Would our country once again "elect" a madman?
IMO, yes. (Whether most voters wanted it or not.)
No one need ever again ask how Germany, a scientifically advanced country that was a Constitutional Republic until 1933, allowed a madman and his fascist followers come to power. After all, we've seen up close and personal how a lunatic "won" the White House in 2016, and then proceeded to try to destroy our American institutions and democracy itself.
The Orange Prick and his loyalists even attempted to hold onto power through a coup d'etat, but it failed. This time. Yet, there are millions of Americans who can't wait to vote the madman and his henchmen back into power in 2024.
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH AMERICA??
How could any sane person want TFG, an idiotic, unstable, horrendous, despicable specimen of humanity back in power? Yeah, I guess if you're a member of any one of the alphabet soup of crazed organizations who hate democracy, you're going to want the deranged creature back infecting the Oval Office.
But are there really enough "aware" voters to let that happen? Well, I doubt it. After all, if Republicans make sure that black people, brown people, and a whole range of other people cast votes that never get counted, and then factor in the current insane gerrymandering of districts in red states, it's likely that Republicans will control the House after the next election.
Then, in 2024, many red state legislatures will ignore how the people in their states voted and opt to put "Dear Leader" back into office. Have enough red states passed laws to make that happen? It's possible.
But the one thing I am sure of is that we must do everything to Get Out The Vote in the hugest numbers ever. And even that may not be enough. Congress MUST, MUST pass a voting rights law that will prevent the theft of an election. (And, if necessary, find a way to break Mancin's and Sinema's arms, or, at worst, blackmail them into getting the fuck out of the way.)
If you really believe, "It Can't Happen Here," please, please understand that it's happening at this very moment. We can vote, but our elected leaders must do much more. They have to "stretch," and perhaps even ignore "the rules" for a while and get a bit of mud on themselves. They must be just as ruthless as those trying to steal our country. And they must also remember that, if/when we "win," we must pull back. After all, we don't want to become worse than those who are trying to destroy us.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I'm not talking about "must be born in the USA" or "must be 45 years of age."
I'm talking about REAL minimums with meaningful exclusions. They should meet minimal education standards, for example they've earned a degree from a reputable college or university. They should demonstrate a working knowledge of HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS along with an ability to read legislation and understand/explain it in laymen's terms. They should demonstrate integrity, leadership capability, and charisma - or at least a pleasant personality - wouldn't hurt. (I don't know how their mental state would be addressed, perhaps some kind of a written test? I'm not sure.)
I'm sure others on DU can add to this list. But the point is that the Presidency of the United States isn't open to just anyone who steps in front of a TV camera and says they want to be President. Nor should it be available to anyone who has enough money in their bank account to finance a national campaign. Somehow an impartial non-partisan standard must be devised so we never get another Chump. Ever!
... I'm open to seeing it.
I don't consider that link to be some ultimate authority on the subject, but it touches upon the basics of that personality trait.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism#Attitudes
Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity. In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favour of social control, coercion and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviours of people such as political dissidents and immigrants. These constraints might include restrictions on immigration, limits on free speech and association and laws regulating moral behaviour. It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference. Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority, moral absolutism and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants. In parenting, right-wing authoritarians value children's obedience, neatness and good manners.
I put some of that text in bold letters, to highlight the RWA willingness to take ACTION for the sake of uniformity.
I wrote that earlier post mostly in jest, not really expecting such exclusionary tests would ever be taken. And I'd not really force such testing on anyone, even if I had some kind of supreme power... which I'd step away from if I ever did!
Edit:
Please don't feel too assured that those questions seem like a parody. There's plenty of right-wingers in my part of Ohio who would test as RWA's on that very quiz!
Trump and his followers used to seem like a parody to me, like some exaggerated SNL script that could never happen in the real world.
His Iowa "Grabfest" over the weekend featured at least 3 female politicians including the Iowa governor. Maybe somebody should ask them if they enjoyed the grab.
