aren't a Democrat.

(To be fair the reverse is often true about Democrats)

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Wait. Trump accepted the candidate he supported was defeated and didn't go on a hissy fit and make accusations of voter fraud?

What is going on?!

Anyway, congrats to Doug Jones!

He's gone to the next level of power.

Only in America is not electing people that molest young girls something that needs a moment of consideration.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

So let me get this straight: Republican voters in Alabama would be fine with voting for someone who is 'only' known for going after underage girls. Is that what you're saying?

No not because of that. Off the top of my head I can think of 2 reasons:

1. Keeping the amount of Republican Senators as it is as opposed to losing one to the Democrats. Because, again, he was not running for a moral compass (the US congress in general is being quite hated after all), but for a legislater position, and the stuff that happened was literally decades ago. "He has changed for a better" is actually a legitimate reason for many people. Democrats do that plenty of times as well, see Robert Byrd.

2. Out of spite for "waiting" to publicize Moore's past and letting Moore look like an anit-establishment hero during the primary and run-off to get him on the Republican ticket. Only talking about him being into underage girls when the general election came around. Soon the accusations will just disappear because they aren't necessary for the election anymore, just like it was with Herman Cain.


But because Roy Moore failed considerably on how to react to the accusations the two above reasons were not enough to gain victory.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Because the media is responsible for Trump's long history of attacking anything and anyone that dares to criticize him over twitter with made-up stories and/or very low insults while showing no signs of stopping. It's not that Trump is a victim of the media, he is a victim of his own immaturity.

That's wishful thinking. How did so-called "mature" behaviour work out for Bush W. in the late time of his presidency? The media blamed him for anything despite that even AFTER his second term was over - every single problem of Obama was blamed on the "mature" Bush. It's easy to forget that these days, but that actually happened. Romney also got wrecked in 2012, though less so than McCain, but I have to give credit to Obama here, who though he had the support of the majority of mainstream media, he was also a good campaigner and I commend him that he didn't weaponize his skin color on the campaign trail.

So since after Bush vs Kerry, smearing Republican canididates and praising Democrat candidates was starting to get more systematically weaponized as the majority of the mainstream media leaned towards democrats. It failed in elections where there wasn't really a single person each to focus the hatred/praise on, i.e. mid-terms, but worked splendidly in years with presidential elections.


Anyway, there is no "innocent" in politics. Everyone Trump attacks entered the arena themselves. It's their own fault if it backfires on them. Unlike a certain news network, at least Trump didn't threaten to doxx someone who is not even a public figure, just for having made a silly gif that the president re-tweeted.

@The Green One:
Yes, and among all of Moore's mistakes, this is essentially the same mistake with Alabama as Hillary Clinton made with the "blue wall states", i.e. taking a win along party lines for granted and becoming quite lazy over it.

@Archon_Wing:
The "molest" part is still only "alleged". AFAIK the only part Moore actually admitted was on the level of consensually dating girls much younger than him, which in itself is questionable and absolutely a good reason not to vote for him or to vote against him for his character, but that part isn't what people give Moore crap for - sorry, I ment GAVE crap for. See the whole story evaporate completely within the next few days as if it never happened. Because it's no longer necessary to polically influence an election. Media will now probably go back to the usual collusion and impeachment stuff. I suspect Democrats will now run another "ghost-like" candidate for president in 2020 who appearently has nothing to be attacked for, as that seems to have worked with Jones.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

No not because of that. Off the top of my head I can think of 2 reasons:

1. Keeping the amount of Republican Senators as it is as opposed to losing one to the Democrats. Because, again, he was not running for a moral compass (the US congress in general is being quite hated after all), but for a legislater position, and the stuff that happened was literally decades ago. "He has changed for a better" is actually a legitimate reason for many people. Democrats two that plenty of times as well, see Robert Byrd.

2. Out of spite for "waiting" to publicize Moore's past and letting Moore look like an anit-establishment hero during the primary and run-off to get him on the Republican ticket. Only talking about him being into underage girls when the general election came around. Soon the accusations will just disappear because they aren't necessary for the election anymore, just like it was with Herman Cain.

So, yes, but with rationalizations on top.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

So, yes, but with rationalizations on top.

Well they don't seem to believe the worst parts of the accusations and it's one's word vs another's word on that one, while the less worse parts (which are still quite bad) are overshadowed by the reasons I listed why people would vote for Moore. Add to that that it was 30+ years ago and I think it's quite reasonable for a lot of people to vote for Moore from that point of view.

I also understand why people who DO believe the worst parts would be quite repulsed by Moore, so it really comes down to "which side's story do I believe".

The supposed victim gains credibility in the regard that Moore actually did date younger girls, but she also loses credibility because she suddenly out of nowhere along with other, right before the general election just crawled out of somewhere and started talking about things that happened decades ago, which makes it look like a political stunt.

So who knows who is right? Both sides have their dubious aspects.



Personally of the little I have seen from Moore I don't like him as a person - too stuck up and too religiously fanatical to me. I don't know anything about Jones at all and I bet I am not the only one in that regard. It's a bit funny that a guy who wasn't vetted in the slightest won the senate seat because his opponent couldn't be replaced anyMoore.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

@Archon_Wing:
The "molest" part is still only "alleged". AFAIK the only part Moore actually admitted was on the level of consensually dating girls much younger than him, which in itself is questionable and absolutely a good reason not to vote for him or to vote against him for his character, but that part isn't what people give Moore crap for - sorry, I ment GAVE crap for. See the whole story evaporate completely within the next few days as if it never happened. Because it's no longer necessary to polically influence an election. Media will now probably go back to the usual collusion and impeachment stuff. I suspect Democrats will now run another "ghost-like" candidate for president in 2020 who appearently has nothing to be attacked for, as that seems to have worked with Jones.

I understand that he is not guilty of these crimes (yet), and as for dating younger women I actually don't give a damn about that. That's not even illegal, even if they are underage.

The terrible part was people trying to rationalize and whitewash that kind of behavior-- including sexual assault-- assuming victims are lying, or as something that happened in the past and is more important just because the other side isn't pro-life. Basically even if he were guilty by that line of logic they would still support him, and that I find revolting.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/...ote-roy-moore/ Just an example of one of the tamer things I've come across.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

I understand that he is not guilty of these crimes (yet), and as for dating younger women I actually don't give a damn about that. That's not even illegal, even if they are underage.

The terrible part was people trying to rationalize and whitewash that kind of behavior-- including sexual assault-- assuming victims are lying, or as something that happened in the past and is more important just because the other side isn't pro-life. Basically even if he were guilty by that line of logic they would still support him, and that I find revolting.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/...ote-roy-moore/ Just an example of one of the tamer things I've come across.

The same can be said about people trying to rationalize the fact that this was all a huge political stunt ment to take a Republican senate seat away. If it was about preventing Moore to be elected, the media and accuser(s) could have popped up during the primary or run-off. They DELIBERATELY chose not to.

To say that the majority of the media and even the accuser(s) "colluded" with the Democratic party on this would be an understatement. It's an even more dirty version of how the Democrats tried to get Trump, Cruz or Carson to win the presidential primary to get an easy to beat opponent. It's the epitome of politisation. All the cases where politicians politisize some shooting or terrorist attack for anti-gun or anti-immigration purposes are really just a slight mischief compared to that.

I think some people voted for Moore just out of spite against this dirty political trick. They just didn't want the Democrats have their way with introducing scandals that just "happen to appear at a much too covnient time". Though I myself don't think it was that many who did it for that reason specifically.

Of course, two wrongs don't make a right.

Originally Posted by Haak

I don't think my political representative has to be a complete saint but I'd still rather they weren't a disgusting predator...

I do agree with this. It's both a criminal and inhuman thing to do after all. But the question is if he actually is a "predator" or not, which is still not proven. If the part Moore denies really didn't happen, then he'd be not so ideal, but then again it would be over 30 years ago, and in general he'd still be better off than a certain religious figure. But even if he really was not guilty of the actual crime, he'd still be a quite unsympathetic person and a "person I don't know anything about" tends to be better than an "unsympathetic person".

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

The same can be said about people trying to rationalize the fact that this was all a huge political stunt ment to take a Republican senate seat away. If it was about preventing Moore to be elected, the media and accuser(s) could have popped up during the primary or run-off. They DELIBERATELY chose not to.

To say that the majority of the media and even the accuser(s) "colluded" with the Democratic party on this would be an understatement. It's an even more dirty version of how the Democrats tried to get Trump, Cruz or Carson to win the presidential primary to get an easy to beat opponent. It's the epitome of politisation. All the cases where politicians politisize some shooting or terrorist attack for anti-gun or anti-immigration purposes are really just a slight mischief compared to that.

The accusers colluded? So you saying they fabricated the charges?

Of course, two wrongs don't make a right.

Glad you got that one down....

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

The accusers colluded? So you saying they fabricated the charges?

No. I mean, regardless of whether the accusations are true or not, they chose the general election instead of the primary or run-off to bring the accusations up after decades.

They even let Moore build momentum as a "anti-establishment hero" at that time, risking that this view of him might Snowball enough to solidify his support for the general election.

Common sense would dictate that another Republican would have a better shot at beating Moore in a deep red state, for example Luther Strange, but it didn't happen at that time and the media stayed completely silent.

From this I surmise that their motive was NOT to "take Roy Moore down", but rather to "take a Republican Senate seat and give it to a Democrat". So the motive was Anti-Republican and/or pro-Democrat. If you have a different explanation that doesn't specifically involve the purpose of flipping a senate seat, I'd like to see it.

[SeijiSensei]

A few thoughts on Jones's victory:

http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/...oug-jones-won/

Jones expanded the Democratic vote in the largest Alabama counties, a "double-whammy" if you will. Moore failed to mobilize Republicans in those same counties. Jones did best in counties with larger black, Hispanic, and college-educated populations.

I think the effectiveness of the campaign operation for Jones was far more important than Moore's alleged molestations. Moore had no campaign to speak of, was outspent 6-1 in television advertising by Jones, and secluded himself from public view over the last week of the campaign. Jones made extensive efforts to mobilize African-American voters in the "Black Belt." Blacks constituted about 29 percent of the electorate, a figure comparable to those seen when Barack Obama headed the Democratic ticket. Jones also polled well in urban areas like Huntsville and Birmingham and targeted college towns like Tuscaloosa, where the University of Alabama is located, and Lee County, home to Auburn.

Most Alabama voters were well acquainted with both candidates. Jones in particular was hardly an unknown. He resuscitated the prosecution of two Ku Klux Klan members who had bombed a traditionally-black church in 1963 killing four little girls. He is the personification of a white Alabama progressive. Roy Moore expressed the belief that society was better during slavery and that all the amendments to the Constitution after the original ten should be abolished. Those amendments include, of course, the 13th and 14th which ended slavery, and the 19th Amendment which granted women the right to vote.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

A few thoughts on Jones's victory:

http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/...oug-jones-won/

Jones expanded the Democratic vote in the largest Alabama counties, a "double-whammy" if you will. Moore failed to mobilize Republicans in those same counties. Jones did best in counties with larger black, Hispanic, and college-educated populations.

I think the effectiveness of the campaign operation for Jones was far more important than Moore's alleged molestations. Moore had no campaign to speak of, was outspent 6-1 in television advertising by Jones, and secluded himself from public view over the last week of the campaign. Jones made extensive efforts to mobilize African-American voters in the "Black Belt." Blacks constituted about 29 percent of the electorate, a figure comparable to those seen when Barack Obama headed the Democratic ticket. Jones also polled well in urban areas like Huntsville and Birmingham and targeted college towns like Tuscaloosa, where the University of Alabama is located, and Lee County, home to Auburn.

Most Alabama voters were well acquainted with both candidates. Jones in particular was hardly an unknown. He resuscitated the prosecution of two Ku Klux Klan members who had bombed a traditionally-black church in 1963 killing four little girls. He is the personification of a white Alabama progressive. Roy Moore expressed the belief that society was better during slavery and that all the amendments to the Constitution after the original ten should be abolished. Those amendments include, of course, the 13th and 14th which ended slavery, and the 19th Amendment which granted women the right to vote.

I see, I completely missed that. For some reason I was stuck up in thinking that Jones was a complete unknown because he himself didn't appear much in the mainstream media, but despite that it appearently doesn't necessarily that mean he doesn't campaign personally or appears in more local media, escpacially since the Democrats got it much easier as being the party of the big population centers, while a Republican has to move around the place much more.

Seems I underestimated Jones too much. So that explains the relatively high turn out for dems. It's not just because people voted against Moore.

Though both candidates fall short by far compared to the votes in the presidential election, but considering it's a "special election", it might be related to that.



But it makes me wonder how the fact that it was a "special election" in itself impacted the voting results. Is it usually an advantage for Republicans or Democrats or neither?

[Dauerlutscher]

Congratulation Alabama for not wontig Moore, even though it was very close.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Though both candidates fall short by far compared to the votes in the presidential election, but considering it's a "special election", it might be related to that.

Turnout was high for a special election. About 45 percent of registered voters cast a ballot, four points more than in the mid-term election of 2014 when races for governor and the House of Representatives were on the ballot. Elections outside of presidential years are often competitions to see which campaign can drive more of its voters to the polls; on Tuesday, Jones won that race.

Another fifteen or twenty percent of the electorate will turn out in 2020 when Jones must defend his seat. Barring extraordinary circumstances, Donald Trump will also be on that ballot. Whether his "coattails" will be able to elect a new Republican Senator and oust Jones from his seat remains to be seen. So far those tails have been pretty short.

[Valky]

When you combine people like Ajit Pai and Trump, that will eventually happen. lol. Well, at least this decision will Make America Great Again ... somehow ... I guess? I see a load of lawsuits are following this decision though, bet that'll be good for ratings.

Seems like the great emperor still doesn't have anything to say about net neutrality yet? Junior said something though.

Originally Posted by Trump Junior

I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutality actually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

Another dumb misspelling aside, what the heck was junior smoking? Obama's FCC Chairman? lololol


The emperor seems still peeved with his endorsed candidates defeat.

Originally Posted by Trump

The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election. I was right! Roy worked hard but the deck was stacked against him!

Really ... another candidates you throw under the bus after they lost? LOL. 2, not 1 but 2 people he endorsed ends up lose in Alabama, not to mention Gillespie in Virginia. All of them got thrown under the bus now, I hope they get along down there. lol

[Key Board]

So, uhh.. Moore still hasn't conceded
will this drag on long enough to warrant a separate thread