What’s the different between having a full-time Democrat and one like Kirk who always votes the wrong way on everything?
If I thought Republicans retaining control of the Senate would make any difference I might vote for Kirk, but we know they squander every opportunity they have to do the right thing, and if Trump wins I’m sure Kirk will be right there with the Nevertrumps fighting anything he proposes.
Maybe undervoting sends the right message. Good suggestion.
Good for you! Send the establishment republicans a message. I early voted for Trump here in Florida and voted for a write-in candidate (Myself) for the US Senate. No way I would ever vote for 'Little Marco' the anchor baby.
Honestly, I have zero interest in seeing that debate.
However, listening to Kirk's comments, it was an obvious foot-in-mouth moment. Duckworth was saying she had ancestors who fought for America going back to the revolutionary war (she does, on her caucasian father's side) and Kirk made some snarky remark asking if her relatives fought for the revolutionary war from Thailand. Biggest opportunity for the Dems to scream RACIST!! since Trent Lott gave that idiotic comment that he'd vote for Strom Thurmond in '48 too, instead of saying "Look, I was 7 years old in 1948, I had no idea he was a white supremacist at the time, I was just making lighthearted remarks at an old man's 100th birthday and if you think its offensive too bad I won't apologize"
Some Kirk defender on facebook said the debate is "proof" Kirk didn't suffer any ill effects from his stroke. I guess she missed his stupid comments too.
>> I’m also sure that any freeper attacking him for it would be defending someone they like for making an identical comment. <<
Okay, valid point there. I remember when Lindsey Graham made the comment "the GOP is party of Ronald Reagan, not Ron Paul" to refute Ron Paul's Cindy Sheehan-ish comments, and freepers were ripping him apart over it. My first thought was that if those SAME words had come out of Jim DeMint's mouth in response to Paul's nutty foriegn policy, they'd give him a standing ovation for it.
>> If I thought Republicans retaining control of the Senate would make any difference I might vote for Kirk <<
I'm in the "screw Kirk" camp as well, but you do realize that saying you have ZERO support for the GOP retaining the Senate undermines the big "vote Trump for the Supreme Court" talking point? Do you really think a RAT controlled Senate would confirm "Trump's pro-life conservative nominees?" Personally, I think Kirk wouldn't confirm them either, but there are plenty of Republican incumbents in tight races that would. If they lose to RATs, you can forget about the "Supreme Court" staying conservative.