Republican billionaire donor asks the party of Trump: 'Why should I contribute to my own destruction?'

The curtain over Jennifer’s personal life began to lift in July 2017, when Idiot God tweeted his intention to ban transgender people in the military, reversing an Obama-era directive. The Chicago Sun-Times soon published an opinion piece, headlined “Col. Jennifer Pritzker: Trump’s transgender ban a ‘huge step backward.’” “Being a transgender woman, I had to hide who I was during my time in service,” Pritzker wrote. “I can’t express enough how strongly I disagree with Trump’s statement…[which] hurts our Armed Forces and shows a callous disregard for the rights of American citizens.”

In January she published another opinion piece, in The Washington Post. This time she expressed her disapproval of Trump and the Republican Party by issuing perhaps the only kind of warning they might heed: the threat to close her pocketbook. “I have hoped the Republican Party would reform from within and end its assault on the LGBTQ community. Yet the party continues to champion policies that marginalize me out of existence, define me as an eccentric character,” she wrote. “I ask Republicans to prioritize policies that improve our country for all Americans. When the GOP asks me to deliver six- or seven-figure contributions for the 2020 elections, my first response will be: why should I contribute to my own destruction?”

Ben Reilly wrote:

The curtain over Jennifer’s personal life began to lift in July 2017, when Idiot God tweeted his intention to ban transgender people in the military, reversing an Obama-era directive. The Chicago Sun-Times soon published an opinion piece, headlined “Col. Jennifer Pritzker: Trump’s transgender ban a ‘huge step backward.’” “Being a transgender woman, I had to hide who I was during my time in service,” Pritzker wrote. “I can’t express enough how strongly I disagree with Trump’s statement…[which] hurts our Armed Forces and shows a callous disregard for the rights of American citizens.”

In January she published another opinion piece, in The Washington Post. This time she expressed her disapproval of Trump and the Republican Party by issuing perhaps the only kind of warning they might heed: the threat to close her pocketbook. “I have hoped the Republican Party would reform from within and end its assault on the LGBTQ community. Yet the party continues to champion policies that marginalize me out of existence, define me as an eccentric character,” she wrote. “I ask Republicans to prioritize policies that improve our country for all Americans. When the GOP asks me to deliver six- or seven-figure contributions for the 2020 elections, my first response will be: why should I contribute to my own destruction?”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/why-billionaire-republican-donor-jennifer-pritzker-is-abandoning-trump-after-coming-out-as-trans

And she donated to and voted for Trump! Though I do have to wonder what she thought was going to happen ...

Ben Reilly wrote:

"Idiot God tweeted his intention to ban transgender people in the military "

Ben Reilly wrote:And she donated to and voted for Trump!
Though I do have to wonder what she thought was going to happen ...

Ben Reilly wrote:Though I do have to wonder what she thought was going to happen...

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/why-billionaire-republican-donor-jennifer-pritzker-is-abandoning-trump-after-coming-out-as-trans

And she donated to and voted for Trump! Though I do have to wonder what she thought was going to happen ...

I have no sympathy for people who voted for an idiot.  They got what they deserved.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I have no sympathy for people who voted for an idiot. They got what they deserved.

Me either. It's a shame 95% of American voters did just that during the last presidential election.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Me either. It's a shame 95% of American voters did just that during the last presidential election.  

I will say this though.  The opposition got 3-million more votes than Trump, and Trump won only in the electoral college.  That is not democracy.  In fact, in this century two of the three presidents have won office after having received only the minority of the votes.  That needs to be changed as soon as the democrats are in office.

And the Russians had more than a little to do with it.  I believe they strategically mapped out Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, creating the plurality in the electoral college, and then hacked the voting machines in those states.

Republicans are inherently undemocratic.  They'd rather win by manipulating the system (ie, gerrymandering, exclusion of voters, etc.), than win by a head-to-head, real honest contest.  At a fotball match there'd be riots.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I will say this though.  The opposition got 3-million more votes than Trump, and Trump won only in the electoral college.  That is not democracy.  In fact, in this century two of the three presidents have won office after having received only the minority of the votes.  That needs to be changed as soon as the democrats are in office.

And the Russians had more than a little to do with it.  I believe they strategically mapped out Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, creating the plurality in the electoral college, and then hacked the voting machines in those states.

Republicans are inherently undemocratic.  They'd rather win by manipulating the system (ie, gerrymandering, exclusion of voters, etc.), than win by a head-to-head, real honest contest.  At a fotball match there'd be riots.

The good opposition got about 5% of the vote. The two idiots got about 95 between the two of them.  

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Me either. It's a shame 95% of American voters did just that during the last presidential election.  

I will say this though.  The opposition got 3-million more votes than Trump, and Trump won only in the electoral college.  That is not democracy.  In fact, in this century two of the three presidents have won office after having received only the minority of the votes.  That needs to be changed as soon as the democrats are in office.

And the Russians had more than a little to do with it.  I believe they strategically mapped out Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, creating the plurality in the electoral college, and then hacked the voting machines in those states.

Republicans are inherently undemocratic.  They'd rather win by manipulating the system (ie, gerrymandering, exclusion of voters, etc.), than win by a head-to-head, real honest contest.  At a fotball match there'd be riots.

The good opposition got about 5% of the vote. The two idiots got about 95 between the two of them.  

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The good opposition got about 5% of the vote. The two idiots got about 95 between the two of them.  

To call the two candidates idiots is so lazy and easy to say. You can just say "I hated both of them" and people think you're all edgy and clever, rather than asking why exactly you think that a former Secretary of Defense, senator and First Lady is an "idiot."

Like, if I was asked to explain why I think Trump is an idiot, I could probably go on all night, with examples that most people would say did indeed sound pretty idiotic.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The good opposition got about 5% of the vote. The two idiots got about 95 between the two of them.  

To call the two candidates idiots is so lazy and easy to say. You can just say "I hated both of them" and people think you're all edgy and clever, rather than asking why exactly you think that a former Secretary of Defense, senator and First Lady is an "idiot."

Like, if I was asked to explain why I think Trump is an idiot, I could probably go on all night, with examples that most people would say did indeed sound pretty idiotic.

You're correct. Hillary is not an idiot. I take back my comment.

Many of the most evil leaders on the planet are or were, very intelligent.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You're correct. Hillary is not an idiot. I take back my comment.

Many of the most evil leaders on the planet are or were, very intelligent.

Now you should either support your claim that she's evil or take that back as well.

Maddog wrote:Kiss my ass. I'll do that when you ask everyone on here to support every claim they make about a politican.

You could spend days on Lurker alone.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Kiss my ass. I'll do that when you ask everyone on here to support every claim they make about a politican.

You could spend days on Lurker alone.

Lurker differs only in that he uses a different medium.  He's saying the same thing, and it is all backed up in the media.

It is a fact that we try to back up factual claims on this website.  Otherwise, we let slip in such allegations as that Hillary did anything wrong.  The government twice investigated that claim, and they found nothing illegal going on.

The whole Hillary story was invented by Russian GRU-IRA agents via the Internet, and the Republican Party (perhaps in collusion with the Russians) went overboard with it.  If you dig to the source, you keep NF from becoming Breitbart News.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Kiss my ass. I'll do that when you ask everyone on here to support every claim they make about a politican.

You could spend days on Lurker alone.

Lurker differs only in that he uses a different medium.  He's saying the same thing, and it is all backed up in the media.

It is a fact that we try to back up factual claims on this website.  Otherwise, we let slip in such allegations as that Hillary did anything wrong.  The government twice investigated that claim, and they found nothing illegal going on.

The whole Hillary story was invented by Russian GRU-IRA agents via the Internet, and the Republican Party (perhaps in collusion with the Russians) went overboard with it.  If you dig to the source, you keep NF from becoming Breitbart News.

Your opinions are simply that.  Opinions.

I loathe Hillary Clinton and don't have to explain that to anyone.  

My opinion of her is shared by many that held their nose and voted for her anyway.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:


Lurker differs only in that he uses a different medium.  He's saying the same thing, and it is all backed up in the media.

It is a fact that we try to back up factual claims on this website.  Otherwise, we let slip in such allegations as that Hillary did anything wrong.  The government twice investigated that claim, and they found nothing illegal going on.

The whole Hillary story was invented by Russian GRU-IRA agents via the Internet, and the Republican Party (perhaps in collusion with the Russians) went overboard with it.  If you dig to the source, you keep NF from becoming Breitbart News.

Your opinions are simply that.  Opinions.

Maddog wrote:I loathe Hillary Clinton and don't have to explain that to anyone.

Maddog wrote:My opinion of her is shared by many that held their nose and voted for her anyway.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Your opinions are simply that.  Opinions.

To the contrary, we've had discussions before on NF, as to how posters should back up any factual averments, with verified facts.

Maddog wrote:I loathe Hillary Clinton and don't have to explain that to anyone.

 

We know.  We're just pointing out that you have no basis in fact for such opinions.

Maddog wrote:My opinion of her is shared by many that held their nose and voted for her anyway.

You are saying she wasn't popular.  I think there is some truth to that, even though she got some 3-million more votes than Trump.  Obviously, "many that held their nose and voted" for Trump, too.

But popularity is not fact.  The FBI investigated Hillary twice, and found she had done nothing illegal in her actions.  Just because people agree about opinions, does not a fact make.  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html