stratosphere wrote:

I know you liberals think you're on some kind of roll here.

Who exactly on here is saying that, Strato?

jetero wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

jetero wrote:

If that isn't the true definition of arrogance, a man claiming that he alone can know the way of God and damn everyone else in the process, I'm not sure what is.

not arrogance, it is a simple mental health issue.

Does that include the close to 50% of people who believe similarly and voted for him? Well maybe 50% is being generous as being equally delusional. But certainly 50% of the 50%.

Depends on what they believe. If somehow honestly doesn´t believe the allegations and such, well..... hard to understand but not crazy. If they buy that deluded bs of his, they are just as crazy. If they decided "he can rape all he wants as long as he stops an end to killing babies" they are not just crazy, but plain evil. And probably never did read their bible well enough to know that babies only get their soul when they draw they first breath,
So according to the bible a fetus is just an uncoordinated moving biomass without a soul. They protect the soulless .....

That may explain why they vote for candidates without a soul all the time

best regards
Thomas

stratosphere wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

Jones will probably be considered a Liberal in Alabama even if he is a Moderate - Alabama doesn't know what a Moderate is, just like the red necks in other Southern states.

Abortion is one of those knee jerk issues for both sides of the aisle. Personally I hate it, but understand that there sill be a lot of women need to have one for health issues. My wife met one on one of those Light The Night fund raisers. She was thrilled to discover that she was pregnant - as was her husband. When. she was ar her fist OB visit they drew blood and she got a call the next morn ing for her to come in that morning and bring her husband.

This lady had an ACUTE blood cancer and needed to stop the pregnancy that day and get onto chemo. My wife had Acute Leukemia (ALL like the kids have) and from the moment the first white turned abnormal she had 4 months to get it into remission. The problem is that there is no way of knowing if you are in month 1 or 4 so everything is immediate.

This lady went through chemo and beat the cancer. At the time she talked to my wife she had already had another child and was looking to the second. I guess the anti-abortionists would prefer that both died.

Hopefully Senator Jones will ensure the lives of these women continue to be protected.

That' s my side of the abortion issue as well. I don't like it but there are exceptions especially the health of the mother and rape are two that I can think of. But abortion as a use for birth control or matter of convenience I have an issue with as well as late term abortions unless again mother's life is in danger. But in regards to Jones he is probably a one time thing I doubt he will win any kind of reelection. The only reason he won the seat is because Moore was such a disaster and even then Jones just squeezed by. It is not likely to happen again. I know you liberals think you're on some kind of roll here. I am here to tell you that you are not. Moore is a perv in my opinion especially after some of the statements he made but the timing of all this quite interesting I mean 40 years later? Umm pretty convenient for the democrats I have to say. But still and all I do think he is probably guilty just like I think OJ is guilty. It is what it is. I find it ironic that democrats are taking a moral high ground all of a sudden in regards to sexual harassment but yet champion letting men into women's bathrooms. SMH.

The recent #metoo movement did escape your attention?

apodino wrote:

luckyone wrote:

apodino wrote:

You are right though....Moore did win the nomination fair and square. I get why it happened. The GOP base is sick of the DC Establishment and Mitch McConnell and they thought that in a deep red state the GOP primary was the default general election. They wanted to stick it to these people.

You're half right. The GOP base had been beaten to a froth by conservative media for eight years, who made bank on the ugly reality that there are lot of people, particularly in the South, whose already small minds simply exploded at the fact that a black man resided in the White House. Period--any other shortcomings he had was just gravy. These people wanted blood, and they were fed it for eight years. I know because I'm related to quite a few of them, unfortunately. The problem with such tactics is once you've riled up and incited a mob, you can't just douse the flame. They are still baying for blood, and now with Obama out of the picture it's being directed again at the people in charge, lest it consume those who started it.

Truthfully, I don't think Obama being black has anything to do with the anger of these people. If these people hate black people so much, why do they nominate a Black man as the GOP candidate for senate in SC, or why did Carson get so many primary votes in the Election? That being said, the voters that I was talking about don't want the government in charge of healthcare, they are sick of Washington spending more than they take in, they are sick of a 10,000 page tax code with more holes in it than swiss cheese that no one understands, they are sick of porous borders to our country, and they are sick of a perceived threat to 1st amendment freedom of religion. They are sick of GOP politicians who run on trying to fix all these things, then get to Washington and stop representing their people and instead start representing the 11,000 registered lobbyists in DC. They are sick of power being consolidated in Washington in the hands of a few and not residing with the people, and want more power returned to the states as provided in the tenth amendment. They are mad because they perceive the GOP establishment as having no guts and being more eager to keep their jobs than do their jobs.

Scott Rasmussen put out an interesting piece this week on DC Lobbyists. This is the swamp that I think both Democrats and Republicans are sick of, and would like to do away with. This is the biggest reason why so many of us are angry with Washington.
https://www.newsmax.com/us/congress-pharmaceuticals-reform/2017/12/12/id/831387/

Truthfully, you must not have grown up in the world I did. My father and I went to dinner with a neighbor on election night in 2008. The first thing said neighbor said? "They elected a damn [racial epithet for black person]." Not "they elected a power monger." Not "they elected a Marxist." Not "they elected an elitist." It was "they elected a damn [racial epithet for black person.]." Pull your head out of the sand, sir, and observe the world in which you live.
A Senator is not President. And both times Jim Scott ran, he ran against another African American, so they didn't have much choice did they...
Ben Carson--out in the first wave.
And for the rest of your post, that is indeed a talking point. But these same people vote for people who advocate for increased government intrusiveness into people's lives and rack up the same debt on spending projects (see Reagan, Ronald, their Messiah), just ones that they like. If they are so sick of power residing in the hands of a few, then they shouldn't have elected a government that is very slowly empowering those same few. They would not be supporting an even less middle class friendly tax code that is being rammed through Congress as I type this. They would not have supported a lifelong democrat who reinvinted himself as a Republican by whoring himself out to religious fundamentalists and those very same special interest groups to create a dumb-as-sheep base (see Trump, Donald). Yet they have done ALL of that. So don't try that with me. I come from these people. I know how they think, and what they want. Most of them never go anywhere, are taught never to question what they were taught from day one (asking questions is very much frowned-upon), and are locked in their heads repeating the same meaningless catchphrases and gestures while never stopping to think about it. I know all the one-dimensional talking points from a diet of unlimited Limbaugh and Hannity as a kid. They preach morality, but their constituencies have the highest teenage pregnancy rates, the highest rates of STI, the highest rates of poverty, because they delude themselves into believing prosperity gospel and other religious grandiosity and hide their head in the sand and ignore reality. Much like Roy Moore, who assumes the only reason he lost is because of Satan and evil influences. While he talks of waiting for God, it clearly has never dawned on him that what he wants, may not be what God wants.

"“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” -- Susan B. Anthony.

jetero wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

I find it ironic that democrats are taking a moral high ground all of a sudden in regards to sexual harassment but yet champion letting men into women's bathrooms. SMH.

Boy do you have a great issue on the policy issues of the day.

How about not projecting what you obviously want to do, Stratosphere? I can only imply that if we let you into a women's restrooms you'd go an a rape spree with your line of thinking. Sadly, typical male:

"Women are temptresses, so let's make them cover themselves from head to toe and not go anywhere unescorted."

"Women are whores so of course they'd use abortion for birth control."

When will you men realize you're really talking about yourselves?

In any case, Strato, what exactly would you do if a Caitlin Jenner entered the men's bathroom? I can only guess. You'd be OK with that, I'm sure.

As a gay man, I don't have any use for female birth control pills. About this debate, I always wonder, why are women so awful and terrible when women are the ones who end up being victims? They take the pill because (one reason) there is the possibility they could be raped (because some man feels it is his right to assert dominance over females or "she was wearing a skirt" or whatever) and the woman is the problem? I have never understood that.

Also, if you are so concerned about what goes on in the privacy of a bathroom stall, why is it the person in the bathroom stall that needs to be shamed and punished?

seb146 wrote:

jetero wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

I find it ironic that democrats are taking a moral high ground all of a sudden in regards to sexual harassment but yet champion letting men into women's bathrooms. SMH.

Boy do you have a great issue on the policy issues of the day.

How about not projecting what you obviously want to do, Stratosphere? I can only imply that if we let you into a women's restrooms you'd go an a rape spree with your line of thinking. Sadly, typical male:

"Women are temptresses, so let's make them cover themselves from head to toe and not go anywhere unescorted."

"Women are whores so of course they'd use abortion for birth control."

When will you men realize you're really talking about yourselves?

In any case, Strato, what exactly would you do if a Caitlin Jenner entered the men's bathroom? I can only guess. You'd be OK with that, I'm sure.

As a gay man, I don't have any use for female birth control pills. About this debate, I always wonder, why are women so awful and terrible when women are the ones who end up being victims? They take the pill because (one reason) there is the possibility they could be raped (because some man feels it is his right to assert dominance over females or "she was wearing a skirt" or whatever) and the woman is the problem? I have never understood that.

Also, if you are so concerned about what goes on in the privacy of a bathroom stall, why is it the person in the bathroom stall that needs to be shamed and punished?

It's a typical male psychological response--because I have transgressive thoughts, I project those thoughts on to everyone while convincing myself "At least I'm not as bad as that guy over there" and set about punishing everyone else to save myself. Absolutely incapable of self-reflection or empathy because that is seen as "weak," and the only way to respond is to be "tougher." Thankfully for the next generation of males that thinking is on its way out, but boy is it going out with a bang.

It's obvious why Roy Moore thinks the world is going to hell--because he is well aware of what he has done in the past. (Again, this is a man who proudly talked about how cute his wife was when she was 15, as detailed above.) He has enough of an ego, however, to think that he has been redeemed and in no circumstances was he as bad as the guy down the road. It's only by creating this "World of American Immorality" can he convince himself that he's worthy of the man upstairs because if the world isn't that way, what does that mean about him? Of course along the way his ego is so damned big he has no problem turning these feelings into one in which he and his wife can gain enormously financially by preying on others with similar moral weaknesses. He's a sick, sick man. I have no doubt where he's going in the afterlife (if there is one).

seb146 wrote:

Also, if you are so concerned about what goes on in the privacy of a bathroom stall, why is it the person in the bathroom stall that needs to be shamed and punished?

"There's no need for gun control because murder is illegal."

but

"There is a need for restroom legislation because of my neuroses."

tommy1808 wrote:

but such an absolute statement just took the price.

Hillary winning by 20 points was better

NIKV69 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

but such an absolute statement just took the price.

Hillary winning by 20 points was better

That is funny. It really is ALWAYS about Clinton with some people isn't it?

Tugg

This election shows the deep divides we have in this country by race. Moore got 70%+ of White Male voters and 63% of White Female voters, Jones around 90+% of Black voters. 2% or so voted write-ins that likely pulled votes from Moore. Those write in votes were likely for other Republicans or Libertarians, voting for someone who wasn't as much of a open fool like Moore, but still a social conservative. In other elections this next year, this situation may not happen much if at all.
In 2018-2020, Democrats cannot play their identity politics as much or they turn off the White voters they need, they need to push agendas more about economic and personal security for all, assure protection of the ACA, fair taxation, moderate spending, support moderating trade policies, create good paying jobs in the USA as well as voting rights. They also need to cull out the Friends of Clinton, move out the crooks among them, push for fiscal responsibility in the cities their party controls, clean up their campaign financing and put up people to vote for in a positive way, not as the 'lesser evil'.

NIKV69 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

but such an absolute statement just took the price.

Hillary winning by 20 points was better

Who said THAT while the votes were being counted????

Doug Jones has his work cut out for him if he wants to get reelected in the regular general election in 2020. The number of write in ballots counted on election night were more than twice the vote margin Jones had over Moore. Moore won't be on the ballot in 2020.

NIKV69 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

but such an absolute statement just took the price.

Hillary winning by 20 points was better

Ah, but, but, but.....HILLARY! Emails! Benghazi! Someotherstupidshit!

Broken record much? Good grief.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Doug Jones has his work cut out for him if he wants to get reelected in the regular general election in 2020. The number of write in ballots counted on election night were more than twice the vote margin Jones had over Moore. Moore won't be on the ballot in 2020.

Good point not to mention he will have a voting record to explain.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Doug Jones has his work cut out for him if he wants to get reelected in the regular general election in 2020. The number of write in ballots counted on election night were more than twice the vote margin Jones had over Moore. Moore won't be on the ballot in 2020.

If I would be a supporter of the Republicans, I would not be looking forward to winning the seat again in 2020, I would ask my party how on earth they came up with Moore and could nominate a guy who lost a certain guaranteed victory. You could probably have nominated a donkey that goes to church each Sunday and still won.

Tugger wrote:

That is funny. It really is ALWAYS about Clinton with some people isn't it?

Tugg

They have a love-hate relationship. They want her to "fade away and never return" but can never stop bringing her up and blaming her and Obama for everything up to spilled milk.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Tugger wrote:

That is funny. It really is ALWAYS about Clinton with some people isn't it?

Tugg

They have a love-hate relationship. They want her to "fade away and never return" but can never stop bringing her up and blaming her and Obama for everything up to spilled milk.

A part of me thinks it's because they see in Hillary someone who potentially plays as dirty as they do.

jetero wrote:

A part of me thinks it's because they see in Hillary someone who potentially plays as dirty as they do.

I think it stems from the fat ankles and the matronly schoolteacher type vibe.
That and Fox news.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Doug Jones has his work cut out for him if he wants to get reelected in the regular general election in 2020. The number of write in ballots counted on election night were more than twice the vote margin Jones had over Moore. Moore won't be on the ballot in 2020.

I wouldn't put it past him. There are some who will vote for him no matter what. He thinks he can win because he has a base.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Doug Jones has his work cut out for him if he wants to get reelected in the regular general election in 2020. The number of write in ballots counted on election night were more than twice the vote margin Jones had over Moore. Moore won't be on the ballot in 2020.

Doug Jones won by 20,715 votes or 1.5%. Write in votes totaled 22,811 or 1.7%. Not sure how the math is "more than twice the vote margin." Perhaps he should run for President if Senate re-election chances are slim in 2020. He definitely got his name in the public in a positive way.

seb146 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Doug Jones has his work cut out for him if he wants to get reelected in the regular general election in 2020. The number of write in ballots counted on election night were more than twice the vote margin Jones had over Moore. Moore won't be on the ballot in 2020.

I wouldn't put it past him. There are some who will vote for him no matter what. He thinks he can win because he has a base.

And don´t forget, god wants him to make the US into a christian Kalifat with the bible inspired sharia look-alike law of the land. The voices in his head are probably telling him "If you only insisted on stoning gays and adulterers, i would have given you the win, run again and be an even better Christian".

best regards
Thomas

phluser wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Doug Jones has his work cut out for him if he wants to get reelected in the regular general election in 2020. The number of write in ballots counted on election night were more than twice the vote margin Jones had over Moore. Moore won't be on the ballot in 2020.

Doug Jones won by 20,715 votes or 1.5%. Write in votes totaled 22,811 or 1.7%. Not sure how the math is "more than twice the vote margin." Perhaps he should run for President if Senate re-election chances are slim in 2020. He definitely got his name in the public in a positive way.

I said the the based on the votes reported on electionary night. I have been recovering today from driving from Philadelphia to Austin, in a little over two days, so I haven't kept up with updates to the final counts.

So, has Roy Moore finally conceded, or does he continue to be a classless scumbag?

scbriml wrote:

So, has Ray Moore finally conceded, or does he continue to be a classless scumbag?

what you think....

I just have to think about a Family guy Episode... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69orQTwPpD4

best regards
Thomas

phluser wrote:

Perhaps he should run for President if Senate re-election chances are slim in 2020. He definitely got his name in the public in a positive way.

He doesn't seem like the kind of guy that inspires people. Fact of the matter is that he won because stars aligned in the state, but not because of his resume. That being said, he's a good choice for a running mate or even judge (perhaps SCOTUS justice as a liberal Kennedy).

einsteinboricua wrote:

phluser wrote:

Perhaps he should run for President if Senate re-election chances are slim in 2020. He definitely got his name in the public in a positive way.

He doesn't seem like the kind of guy that inspires people. Fact of the matter is that he won because stars aligned in the state, but not because of his resume. That being said, he's a good choice for a running mate or even judge (perhaps SCOTUS justice as a liberal Kennedy).

He's sure as hell smart to stay out of this wanting to be seated for the tax vote.

einsteinboricua wrote:

phluser wrote:

Perhaps he should run for President if Senate re-election chances are slim in 2020. He definitely got his name in the public in a positive way.

He doesn't seem like the kind of guy that inspires people. Fact of the matter is that he won because stars aligned in the state, but not because of his resume. That being said, he's a good choice for a running mate or even judge (perhaps SCOTUS justice as a liberal Kennedy).

I agree. All I know about him is that his name is Doug Jones and he helped convict KKK members who killed 4 young black girls. Let's give him a year or two to see how he votes, if he sponsors any key lesgislation, etc before going nuts about future aspirations.

Odds are good the Alabama Republican party will find someone who is less of an obnoxious douchebag than Moore for 2020. Unless Jones does something really special in the Senate, the odds will be against him getting re-elected. Three years is a long time, let's see how this plays out.

stratosphere wrote:

I find it ironic that democrats are taking a moral high ground all of a sudden in regards to sexual harassment but yet champion letting men into women's bathrooms. SMH.

Strato, you still having your bathroom fantasies? Trying to figure out who you’re worried about Caitlin Jenner raping ... your wife or you?

SMH.

(Also, there is help ... )

jetero wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

One good thing is that Franken has to resign now.

Do DF and you apply that standard to the P*ssy-Grabber-in-Chief?

Of course not. Why do I even ask?

Crickets on this one as well. Why am I not surprised?

(And you’re socially liberal, Long Island?! Ha! Gimme a break!)

The MSM Sunday Morning Shows were in FULL Spin Mode over the Doug Jones win in Alabama, none more so than Chuck Todd on NBC. They parlayed the one ray of light for the Democratic Party into the bright dawn of a new day, a turning point for the Democratic Party, and, the defeat of Roy Moore as the beginning of the end for the Republicans, with talk of the Democrats regaining the House and the Senate in the 2018 Mid-Term Elections. CBS, even before their morning show, dedicated a segment with Doug Jones in a fluff interview piece in his office, with the optics carefully placed and set. Photo of MLK and bust of JFK behind Doug Jone's head. And an autographed Alabama University Football when the the interviewer was on camera.

ABC was the only one with an unbiased opening statement: "Will this Jones win seem like a 'win' in November of 2018??

They spent a huge chunk of their with a segment with the old "Middle Ground" candidate John Kasich. Go ahead and buy into the Dem's false optimism John, and think you have a shot at running against Trump in 2020...

Trump hasn't even finished his first year in office ! ! ! ! And the middle of the road Republicans like Kasich are already ready to bury him!! Pathetic.

The constant MSM drumbeat about Roy Moore on every news cycle for a month did allow for a high turnout against the highly controversial Republican candidate Roy Moore. So yeah, that worked.

But there's no possible way for the MSM to give that same coverage on 20 or more Republican candidates in the 2018 MId-Terms. And President Trump, the P*ssy-Grabber-in-Chief, as some of you like to call him, will hold rallies for those Republicans, and that will energize the voters, and that energized voter base will come out against the Democratic vote, in the mid-terms.

jetero wrote:

Crickets on this one as well. Why am I not surprised?

(And you’re socially liberal, Long Island?! Ha! Gimme a break!)

What does Long Island have to do with it? Remember wanting low taxes and liking guns doesn't automatically mean you are against abortion and gay rights.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Pathetic.

Hmm...hates seeing coverage that does not conform to his ideology, cannot accept Tuesday's developments, thinks speculating for 2018 will yield nothing, and dislikes when his idol's actions are called into question.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe this is what we would call:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The constant MSM drumbeat about Roy Moore on every news cycle for a month did allow for a high turnout against the highly controversial Republican candidate Roy Moore. So yeah, that worked.

...and a lot of them were black, so of course the GOPedo party is crying voter fraud

DIRECTFLT wrote:

But there's no possible way for the MSM to give that same coverage on 20 or more Republican candidates in the 2018 MId-Terms. And President Trump, the P*ssy-Grabber-in-Chief, as some of you like to call him, will hold rallies for those Republicans, and that will energize the voters, and that energized voter base will come out against the Democratic vote, in the mid-terms.

AIM HIGH, DF!! You yet again reveal yourself as a highly principled person!

You also don’t seem to know much about American politics.

“20 or more Republican candidates?”

Do you even know the number of (voting) members in the House of Representatives?

There will likely be 100 “competitive enough” races in both chambers.

Repubs may still maintain control after the election, but whatever coalition (“base”) you think exists will not win the day solely because your party has severely internally contradictory policies. The butcher’s bill will come due soon enough.

NIKV69 wrote:

jetero wrote:

Crickets on this one as well. Why am I not surprised?

(And you’re socially liberal, Long Island?! Ha! Gimme a break!)

What does Long Island have to do with it? Remember wanting low taxes and liking guns doesn't automatically mean you are against abortion and gay rights.

Just the double standard, Nikky V.

jetero wrote:

There will likely be 100 “competitive enough” races in both chambers. .

The Party of Pedophiles and Christian Sharia Law will win them all, because once Trump throws his weight behind a candidate they always win without fail......

best regards
Thomas

I wouldn’t be too surprised if Roy Moore lands a reality show after all the dust settles. This is the type of lowest common denominator filth people seem to love these days.

CitizenJustin wrote:

I wouldn’t be too surprised if Roy Moore lands a reality show . . .

Roy Moore in an outdoor reality show with Ted Nugent, Track Palin, and Josh Duggar ???

I wouldn't watch because I don't watch reality shows.

jetero wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

But there's no possible way for the MSM to give that same coverage on 20 or more Republican candidates in the 2018 MId-Terms. And President Trump, the P*ssy-Grabber-in-Chief, as some of you like to call him, will hold rallies for those Republicans, and that will energize the voters, and that energized voter base will come out against the Democratic vote, in the mid-terms.

AIM HIGH, DF!! You yet again reveal yourself as a highly principled person!

You also don’t seem to know much about American politics.

“20 or more Republican candidates?”

Do you even know the number of (voting) members in the House of Representatives?

There will likely be 100 “competitive enough” races in both chambers.

Repubs may still maintain control after the election, but whatever coalition (“base”) you think exists will not win the day solely because your party has severely internally contradictory policies. The butcher’s bill will come due soon enough.

I was speaking of the President attending 20 or more rallies of the many many candidates running. They'll need to know the number in advance to pre-order the Tiki Torches...

But, I admit, I am not the Political Junkie you appear to be...

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I wouldn't watch because I don't watch reality shows.

Really? You're watching one right now in the White House: The Mar-a-Lago Hillbillies.

So, did he ever concede?

I see he's still being classy:
https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ala ... gs.GLqW8j4

scbriml wrote:

So, did he ever concede?

I see he's still being classy:
https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ala ... gs.GLqW8j4

Of course not. I would be more surprised if he did concede than by him leading an armed rebellion to get to his seat. Or him on the Senate steps on the day Jones is seated and explaining to reporters how God told him to take his seat today.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Or him on the Senate steps on the day Jones is seated and explaining to reporters how God told him to take his seat today.

I wouldn't put it past him to do that actually. And his logic will be voter fraud and the thousands of Democrats bused all over who fraudulently voted (in a state with a strict voter ID law).

tommy1808 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

So, did he ever concede?

I see he's still being classy:
https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ala ... gs.GLqW8j4

Of course not. I would be more surprised if he did concede than by him leading an armed rebellion to get to his seat. Or him on the Senate steps on the day Jones is seated and explaining to reporters how God told him to take his seat today.

Best regards
Thomas

Oh, for the days of Aaron Burr & Alexander Hamilton...

Moore could issue a formal challenge to Jones for his slanderous attacks . . .

DIRECTFLT wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

So, did he ever concede?

I see he's still being classy:
https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ala ... gs.GLqW8j4

Of course not. I would be more surprised if he did concede than by him leading an armed rebellion to get to his seat. Or him on the Senate steps on the day Jones is seated and explaining to reporters how God told him to take his seat today.

Best regards
Thomas

Oh, for the days of Aaron Burr & Alexander Hamilton...

Moore could issue a formal challenge to Jones for his slanderous attacks . . .

Moore should be in a museum so everyone can see a real life neanderthal up close

Now Roy Moore is filing a suit claiming he lost the Alabama Senate race because of 'election fraud' and wants the state to delay certification of the results.
http://www.businessinsider.com/roy-moor ... picks=true

Is there a redneck venue in Alabama that will disgrace itself enough to go along with him?

salttee wrote:

Now Roy Moore is filing a suit claiming he lost the Alabama Senate race because of 'election fraud' and wants the state to delay certification of the results.
http://www.businessinsider.com/roy-moor ... picks=true

Is there a redneck venue in Alabama that will disgrace itself enough to go along with him?

Eager to see all those Republicans who said Clinton was wasting her time by asking for recounts in WI, MI, and PA to come out and defend this effort because of reasons.

Gotta say, I love how Moore is suspicious that some counties had low numbers for him. But dear me...it can't possibly be because the opposition mobilized or the base stayed home. Oh no. People were bussed in from CA and NY to vote here. That's what happened! No proof of it, except his belief. But don't worry. God will make him the winner.

$20 bucks says he shows up at the Senate and demands to be sworn in instead of Jones.

Alabama secretary of state says Jones will be certified

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/28/politics/ ... index.html

No Drama Here . . .

Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill confirmed Thursday morning that he would meet Thursday afternoon with Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey and the state Attorney General Steve Marshall to certify Jones' win, and that Jones would indeed be sworn in when the Senate returns in January. "We will sign the documents certifying him as the senator for the state of Alabama," Merrill said. "He will be sworn in by Vice President Pence on January 3 when the Senate returns."

salttee wrote:

Now Roy Moore is filing a suit claiming he lost the Alabama Senate race because of 'election fraud' and wants the state to delay certification of the results.
http://www.businessinsider.com/roy-moor ... picks=true

Is there a redneck venue in Alabama that will disgrace itself enough to go along with him?

Gonna be awkward when his campaign finds out it's legal for women and blacks to vote

AL officials have certified Doug Jones as the winner of the special election and he will be sworn in as planned on January 3.

Moore's last minute appeal was denied.

Question is: what is Moore's next move? Will he show up in the Senate on swearing-in day? Will he attempt another bid at statewide office (governor or attorney general)?

Interesting thing to note: he has not conceded his previous defeats for governor from 2006 and 2010 (not that a person needs to concede, but he's definitely the kind of guy that will hold a grudge).