Why It’s Justified To Vote For A Morally Questionable Politician

[corbe]

Why It’s Justified To Vote For A Morally Questionable Politician
 
God uses all kinds of ‘immoral’ men and women to bring about his purposes. He is actually rather pragmatic regarding the secular world.

By D.C. McAllister   
November 28, 2017
 
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey recently said she supports Senate candidate Roy Moore because “I believe in the Republican Party, what we stand for, and most important, we need to have a Republican in the United States Senate to vote on things like Supreme Court justices, other appointments the Senate has to confirm, and make major decisions.”

She said this despite admitting that the accusations of sexual abuse against Moore from 40 years ago have some credibility. Social conservatives’ response to Ivey has been harsh, as critics argue that putting Moore in the Senate for the greater political or judicial good is bad for the GOP and the country.

This complaint is nothing new, as it was fervently repeated after sexual misconduct accusations against Donald Trump surfaced just before the election. Many chose to vote for Trump because they considered his governing characteristics, which were more conservative and morally acceptable than Hillary Clinton’s, as more important than his personal moral failings—true or not.

Character Is Important, But Not the Only Consideration

<..snip..>

http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/28/justified-vote-morally-questionable-politician/

[Free Vulcan]

Nobody's established that Roy Moore is morally questionable. The only legit story I've heard is he went out on one date with an 18 y/o when he was in his early 30's.

[Bigun]

Nobody's established that Roy Moore is morally questionable. The only legit story I've heard is he went out on one date with an 18 y/o when he was in his early 30's.

ABSOLUTELY right!  And they won't ever establish that because they cannot!

[Cripplecreek]

LOL what a bunch of degenerates.

[Free Vulcan]

LOL what a bunch of degenerates.

Well, if you want to hang on the words of sleaze peddlers like Gloria Allred and Stephanie McGrummen, that's your constitutional right.

Just remember to check for fleas when you get up.

[skeeter]

Why It’s Justified To Vote For A Morally Questionable Politician
 
God uses all kinds of ‘immoral’ men and women to bring about his purposes. He is actually rather pragmatic regarding the secular world.

By D.C. McAllister   
November 28, 2017
 
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey recently said she supports Senate candidate Roy Moore because “I believe in the Republican Party, what we stand for, and most important, we need to have a Republican in the United States Senate to vote on things like Supreme Court justices, other appointments the Senate has to confirm, and make major decisions.”

She said this despite admitting that the accusations of sexual abuse against Moore from 40 years ago have some credibility. Social conservatives’ response to Ivey has been harsh, as critics argue that putting Moore in the Senate for the greater political or judicial good is bad for the GOP and the country.

This complaint is nothing new, as it was fervently repeated after sexual misconduct accusations against Donald Trump surfaced just before the election. Many chose to vote for Trump because they considered his governing characteristics, which were more conservative and morally acceptable than Hillary Clinton’s, as more important than his personal moral failings—true or not.

Character Is Important, But Not the Only Consideration

<..snip..>

http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/28/justified-vote-morally-questionable-politician/

Minor point, but the bulk of criticism against Moore doesn't seem to be coming from 'social conservatives', but those republicans who are typically embarrassed by the social conservative wing of the party.

Which IMO calls the reasons for their professed outrage into question.

[Free Vulcan]

Minor point, but the bilk of criticism against Moore doesn't seem to be coming from 'social conservatives', but those republicans who are typically embarrassed by the social conservative wing of the party.

Which IMO calls the reasons for their professed outrage into question.

Excellent point.

[Bigun]

LOL what a bunch of degenerates.

@Cripplecreek

Who are these degenerates you speak of?  If it is those who seek to smear the good name of a man by slander, innuendo, and rumor, we are in full agreement.  Otherwise, not at all!

[Right_in_Virginia]

Minor point, but the bulk of criticism against Moore doesn't seem to be coming from 'social conservatives', but those republicans who are typically embarrassed by the social conservative wing of the party.

Which IMO calls the reasons for their professed outrage into question.

  @skeeter

Only thing I disagree with is "minor point".

[RoosGirl]

It's not okay to vote for a morally questionable politician.

[Bigun]

It's not okay to vote for a morally questionable politician.

Who get's to determine who is or is not "morally questionable?

[RoosGirl]

Who get's to determine who is or is not "morally questionable?

Each individual that votes.  Or, you can ask me. :)

[Bigun]

Each individual that votes.  Or, you can ask me. :)

OK!  I think I won't bother asking you if you don't mind.

[jpsb]

It's not okay to vote for a If you want to give that power over to your cable company, fine. I'd prefer they delivered everything I asked for at the same performance level regardless of which content provider it came from. politician.

Making perfect the enemy of good are we? Let me know when you find a perfect politician.
Each and everyone one of us is a sinner, all of us are morally questionable if you ask the
right questions.

[RoosGirl]

OK!  I think I won't bother asking you if you don't mind.

Everyone has regrets in life, but it's your decision.

[EasyAce]

Each and everyone one of us is a sinner . . .

For how many of us does that include the possibility of having molested a fourteen-year-old girl
when one was in his thirties?

I am the least perfect man I know, but the only time I ever had any interest in merely dating
a fourteen-year-old girl was when I was fourteen years old myself.

By the way, Ms. McAllister's argument has since been challenged, and rather effectively:

No, The Bible Doesn't Say You Should Vote For Roy Moore Just Because God Uses Bad People To Do Good Things

[Bigun]

For how many of us does that include the possibility of having molested a fourteen-year-old girl
when one was in his thirties?

I am the least perfect man I know, but the only time I ever had any interest in merely dating
a fourteen-year-old girl was when I was fourteen years old myself.

By the way, Ms. McAllister's argument has since been challenged, and rather effectively:

No, The Bible Doesn't Say You Should Vote For Roy Moore Just Because God Uses Bad People To Do Good Things

I don't, at this point, see it including Roy Moore in the group who have molested 14-year-old girls either.

[EasyAce]

I don't, at this point, see it including Roy Moore in the group who have molested 14-year-old girls either.

I did say "possibility," not "actuality."

But I'm also mindful of the point that, when applying for a job that isn't an elective office, an ordinary
person might find it difficult if not impossible to be hired with accusations of any kind of sexual
misconduct hanging over his head, never mind an accusation of having once molested a fourteen-
year-old girl when he was in his thirties. At least, until it is proven once and for all time that he hadn't
committed what he was accused of committing. People in the real, non-political word have been denied
employment while accusations far less grave or grotesque stood unresolved.

[Bigun]

I did say "possibility," not "actuality."

But I'm also mindful of the point that, when applying for a job that isn't an elective office, an ordinary
person might find it difficult if not impossible to be hired with accusations of any kind of sexual
misconduct hanging over his head, never mind an accusation of having once molested a fourteen-
year-old girl when he was in his thirties. At least, until it is proven once and for all time that he hadn't
committed what he was accused of committing. People in the real, non-political word have been denied
employment while accusations far less grave or grotesque stood unresolved.

Yeah! And I find it totally reprehensible that we have allowed things to degrade to that level!

[skeeter]

For how many of us does that include the possibility of having molested a fourteen-year-old girl
when one was in his thirties?

Depends upon your definition of 'possibility'.

My definition would include something more than a 40 year old virtually unverifiable accusation.

If this is the standard I guess all of us who are 58 or older today are possible molesters.

[EasyAce]

Yeah! And I find it totally reprehensible that we have allowed things to degrade to that level!

Would a sane employer willingly hire an accused thief until or unless that accusation should be
proven false? An accused embezzler? An accused murderer? An accused rapist?

If I'm an employer presented with an applicant who faced such accusations, I'd need to know if
the accusations were proven false and, if they were proven false, I'd have no problem
at all hiring him or her. (I'm mindful of the fact that there have been false accusations of rape
levied against people and that the mere accusation of such a grotesque crime is enough to prejudice
people against the accused, but if the accusation was indeed proven false I for one would
have no issue with such a person.)

Remember---we're talking above about a hypothetical applicant facing accusations of committing a
real crime, which is what sexual misconduct is, not a hypothetical applicant having committed
a mere difference of opinion or having joined the "wrong" interest group or political party or
attended the wrong rally or meeting(s).

Since in the case of Mr. Moore we're talking, in essence, about one state hiring him to be a U.S.
Senator, why should we feel something amiss in rejecting his application, so to say, until or unless
accusations a real crime against him can be shown once and for all false? (Allowing that by now
it could not be resolved in criminal courts but in civil litigation, unless I'm wrong about Alabama's
statute of limitations.) Particularly in light of Capitol Hill lately having been shown as (pardon the
expression) something of a hotbed of sexual misconduct?

I'd rather debate Mr. Moore's suitability for the Senate on political and policy grounds, as would
you, but it seems to be nothing more than plain sense to suggest that until/unless the accusations
against him are proven false he should not be considered a suitable job applicant especially
if you wish to clean Capitol Hill of its apparent subculture of sexual misbehaviour.

[RoosGirl]

Would a sane employer willingly hire an accused thief until or unless that accusation should be
proven false? An accused embezzler? An accused murderer? An accused rapist?

If I'm an employer presented with an applicant who faced such accusations, I'd need to know if
the accusations were proven false and, if they were proven false, I'd have no problem
at all hiring him or her. (I'm mindful of the fact that there have been false accusations of rape
levied against people and that the mere accusation of such a grotesque crime is enough to prejudice
people against the accused, but if the accusation was indeed proven false I for one would
have no issue with such a person.)

Remember---we're talking above about a hypothetical applicant facing accusations of committing a
real crime, which is what sexual misconduct is, not a hypothetical applicant having committed
a mere difference of opinion or having joined the "wrong" interest group or political party or
attended the wrong rally or meeting(s).

Since in the case of Mr. Moore we're talking, in essence, about one state hiring him to be a U.S.
Senator, why should we feel something amiss in rejecting his application, so to say, until or unless
accusations a real crime against him can be shown once and for all false? (Allowing that by now
it could not be resolved in criminal courts but in civil litigation, unless I'm wrong about Alabama's
statute of limitations.) Particularly in light of Capitol Hill lately having been shown as (pardon the
expression) something of a hotbed of sexual misconduct?

I'd rather debate Mr. Moore's suitability for the Senate on political and policy grounds, as would
you, but it seems to be nothing more than plain sense to suggest that until/unless the accusations
against him are proven false he should not be considered a suitable job applicant especially
if you wish to clean Capitol Hill of its apparent subculture of sexual misbehaviour.

I think that would be right for a "normal" job, but given the looming election and not knowing whether it can or even should be postponed for such things, it doesn't seem very practical in this case.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Would a sane employer willingly hire an accused thief until or unless that accusation should be
proven false? An accused embezzler? An accused murderer? An accused rapist?

If I'm an employer presented with an applicant who faced such accusations, I'd need to know if
the accusations were proven false and, if they were proven false, I'd have no problem
at all hiring him or her. (I'm mindful of the fact that there have been false accusations of rape
levied against people and that the mere accusation of such a grotesque crime is enough to prejudice
people against the accused, but if the accusation was indeed proven false I for one would
have no issue with such a person.)

Remember---we're talking above about a hypothetical applicant facing accusations of committing a
real crime, which is what sexual misconduct is, not a hypothetical applicant having committed
a mere difference of opinion or having joined the "wrong" interest group or political party or
attended the wrong rally or meeting(s).

Since in the case of Mr. Moore we're talking, in essence, about one state hiring him to be a U.S.
Senator, why should we feel something amiss in rejecting his application, so to say, until or unless
accusations a real crime against him can be shown once and for all false? (Allowing that by now
it could not be resolved in criminal courts but in civil litigation, unless I'm wrong about Alabama's
statute of limitations.) Particularly in light of Capitol Hill lately having been shown as (pardon the
expression) something of a hotbed of sexual misconduct?

I'd rather debate Mr. Moore's suitability for the Senate on political and policy grounds, as would
you, but it seems to be nothing more than plain sense to suggest that until/unless the accusations
against him are proven false he should not be considered a suitable job applicant especially
if you wish to clean Capitol Hill of its apparent subculture of sexual misbehaviour.

So then the Dems can simply make accusations against their every opponent, and we should let them win every election?

[Restored]

I think we are in the midst of "The lack of evidence is outweighed by the seriousness of the charges".

[Restored]

If I'm an employer presented with an applicant who faced such accusations, I'd need to know if
the accusations were proven false and, if they were proven false, I'd have no problem
at all hiring him or her.

????
How do you prove that something didn't happen?