AL-SEN: It’s Tuberville

[brucejoel99]

I HATE MOORE !

BECAUSE OF YOU, DIRTY ROY, ALABAMA HAS A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR !! GO F**K YOURSELF STUPID ASHOLE

You say that as if Republicans are entitled to that Senate seat, rather than the people of Alabama being entitled to elect whomever they wish to represent them (regardless of party).

[brucejoel99]

I HATE MOORE !

BECAUSE OF YOU, DIRTY ROY, ALABAMA HAS A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR !! GO F**K YOURSELF STUPID ASHOLE

You say that as if Republicans are entitled to that Senate seat, rather than the people of Alabama being entitled to elect whomever they wish to represent them (regardless of party).

The only reason why Jones is in the Senate is because a large number of conservative voters stayed at home in December 2017 rather than going to vote for Creepy Roy. Keep in mind that Jones won less votes than Maddox who lost in a landslide.

Most Alabamians don’t like Jones and are not happy with him, sane republicans stayed at home because they didn’t want a pedo as senator, but don’t be a fool, Jones is not representing the values of most Alabamians. Just last year 59% of Alabamian approved a referendum question in order to grant the personhood to children yet to be born, at the same time Jones is acting like if he was representing Massachusetts by voting against common sense restrictions on abortion.

So, what you're saying is that you'd rather have Senators act as mere mouthpieces for the wishes of their states, with no autonomy from their states, rather than see them have the sufficient autonomy to deliberate & act in favor of the greater common good & the national interest (seeing that they're, y'know, United States Senators, & all), even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own states?

Jesus.

Perhaps you should realize that Jones is an independent voice for Alabama who cares more about the issues that actually affect Alabama's everyday voters than partisan politics... unlike you, evidently, considering you're cherry-picking your facts & literally ignoring how democratic political representation works so you can weave a divisive narrative & reaffirm your narrow partisan viewpoint.

Why are you shocked ? I’m rooting for the republicans, it’s logical that I want the larger possible republican majority in the Senate.

And what’s the problem with what I said ? It’s true that the only reason why Jones is in the Senate is Creepy Roy, without Moore there wouldn’t be a Senator Jones.

See above, re: Republicans aren't entitled to the Senate seat.

[brucejoel99]

I HATE MOORE !

BECAUSE OF YOU, DIRTY ROY, ALABAMA HAS A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR !! GO F**K YOURSELF STUPID ASHOLE

You say that as if Republicans are entitled to that Senate seat, rather than the people of Alabama being entitled to elect whomever they wish to represent them (regardless of party).

The only reason why Jones is in the Senate is because a large number of conservative voters stayed at home in December 2017 rather than going to vote for Creepy Roy. Keep in mind that Jones won less votes than Maddox who lost in a landslide.

Most Alabamians don’t like Jones and are not happy with him, sane republicans stayed at home because they didn’t want a pedo as senator, but don’t be a fool, Jones is not representing the values of most Alabamians. Just last year 59% of Alabamian approved a referendum question in order to grant the personhood to children yet to be born, at the same time Jones is acting like if he was representing Massachusetts by voting against common sense restrictions on abortion.

So, what you're saying is that you'd rather have Senators act as mere mouthpieces for the wishes of their states, with no autonomy from their states, rather than see them have the sufficient autonomy to deliberate & act in favor of the greater common good & the national interest (seeing that they're, y'know, United States Senators, & all), even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own states?

Jesus.

Perhaps you should realize that Jones is an independent voice for Alabama who cares more about the issues that actually affect Alabama's everyday voters than partisan politics... unlike you, evidently, considering you're cherry-picking your facts & literally ignoring how democratic political representation works so you can weave a divisive narrative & reaffirm your narrow partisan viewpoint.

Why are you shocked ? I’m rooting for the republicans, it’s logical that I want the larger possible republican majority in the Senate.

And what’s the problem with what I said ? It’s true that the only reason why Jones is in the Senate is Creepy Roy, without Moore there wouldn’t be a Senator Jones.

See above, re: Republicans aren't entitled to the Senate seat.

1. And what’s common good and national interest ? In 2017 every single democrat voted against  the Tax Reform whose aim was to make US businesses more competitive by reducing the US corporate tax, at the time the highest in the developed world, to 21%. Making the US economy more competitive shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Right ? Creating more jobs should be a common good issue. No ? So explain me why every democratic senators voted against this common sense reform ? I

2. No and no, Jones in not a independent voice for Alabama, Jones is a progressive democrat who is doing what Schumer is asking him to do, look at how he voted on Kavanaugh, a well qualified judge. Had Jones being an independent voice like you said he would have voted to confirm him.

Your reply is literally the embodiment of you "reaffirm[ing] your narrow partisan viewpoint."

But if you insist...

1. And what’s common good and national interest ? In 2017 every single democrat voted against  the Tax Reform whose aim was to make US businesses more competitive by reducing the US corporate tax, at the time the highest in the developed world, to 21%. Making the US economy more competitive shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Right ? Creating more jobs should be a common good issue. No ? So explain me why every democratic senators voted against this common sense reform ? I

The common good/national interest refers to what's beneficial for all (or most) Americans, which Trump's tax reform wasn't. Democrats opposed Trump's tax reform because said tax cuts were geared towards the richest Americans. So if you're gonna claim that the goal of Trump's tax reform was to benefit the greater common good & the national interest, then please tell me why Trump didn't even give any lick of a thought to instead considering Democratic proposals, which target the middle class much moreso than Trump's did & offer far more tax relief than the GOP tax cuts while costing far less.

2. No and no, Jones in not a independent voice for Alabama, Jones is a progressive democrat who is doing what Schumer is asking him to do,

No. Jones has voted in line with Trump's position 56.3% of the time. The only Democratic senator who has voted with Trump more often is Manchin.

look at how he voted on Kavanaugh, a well qualified judge.

You're right, Kavanaugh is "a well qualified judge," & based on this being the case, Jones was actually expected to vote in favor of Kavanaugh's nomination. But then those pesky credible allegations of sexual misconduct just had to pop up (or did you conveniently forget about those?); how dare a U.S. Senator, before voting on a Supreme Court nominee, take them (instead of just qualifications) into consideration as well?!

Had Jones being an independent voice like you said he would have voted to confirm him.

You mean like that other well-known Schumer crony... *checks notes* ...Lisa Murkowski?

(Oh, & if you're gonna cherry-pick an example of Jones voting against a Trump nominee, then may I remind you how Jones was one of only a handful of Democrats to vote for Mike Pompeo's nomination to be Secretary of State? Or did you conveniently forget that too?)

[brucejoel99]

I HATE MOORE !

BECAUSE OF YOU, DIRTY ROY, ALABAMA HAS A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR !! GO F**K YOURSELF STUPID ASHOLE

You say that as if Republicans are entitled to that Senate seat, rather than the people of Alabama being entitled to elect whomever they wish to represent them (regardless of party).

I mean Doug Jones doesn’t exactly represent the people of Alabama very well lol. Plenty of Democrats have expressed similar sentiments about Republicans like Scott Brown, Susan Collins, or Cory Gardner over the years - the difference being all of them were much closer to the state they represented than Jones is to Alabama.

As much as I hate to admit it. This.

Please point me toward the clause in the 17th Amendment wherein it states that Senators are supposed to represent the median political views of their states' people.

[brucejoel99]

I lived in AL for years before moving up to VA. Great state and great people for the most part but it's rigidly conservative. No surprise that Moore gets consistently nominated to high office there. His social views are completely in line with a near-majority of the electorate and certainly a majority of the AL GOP.

Now I'd vote for Jones in a fetal hearbeat, especially against Ray Moore, but Jones is far, far to the left of the state. He isn't even as conservative as Joe Manchin; only about as "conservative" as Krysten Sinema. The fact that this forum (reasonably) polls Jones losing well into the double digits is proof enough that he's not in line with the values of his state.

Okay, but it's wrong to act (not you, others taking part in this thread) as if the values of the state should be relevant to how he chooses to vote once he's in the Senate considering they've already elected him.

[brucejoel99]

I lived in AL for years before moving up to VA. Great state and great people for the most part but it's rigidly conservative. No surprise that Moore gets consistently nominated to high office there. His social views are completely in line with a near-majority of the electorate and certainly a majority of the AL GOP.

Now I'd vote for Jones in a fetal hearbeat, especially against Ray Moore, but Jones is far, far to the left of the state. He isn't even as conservative as Joe Manchin; only about as "conservative" as Krysten Sinema. The fact that this forum (reasonably) polls Jones losing well into the double digits is proof enough that he's not in line with the values of his state.

Okay, but it's wrong to act (not you, others taking part in this thread) as if the values of the state should be relevant to how he chooses to vote once he's in the Senate considering they've already elected him.

I mean yeah, as a centrist, I value a politician's "independence," but I wouldn't be surprised if they get booted out bigly in the next election. Or at the least see them fight tooth and nail only to win in a nailbiter against an extremely flawed opponent (see Manchin in 2018 and Jones himself in 2017)

Well yes, of course his votes will be a damper on his re-election chances, but that doesn't lessen the fact that he still has a right to have voted the way he wanted to once he was already elected to the Senate.

Kavanaugh tried to rape a woman, but good to know that you’re fine with that.

Guess you forgot about the concept of innocent until proven guilty

Also, Jones has sided with Trump only 37.2% of the time.  Less than Manchin, Sinema, King, and Rosen.

You're correct that he was innocent until proven guilty, but it was neither a court case nor a criminal trial; it was a job interview. He wasn't owed anything. There was probable cause that he'd sexually assaulted somebody (multiple somebodies, actually), & there were plenty of other qualified judges out there (conservatives, even) who'd have loved the job.

Also, no. It's 56.3%.

[brucejoel99]

Where in the constitution does it say it's a job interview?  Where's the probable cause?

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution ("Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...") empowers the Senate to establish its rules. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) empowers the Senate to confirm the appointments of public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. The Standing Rules of the Senate permits Senate committees (in this case, the Judiciary Committee) to hold confirmation hearings on presidential nominations, including justices of the Supreme Court, in fulfillment of the Senate's constitutional responsibilities under the Appointments Clause. It's these hearings that serve a purpose akin to a job interview, which isn't held to the same standards as a criminal trial (please understand that, with an allegation of a serious sex crime, the standard of proof for Kavanaugh hypothetically having been denied a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt, but probable cause, because, again, it was a job interview, not a criminal trial).

Re: Kavanaugh/probable cause, here's a Twitter thread from a credible legal analyst which expands upon how such a threshold was met.

That article is a year old, use this: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

In fact, in the 116th session of Congress, Jones has a Trump score of 12.5%

Then I stand corrected. My bad :/

[brucejoel99]

Why does it matter if Doug Jones "represents the average voter well" or not? Every member of Congress should represent my views and my views only. If it were up to me Alabama would have two DSA Senators.

Paula Jean Swearengin, since when did you move to Oklahoma?

[brucejoel99]

Where in the constitution does it say it's a job interview?  Where's the probable cause?

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution ("Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...") empowers the Senate to establish its rules. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) empowers the Senate to confirm the appointments of public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. The Standing Rules of the Senate permits Senate committees (in this case, the Judiciary Committee) to hold confirmation hearings on presidential nominations, including justices of the Supreme Court, in fulfillment of the Senate's constitutional responsibilities under the Appointments Clause. It's these hearings serve a purpose akin to a job interview, which isn't held to the same standards as a criminal trial (please understand that, with an allegation of a serious sex crime, the standard of proof for Kavanaugh hypothetically having been denied a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt, but probable cause, because, again, it was a job interview, not a criminal trial).

Re: Kavanaugh/probable cause, here's a Twitter thread from a credible legal analyst which expands upon how such a threshold was met.

That article is a year old, use this: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

In fact, in the 116th session of Congress, Jones has a Trump score of 12.5%

Then I stand corrected. My bad :/

So... the Senate took the facts in and made the conclusion that he be confirmed? Nice, the Constitution at work.  Ford also got an FBI investigation and they found nothing.

Just because they went to the same school and had mutual friends doesn't fill the burden of probable cause nor does it corroborate sexual assault.

Oh please, that investigation was so flawed that it didn't even interview Ford herself, let alone other witnesses with information relevant to the allegations.

[brucejoel99]

I HATE MOORE !

BECAUSE OF YOU, DIRTY ROY, ALABAMA HAS A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR !! GO F**K YOURSELF STUPID ASHOLE

You say that as if Republicans are entitled to that Senate seat, rather than the people of Alabama being entitled to elect whomever they wish to represent them (regardless of party).

The only reason why Jones is in the Senate is because a large number of conservative voters stayed at home in December 2017 rather than going to vote for Creepy Roy. Keep in mind that Jones won less votes than Maddox who lost in a landslide.

Most Alabamians don’t like Jones and are not happy with him, sane republicans stayed at home because they didn’t want a pedo as senator, but don’t be a fool, Jones is not representing the values of most Alabamians. Just last year 59% of Alabamian approved a referendum question in order to grant the personhood to children yet to be born, at the same time Jones is acting like if he was representing Massachusetts by voting against common sense restrictions on abortion.

So, what you're saying is that you'd rather have Senators act as mere mouthpieces for the wishes of their states, with no autonomy from their states, rather than see them have the sufficient autonomy to deliberate & act in favor of the greater common good & the national interest (seeing that they're, y'know, United States Senators, & all), even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own states?

Jesus.

Perhaps you should realize that Jones is an independent voice for Alabama who cares more about the issues that actually affect Alabama's everyday voters than partisan politics... unlike you, evidently, considering you're cherry-picking your facts & literally ignoring how democratic political representation works so you can weave a divisive narrative & reaffirm your narrow partisan viewpoint.

Why are you shocked ? I’m rooting for the republicans, it’s logical that I want the larger possible republican majority in the Senate.

And what’s the problem with what I said ? It’s true that the only reason why Jones is in the Senate is Creepy Roy, without Moore there wouldn’t be a Senator Jones.

See above, re: Republicans aren't entitled to the Senate seat.

1. And what’s common good and national interest ? In 2017 every single democrat voted against  the Tax Reform whose aim was to make US businesses more competitive by reducing the US corporate tax, at the time the highest in the developed world, to 21%. Making the US economy more competitive shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Right ? Creating more jobs should be a common good issue. No ? So explain me why every democratic senators voted against this common sense reform ? I

2. No and no, Jones in not a independent voice for Alabama, Jones is a progressive democrat who is doing what Schumer is asking him to do, look at how he voted on Kavanaugh, a well qualified judge. Had Jones being an independent voice like you said he would have voted to confirm him.

Your reply is literally the embodiment of you "reaffirm[ing] your narrow partisan viewpoint."

But if you insist...

1. And what’s common good and national interest ? In 2017 every single democrat voted against  the Tax Reform whose aim was to make US businesses more competitive by reducing the US corporate tax, at the time the highest in the developed world, to 21%. Making the US economy more competitive shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Right ? Creating more jobs should be a common good issue. No ? So explain me why every democratic senators voted against this common sense reform ? I

The common good/national interest refers to what's beneficial for all (or most) Americans, which Trump's tax reform wasn't. Democrats opposed Trump's tax reform because said tax cuts were geared towards the richest Americans. So if you're gonna claim that the goal of Trump's tax reform was to benefit the greater common good & the national interest, then please tell me why Trump didn't even give any lick of a thought to instead considering Democratic proposals, which target the middle class much moreso than Trump's did & offer far more tax relief than the GOP tax cuts while costing far less.

2. No and no, Jones in not a independent voice for Alabama, Jones is a progressive democrat who is doing what Schumer is asking him to do,

No. Jones has voted in line with Trump's position 56.3% of the time. The only Democratic senator who has voted with Trump more often is Manchin.

look at how he voted on Kavanaugh, a well qualified judge.

You're right, Kavanaugh is "a well qualified judge," & based on this being the case, Jones was actually expected to vote in favor of Kavanaugh's nomination. But then those pesky credible allegations of sexual misconduct just had to pop up (or did you conveniently forget about those?); how dare a U.S. Senator, before voting on a Supreme Court nominee, take them (instead of just qualifications) into consideration as well?!

Had Jones being an independent voice like you said he would have voted to confirm him.

You mean like that other well-known Schumer crony... *checks notes* ...Lisa Murkowski?

(Oh, & if you're gonna cherry-pick an example of Jones voting against a Trump nominee, then may I remind you how Jones was one of only a handful of Democrats to vote for Mike Pompeo's nomination to be Secretary of State? Or did you conveniently forget that too?)

The common good/national interest refers to what's beneficial for all (or most) Americans, which Trump's tax reform wasn't. Democrats opposed Trump's tax reform because said tax cuts were geared towards the richest Americans. So if you're gonna claim that the goal of Trump's tax reform was to benefit the greater common good & the national interest, then please tell me why Trump didn't even give any lick of a thought to instead considering Democratic proposals, which target the middle class much moreso than Trump's did & offer far more tax relief than the GOP tax cuts while costing far less.

Maybe I'm narrow minded, but at least I'm aware that the 2017 Tax reform barely touched the Income Tax rate. The highest income tax bracket went from 39.6% to 37%. Not exactly a big drop or a big gift in favour of richest Americans. The main aim of the Tax Reform was to cut the Corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% because a 35% rate threatened the competitiveness of American businnesses (the average corporate tax rate in the EU is 24%). Making American companies more competitive serve the US Economy ans thus the national interest. Democratic proposals were refused because democrats didn't want to lower the Corporate Tax to less than 28% (and to be more precise most democrats were againt any Corporate tax rate cut anyway, the only democrats who agreed with a corporate tax cut per se were blue dogs dems)

We had the highest nominal rate, yes, but we were nowhere near having the highest actual rate thanks to all of our loopholes (compared to the rest of the world, we actually had an average corporate tax rate). Of course, we could've certainly used real tax reform that cut both rates & deductions so that the net result was revenue neutral, but then the GOP wouldn't have been able to make their rich buddies richer had they done that, now would they?

You're right, Kavanaugh is "a well qualified judge," & based on this being the case, Jones was actually expected to vote in favor of Kavanaugh's nomination. But then those pesky credible allegations of sexual misconduct just had to pop up (or did you conveniently forget about those?); how dare a U.S. Senator, before voting on a Supreme Court nominee, take them (instead of just qualifications) into consideration as well?!

These allegations were not credible by any standard. Blasey Ford didn't even remember the year when "she was raped". Anyway, as someone said, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, he was innocent until proven guilty, but it was neither a court case nor a criminal trial; it was a job interview. He wasn't owed anything. There was probable cause that he'd sexually assaulted somebody (multiple somebodies, actually), & there were plenty of other qualified judges out there (conservatives, even) who'd have loved the job.

And yes, the allegations were credible by the probable cause standard, & while I know it helps your narrative to imply that Blasey Ford couldn't keep her "story" straight, that's just not the truth; here's a Twitter thread from a credible legal analyst which expands upon how such a standard was met precisely because of her story.

No. Jones has voted in line with Trump's position 56.3% of the time. The only Democratic senator who has voted with Trump more often is Manchin.

Jones is not voting with Trump 56.3% of the time. Most of these votes are absolutely meaningless, for example yesterday the Senate voted to confirm an Assistant Secretary of Energy, the vote was 86/5 for the confirmation of the person nominated, Jones voted ''yeah'', and thus he adopted the "Trump position'' but nearly every other democratic senator voted ''yeah'' too. Most of Senate votes are on non partisan stuff (confirmation, natural disasters funding….) If you want to know the ideology of a Senator you must look at high profile votes (Obamacare reapeal, tax reform vote)

Wow, if high profile votes matter more than taking all of a Senator's votes into consideration, then I guess Joe Manchin is as much a bleeding-heart liberal as Bernie Sanders! Makes sense!!

Oh, & if confirmations were non-partisan affairs, then you wouldn't have devoted most of your time to attacking Jones for voting against Kavanaugh while conveniently choosing to ignore major flaws in the choice of nominee.

You mean like that other well-known Schumer crony... *checks notes* ...Lisa Murkowski?

Yeah, Murkowski in an independent minded Senator who is voting regulary against the positions of the Republican leadership while Jones is doing what the democratic leadership is telling him to do.

That's just patently false. Jones (who votes with Democrats 62.8% of the time) votes more regularly against the positions of the Democratic leadership than Murkowski (who votes with Republicans 76.0% of the time) does against the positions of the Republican leadership. Please explain to me how this makes Murkowski independent minded while making Jones a slave to his leadership??

[brucejoel99]

I don’t think Moore will be the nominee this time, and if he is not I will want the democrats to give  Jones a canteen and a pistol and set him loose, but if Moore gets the nom again, I am going to go to the mat for Jones, and I hope dems will follow. Moore has to get every last ounce of fight we got if he is the nominee.

As progressive as I am, you're not going to get much better than Doug Jones, I can admit that.

Jones campaigned as a progressive, but unfortunately he's decided to go down the Moderate Hero route with his votes in the Senate.

Well, he does still wanna try to win re-election.

[brucejoel99]

The notion Doug Jones is a socialist is just fully nonsense. He's a moderate-to-liberal Democrat, much in the same corner than Joe Biden.

Jones is not exactly a moderate, Donnelly or Manchin are moderate, but Jones not so much  

Yeah, pretty much this. I'd say Manchin is a conservative Democrat, Donnelly is a moderate, & Jones is center-left; not quite a liberal, but not quite a centrist Democrat either.

[brucejoel99]

The notion Doug Jones is a socialist is just fully nonsense. He's a moderate-to-liberal Democrat, much in the same corner than Joe Biden.

Nobody who isn't a full-fleged fascist or AnCap thinks Doug Jones is a socialist.

Every democrat is a socialist.

Right, and every Republican is a Nazi.

So they're both socialists then.

Something something national socialism isn't socialism.

[brucejoel99]

The notion Doug Jones is a socialist is just fully nonsense. He's a moderate-to-liberal Democrat, much in the same corner than Joe Biden.

Nobody who isn't a full-fleged fascist or AnCap thinks Doug Jones is a socialist.

Every democrat is a socialist.

To some degree, most of them, yeah

Hahaha.

No.

[brucejoel99]

The notion Doug Jones is a socialist is just fully nonsense. He's a moderate-to-liberal Democrat, much in the same corner than Joe Biden.

Nobody who isn't a full-fleged fascist or AnCap thinks Doug Jones is a socialist.

Every democrat is a socialist.

To some degree, most of them, yeah

Hahaha.

No.

It’s a fact, the Democratic Party is to the left of most center left parties across the western world (

This is patently false. The Democratic Party, & American politics in general, is much more right-leaning than most of the democratic world.

[brucejoel99]

The notion Doug Jones is a socialist is just fully nonsense. He's a moderate-to-liberal Democrat, much in the same corner than Joe Biden.

Nobody who isn't a full-fleged fascist or AnCap thinks Doug Jones is a socialist.

Every democrat is a socialist.

To some degree, most of them, yeah

Hahaha.

No.

It’s a fact, the Democratic Party is to the left of most center left parties across the western world (

This is patently false. The Democratic Party, & American politics in general, is much more right-leaning than most of the democratic world.

Well, it’s clear that you don’t know anything about European politics ; Americans politics looks more right leaning because the Republican Party is to the right of its European conservative counterparts   (On social issues for example very few European center right politicians are pro life, most european center right parties don’t want to shrink the size of the government), at the same time the US Democratic Party is clearly to the left of center left European parties.

A few example ;
-Francois Hollande, the former socialist French President did many pro business reforms (Corporate tax cut + an important reform of Labor laws in 2016 which irked big unions)
-Our actual President, Emmanuel Macron (the anti Trump according to the NY times) continued on the same path, in 2017 he did another important reform in order to ease even more labor laws, he repealed the wealth tax (you know the tax that Warren would like to put in place) and reduced significantly the taxation of capital gains
-In Denmark the Social Democratic Party has just won legislative elections while running on a anti immigrant platform in order to seduce the white working class which had abandoned social democrats over the past decade
-In Germany the SPD is full of deficit hawks who have little in common with tax and spend US democrats

Once again, the European center right sucks, they are more like Charlie Baker than Trump but in the other hand the European center left parties are clearly to the right of the Democratic Party

lol k

If you're just gonna be false & not even try to make it seem as if you have a grasp (however small) of how politics, y'know, actually works, then I'm not gonna continue taking you seriously as a poster.

[brucejoel99]

The notion Doug Jones is a socialist is just fully nonsense. He's a moderate-to-liberal Democrat, much in the same corner than Joe Biden.

Nobody who isn't a full-fleged fascist or AnCap thinks Doug Jones is a socialist.

Every democrat is a socialist.

To some degree, most of them, yeah

Hahaha.

No.

It’s a fact, the Democratic Party is to the left of most center left parties across the western world (

This is patently false. The Democratic Party, & American politics in general, is much more right-leaning than most of the democratic world.

Well, it’s clear that you don’t know anything about European politics ; Americans politics looks more right leaning because the Republican Party is to the right of its European conservative counterparts   (On social issues for example very few European center right politicians are pro life, most european center right parties don’t want to shrink the size of the government), at the same time the US Democratic Party is clearly to the left of center left European parties.

A few example ;
-Francois Hollande, the former socialist French President did many pro business reforms (Corporate tax cut + an important reform of Labor laws in 2016 which irked big unions)
-Our actual President, Emmanuel Macron (the anti Trump according to the NY times) continued on the same path, in 2017 he did another important reform in order to ease even more labor laws, he repealed the wealth tax (you know the tax that Warren would like to put in place) and reduced significantly the taxation of capital gains
-In Denmark the Social Democratic Party has just won legislative elections while running on a anti immigrant platform in order to seduce the white working class which had abandoned social democrats over the past decade
-In Germany the SPD is full of deficit hawks who have little in common with tax and spend US democrats

Once again, the European center right sucks, they are more like Charlie Baker than Trump but in the other hand the European center left parties are clearly to the right of the Democratic Party

lol k

If you're just gonna be false & not even try to make it seem as if you have a grasp (however small) of how politics, y'know, actually works, then I'm not gonna continue taking you seriously as a poster.

Lol
You are just pathetic, anyway, what I said above is totally true, I’m sorry dude but those are facts, I know that many democrats chose to ignore facts when they don’t fit their own opinion, their own narrative, but still you should try. I also note the that your are absolutely unable to argue with me, you spend your time claiming things (Democrats are moderate, Doug Jones is a an independent minded senator, Democrats stand for the national interest, Kavanaugh is a serial rapist....), but once you are challenged you are absolutely unable to build a serious answer, so you you mock me. It’s a bit pathetic to be honest.

Don’t worry, it’s my last discussion with you, I don’t have anymore time to lose with a childish, uninformed democratic hack like you.

For one thing, I never said that "Democrats are moderate" (they lean right compared to the rest of the word but they're an overall center-left party) or that "Kavanaugh was a serial rapist" but thanks for putting words in my mouth, "dude."

For another, I've provided you with nothing but serious answers, because everything that I have said (& that mostly everybody else who chooses to respond to you as well has said) is so serious that it's common f**king sense & doesn't require "build[ing]" to the point where it's text blocks upon paragraphs upon essays of rebuttal. Because it's all common sense!!

But nah, I'm the pathetic one. Pfft, give me a g break.

And if you think what you said were "totally true" facts; if you think that I'm the one choosing to ignore facts when they don't fit my own opinion & my own narrative; if you think that I'm the child here; if you think I'm the uninformed one here; if you think I'm the hack here... then either none of those words mean what you think they mean, or you have a severe case of psychological projection & need to get in touch with a therapist immediately. Or both.

[brucejoel99]

https://www.johnhmerrill.com/

AL-SOS John Merrill is in.

His Twitter feed is an endless string of Fox News & Breitbart dad hot takes. Check it out unless, of course, he has blocked you. He can't stand those libs & won't let them use his social media as a platform!

Obviously a completely rational & normal person.

Also, a vocal Roy Moore supporter from 2017.

[brucejoel99]

https://mobile.twitter.com/DougJonesHQ/status/1144682536016187393

How to lose Alabama 101 for dummies, seriously is he even trying anymore?

I'd rather him be a loving father than someone who would pretend to be homophobic for political gain.

I disagree.

Ugh. Stop. He’s going to lose the state and everybody knows it. Loving his child means more than winning the votes of homophobic right wing bigots.

I mean if he was a Joe Manchin and had Moore as an opinion, he would have a decent shot. He has to do everything he possibly can to maximize his chances of winning, but unfortunately he is not on the same page.

If that's the case, then why not just switch his party affiliation to Republican, amirite?

[brucejoel99]

https://mobile.twitter.com/DougJonesHQ/status/1144682536016187393

How to lose Alabama 101 for dummies, seriously is he even trying anymore?

I'd rather him be a loving father than someone who would pretend to be homophobic for political gain.

I disagree.

Ugh. Stop. He’s going to lose the state and everybody knows it. Loving his child means more than winning the votes of homophobic right wing bigots.

I mean if he was a Joe Manchin and had Moore as an opinion, he would have a decent shot. He has to do everything he possibly can to maximize his chances of winning, but unfortunately he is not on the same page.

If that's the case, then why not just switch his party affiliation to Republican, amirite?

I thought it was obvious I meant as a democrat dude.

r/whoosh

[brucejoel99]

https://mobile.twitter.com/DougJonesHQ/status/1144682536016187393

How to lose Alabama 101 for dummies, seriously is he even trying anymore?

He would be an excellent Attorney General for any Democratic president.

Why? What would he do differently from any other Democratic AG?

Well, I believe the suggestion there was that he'd be a good shoe-in for an incoming Democratic president's AG if he can't get re-elected (as is currently expected).

[brucejoel99]

https://mobile.twitter.com/DougJonesHQ/status/1144682536016187393

How to lose Alabama 101 for dummies, seriously is he even trying anymore?

I'd rather him be a loving father than someone who would pretend to be homophobic for political gain.

I disagree.

You're ridiculous.  You are probably in favor of the Southern Democrats being racist during the Civil Rights Movement, because it gained them votes.

I am in favor of optimizing the chances of winning by doing almost whatever it takes (besides like the violent and illegal stuff).

Wow, expected you to at least push back on that a little bit.  You would seriously be okay with being racist to maximize votes?  

I'll answer that for him: yes, he would. And yes, it's beyond disgusting.

[brucejoel99]

https://mobile.twitter.com/DougJonesHQ/status/1144682536016187393

How to lose Alabama 101 for dummies, seriously is he even trying anymore?

I'd rather him be a loving father than someone who would pretend to be homophobic for political gain.

I disagree.

You're ridiculous.  You are probably in favor of the Southern Democrats being racist during the Civil Rights Movement, because it gained them votes.

I am in favor of optimizing the chances of winning by doing almost whatever it takes (besides like the violent and illegal stuff).

Wow, expected you to at least push back on that a little bit.  You would seriously be okay with being racist to maximize votes? 

Yes https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=267565.msg5718571#msg5718571

Congrats Bagel, you played yourself! But hey, at least you concede that being racist is indeed disgusting.

[brucejoel99]

https://mobile.twitter.com/DougJonesHQ/status/1144682536016187393

How to lose Alabama 101 for dummies, seriously is he even trying anymore?

I'd rather him be a loving father than someone who would pretend to be homophobic for political gain.

I disagree.

You're ridiculous.  You are probably in favor of the Southern Democrats being racist during the Civil Rights Movement, because it gained them votes.

I am in favor of optimizing the chances of winning by doing almost whatever it takes (besides like the violent and illegal stuff).

Wow, expected you to at least push back on that a little bit.  You would seriously be okay with being racist to maximize votes?  

Yes https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=267565.msg5718571#msg5718571

Congrats Bagel, you played yourself! But hey, at least you concede that being racist is indeed disgusting.

I do not like racism and I am not one, but I am of the Pelosi mentality of just trying to win baby win, so if it’s what it takes, then it is what it takes.

It's not a Pelosi mentality to be okay with racism in order to win. It's a Trump mentality.

Not to mention, at a certain point, there's no difference between being racist & pretending to be.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/DougJones/status/1170852475357859841

Godspeed, Doug Jones! I'd love nothing more than for the good people of Alabama to let you continue serving, but I suspect the partisan divide is too great for that to happen.