What would Tom Kline and Dana have to learn about Trump to not vote for him?
With everything we know about Trump’s lies, criminality, cowardice, racism, misogyny, oafishness, mean-spiritedness, and incompetence you have to wonder what it would take for someone like Kline or Dana to not vote for him. In other words, what would basic brain dead Republicans have to learn about Trump to say “Okay. That crossed a line.”?
What if they found out that Trump was into Cannibalism? They could get past that. Incest? What if it was discovered that Trump had a sexual relationship with his daughter? I believe someone like Dana could rationalize that information away. His daughter is attractive after all. What if, just for the hell of it, Trump hauled off and punched an elderly, wheelchair-bound WWII vet really hard in the face? I think Kline would be able to see Trump’s side of the story.
“Sure he is a cannibal, but I’m sure as hell not voting for no socialist.” and “I love that Trump’s incest with his daughter and WWII vet punching drives Libtards crazy.” they’d say.
dana who?
Some a-hole who loves Trump and comments here from time to time until inevitably getting banned for rank stupidity.
Oh, that Dana.
You guys have more than 5 commentors?
If we count you there are six.
Just for the record. It’s not this Dana. š
I donāt think a dead girl would do it but maybe a live boy.
Really, if you are going to write a post about me, since you know I don’t visit every day, it would have been nice of you to send me an email letting me know about it. I just now saw this, a day after it was posted.
It would take only one thing to get me to vote for someone other than President Trump: a candidate who was better than him on policy.
Yes, Mr Trump is an [insert slang term for the rectum here], but I’ve never met him, don’t care to meet him, and the odds that I ever will meet him are vanishingly small. Thus, I don’t care about his personal life; I care about the policies he has for our country. Yeah, he may have f(ornicated) Stormy Daniels, but the Democrats running are promoting policies that I believe would f(ornicate) the entire country. His policies aren’t perfect by any means — he is overseeing a huge and unjustifiable expansion of federal spending — but they are far less imperfect than those of the Democrats.
For example, many of the Democrats running would push for reparations for slavery, even though no white American alive today has ever owned a slave, and no black person alive today has ever been an American slave. Kamala Harris would, on top of that, create a federal program to aid black, and only black, applicants to buy homes. She could have said poor people, without regard to race, but she didn’t.
On immigration, I absolutely support the legal immigration of those who have the education, skills and ability to support themselves and contribute to the American economy; I oppose the illegal immigration of people who have few skills beyond manual labor and little if anything to contribute to our prosperity; we do not need the immigration of people who will be a drag on our educational, infrastructure and welfare programs.
Remember the Veterans’ Administration health care fiasco, where the administrators were deliberately delaying appointments to save money? If we get a single-payer system, as most of the Democrats are advocating, that will happen to our entire health care system, because that’s what the other single-payer systems do: they have to find ways to save money.
And judicial nominations? Sorry, but when you have people who can’t even tell the difference between males and females anymore, no, I wouldn’t trust any of those people with any responsibility, for anything.
Nailed it:
āSure he is a cannibal, but Iām sure as hell not voting for no socialist.ā
As I suspected there is literally nothing Dana could find out about Trump that would keep him from voting for him. His pea-brain is so chock-a-block full with the warped Fox News talking points about the Democratic candidates that Dana would vote for Trump EVEN IF Trump came out in favor of cannibalism, having sex with one’s daughter and punching WWII vets in their faces.
I knew it but didn’t think Dana would be so candid about it. You’re welcome, everyone, for the public service provided by this post.
For the record, I didn’t vote for Donald Trump in 2016.
I supported Scott Walker initially, and after he dropped out, gave my support — and two campaign contributions — to Carly Fiorina. After her campaign failed, well by then it was obvious that no one was going to stop Mr Trump from winning the Republican nomination. By the time the Pennsylvania primary rolled around, only Ted Cruz was left opposing Mr Trump, and I voted for Mr Cruz in the primary.
I was like most people: I thought that Mr Trump had no chance at all against Hillary Clinton, and that there was about zero chance that Mr Trump would carry Pennsylvania; no Republican had since 1988. Figuring my vote would be a wasted one, I tried to send a message, and voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee; no one was more surprised than I was when Mr Trump carried the keystone State and won the election.
But, come November of 2020, I fully expect to cast my ballot for Mr Trump, as well as Mitch McConnell, now that I’m living in Kentucky.
I don’t know what service was provided by this post. I feel like this answered a question everyone already knew the answer to. No? But if I can glean anything from Dana’s responses (which I actually appreciated, by the way) it would certainly seem to add strength to other arguments made here by the most left leaning contributors. Namely that there is no rationale for voting for a moderate Democrat in the primaries in the name of “electability”.
Either Jason just wanted to shit all over Dana and Tom Kline …. or that was the point. Correct? Dana – I take it the most middle of the road, centrist, Democrat in any recent field still has zero chance of getting your vote in a general election? Is that true? I ask because every day I hear people argue in favor of Biden , for instance, not because they actually want him to be President but because they have been scared into thinking that he is the only Democrat who could pull votes from red to blue. And you just made it crystal clear that that will never happen. Not with anyone running as a Democrat under any platform.
In fact, I’d like to go a step or two farther and ask you to continue your candor and tell us what POLICIES a Democrat would have to run on that would pry your vote from Trump. If a Democrat promised to nominate only anti-abortion judges? If a Democrat flatly denounced all forms of socialized medicine and reparations? If a Democrat promised to de-regulate, allow anything business wants to do to the enviroment and was opposed to anything and everything the LGBT community demanded? And if in proclaiming all these policies that candidate was also a decent human being who proudly proclaimed that Jesus Christ was his savior and who indded actually gave to charity as Trump has lied about doing repeatedly …. would that have any chance of getting your vote?
I’m wondering if Jason’s point was that even then, that damn D and the color blue would still make it an easy choice for you. But by all means, please tell me I’m wrong. Because if you would still pull the lever for Trump in that hypothetical race then we can finally tell every scared Democratic primary voter to stop worrying about you and your vote and just vote for Bernie or Liz the way they WANT to.
They are too scared to listen. But at least the issue will be settled.
I admire your willingness to give him another bite at the apple, but I think we both know that there is no middle ground that a Democrat could get to that would allow Trump voters to switch. It is a mirage that constantly recedes to the horizon as it is approached.
So yes. That is the point. Let’s all please dispense with the wishful thinking about Biden or some Democrat being able to water down Democratic policies enough to be palatable for Trump voters.
And, for the record, they say they don’t like the guy but they like the policies. That’s bullshit. They love the guy. They love his “fuck you , libs” approach. Dana is simply lying when he says he doesn’t like Trump.
@Dana: What is it about transgender people that triggers conservatives so?
Alby asked me:
If someone claims to be the opposite sex from which he was born, that’s his business. But when the ‘transgendered’ try to use the force of law to get other people to agree with their delusions, yes, I have a problem.
I’m a Star Trek fan, but if I found a quack plastic surgeon to give me pointed ears and then started telling everyone that I was really a Vulcan, and I had to be treated as one, you wouldn’t go along with it; you’d say that I was loony tunes, delusional, cookoo for Cocoa Puffs.
I’m assuming that this comment will disappear.
Let me reply that if only one person were involved, you’d be right. But if tens or hundreds of thousands of people were under this “delusion,” you’d have the same situation we have with the transgendered.
Let’s use a parallel delusion to illuminate this — religion. That’s an irrational belief that, alone among irrational beliefs, is protected by law. But it’s only protected if enough people believe it to form a church. If I go around telling people I’m Jesus reincarnated, I’m a nut. But if I tell people that Jesus talks to me, I’m a respected preacher. See the difference? It’s not about protecting beliefs, or we’d protect the belief of everybody who proclaims him or herself God — it’s no crazier than believing something else called God exists. It’s protected because enough people believe it.
To get to the original point, if hundreds of thousands of people believe they were born the “wrong” gender, how are you going to prove them wrong? And why shouldn’t they be protected from discrimination?
Alby wrote:
Actually, I do: a particular congregation might believe him, but we still aren’t using the force of law to require others to treat him as the reincarnated Son of God.
You’ve probably heard of the case of Jonathan ‘Jessica’ Yaniv, the British Columbia male who insists that he is female, and has been using Canadian law to get people thrown out of business because ‘waxing’ salons won’t was his intact male genitals. He is literally trying to use Canadian law to force unwilling women to touch his genitals. In any other situation, you would call that sexual assault.
That hasn’t happened in the US yet, but when I see the efforts of homosexual activists to force Christian bakers to provide services for same sex weddings, I can see how a case like Mr Yaniv’s could occur here. The Obama Administration used Title IX to force public schools to allow students claiming to be the opposite sex to use bathrooms and locker rooms of the sex that they claim to be, not the biologic sex they are.
The transgendered can do anything that they’d like, as far as I am concerned, as long as they are not using the force of law to compel other people to go along with their beliefs.
“Youāve probably heard of the case of Jonathan āJessicaā Yaniv, the British Columbia male who insists that he is female,”
No, I have not, but without looking it up it seems like another case, like a man in Oregon some years back, that conservatives are using to stand for thousands of unlike cases. As is often the case with this approach to opposition, it’s using one outlier to represent a movement of which it is an infinitesimal percentage.
I find most conservative opposition to liberal proposals to lean on such “but what about?” arguments — ones that come up in theory but almost never in practice.
As for the Canadian law, he’s not trying to “get unwilling women to touch his genitals.” He’s trying to get employees to wax his balls, not give him a handjob. Wax for the goose should be wax for the gander. If the female employees don’t like it, hire a male to do it. It’s not an insoluble problem.
“In any other situation, you would call that sexual assault.”
Nonsense. Nobody is being forced to do anything but provide a service. I fail to see how his passive position as a customer can amount to assault under any assault law on the books. This is typical conservative cant, or hyperbole.
“I see the efforts of homosexual activists to force Christian bakers to provide services for same sex weddings”
The law is quite clear in this regard, and your reference to “Christians” highlights my point: The fucking Constitution itself protects the illogical belief in magical beings that you call “religion,” and your so-called “Christians” — I think “Christianists” would be more accurate — are the ones seeking to enlarge that unfair privileging of that particular form of made-up belief system to infringe on the rights of groups their so-called “religion” tells them are unclean.
They can no more deny service to homosexuals than to blacks. And believe me, if your Christianists get away with denying service to homosexuals, they will seek to expand it beyond that.
Already we have people who have claimed in court that their actions were motivated by fear of black people. We know from the number of police shootings that even well-armed police officers fear black people more than white ones. This is irrational, but if an irrational revulsion at homosexuality is protected by “religious belief,” why should an irrational fear of men with dark skin not be?
Our disagreement here is one of which movement involves greater infringement on freedom — if not all individual freedom, how about my own? I have far more to fear from this dying spasm of Christianity than I do from a small minority of people who have, in your view at least, cases of gender dysmorphia.
Let me add a question here: We’re talking about a vanishingly small number of cases in which you seem to show an outsized sense of concern.
How many bakers have been inconvenienced in this fashion nationwide? How many provocateurs have misapplied the term “transgender” to themselves to take advantage of the laws that protect them?
We’re talking about at most a dozen cases in a nation of 330 million, with consequences, it must be noted, that are far from fatal.
My actual question is, why do you get so worked up about something that is so obviously not a problem that actually affects anyone? We have actual problems, thousands of them, that are fatal to people every day. Why don’t you worry about something more important?
Alby asked me:
So, you believe that it’s OK to violate their rights as long as there aren’t too many of them?
The solution to one baker declining to bake your wedding cake is to go down the street to the next one, who will. You get your cake, and he retains his rights.
Really, that’s the solution to just about everything: don’t force your way against somebody else. I won’t care if someone decides he’s the opposite sex, as long as that someone doesn’t have the force of law behind him to compel me to address him improperly or serve him in a way that violates my conscience.
“So, you believe that itās OK to violate their rights as long as there arenāt too many of them?”
Their perceived rights, please. Rights are what the government grants you; if they were in fact “inalienable” governments wouldn’t routinely alienate them. And when so little is at stake — ooh, somebody has to bake a fucking cake! somebody sees a pecker! — I choose not to care about these rights.
And the reason I don’t care about these rights is twofold. First, I strongly object to catering to people’s “religious rights” because they can do actual harm to people (see Church, Roman Catholic). Second, people being shot by police are having a more important right violated, so I choose to expend my outrage about unfairness on that.
“The solution to one baker declining to bake your wedding cake is to go down the street to the next one, who will.”
I wholeheartedly agree, but you’re missing the point: Why get worked up over these mostly hypothetical situations? Most of them exist precisely to get people all ginned up. Why are you falling for it?
Alby wrote:
“Mostly hypothetical situations”? Dude, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission went all the way to the Supreme Court. If this case was ‘ginned up,’ it wasn’t by conservatives, but by people who wanted to drive the Phillips out of business.
On the day the Court issued their opinion, a ‘transgender’ person went in to the Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a ‘birthday cake’ to celebrate his ‘transition,’ knowing full well that Jack Phillips would refuse, and the purported customer then filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. That, fortunately, was simply dismissed. The left are trying lawfare, to drive the shop out of business.
Yes, it’s mighty dangerous to own a bake shop these days. Almost as dangerous as being a black guy.
As I noted before, both sides do this. You’re falling for it. Makes you the fool, IMHO.
Not sure if Jason chose to shit on Tom Kline but since Tommy-boy chooses to live in an ideological outhouse of crappy ideas and even crappier people he should expect to be defecated on.
Rep. Kowalko
Why haven’t you cashed out your big fat pension and retired? Seriously, show us all your not in it for $$$$ and donate your salary.
Look if we had a decent candidate that would purge the socialists from my party I’d really consider him/her/it.
But as of now, my companies are loving the economic environment.
Off to the club for dinner. LOL