Doug Jones wins the Alabama special election for the US Senate

Swearing to invade Iran and pass TPP is not liberal. Accepting millions of dollars from wall street billionaires to tell show up an them exactly what they want to hear isn't either. Refusing to tell anyone what you told them is just gross. Here is how a liberal would handle these three issue:

1) We are not freaking starting another war in the freaking middle east. How are you more insane then trump? That shouldn't be possible! Stop being more insane then trump this instant!

2) Screw your corpratist BS. TTP must die.

I mean come on, even Hollywood turned on Obama and Clinton over this nonsense.

3) No way I am taking your dirty money Wall street, I will however be glad to show up for free and tell you all the ways you are holding this country back. Lets see if we can get enough of my friends to show up! You will find me outside the building with a bullhorn. Feel free to move the whole even outside.

You asked me about liberal values, I said it was about standing up to rich people, not aiding them. You agreed, and seemed to like the idea that helping them acquire more power was a conservative ideal. The Clintons have always been about giving the rich more money and power. Heck their power comes from money.

They have so much money, that the fact that team Clinton has an accused rapist isn't a deal breaker.

those are valid points, but I still dont think you are 'extremely liberal'

what do you think of Jerry Brown?

If your definition of liberal is compatible with gleefully invading the middle east for no reason, selling out to billionaires, and giving the super rich even more power then yeah you should not think I am any sort of liberal.

If you want to talk about Jerry Brown, consider making a thread and presenting the topic in an interesting way.

yeah that is what I thought. Your just against Clinton and pretending to be 'extreemly liberal' but I can tell you are not.

but I should not harp on it. we are not as easy to fool as you think, i can see right thru this

I am very comfortable with the idea of being incompatible with your corporatist definition of liberalism. Protecting the reputations of accused rapists in order to help propagate more middle eastern wars is just not my style.

you have stated nothing in the affirmative, only what you are against and assuming I am a Clinton supporter.

I am pretty sure your full of it.

Can you tell me something about Howard Zinn maybe? anything..throw me a bone in the affirmative rather than against

I have actually given you several affirmatives =P You replied with things like "I didn't read past the third word."

and like I said, if you want folks to give you their thoughts on any given name, you should consider making a thread and presenting the topic in an interesting way. Expecting people to jump for your approval isn't going to get you bones.

Good luck!

Yeah, he should learn from the democrats and defend people accused of violently raping people, sexually assaulting others, and lying under oath about their sexual harassment. In fact, if you can you should probably sell the entire party to his wife. Accused rapists do great in blue states, so be sure to get them to glad hand the donors and the crowds.

@zaryia:

One party circles the wagon for accused child predators, the other for accused rapists. Neither has room to throw a stone.

I wasn't defending accused rapists or child molesters in several threads for pages on end.

@Jacanuk was.

:)

So someone looking at your post history will not find you defending politicians with known rape accusations? If politicians with a alligations of sexual misconduct are invited to speak at political events, I can expect you to be outraged?

=P

No. I did not defend anyone accused of rape.

Great, the next time Clinton shows up at a Democratic event we can raise heck together. See you there!

Or I can just not defend him for several pages in multiple threads like he's my god or something.

Well, an entire party considers someone accused of violent rape and several counts of sexual assault one of their rockstars. They donate large sums of money to the charity they named after themselves when they founded it. They pay them large sums of money to get them to come out and lecture them on topics such as the proper way to help folks out, and feminism. They use them for fundraising, and building goodwill at home, abroad, and especially among their base. They even get defensive when folks bring up their many accusers. Or the fact that they lied under oath to hide sexual harassment.

If that isn't worthy of comment, why is this?

That's not the same thing. He's talking about ONE specific individual defending a child molester. That has nothing to do with what other people have done. Stop trying to change the narrative.

My entire point is they are not the same silly. One is far more extreme and much more common. Weird it is the one overlooked.

I think your point was that liberals like to vote for child molesters sorry I mean sexual offenders

I will concede like is hyperbolic. I am sure democratic voters would love to live in a world where the white house maids were not afraid of bending over in front of one of their rockstars. When my posts are being juxtaposed with claims that someone is being worshiped as a god, like/love seems appropriate. Sort of Swift style satire.

It is however pretty hard to claim that Democrats are unwilling to shower people accused of a wide verity of sex crimes with tons of power, adoration, and money. Far more willing then Alabama. That seems like something that should be a wake up call. Anytime you find yourself ranked lower then Alabama, you should probably consider a drastic change.

like I said, you meant to say liberals like to vote for sexual offenders.

you over complicate it and end up saying the what I just said.

"Like" and "would prefer not to but are perfectly willing to anyway" are the same in your eyes? You may wish to take this debate to Oxford.

pretty much yeah. for the purposes of this conversation yeah

example:

a Republican would 'like' magical unicorns but they dont have a problem voting for a bill that taxes the poor'

well for the purposes of this conversation not much a difference between'like' and 'ok with'

We are not on the same page. I do not think we even have the same book.

let me try it again

'a conservative would 'like' to have a magic pony but they have no problem voting for a tax bill that hurts the poor'

so does a conservative 'like' or 'not have a problem with' hurting the poor and does it really make a material difference in the point? not really.

so you are saying liberals (have no problem with) 'like' to vote for sex offenders. but to make your life easier, fine

you are saying liberals have no problem voting for sexual offenders and in fact they (sexual offenders) 'do quite well' to quote you

which leaves me asking you this. what is the difference between 'has no problem with' and 'does quite well' in the context of your orginal statement?

The magical pony bit is nonsense. The goal was to call attention to the inconsistency in question. If you just squish two unrelated things together it is babble. Lets try together!

Democratic version: Democrats would like to live in a world where the white house maids were not afraid of bending over in front of one of their rockstars, but they are more then willing to ignore rape allegations when they threaten figures central to their party. After all they throw millions of dollars at Clinton in the hopes that the Senpai will notice them.

Republican version: Republicans would love to be viewed as Christlike by the masses, but they would have been more then willing to sit in their palace warm, while baby Jesus died shivering in the cold. After all they think if they brought him gold they would have just been enslaving him to welfare.

See the difference? The juxtaposition of the opposing values highlights the underlying hypocrisy. One can not do that with magical ponies. Unless of course you are outting a bronie or something.

As for the Like/more then willing debate: Like I said you have to take that one up with Oxford.

The goal was to call attention to the inconsistency in question.

let me try this then

'doing well' and 'ok with' are not the same thing

you didnt say blue states are 'ok with' voting for sex offenders

you said sex offenders do well in blue states.

two VERY different assertions

You realize that in the "okay with" post I concede the use of hyperbole? When someone concedes their language was hyperbolic it means they agree it was an exaggeration.

That said, Clinton is an accused rapist. He does do very well in blue states. It is very hyperbolic to say that democrats love accused sex offenders, but it is not hyperbolic to say they are willing to celebrate an accused rapist when doing so is in line with their political agenda. That is just reality. Bill Clinton is often called a Rockstar in the democratic party. If you don't think this is the case try typing Bill Clinton Rockstar into google. It takes two seconds to get results like:

Bill Clinton transitioned from political rock star to legendary supernova in forty-eight electrifying minutes on Wednesday night. The former president in his nomination speech for President Barack Obama very likely changed the dynamics of the reelection campaign from blasé to blazing. With folksy mannerisms, wonky statistics and easy charm, Clinton rocked the Democratic National Convention and made Republicans sigh a big “Uh oh.”

It is quite clear that rape allegations were not factored into that enthusiasm. I don't think they would have brought up his charm if their assessment of him was mitigated by the existence of his accusers.

again

'doing well in blue states' and 'ok with' are not the same thing.

if you want to say your orginal statement was misleading and fix it then fine, do that.

but as the statement reads it implies you think liberals who might otherwise vote for Ralph Nader are voting strongly for sex offenders.

so fix it

This is more babble. Do you think Clinton doesn't do well in blue states or something? I am unsure of your point of contention.

Yeah, he should learn from the democrats and defend people accused of violently raping people, sexually assaulting others, and lying under oath about their sexual harassment. In fact, if you can you should probably sell the entire party to his wife. Accused rapists do great in blue states, so be sure to get them to glad hand the donors and the crowds.

here''

'accused rapists do great in blue states'

now I am sorry that I tried to say what you mean by that is that 'accused rapists do well in blue states' but that is what you said. I am not declaring a position, i am just repeating yours

I am able to detect that you are repeating me. I do not understand the point of contention. Are you under the impression that Clinton doesn't do well in blue states, or that he isn't an accused rapist, or is there some other confusion?

@zaryia: Sure buddy.

I dont care, give a F or even (for the sake of this conversation) have any remote idea who Clinton is. I am not talking about the clintons.

Someone asked what you mean and I just repeated what you said as what you mean which is 'blue states like to vote for sexual offenders' but you want to say that is not true? (yes I aknow I am getting the exact quote mixed up but bear with it)

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT CLINTON AT ALL

Oh, that is the confusion. Clinton is an accused rapist the democratic party considers one of their rockstars. He does very well in blue states. American politics might be a tough discussion if you are not familiar with such names.

I think you are trying to convince yourself of your points because I have never once disputed your point.

I just repeated what you said and said ';that is how you see it' and yet you seem to be in conflict over your own words..

how very telling

again all I ever said what 'what you mean to say is that blue states do very well for sex offenders' (or whatever the exact quote was) I added no commentary other than that

Oh sorry I was unaware that this was your posting style. In the future when you quote I will reply with the understanding that no actual commentary is intended. Sorry, I did not know you were just doing a fun parrot impersonation.

You strike me as a parakeet. They are the cutest.

what 'posting style' are you talking about?

saying 'what you mean to say is that sex offenders do well in blue states' and actually meaning that statement stradegy of posting?

dude you are reading far more into what I said, I said exactly what I meant, it was clear, specific, to the point. you are the one that seems to be in conflict with your own words.

Well, it is kind of hard to figure out what someone means when they are in a conversion about sex offenders doing well in blue states but have no idea what a Clinton is. Particularly if you do not intend to imply commentary when you interject. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

really?

its hard to 'figure out' what a person means when they say 'what he means is [insert a quote from him here]' and what he means is exactly what he said?

ok well. work with it a bit, now that you understand lets move on.

Yes, that is quite hard to figure out. Particularly when something is so straight forward and uncontested by conventional wisdom. Like how you can be an accused rapist with a line of accusers behind you and still be a rockstar within the democratic party.

Heck, I think the best thing trump might ever do is force the democratic party to kill Clinton's legacy. Perhaps in the 2020s we will have a democratic party that says "Believe victims" without adding "Unless they are talking about Senpai."