Read what I wrote. You said “everyone.” I pointed that out. Why? Because someone who is running for public office is not “everyone.” The rights of such people are voluntarily restricted by their request that people trust them with public office. Such requests publicly invite vetting. Vetting includes inquiries into political affiliations. Political affiliations are indicated by voting. Voting is indicated by acts as well as change of affiliations. Changes require explanation. People running for office are not “everyone.”
In addition, the extremity of the evasion in this situation is a subject in itself. Your question implies forcing people to divulge votes. But that is not what happened here - this was just a question. Should questions for people running for office be banned? Isn’t the way someone answers a question they don’t want to answer part of vetting? So where was the violation here?
By the way, Grimes agrees with me. That’s why she didn’t simply claim voting privacy in her answer - because these issues I raised are, in fact, issues. And so claiming voting privacy is not a viable answer under these circumstances.
I hope I explained in such a way that even you can understand it.
And if you’re offended, there’s a simple solution - next time don’t defend an openly, brazenly lying politician.
(And that’s not an implicit defense of McConnell - he’s a backstabbing RINO who has to go. But Grimes is just as bad.)
I said “everyone” — and I said some words before and after that. Apparently, you don’t know the meaning of the word “context”; and you still haven’t shown that you understand what I said. You also don’t seem to be able to differentiate between defending a principle and defending a particular lying politician.