I thought you could read. It isn't difficult. You can see what she stands for and what she demonstrably doesn't.
you argue around the edges
You're a liar. Straight forward enough for you? You're literally lying through your teeth and you mostly do that where I'm concerned. You're no better than aCW. No, you're worse, because you're rational enough to know better but invest in that persistent, dishonest screed as an ongoing narrative, from the early "dance" versions to this one.
Try making that opaque, won't you.
and because of that you are okay with voting for democrats
And republicans. Candidates actually. You're the party lever puller, which is tragic enough.
even though they support abortion
Many do. And some republicans, including everyone they've nominated for President. Fortunately, none of them are being asked to decide the issue.
and here is your reasoning over forty years ago judges appointed by republicans made abortion legal it is now the law of the land and you can't do anything about it
No, liar, that's not what I said. I've said the Court has decided it and that the only redress is a Constitutional Amendment, which will take those who believe in the right to defense for the unborn continuing to move the larger opinion to the tipping point allowing for that convention and amendment. It will mean working across party lines and even with some who otherwise are ideologically opposed, working on an issue where we can meet and agree. Because that's the only way this happens.
But you, with your larger concerns for party purity and labor unions, you won't have it, even though every rational bone in that body of yours understands a man can be moved on an issue, the issue you say is the most important going, long before he could be moved on a host of them.
same sex marriage is also okay
No, liar. I've never said that. I've said it was a necessary evil, legally speaking and one I find morally objectionable.
but you were okay with it before the judges made it okay for others
No, liar. I recognized that the laws denying same sex marriage weren't predicated on reasoning that could be sustained, that it was a purely religious objection in different robes and that it couldn't stand any more than any attempt to stamp a particular church on the seal of state could once that inescapable fact came to light and before the Court.
so why should I even bother with you?
You shouldn't, liar. You should concern yourself deeply with your own character and reforming the practice, make yourself an honest man, whatever our differences. If you can't do that nothing you say will ever matter.
I will tell you why I am using you to make my point
I don't know if it's sad or funny, this opinion you have of yourself and your "job", but let me know when the description of that job can stand upright and we might have a conversation worth hearing.
