Do We Let Them Vote Next Time?

No. This can't be fixed. It's over. Trump won and it's all over.
Your idea isn't a good one, and there isn't anything better out there. We're fcuked.

 

I'm not. Set aside the re-enabled peckerwoods and stepped-up police brutality and the anti-Muslim rhetoric all the other things associated with this man's rise to power if you wish. It'll still take 50 years to undo the damage done by a Trump SCOTUS and the general attitude of mainstream America towards POCs.

I guess this is what MitH meant when he kept telling me to remember who makes the rules (Whites).

 

I'm disappointed that this thread gained 4 pages in one day. You guys need to stop entertaining theories on how to make the logistics work. Remember the premise here was that potentially tens of millions of citizens need to be banned from the democratic process. Never mind logistics. It's culturally unworkable without the state resorting to violent suppression and internment camps. What Brummie is advocating is that we dare the far right into an all out civil war. By what legal authority, I'm not sure. Presumably Congress? I'd love to see the SCOTUS majority opinion that declares this constitutional.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how replacing the supposed Devil Incarnate in a divided court with a generic milquetoast pro-lifer-ish guy is some colossal shift.

We all know RBG will be preserved cryogenically when not hearing cases until a D gets back on the Throne.

 

As she should be, for whatever good is left of this country.

I briefly blamed Marshall for getting out just before Clinton was elected, but there's no way he could have seen that coming, and he'd done so much for this nation that he deserved a rest.

T'was an office until November- now it's not just a throne these days, it's a Throne. The Trumpening in full effect...

 

But Hillary Clinton called Republicans The Enemy (in the same breath as saying the same about the IRGC). So how is that different?

 

I'm going to assume this is a lament directed at no one, rather than some sort of attempt to tie it to what I said as if it were some earnest statement.

 

I would rather we have mandatory voting, and penalize those who fail to vote.

If we're proposing radical ideas that have no chance in hell of ever happening, let's talk about something that actually makes sense, and doesn't rely on the self-declared infallibility of certain individuals to decide who does or doesn't get to vote. Everyone votes, but citizens only.

 

If you can't see who the enemy is --what the difference is-- after almost seven months, you're probably White and non-Muslim.
Eddie Haskell never called for people to be deported because religion.

I don't know if you made your statement in earnest or not, but yes, if I quote you and no one else, you can assume it's your post I'm responding to.

 

Well, I still think Cruz would have been a more disastrous president than Trump. Maybe not from a cozy-cuck-of-Putin point of view, but certainly worse for an America that actually cares for the 99%. So, no, I don't trust Trump voters, but I don't think there is anything we can do about it. As I've stated before, if the tables were turned and the alt-right was talking about punishing people for their voting choices, well, then, they'd be coming after my voting rights. Doing the same to them is NOT the way to go.

 

Jesus ********ing Christ, you actually think 1. I think I seriously was calling it a throne, or 2. that I in any way approve of it being viewed in that way, or 3. I view Trump with anything other than disdain, 4. all of the above, or 5. some ********ing stupid combination?

********ing hell.

 

Hillary said the GOP were her enemies, which is correct. Trump could accurately say the same thing of Democrats. That's not the same as taking on a neutral group, nor is it the same as calling that group the enemy of everybody (the people).

 

Amen to all of the above.

 

That's adorable.

 

Dude, calm down. I can't read your mind, and neither can anyone else. What you typed was "...Until a D gets back on the Throne".
It won't BE a (T)hrone anymore when/if that happens.

 

I don't know why this is such a controversial statement. We certainly aren't working together, nor should we be. It's essentially a battle from the minute you become old enough to vote, and remains that way until you die.

 

Dude, it never WAS a throne and I think you're familiar enough with my postings, despite your prolonged, self-imposed exile, to know when there's a touch of irony about. Just the capitalization alone should have been a big red flashing light.

 

I hope you can do better than that. If Hillary called journalists the enemy of the people, I wouldn't vote for her. If Trump said Democrats were his enemy ... well hey it's true, for once he would not be fibbing.

 

Fair enough.

But I AM familiar with your posts, and they almost always seem to have a tinge of bitter about them because D or R and not whatever thinks of itself as the reasonable one in the middle. I apologize for getting this one wrong.

 

Wha..? (seriously...huh?)

"Reasonable one in the middle" sort of misses the mark, not least because I don't see there as being a bipolar axis of allowable political opinion.

I especially resent being considered "reasonable" by the likes of this board.

 

That's even adorable-er.

True enough.