I have a friend who voted for Kamala. He is an intelligent person. Reasonably educated, firearms guy. I like talking to him and hanging with him.
We don’t talk politics because politics stresses him. I didn’t know he was voting for until recently.
I got about ten minutes of his time and asked him if he could tell me why.
There were multiple reasons, the one that stuck in my mind was, “How could you vote for a convicted felon? He should be in prison.”
I’ve heard this many times, I just tune it out because it is a true statement without context.
He had other reasons having to do with his perception of Trumps morals and how he believes Trump treats people. Not relevant to this discussion.
I asked him if he knew what Trump had been convicted of. His answer was “fraud”.
This set me back a little bit. I know what the case was about. The big “37 counts” was the same charge repeated in different ways.
If I recall correctly, for each check that Trump signed a check to his lawyers, it was notated as “legal expenses.” The state claims there are three separate counts for each one.
Regardless, I asked my friend if he was aware that these felonies were misdemeanors until they changed the law and that the statute of limitations had expired.
“No, I wasn’t aware.”
“Were you aware that this is the first and only time this crime has been prosecuted?”
“No, I wasn’t aware.”
“Were you aware that the crime charge was that he had attempted to cover up a crime by filing false statements, but that they never proved the precursor crime?”
“No, I wasn’t aware.”
This is propaganda at play. He would rather not be involved in politics, but he can’t escape it. Listening to someone like me just stresses him out. He would rather not have that conversation, and I do not blame him.
The overwhelming political noise that he is exposed to is always, “Trump is bad, Trump is Evil, Trump is a rapist, White Supremacists, and he is a convicted felon!”
He can’t escape that noise. It is everywhere.
One of the things that Allyson exposed me to is the left’s filter method.
You can’t vote for him because
I like to believe that we have a big tent. If you are a conservative, you are welcome under the tent.
This is surprising to most leftists. They believe that if you are gay, trans, black, brown, immigrant, poor or whatever other label they have, that you will be not only kicked out of the Conservative tent, but you will be attacked and hurt.
Some of that “attacked and hurt” comes from their claim that speech is violence.
What do I mean by “the left’s filter method”?
It is the process of finding a fault or flaw or “unacceptable” position to rule a candidate out.
Consider Ronald Reagan. He was a great president. He also made mistakes as the Governor of California. He signed gun-control bills into law as Governor.
I have heard people say that because I find Reagan to be a great president, I should agree that gun-control is good, since my hero signed gun-control bills.
That is not how it works.
From the left’s standpoint, that single error on Reagan’s part is enough to disqualify him. If it doesn’t, then I’m stupid.
Every time I would talk to the leftist Ally about a conservative candidate, she would tell me how she could never vote for them because… She would then present a single point to prove that they were unqualified for her approval.
It wasn’t about the whole of the person, it was about filtering them out for any reason possible.
This is why the left runs campaigns of emotion. Kamala never said anything that would cause the filter to kick in. And those filters are always judged against the enemy.
“He endorsed a person who said that Puerto Ricans were garbage.” And that would filter him out of the acceptable list.
All the hoaxes we saw are based on this. They are quick sound bites that are designed to trigger that filter. “He called White Supremacists ‘fine people’”. It doesn’t matter how often this is debunked, it still works.
It works because there will be people that hear just the sound bite and it will be enough to support their desire to not vote for orange man bad.
Comments
7 responses to “How Could You Vote For a Convicted Felon?”
How could I vote for a convicted felon?
Easy … Just filled in the little circle, shoved the ballot in the scanner and waited for it to go “Ping!”
(If the local elections board knew their vote counters sound like an M1 Garand in need of a reload, they would probably be mortified. But I’m reminded of it every couple of years and it makes me smile.)
Re the filter and Kamala, her late-campaign attempt to move towards the middle, e.g. owning (or claiming to own) a gun, pivot on fracking, etc., should have triggered the filter for many Democrats. That it didn’t, tells me the filter is more used as an excuse than a decision process.
Thinking about filters and outreach. The Republicans across the street are leaving their Trump/Vance flag up. But they’ve put up a rainbow flag also with print on it LBGTQ (or however it goes, I get confused) for Trump. It’s a reminder that the conservative tent is a big tent.
You’re friend won’t vote for a guy who MIGHT have done some shady accounting, but was 100% fine voting for two separate child rapists.
Hopefully Trump has finally grown a some balls and will treat those subhuman animals as they deserve.
Remember Simon & Garfunkel’s song The Boxer: “…still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest…”
this defines a ton of people today. they hear what they want to hear. or what they ASSUME you said…
“How could you vote for a convicted felon? He should be in prison.”
I’ve heard this many times, I just tune it out because it is a true statement without context.
Right there is the issue. Those who simply read the headlines without actually investigating (or reading a bit of the story) do not realize a LOT of things that are relevant.
Such as:
“Novel use of a law.” Novel means no one has used the law in this manner before. And, if you ask me, for GOOD reason. This particular application stretched the application of the law to the breaking point, if not beyond.
The “trial” was not even remotely fair to the defendant. A defendant with the global recognition of Trump is only allowed to reject 10 jurors? Seriously? Then being denied the ability to call a witness that would eviscerate the prosecution claims about the actual “felony.” Finally, a judge that violated City and State rules by donating to a partisan campaign sitting on the bench? (Forget that he was selected, not pulled out of a hat randomly, and that his donation was to Trump’s opponent, and that is daughter works for the democrats…)
The list goes on and on.
When someone says they cannot vote for a convicted felon, all they are really saying is they know nothing about the actual “crime” and “trial.”
the snake lawyers who are pushing all the criminal accusations against Trump have dropped the cases…. hell is coming for tyrants and its called Trump..