Thursday, October 19, 2017

Who wants culture war?

I don't want culture war.

The forces in favor of culture war are strong.

The forces are making culture war pervasive.

It may be a losing cause to not want culture war.

There may be national attention on culture war in Alabama's special Senate election culminating on December 12th.

I hope many Alabamians show they want less culture war than there is.

Update 10/24/17
If culture war is to be reduced, people need to be allowed to express themselves, and conversation needs to be able to ensue. A conversation about abortion has been initiated at Let's talk abortion. Below is further expression that has come my way.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Let's talk abortion

Let's talk about abortion in the Alabama special Senate election, and let's see if we can reduce culture war over abortion.

Let me suggest the below for framing a discussion.

[If you think the above is a wrong framing of the discussion, please speak up and maybe the framing can be revised more to your satisfaction.]

To kick this off, let's say Roe v. Wade was not the law, and states could enact whatever prohibitions they chose on abortions.

If that was the case, what do you think would be enacted in the State of Alabama? Would there be an absolute prohibition on abortion enacted? Would a Roe v. Wade type rule, such as abortions being permitted during the first two trimesters, but not during the third trimester, be enacted?

In the name of trying to lessen culture war, it would seem fair to ask this:

Assume Roe v. Wade was not the law, and Alabama enacted or did not enact prohibitions on abortion pursuant to the regular electoral process of Alabama voters electing Representatives and Senators to the Alabama state legislature, and the state legislature, as constituted from time to time, enacting  abortion laws, and repealing them or amending the laws from time to time. If that happened in Alabama, would you be willing to accept for abortion to be allowed or prohibited in accordance with the abortion law currently in effect?

On one side, if you are personally opposed to abortion, but Alabama has enacted a law that allows others to have abortions, would that be acceptable to you (subject to your right to try to persuade Alabama voters to elect different Representatives and Senators, who will in turn vote in the legislature to change the law)? Also, there may be a second question that, if Alabama prohibited abortion, would it be acceptable to you for other Alabamians to be able to go to another state to get an abortion where abortions are allowed?

On the other side, if you believe abortion should be allowed, but the Alabama legislature prohibited abortion, would you be able to accept that outcome, subject to your ability, if you want an abortion, to go to another State that allows abortions?

Update 10/21/17
The below article excellently contributes to this discussion [I am not author of article but sharing first on Twitter and then embedding the tweet in this blog is effective way to share in this blog]:

Update 10/24/17
[to be continued]

Monday, September 18, 2017

Case of Trump

Donald Trump is coming to Huntsville on Friday for a rally to support Luther Strange.

Alabama is a stronghold of support for Donald Trump.

This week is an opportunity for anti-Trumpers in Alabama to express themselves and possibly be noted in other parts of the nation.

This week is an opportunity for the Alabama news media to show its stuff about Trump, the Senatorial candidates, the national political issues, and the Republican and Democratic parties.

Trump craves being the center of attention.

Trump will be the center of national attention in Alabama this Friday.

Alabamians should spend time this week considering the case of Trump.

This blog entry offers my two cents worth.

I voted for Trump and then very quickly turned against him. There are a number of discrete items I wish to discuss, and I will proceed in a piecemeal fashion in doing this blog entry. Until I have completed the entry, I will leave a notation "to be completed" at the end, and will remove that notation when I am done.

1. What is Trump's nature; why did Trump run for President?
Millions of Americans believe Trump made a great personal sacrifice to run for President in order to help the country.
An alternative view is Trump is the ultimate vainglorious narcissist. All that Trump  has ever cared about in his life is his wealth and being in the limelight. Trump was very successful as a private citizen in gaining wealth, flaunting it, serially marrying trophy wives and getting national attention as a reality show host. In this view, Trump reached the pinnacle of what a private citizen could do to be in the limelight. The Presidency beckoned as an ultimate prize for Trump to soar into the stratosphere and be the ultimate center of attention of the nation and even the world on a daily basis.
While even Trump may have thought it unlikely he could get elected President, the temptation provided to his vainglorious narcissism was irresistible, there was no harm in trying, and just trying could get Trump more of the attention he so craves.
In this view, it is questioned whether Trump has any convictions about any matter of policy to help the country, and it is believed Trump only thought in terms of how taking policy positions could be utilized for winning the Presidency and making himself the ultimate center of attention to satisfy his vainglorious narcissism..
It is of great importance which of the above two views is correct. If the second view is correct, there is reason for concern about whether Trump will help the country or harm the country.
In the 10 months since he has been elected President, Trump has done many things and said many things that can be evaluated to try to reach a conclusion about which of the above two views is correct.

2. Trump's conflicts of interest
Fundamental to pubic office is that the officeholder has a fiduciary duty to act for the public interest, and not put private interests ahead of public interest.
Strict limitations regarding conflicts of interest are in the law to try to protect against public officeholders acting to serve private interests instead of properly serving the public interest.
Since being elected President, Trump has made clear that he does not consider himself subject to limitations against having conflicts of interest and that he will use his Presidential office to help his family businesses and increase his wealth.
Trump's exempting himself from the norms of public office and using the Presidential office to benefit his personal business interests is detrimental to Trump's ability to carry out whatever agenda he has to help the country.
Among other things, Trump's refusal to conform to public officeholder norms has resulted in strenuous opposition to force Trump to conform to the norms, this opposition will only grow over time, it results in reducing support Trump might otherwise have for what he wants to do, and it diverts time and resources of Trump, Congress and others away the country's business. Further,Trump sets a bad example for other public officials who observe Trump using his Presidential office for his private benefit, those officials may be led say to themselves, "if the President can do that, what is so wrong with my doing it," and public office wrongdoing may get increased.
Trump could have made a personal sacrifice to follow public officeholders norms in order to be better able to carry out his agenda for helping the country.
Trump decided not to make that personal sacrifice and decided he will use the Presidential office to benefit his personal interests.
The millions of Americans who believe in Donald Trump because they view him as having run for President to help the country and having been willing to make personal sacrifice to do that ought take into account how Trump has put himself outside of public office norms and is using the Presidency to further enrich himself and not make a sacrifice.
Such millions of Americans also ought to think about the Trump tax plan to end the estate tax, and ask themselves whether Trump is doing that because he thinks ending the estate tax on balance best serves the interests of the country, or whether Trump is using his Presidential office to end the estate tax in order to benefit himself and his family.

3. Russia
Millions of Americans believe Donald Trump that Russia is a nothing burger the Democrats are obsessively pursuing to make up for their shocking election loss in 2016.
This is in line with Trump's absolutistic view that he Trump never does anything wrong that can be questioned, there is nothing for Trump to be held accountable for, and any contention to the contrary is dishonest and immoral, if not treasonous.
Russia may play out in accordance with Donald Trump's views, and the country will owe him a big apology.
At the moment, no one knows how Russia is going to play out.
It could play out with significant culpability on the part of Trump.
We know Trump asked Russia to interfere in the election to help Trump.
Under Trump's "always complain, never explain" mentality, Trump has provided no explanation about why he asked Russia to interfere in the election and thereby violate United States election law that prohibits foreign agents and foreign governments from making expenditures to influence United States elections.
We know Trump did not release his tax returns. Trump gives every evidence he believes his business, Russia or otherwise, is none of the country's business, and he will not be forthcoming about anything. We have no idea of what Trump is hiding or not hiding about Russia, and Trump is not going help us out. It may turn out there is a lot that is nefarious, and maybe criminal about Russia. This extends to associates, such as Paul Manafort, about whom Trump has some knowledge the rest of us don't have but that Trump is not going to tell us about volunatarily.
When he ran for President, Trump knew all about his past, and he knew that it would come under intense public scrutiny if he became President.
Trump made a decision that, whatever nefariousness or criminality is in his or his associates' past, he Trump could keep a lid on it if he became President.
So, let's be clear. Trump knows what's in his past and what was in his campaign.
Trump is adamant Russia is a witch hunt.
The country has been mired in Russia for months, and the mire is impairing Trump in carrying out whatever agenda he has in mind to help the country.
If Trump has been lying and hiding, and that comes to light, that should be very telling for the millions of Americans who believe Trump ran for President to help the country.

4. Lies, dishonesty, insults, hyperbole and double standards
We know politicians lie and are dishonest and hypocritical to some extent. Those things, however, can have adverse consequences for politicians, and they limit their lying, dishonesty and hypocrisy accordingly. If they are called out, they sweat and squirm in trying to evade the adverse consequences. This can be extremely difficult for politicians, such as what happened to Hillary Clinton in her lies related to her private server.

Donald Trump, during the campaign and since being elected President, has astounded us with his shameless mendacity, hyperbole, gratuitous insults, and double standards.

Various possible explanations for Trump's behavior can be considered. One possibility is that, during the campaign, Trump thought his behavior was what would work best for winning the election, and, as President, Trump thinks his behavior is what will work best for carrying out his agenda for helping the country.

There is credibility to Trump wanting to win the Presidency and he chose behavior he thought would work best for achieving that.

Whether Trump thinks his behavior since the election is that which will help him best achieve an agenda to help the country is debatable and needs to be delved into.

It is fair to say that Trump does and says virtually anything he wants to, and he is indifferent to consequences growing out of theses he says and does.

It is also fair to say that Trump's doing and saying whatever he wants allows Trump to generate great controversy, controversy is very effective for getting attention, Trump craves attention, and Trump's behavior can possibly be explained that his behavior is solely for its attention getting, and other things don't matter or are not a deterrent for Trump. In this case, Trump is indifferent to things like whether he believes what he says, whether what he says is true or false, whether he believes a policy is right or wrong, whether he keeps or breaks promises he makes, and whether it helps or hurts his ability to carry out his agenda. Under this view, the only limitation on Trump is that he wants to remain President and does not want to be impeached or lose in 2020 if he runs in 2020, and that may affect his behavior to a small extent.

If Trump is all about himself and his being the center of national and world attention on a daily basis, that is likely not good for the country.

Take the national debt. Trump may be indifferent to the national debt so long as its consequences do not affect his term as President. The same goes for Social Security and Medicare entitlements, and Trump may indifferent to future problems of Social Security and Medicare that will happen after his term of office.

Trump may or may not believe the Wall is needed. His continuing to tout the Wall may be solely in the name of keeping his base in order to remain in office.

Trump promised the coal miners the industry would come back and they would regain their jobs. Trump may not believe that, but he made the promise because he thought it would help get him elected, and he believes he will be able to manage the situation if it becomes clear to the coal miners they will not be getting their jobs back.

The above examples should show the immense significance of the extent to which Trump is all about Trump, his vainglorious narcissism, and craving to be the center of national and world attention, and the extent to which Trump does not care about anything else.

To the extent Trump is all about Trump, his lies, dishonesty, insults, hyperbole and double standards that are only to help himself should be troublesome because of their detrimental effect on the country.

The millions of Americans who believe in Trump may be increasingly confronted with evidence that Trump is only about Trump and he is indifferent to harm he may be causing the country.

[to be completed]

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Tweeting for Doug Jones


TO: As many Alabamians as we can tweet to:

We who are tweeting to you believe Luther Strange and Roy Moore are for polarization of our country, and that polarization keeps Congress from doing its job properly for the American people.

We believe Doug Jones is the opposite and will contribute to reducing the polarization in Congress, and this will enable Congress to do its job for the American people.

We understand this means compromising, and neither side will get only its way in Congress.

We believe Alabama (and the country) will be better off with a Congress that works by compromise, as opposed to a Congress that doesn't work because of polarization.

We want Alabama Republicans and Democrats in Alabama to discuss this with each other in the run up to the special election vote on December 12th.

If Alabamians think about how the polarization of Congress, and its failure to work properly, has harmed the country, we believe they will conclude that Strange or Moore will only increase the polarization, and that Doug Jones is a better choice for reducing the polarization and getting Congress to work properly.

To get this message out, we want to send thousands of tweets to Alabamians to ask them to join with us, and send even more thousands of tweets to other Alabamians.

To join in with us, please follow Steps One and Two below.

Step One
Click on the below "Tweet here" link  to send a tweet that says,
Alabama needs #DougJonesforSenate to  reduce polarization in country and get Congress working. #ALSen #alpolitics
(After you click on the below "Tweet here" link, you will see a preview of your tweet, and your tweet will not be sent until you click the "Tweet" button in the preview.)

Step Two
Send individual tweets to other Alabamians, which tweets have a link to This will be to try to get recipients of tweets to go to that webpage, send their own tweet as in Step One, and, after that, join in sending tweets to more Alabamans per this Step Two. The goal here to get a large number of "pyramiding" of tweets going to Alabama voters.

A suggested tweet message to send in this Step Two is:
Tweet for Alabama to elect Doug Jones to reduce polarization in our country and get Congress working properly.
Then find follower lists of Twitter accounts in your geographic area that have a lot of followers. Below are examples of good Twitter follower lists to use for the Huntsville, Birmingham, Montgomery, and Mobile areas:

A. General
This tweeting involves a non-standard use of Twitter, namely, the sending of large numbers of individually directed tweets to followers of other Twitter accounts (not your own followers).
A ground has been staked out with Twitter for this method of tweeting. See letter to Twitter @Support.
The object of this method of tweeting is to get a "pyramiding" of tweets going in Alabama.

B. How to send your tweets efficiently from laptops
In doing your tweeting, you are repetitively sending the same tweet message. This can be done very efficiently, at least on a laptop computer. Get the tweet message on your mouse clipboard, go to the follower list  you are using for your tweeting, start with the first person on the list you want to tweet to, and do this:
1. Right click on person's Twitter name.
2. Choose "open in new tab"
3. Go to the new tab.
4. Click on the "Tweet to" button.
5. Paste the tweet message in the box.
6. Hit the "Tweet" button.
7. Close the tab, which takes you back to the list
8. Go on to next person, and repeat above steps.
You should be able to send 35 to 70 tweets in a half hour. Send as many tweets as you are willing to. Don't worry about any duplication that you think may arise.

C. How to send your tweets efficiently on smartphones
[to be added]

This communication is not authorized by Doug Jones or any other candidate, or authorized committee of Doug Jones or other candidate, or an agent of any of the foregoing. The author of this blog Robert Shattuck is paying for this communication. His permanent address is 3812 Spring Valley Circle, Birmingham, AL 35223, tel. no. (205) 967-5586. 
Under Federal election law, an uncompensated individual or group of uncompensated individuals may engage in certain voluntary Internet activities for the purpose of influencing a federal election without restriction. These exempted Internet activities do not result in a contribution or an expenditure under the Federal election law and do not trigger any registration or reporting requirements with the FEC. This exemption applies to individuals acting with or without the knowledge or consent of a campaign or a political party committee. Exempted Internet activities include, but are not limited to, sending or forwarding electronic mail, providing a hyperlink to a website, creating, maintaining or hosting a website and paying a nominal fee for the use of a website. The author of this blog is not receiving any compensation.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Sep 21 #alsen forum

The Alabama Policy Institute and Samford University are hosting a candidate forum with Luther Strange and Roy Moore on Sept. 21st. People are invited to submit questions at #askAL.

The forum sponsors Alabama Policy Institute and Samford University should have the ability and resources for conducting a respectable candidate forum.

The sponsors and question submitters should consider the candidates' websites as a starting point of reference for asking "good" questions. For Strange, see For Moore, see

Ballotpedia United States Senate special election in Alabama (September 26, 2017 Republican primary runoff) may also be a useful reference.

The forum sponsors should give thoughtful consideration to what they think are "important" questions that should be put to the candidates.

There are probably numerous "important" questions that Strange and Moore will evade answering in a decent fashion.

The sponsors, the AL news media and others should press hard on the candidates to answer important questions that the candidates probably want to avoid answering.

The sponsors should critique in advance questions that are asked on #askAL, and should lay out for comment by people questions the sponsors propose to ask the candidates.

The following questions are put forth as "important" and "meaningful" and deserving of putting to, and getting answers from, Strange and Moore. It is likely they will be evasive in giving "decent" answers.

1. Draining the Swamp
Central in the 2016 Presidential election were allegations made by both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump about a broken government, a rigged political system, and corruption. Candidate Trump made a hard sell at the end of his campaign that he would drain the swamp. Seven months on in the Trump Presidency there are significant developments to evaluate regarding Trump's promise to drain the Swamp. Luther Strange has made "draining the Swamp" a centerpiece of his campaign. Moore has called out McConnell and Strange as being part of the Swamp.
In my opinion, draining the Swamp has been palaver in the mouths of the candidates.
The sponsors should evaluate what was said and promised in the 2016 Presidential election about the Swamp, what has transpired in the Trump Presidency bearing on the Swamp, and what Strange and Moore are saying on the Swamp issue. The sponsors should decide what Strange and Moore should be pressed on about the Swamp.
For starters, it is suggested that Strange and Moore be required to set forth their definitions of the Swamp. See Defining the Swamp.

2. The question of Trump
Strange and Moore are adhering to ardent support for Trump, and they appear to  refuse to express anything negative about Trump.
Trump's negatives in the minds of many are becoming huge and undeniable. Leaders in the country who want Trump to be successful and who wish not for Trump's negatives to undermine his Presidency are deciding that they cannot be silent or give false testimony about the negatives. For example, regarding Charlottesville and America's values, Rex Tillerson expressed his own views about American values and, as to what Trump's views of America's values were, Tillerson could only say that the President speaks for himself.
An important question to be put to Strange and Moore would seem to be this: In asking Alabamians to vote for you,  do you think there are any negatives regarding Trump which you believe you  need to be honest to Alabamians about? Possible answers here could be (i) there are no significant negatives of Donald Trump, and his positives far outweigh any negatives: (ii) Alabamians can make up their own minds about Donald Trump's negatives and don't need any opinion about his negatives from me as candidate running for United States Senator from Alabama; and (iii) Donald Trump has significant negatives, and here is what I, as candidate running for United States Senator from Alabama, think they are.
The above seems an important question that should be put to Strange and Moore and that they should answer.
I urge the forum sponsors to consider whether the above question should be put to the candidates in the fourm.

3. Abortion
Why is it intolerable for you to live in a society in which others can choose to have an abortion?
Below is email interchange with Sam McClure, candidate for Attorney General.

4. Immigration
Do you think the country needs for Congress to agree on and pass immigration law legislation that addresses and seeks to resolve for the country the various areas of contention? If so, what is your explanation for why Congress has failed to do that, and what would you do to try to achieve the result of Congress agreeing on and passing immigration law legislation?

[to be continued]

Sunday, August 6, 2017

Defining the Swamp

The Swamp can be defined in simple terms. The Swamp has always been there. What is important is how egregious and detrimental the Swamp has become.

Private interests versus public interests
In our democracy, the voters elect their lawmakers, and the lawmakers are supposed to serve the interests of their constituencies.

Most particularly the lawmakers are not supposed to put their private interests ahead of the interests of their constituencies.

Lawmakers are human beings and have private interests like all human beings, including desires for money, power, social standing, sex, esteem, and recognition.

Lawmakers are constantly in circumstances in which they can advance their private interests at the expense of the interests of their constituents.

Sometimes there are competing interests within a lawmaker's constituency, and a lawmaker may be confronted with having to vote in favor of the interest of one group and against the interest of another group. This is not in and of itself swampy, but it can be swampy if the lawmaker's private interests are played on by a group to get the lawmaker to favor the group.

The public seeks to have safeguards that protect against lawmakers acting to serve their private interests ahead of the public interest.

One safeguard is to limit or prohibit lawmakers from having commercial interests which can be affected favorably by how a lawmaker votes or by other action the lawmaker takes in his official capacity.  While it is not impossible for a lawmaker in a conflict of interest situation to put the public interest ahead of his or her private interest, that is a hard thing to know for sure about, and the safeguard tool of limiting or prohibiting conflicts of interest is a prophylactic measure so that a conflict of interest does not exist.

"Transparency" is also extremely helpful to enable the public to protect itself against lawmakers choosing to advance their private interests at the expense of the public interest.

The Swamp
The safeguards the public has are very inadequate.

One realm of great inadequacy currently is that of campaign finance.

Politicians have great personal desires to win elections and stay in office, and this frequently outweighs the motivation to serve the public interest.

The current reality is that it takes a great deal of money to conduct a political election campaign, there are big donors and small donors, and a politician is at great risk of getting large donations from big donors in exchange for being willing to do things the large donors want.

Very frequently "doing what large donors want" is not justifiable in a bona fide exercise by the lawmaker of his obligation to "serve the public interest." There is a "quid pro quo" aspect that cannot be admitted under a "transparency" standard, and hence much obfuscation goes on that keeps the public from knowing how a lawmaker's personal desire to get funds to get reelected was put ahead of doing what is best for the "public" interest.

Throw into the "campaign finance" problem the immense exacerbation resulting from the lobbyist regime in Washington DC, and also that of "one sided special interests". These are egregious feeders to the politicians' needs for lots of money to win and keep elected office.

This detrimental situation is compounded by how the regulatory apparatus in Washington is availed of. While regulating can serve public interests, there is a great risk of over-regulation, which enables the lobbyists and one sided special interests to obtain greater funding from the regulated parties who need to defend against excessive regulatory reach into their activities.

Throw in regulators who earn their income from doing regulating and who enjoy the power that comes from being able to regulate others. Such regulators can be very accommodating to lobbyists and one sided special interests which seek funding that can be funneled to the politicians and which desire overly excessive regulation to stimulate the flow of funds.

If the above description is starting to sound like the Swamp, it is indeed the Swamp.

Strange is a manifestation of the Swamp in two publicized ways currently.

A. Strange and McConnell
Mitch McConnell is very enamored of the powerful position he has in Washington. To keep the position, he needs Senators who will back him. Mitch McConnell has at his disposal lots of funds that can be used to help someone like Luther Strange.
Luther Strange needs the money to do his TV and radio advertising to win the 2017 special election. Luther Strange will do what Mitch McConnell wants in order to get McConnell's funds.
The extent to which Mitch McConnell and Luther Strange can justify themselves and justify what they will endeavor to do in Congress as being best for the American people is problematic. Possibly they are failing and will fail to try to do what is best for the American people, and are largely acting only to serve their personal desires of being and staying a powerful person in Washington DC or being United States Senator from Alabama.
The campaign finance Swamp of McConnell and Strange is impenetrable to the public eye and is an unknown detriment to the interests of the American people in having Congress work properly for them.

B. Strange and the Superfund bribe
The Swamp includes outright bribery and doing the maximum to keep it hidden from public. Even apart from the outright bribery, there are questions about campaign contributions from Drummond to Strange improperly influencing his actions as Alabama Attorney General. As stated, campaign finance is a chief cause of the Swamp being egregious and detrimental. Anything Strange says is suspect, and his talking about draining the Swamp is pathetic. (For more info, see Source: State Rep. was offered superfund bribe with Luther Strange present.)

Trump campaigned hard about the Swamp and draining the Swamp.

To me, it has come clear that this was just a ploy to get elected, and Trump does not really care about draining the Swamp.

Further I think Trump has become the biggest Swamp Creature, in large part because of his claiming an exemption for his conflicts of interest.

In support of the foregoing, I refer you to these three blog entries: A Trump speech - NOT; #crookederthanHillary; and Trump Inc.

The #alsen candidates
For a digest of how the #alsen candidates are addressing the Swamp, see Washington Swamp.

Can the Swamp be drained?
I believe the Swamp has become egregious and very detrimental for the country. I believe the essence of the Swamp is a money monster that is out of control and overwhelming in politics. The country is unable to find a way to corral the money monster. Until a way is found to corral the money monster, the Swamp will stay egregious and detrimental for the country.

The #alsen candidates are talking palaver about draining the Swamp. They fail to articulate what the Swamp is, and their suggestions about draining it are laughable.

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Dear Moore tweeters

Dear Roy Moore tweeters:

I don't know whether or not your tweets are spamming abuse on Twitter. As you know, I have reported you to Twitter. I am content to leave it to Twitter decide, and I won't be bothered one way or the other going forward.

The #alsen and #alpolitics hashtags on Twitter are pathetic with their absence of candidate debate and voter/candidate interaction.

There are only about ten to fifteen of you Moore tweeters. For many weeks you have been posting scores or hundreds of times about ten different tweets and attached media images. That doesn't contribute much to the political conversation.

There are virtually no tweeters for the other #alsen candidates.

A few weeks ago I endeavored to engage with you by means of doing replies to some of your tweets. You didn't respond.

Roy Moore himself has not responded to any of the many things I have put to him via Twitter.

While I think you and Roy Moore should be able to engage in political discussion, if you and he can't or won't, that's yours and his choice.

I wish to continue the endeavor to engage with you, and indirectly Roy Moore, and I will use this blog entry to make a record of that.

I have gone to the Twitter accounts of some of you to get a better sense of what your political thinking is. I expect to address some of that here. I may mention some of you individually.

Continuation 1:
Your candidate needs all the campaigning he can get in order to win.
Very few AL voters come to hashtags #alsen and #alpolitics on Twitter, and your tweets there would seem to achieve almost no campaign effect.
A tweeting bank, such as the one I put up at Alabamians tweeting for Roy Moore, can reach a lot of Alabama voters if there is a small group of motivated Roy Moore supporters to get the tweeting bank going.
My experience is that individually directed tweets achieve a good percentage of success in getting recipients to click on the link.
I am promoting tweeting banks because I am interested in their potential as a way for achieving greater voter involvement in the electoral process. I don't claim any proprietary interest in the concept. Anyone is free to borrow the idea and create their own tweeting bank, including setting up their own webpage for their tweets to link to, all completely independent of me.
I think tweeting banks can be especially valuable for those candidates who genuinely hold themselves out as "candidates of the people." This is because the tweeting bank allows people to participate in a concrete way and for others to see that participation and be induced to join in.
Roy Moore's campaign especially emphasizes his being a "candidate of the people," and thus I think a tweeting bank for his campaign has significant potential benefit.
I would be pleased to answer any questions anyone has.

Continuation 2:
At least some of you appear as absolute believers in Donald Trump, right up to today.
I voted for Trump and quickly turned against him after he won.
What, if anything, will cause you to turn against Trump?
What are salient considerations for you?
Let's agree that Trump saw that you were hurting, and that his campaign was for you.
It's also fair to say that Bernie Sanders saw you were hurting, and he tried to campaign for you.
A consideration for you is how genuinely Trump was and is for you.
There is probably no doubting the genuineness of Bernie Sanders.
There are reasons for doubting how genuinely Donald Trump is for you.
You now have six months of his Presidency, and there is a lot there you can consider in judging how genuinely Trump is for you, and whether he may have duped you and is betraying you.
To try to answer that for yourself, ask yourself: Is Trump now greatly impaired to achieve what you desired him to achieve for you? If so, why is Trump impaired, to what extent is he to blame, and to what extent is Trump to blame because he selfishly chose for himself and against you?
Please read A Trump speech -NOT, and discern the choice that Trump could have made for you, but instead made for himself.
Then consider how that choice has contributed to his Russia problem. Consider how, for his own selfish purposes, Trump has chosen that his wealth and businesses are none of the country's business, that he is entitled to use the Presidency to further enrich himself, and that he need not and will not be open about his wealth and businesses and his ties to other countries and governments (particularly including Russia). This stance of Trump has contributed to Trump being in his Russia quagmire, which is greatly impairing Trump doing for you whatever it is you wanted from him.
In other words, Trump's genuineness in being for you can be seen as suspect.
There is much else that creates doubt about Trump's genuineness in being for you.

[to be continued]