Everything can be made to seem woolly or uncertain by reductio ad absurdum.
It's a classic debating tactic that is typically deployed in upper infant and lower secondary school debating and seems clever at first. 🙄
Really it's just the equivalent of a child asking 'why' over and over again until the inevitable 'why' is applied to the life the universe and everything. The child then usually triumphantly exclaims "so, you don't have an answer for THAT!"
[img] 
[/img]
Ninfan. your argument that because a word has been used incorrectly in the past means that it can no longer be used is utter bollocks.
Ironic has been misapplied countless times, but that doesn't mean that things are no longer ironic.
If it looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit - the chances are it's shit.
Similarly if you support authoritarian nationalism (check), forcible suppression of opposition (check),and oppose liberalism (check) - You're a Fascist.
Now I know you're going to try and come out and say, you don't support these things, and Trump doesn't want to do these things, and it's the MSM corrupting his noble plan, yadda yadda yadda, but this is how it starts - small power grabs, slow erosion of democracy, undermining confidence in the system, until tiny step by tiny step, you find yourself in a full blown authoritarian fascist dictatorship.
I can forgive the uneducated for their mistakes - they don't know any better and mostly lack the foresight to see the big picture. You however, are clearly clever, and use your intelligence to enable and normalize this stuff, well aware of what the end will be. what I cannot for the life of me figure out is what YOU get from this.
How do YOU benefit from increased conflict & racial division ?
this is how it starts - small power grabs, slow erosion of democracy, undermining confidence in the system, until tiny step by tiny step, you find yourself in a full blown authoritarian fascist dictatorship.
your claims are undermined by my consistent support for direct democracy, which is utterly alien to, and a guard against, both totalitarian and fascist regimes
In fact, I’ve said repeatedly on here that we ought to be more like Switzerland, with a mechanism for the people to demand referenda on both legislation and constitutional issues
“All within the state...blah blah blah deflect deflect
Interesting that you choose a quote by Mussolini, is that by way of again misrepresenting history in your blinkered view. I can't be a "fascist" as I'm not an Italian right winger in the mould of Ambris and Marinetti?"
well, you carry on, must be hard for you, I understand.
I refer you to George Orwell
I refer you to this poster, once available in the gift shop at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
[img] 
[/img]
See how many you can tick.
What a nonsense list - all but three of them would have applied to the Soviet Union.
Try exerting a little more critical thinking instead of just parroting posters.
Open you mind, maybe read a little
Text at the bottom is hard to read, it says:
Laurence W. Britt wrote about the common signs of fascism in April 2003, after researching seven fascists regimes. Those were Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Benito Mussolini’s Italy, Francisco Franco’s Spain, Antontio de Oliveira Salazar’s Portual, George Papadopoulos’s Greece, August Pinochet’s Chile, Mohamed Suharto’s Indonesia. These signs resonate with the political and economic direction of the United states under Bush/Cheney. Get involved in reversing this anti-democratic direction while you still can!
Man if he thought Bush and Cheney were bad I wonder what he makes of Trump?!
You know I think I'd have voted for Doug Jones, the not being racist, sexist and accused of abuse of minors swings it for me. Anyone else like to say who they'd have voted for? We could do a fun poll.
Try exerting a little more critical thinking instead of just parroting
Says the man parroting Orwell out of context? 😆
Try exerting a little more critical thinking instead of just parroting
Brilliant. Deserves a second 😆
What a nonsense list - all but three of them would have applied to the Soviet Union.
yeah, because soviet Russia is an ideal, obvs 🙄
Christ on a bendy bus you really are brainwashed aren't you? When you react quickly to posts, you reveal more about how your mind works than I think you understand.
'I can't be a Fascist as I only support 13 of the 14 components...'
I've not supported any side. or professed allegiance to one or the other. Because it's not binary.
I've called you out on your inhumanity, without taking a position myself. I will, and have condemn people for bad actions, regardless of what colour t shirt they wear.
Because I'm not an idiot.
Like you ninfan.
You have a punch in the slats waiting for you any time I meet you in person you hatemonger
Try exerting a little more critical thinking instead of just parroting
Ha ha ha ha ha, hee hee hee.
As GrahamS points out so concisely the irony in that comment is absolutely lip-smacking.
[img] 
[/img]
You have a punch in the slats waiting for you any time I meet you in person you hatemonger
Ah, the tolerant and respectful liberal intelligentsia reveal their true colours once again.
Just imagine what the mods would do if me, chewy or Jamba had said that.
Anyway, why bother trying to punch me? Why not just randomly fire a couple of rockets in the direction of Surrey in hope of hitting me instead,
Just imagine what the mods would do if me, chewy or Jamba said that.
feel free to report it.
We all have the right to report something that doesn't adhere to forum guidelines, specifically a personal attack or statement.
On that subject, I'm not at all happy that this thread, much like the Referendum thread has become a slanging match and as such it's probably long overdue being closed. But that's my own opinion.
Yep, report away.
Doesn't make you look any better, though, kiddo.
You know I think I'd have voted for Doug Jones, the not being racist, sexist and accused of abuse of minors swings it for me. Anyone else like to say who they'd have voted for? We could do a fun poll.
Or endorsed by the 'president of color'.... that would definitely help swing it for me, you know, should I be finding the choice real difficult 😀
+1 Jones.
I don't have a rocket launcher.
I've also never professed to being liberal or intelligentsia.
I am smart enough to know that your sophistry leads to the deaths of people's nephews and uncles.
Take a long, hard look at yourself
He’s not a nazi, he’s just a very naughty boy..
Roy Moore on not giving up:
Some great quotes there:
After the election of Donald Trump, a little over a year ago I saw a window of hope....[because] Today, we no longer recognize the universal truth that God is the author of our life and liberty.
Abortion, sodomy, and materialism have taken the place of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We have stopped prayer in our schools.
We have killed over 60 million of our unborn children.
We have redefined marriage and destroyed the basis of family, which is the building block of our Country.
..
We have even begun to recognize the right of a man to claim to be a woman, and vice versa.
..
Immorality sweeps over our land."
Yeah he seems nice. 😯
he is a ****ing loon and full of hate
And god is apparently love
Ninfan just to place your condemnation of the Palestinian rocket attacks in context how many Israelis have been killed by this atrocity ?
Remember, antisemitism is fine if you're a right winger, it's only when a leftie says the word israel that it's an unforgivable sin
Anyone else like to say who they'd have voted for?
Anyway back OT, I’d have voted for Sassy.
#FreeSassy
Northwind - Member
Remember, antisemitism is fine if you're a right winger, it's only when a leftie says the word israel that it's an unforgivable sin
Yeah, messed up old world eh?
My question is this. Has he been found guilty in the court of law? The key word is '[u]alleged[/u]'.GrahamS - Member
Yeah, apart from that alleged child molestation he seems really nice!
The media can [u]allege[/u] anyone they like. The person being alleged can either stand his/her ground or give up or give in, push or jump.
Question is if the person is not being found guilty in the court of law, why jump to the conclusion? If the person is found guilty in the court of law then the person would resign anyway. Therefore, the question of support or not really has nothing to do with choosing the candidate. You can base your decision on allegation or you choose who you like. Simple really.
[b]So the question is not about whether I support or not, [u]but whether the candidate will still be there for me/people to choose.[/u] [/b]
Is isolation something negative? 😀dannyh - Member
On that particular note:
@chewkw - looking a tad isolated after your post on the previous page.....
Do you have to be accepted all the time? 😛
😀ninfan - Member
Just imagine what the mods would do if me, chewy or Jamba had said that.
---------------------------
Slight distraction. (thinking to myself)
Sometimes I wonder which is better day or night, hot or cold climate, black or white colour (or any of the contrasting colour), wet or dry environment ... can one be present without the other? Can darkness be defined without light? Can there be North pole without South pole? hmmm ... 😆
A hail the kill file
All hail the killfile.
My question is this. Has he been found guilty in the court of law?
No, the allegations are beyond the statute of limitations so they will not be prosecuted or go to court.
Here is a good friend of his defending him on CNN by saying it was a long time ago and child molestation is just a misdemeanour offence in Alabama. 😯
So the question is not about whether I support or not, but whether the candidate will still be there for me/people to choose.
No you said: "I would vote Republican simply to kick Democrats out"
So my question was simply, ignoring the alleged child molestation, do you actually support his views?
Because personally I find them pretty repugnant.
All heil the killfile 😉
grahams is flat earth feeding on STW tonight 😉
Has he conceded yet? It was just a bit creepy with the electorate telling him “No” that he wasn’t really getting it. Kind of typical behaviour for the likes of him.
GrahamS - Member
No, the allegations are beyond the statute of limitations so they will not be prosecuted or go to court.Here is a good friend of his defending him on CNN by saying it was a long time ago and child molestation is just a misdemeanour offence in Alabama.
The question you need to ask is why now? Surely if he had done something bad he would need to be out of politics long time ago. The question is how did he survive his political career for so long?
As for his good friend I don't know who this person is even when he says who he is. Is he a politician too?
Yes, because that's what the opponents do to each other. i.e. Democrats supporters (die hard ones) will Never vote for Republican.No you said: "I would vote Republican simply to kick Democrats out"
If you ignore the allegation then he is clean. Remember, the word is allegation.So my question was simply, ignoring the alleged child molestation, do you actually support his views?
Do you base your judgement on allegation or speculation or hearsay? Or do you wait for some sort of evidence?
Everyone finds criminals repugnant. Not exception. i.e. proven guilty.Because personally I find them pretty repugnant.
But. Chewy, haven’t you seen the documentary evidence?
[img] 
[/img]
Signed with one of those bic multi-colour pens I think
Crikey, that is absolute proof that is, it is true ... 😮ninfan - Member
But. Chewy, haven’t you seen the documentary evidence?
Guilty! The pen is the evidence. 😛Signed with one of those bic multi-colour pens I think
Apart from the numerous accusations from a wide variety of sources....
After the election of Donald Trump, a little over a year ago I saw a window of hope..
..[because] Today, we no longer recognize the universal truth that God is the author of our life and liberty.Abortion, sodomy, and materialism have taken the place of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We have stopped prayer in our schools.
We have killed over 60 million of our unborn children.
We have redefined marriage and destroyed the basis of family, which is the building block of our Country.
..
We have even begun to recognize the right of a man to claim to be a woman, and vice versa.
..
Immorality sweeps over our land."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/nathan-mathis-roy-moore.html?_r=0
These are the other reasons dinosaurs like Roy Moore are finished. When Alabama isn't consumed by biblical plagues after a Democrat is in charge maybe more will move along.
The only rights these guys want to defend is their own. If your not white, rich and already in power then screw you.
Meanwhile they still have passed no meaningful bills, have not delivered any of their key promises and seem to be shedding staff quicker than a week old christmas tree drops needles.
#FailingGovernment #SADFakes
Is he a politician too?
I believe he is a journalist, as is explained in the interview.
If you ignore the allegation then he is clean.
That wasn't what I asked. I asked, [b]ignoring[/b] the allegations, do you support his views??
Everyone finds criminals repugnant. Not exception. i.e. proven guilty.
Are you having convenient difficulty with English again tonight chewkw? 🙄
I said I found his VIEWS repugnant. Views that he openly made as part of his campaign and the aftermath.
You know the stuff about Islam being a fake religion that shouldn't get protection by the constitution, about homosexuality being an unspeakable sin on a par with beastiality, and the bits about wanting to eliminate all amendments after the tenth (such as end of slavery and votes for women).
deadlydarcy - MemberHas he conceded yet?
He can't concede, he's already lost.
Oh look, someone else who doesn’t actually understand what fascism means.
I’m sure I read a definition once that said something like:
“Fascism is an individual or small group of individuals who seek to impose an extremist ideology or religion on the majority by the use of force”.
There are any number of Socialist, or supposedly left-wing groups whose ideology and behaviour makes them almost indistinguishable from Fascist, like the Illuminoso Sendoro and Khmer Rouge, but I’d say it describes The Donald and the sort of white supremacy groups that support him.
But to me, it means racist, homophobic, mysoginistic asshole with a power complex.
Sound like anyone you know?
Whilst STW has been taken-off down the rabbit hole of "what is the definition of a fascist" by it's resident trolls, the circus continues:
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/14/omarosa-manigault-newman-trump-ive-seen-things-that-made-me-uncomfortable ]Ex apprentice "winner" turned Trump aide gets fired and unceremoniously ejected from the white house[/url]
Sounds like she's threatening some sort of expose - hopefully not just a bargaining-chip for a payout.
Also:
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/14/net-neutrality-fcc-rules-open-internet ]Net neutrality in it's death-throes[/url]
It strikes me that this tread is a miniature version of US public debate at the moment - the narrative is being led by a small minority of loons, who are preventing a meaningful dialogue and consensus by turning-up every now and again and taking a massive runny turd on the carpet. Suddenly the discussion becomes about whether it's OK to defecate on the carpet.
Ah yes, but what [i]kind[/i] of shit? Because Orwell says...
your claims are undermined by my consistent support for direct democracy, which is utterly alien to, and a guard against, both totalitarian and fascist regimes
In fact, I’ve said repeatedly on here that we ought to be more like Switzerland, with a mechanism for the people to demand referenda on both legislation and constitutional issues
[img] 
[/img]
I find it amazing how all these innocent people, Trump, Moore etc al have so many allegations against them. Haven't mentioned Russia for a few days, Mr Mueller is about due another arrest I imagine.
BTW. What is this killfile people speak of?
I don't know if I'd want to use it yet, but I might have to.
It's not that the likes of ninfan and chewie [i]bother[/i] me per se (I have to have some respect for people for their opinions to mean anything to me), but it's such a waste of time engaging with them and shooting fish in a barrel just becomes boring after a while.
akira - MemberHaven't mentioned Russia for a few days, Mr Mueller is about due another arrest I imagine.
All the shrieking about how biased Mueller and Rosenstein are suggests that too...
you can block users so you dont see their posts Its just saves me the time of scrolling through his stream of {s] consciousness[/s] Gibberish to get to someone who makes senseWhat is this killfile people speak of?
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/singletrack%20world%20forum
Ninfan does not mean a word he types he just wants a reaction, if we were all tories he would pretend to be Che Guevara for a reaction
I find it amazing how all these innocent people, Trump, Moore etc al have so many allegations against them.
And I find it amazing that their victims response is not to go to the police
I see that one of Trumps alleged victims (claims he grabbed her ass) has named a witness...
Ray Charles 😀
worth a read:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/08/the-year-of-the-headless-liberal-chicken/
I find it amazing that their response is not to go to the police
You think the police would do much about an alleged ass grabbing?
I believe some are attempting civil lawsuits, though there was some question whether they are allowed to sue a sitting president. And I'm not sure I'd fancy going up against a billionaire's lawyers, would you?
Also in the case of Moore, it is well beyond the statute of limitations so there [i]is[/i] no legal case for police there.
worth a read:
It really wasn't.
I'll give him a point for the invention of "Hitlerize" though.
I find it amazing that their response is not to go to the police
clearly you've learnt nothing from the Harvey Weinstein expose, or the #metoo campaign.
If high profile confident women are unable to speak out about sexual abuse, what chance do you think a 14YO girl would have against a judge?
You really are an odious little man.
I find it amazing that their response is not to go to the police
Is that what you did after you were sexually abused by a person with power when you were in a poor mental state and felt nobody would believe you or it would have a negative impact on yourself ?
It seems to me that if one spends one's time and energy defending a person who holds vile, ignorant and abusive opinions then that is a fair indicator that you share those opinions yourself.
If this involves an attempt to impose the strictures that would flow from them on the wider population, then that is a matter of dealing with a clear and present danger.
Given your intense defense of Moore's disgusting zealotry showing that you are feeding in the bottom of a particularly slimy inethical pond with him, you should not be surprised that someone has expressed the desire to kick you in the slats.
The wonder of it is that there isn't a queue...
Ninfan's arguments of moral equivalence seems to run like this.
you are liberal.
(some) liberals oppose the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
ergo you must be pro Palestine
Palestinians carry out indiscriminate rocket attacks.
Therefor the logical conclusion is that if you are a liberal, then you would carry out indiscriminate rocket attacks.
Reminds me of the joke about the logical scientist.
Two builders are seated either side of a table in a rough pub when a well-dressed man enters, orders a beer and sits on a stool at the bar.
The two builders start to speculate about the occupation of the suit.
Chris: 'I reckon he's an accountant. '
James: ‘No way - he's a stockbroker. '
Chris: ‘He's no stockbroker. A stockbroker wouldn't come in here. '
The argument repeats itself for some time until the volume of beer gets the better of Chris and he makes for the toilet. On entering the toilet, he sees that the suit is standing at a urinal. Curiosity and the several beers get the better of the builder.
Chris: ' 'Scuse me... no offence meant, but me and my mate were wondering what you do for a living.'
Suit: ‘No offence taken. I'm a logical scientist by profession. '
Chris: 'Yeah, so what's that then. '
Suit: 'I'll try to explain by example. Do you have a goldfish at home?'
Chris: 'Er... mmm... well yeah, I do as it happens. '
Suit: 'Well, it's logical to assume that you keep it in a bowl or in a pond. Which is it?'
Chris: 'It's in a pond'
Suit: 'Well then, it's logical to suppose that you have a large garden then?'
Chris: 'As it happens, yes I have got a big garden.'
Suit: 'Well then, it's logical to assume that in this town if you have a large garden then you have a large house?'
Chris: ‘As it happens I've got a five-bedroom house... built it myself.'
Suit: 'well, given that you've built a five-bedroom house it is logical to assume that you haven't built it just for yourself and that you're probably married.'
Chris: 'Yes, I am married. I live with my wife and three children.'
Suit: 'Well then, it's logical to assume that you are sexually active with your wife on a regular basis.'
Chris: 'Yep! Four nights a week. '
Suit: 'Well then, it is logical to suggest that you do not masturbate very often?'
Chris: ‘Me? Never!'
Suit: 'Well, there you are, that's logical science at work.'
Chris: 'How's that then?'
Suit: 'From finding out that you had a goldfish. I've told you about the size of the garden you have, the size of house, your family and your sex life. '
Chris: 'I, see. That's pretty impressive... thanks mate.'
Both leave the toilet and Chris returns to his mate.
James: 'I see the suit was in there. Did you ask him what he does?'
Chris: 'Yep! He's a logical scientist.'
James: 'What's that then?'
Chris: 'I'll try to explain. Do you have a goldfish?'
James: 'Nope. '
Chris: 'Well then, you're a ****er.'
^^^^^^^^^
😆
Yes - basically confirmation bias expressed and used as a debating tool.
It's the major way fake news works - find a very small technicality on which to question a far broader topic. It might be as a result of something that is actually inaccurate, but doesn't materially affect the overall point. It might be spelling or grammar. If they're really struggling it will be over the intended meaning versus a vaguely possible alternative meaning. Anything, anything to find a way 'in'. Then from that point they try to make that extremely immaterial flaw back out into a notion of generalised inaccuracy in the hope that enough people will skim-read it, form the desired conclusion and disseminate the notion of inaccuracy further.
It is how Clinton managed to get the learned participants at the hearing debating the technical definition of the word 'is'.
In another sense it is like the celebrity drink-drive lawyers who conjure up umpteen different (highly improbable yet just possible) scenarios as to how the celebrity gave a high reading on a breath test - until everyone just gives up.
It is not particularly clever - but it is effective when people are either not paying full attention or are thick or are willing participant due to their own attitudes.
It is also a classic wind-up technique - and maybe there's the real point. 🙄
The question you need to ask is why now? Surely if he had done something bad he would need to be out of politics long time ago.
Rather naïve even by your standards.
@woppit
Given your intense defense of Moore's disgusting zealotry showing that you are feeding in the bottom of a particularly slimy inethical pond with him,
Cite
It's the major way fake news works - find a very small technicality on which to question a far broader topic.
Like that the Russians bought some Facebook ads, or that a Trump representative met with the Russians (after the election) or maybe even like the fact that trump had business dealings in Russia in the past?
😆
he is winding people up for a reaction
There is no need for deep analysis he does not believe what he says. He is not a hate filled fascist he just pretends for the rise
you are free to draw your own psychological profile of a person who would do this
Me or Donald ? 😆
See
Ninfan's [s]arguments[/s] whataboutery of moral equivalence seems to run like this.
FIFY
Ninfan - this is how you do it, fella:
But never mind the ins and outs of salbutamol. The question on everyone’s lips is what does Cath Wiggins think?The Telegraph(link is external) reports that a hastily-deleted post on her Facebook page from Wednesday was subsequently put out on Twitter by a third party.
Alongside a photo of Froome, she wrote: “I am going to be sick. Nothing in the news. If I was given to conspiracy theory I’d allege they’d thrown my boy under the bus on purpose to cover for this slithering reptile.”
Then:
In a Facebook post last night, she apologised for her lamentable firefighting skills: “Sorry everyone for my emotional comments and insults. Too much stress got the better of me. Heat of the moment thing and certainly not my intent to fan the flames.”
Get the accusation and mud slinging 'out there', then back away from it and watch it spread and become 'fact' if enough people disseminate it.
Russia influencing the US presidential election and possibly still having influence over the President is a technicality? That's a stretch even for your half arsed logic.
Junkyard - lazarushe is winding people up for a reaction
There is no need for deep analysis he does not believe what he says. He is not a hate filled fascist he just pretends for the riseyou are free to draw your own psychological profile of a person who would do this
Posted 1 hour ago #
Don't worry, I'd got him pretty well figured out from the off!
No need for a psychological profile really - the Anglo-Saxon lexicon has a few nouns in it that will suffice.
ninfan - Member
@woppitGiven your intense defense of Moore's disgusting zealotry showing that you are feeding in the bottom of a particularly slimy inethical pond with him,
Cite
I do beg your pardon. I should, of course, have said "Trump"...
Getting back on track... Oh dear, it turns out that the lawyer soliciting sexual assault allegations against Trump appears to have been arranging “cash donations” for the victims in return for their testimony
been arranging “cash donations” for the victims in return for their testimony
But that's not what your article actually says though is it?
nickc - Member
been arranging “cash donations” for the victims in return for their testimony
But that's not what your article actually says though is it?POSTED 47 MINUTES AGO #
And so it goes on.
[img] 
?itemid=7189438[/img]
It's normally Trump who pays off people who are suing him isn't it?
[quote=ninfan ]Getting back on track...
Of course, it's what you're best at.
[img] ?itemid=7189438[/img]
I see. I guess he is just being himself as a journalist ... read whatever you will into that. 😀GrahamS - Member
I believe he is a journalist, as is explained in the interview.
Is that even relevant? The purpose of voting for Republican is simply to keep Democrats out, simple. His views is his, whether I support or reject his views is entirely my decision. Guess. 😆That wasn't what I asked. I asked, ignoring the allegations, do you support his views??
If you disagree with that person then you just don't have to vote for that person. How hard can that be?Are you having convenient difficulty with English again tonight chewkw?I said I found his VIEWS repugnant. Views that he openly made as part of his campaign and the aftermath.
Okay, let's put it in another way he honestly and [b]openly[/b] tells the world he hates all of those. He then put his views to the people to seek approval. People voted and the other candidate won. Therefore, you can interpret that as his views have been rejected or whatever. He lost his seat. Simple. 🙄You know the stuff about Islam being a fake religion that shouldn't get protection by the constitution, about homosexuality being an unspeakable sin on a par with beastiality, and the bits about wanting to eliminate all amendments after the tenth (such as end of slavery and votes for women).
Except of course, "getting back on track" (ie: continuing my little uber-troll comedy routine), doesn't really deal with my point does it, ninfan?
I see. I guess he is just being himself as a journalist ... read whatever you will into that
Jesus just watch the interview - he is Moore's friend. He wrote articles in support of him.
The purpose of voting for Republican is simply to keep Democrats out, simple. His views is his, whether I support or reject his views is entirely my decision. Guess.
That's exactly why I was asking you chewkw.
Are you saying that keeping the Democrats out is [i]so[/i] important to you that you would vote for someone whose views you find repugnant?
Or are you just saying you support those views?
Or are you just saying you support those views?
Do Jeremy Corbyn have to support every aspect of the bollocks he speaks?
Do you support his position on the Single market for example, or party policy? How about nukes? Party policy or Jezza? Or do just hold your nose and vote for whoever stands best chance of beating the torques
Are you saying that keeping the Democrats out so important to you that you would vote for someone whose views you find repugnant?Or are you just saying you support those views?
The implication seems to be that the ends justify the means, which is, in itself, morally wrong, if not repugnant and reprehensible.
For the record, the exit polls showed 9% of the Republican voters polled didn't vote for Moore:
[img] 
[/img]
-- https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/
Do keep up chaps, chewy would vote for a monkey wearing a red rosette.
Many people vote for the party not the candidate, people vote tactically against a candidate/party. That’s true in the US and it’s true here. It’s how Macron won so handsomely in France, now look at his popularlty whicn has plummeted - that shows how many people voted tactically.