Posted on 10/09/2014 8:06:09 PM PDT by RightGeek
What would be the point of having secret ballots, if everyone were expected to tell every random reporter who they voted for?
"Everyone"?! LOL! Oh look, a shill trainee.
Take some advice - get past mouth-breathing before you try posting anything you think resembles logic.
Let me see if I can explain this, so that even you can understand it.
First, go back and read what I actually said. (I know you cut and pasted it; but I have no evidence that you actually read it for comprehension.)
Now, let me break it down for you. I asked a rhetorical question, to point out that the issue isn’t as cut-and-dried as it’s been made to seem here. The secret ballot is a cornerstone of any representative democracy. At which point does one lose the right to keep their vote secret? If partisan politicians don’t have that right — should others also give up that right? What is the dividing line, where a person loses their right to expect that their voting is private? How would you react to a “man-in-the-street” interview, where the reporter asked you who you voted for?
Should reporters be required to report who they voted for?
When one decides to run for US Senate.
Think you went a little hard on that one, bruh
It's sad to see someone who hates the GOP establishment leaders more than he loves his country.
She doesn't want to answer the question about Obama, fine, then just say that. Her evasions and protestations would lead me to believe that she would have no problem with lying and stretching the truth to her constituents in the event that she were actually elected...
Hey there, Doug!
Didn’t see your note before I turned in last night. Doing OK here in DE. Glad you are busy—especially in the CA economy.
I’ll have to check out that Marilyn Monroe lawsuit. Take care.
How is having McConnell as Senate leader good for the country? It is better for Democrats than having a Democrat in his seat because a Democrat in his seat would not have the power to advance the Democrat agenda that McConnell has and uses. It is sad that people who think themselves to be conservatives vote tribally. If he is one of ours in name but will slice all our throats it is better to have him than someone of the other tribe who will not be so damaging to us. No?
Are you not aware that EVERY Senate Republican Senator voted against the Obamacare act, and that all Obama appointments after January 1 will have to be approved by the appropriate Republican controlled committee before they would even be sent to the floor, if the Republicans win the Senate?
But McConnell has indicated no desire to now repeal obamacare but rather to improve it or replace it with some “more efficient” government medical program. When he talks about allowing “more” competition he is saying he does not intend to get rid of it but rather to construct a government designed and controlled picture of competition that will not permit the market to work. He is the CEO designate of the Republican Division of the Democrat Party. I would prefer Terry Grimes to win his seat. If McC were not the Judas Goat of the Republican Party and only a Senator it would be different, we need the nominal numbers, but he is that Judas Goat and revels in his role. If Harry Reid were to announce that he was changing his party to become a Republican would you then insist that his presence in the Senate is Necessary? And I feel the same way about Boehner. Both men started out years ago as conservatives but found that their lifetime financial security is guaranteed by voting as the Democrats prefer, even should they lose an election.
If the Republicans attain numerical majority in the Senate with McConnell still at the helm the Democrats will continue to control the agenda. It will be worse than if the Democrats retain numerical control.
So -- the dividing line is somewhere between those running for high office, and the rest of us. I an accept that.
Of course, the question is easy for a lying politician to answer (once) -- as the answer is not verifiable. An honest politician (let's assume they exist, for the sake of argument), who also feels strongly about the "sanctity of the ballot box", would have a harder time answering the question. He might not want to answer to preserve the principle of ballot-box secrecy. You could have a situation of a lying politician appearing forthright, and an honest politician appearing devious. Oh, the irony.
It would be better to insist on release of verifiable information -- such as all the sorts of things Obama has managed to embargo. However, that raises its own problems -- as we saw in the Romney tax-records brouhaha.
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.
Nope. Won’t work.
Context is what you’re manipulating, not me. You’re trying to normalize Grimes’ answer and I’m not fooled by your simplistic tactics. Fact is that there’s no context between your question and what Grimes did. And further, the sophistication of the root of your question denies the inclusion of the simplistic examples you include with it.
Busted. Your game is to try to induce a level of normalcy in dealing with your childish mishmash question which makes the level of mishmash in Grimes’answer seem normal. Oh, and you’re supposed to be invisible, too. Yawn.
That’s why I called you a trainee. You use NLP like a club with “not a club” written on the side of it in crayon. Of course these days, maybe you’re the best they’ve got. Nothing would surprise me anymore. But your skill set is still trainee level, no matter what little stars you get to wear.
Whatever. Doesn’t really matter, but you’ll be the last to understand that.
You're right, of course. No one should even be asked the question of who they voted for. Now, questions about HOW they would vote on certain issues in the future, is another story. And it goes without saying, regardless of any blather on her part, that 1) Grimes voted for Odipshiit, twice, and 2) will bend over, either direction, when her Democommie overlords tell her to.
All that said, I won't be sad to see her kick McConnell's turtle-azz to the curb come Election Day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.