This message was self-deleted by its author

[blueinindiana]

This message was self-deleted by its author (blueinindiana) on Fri Nov 20, 2015, 06:53 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. So surrender to bigotry and fear.

I don't think so.

[yeoman6987]

55. I think we should wait to Saturday to see if this issue is really a problem for voters

The democratic nominee is supposed to win comfortably but New Orleans was in the news with refugees. Let's see what happens Saturday before we panic.

[fredamae]

2. I would like to see a true

show of hands of the American People and not just the knee-jerk FEAR Vote made by elected hawks who thrust themselves in the fetal position sucking upon their own thumbs.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Let them vote...Obama should follow through with a veto and let them override it

Everybody should be clearly on record as the fucking bigots they are. Twice.

Democrats, too.

[cheapdate]

4. +1

[riversedge]

10. Obama did say he woudl veto the House bill.

[jwirr]

49. I agree - no democrat president should ever bow down before

bigotry.

[randys1]

101. Yes, no DemocratIC president should ever do that.

[mountain grammy]

91. Agree!

[bunnies]

93. Damn straight!

[PSPS]

5. That's just ridiculous.

I don't mean to single you out, but it appears the media's "all fear all the time!!1! Stay home and keep watching our ads though!1!!" campaign is having its desired effect. There have been numerous posts on DU lately from the "under my bed soiling myself" crowd.

[G_j]

6. sorry

It's not clear that the "majority" of Americans are buying the media fear.

[smirkymonkey]

7. I agree with you.

It's amazing how naive so many people here can be. If the republicans sweep the elections, things are going to be even WORSE for refugees and there will be more war and more terrorism down the road. Sometimes, I just don't get this place.

[atreides1]

32. Tell me something

When will it stop? Where exactly is the line that you won't cross?

Trump is already talking about having our fellow Americans who are followers of Islam, marked just like the Germans did to the Jews!

Will that be the line you won't cross, or perhaps it goes further with the closing of Mosques, is that enough!

At what point will Americans like you say that enough is enough?

As it stands right now, with the media induced fear mongering...the Republicans may very well sweep the elections, because the Democrats are following right along instead of taking a stand and saying no, which to most voters will indicate that Democrats are even weaker when it comes to something they claim to believe in!

No one likes people who go along to get along, it's a sign of weakness...and the Republicans will use this episode to convince people that the Democrats will bend over just to keep their seats in Congress!!!

[FiveGoodMen]

35. "Where exactly is the line that you won't cross?"

[smirkymonkey]

36. I do not agree with Trump or the republicans at all when it comes to demonizing

the refugees. I think they are wrong. However, I think that politically it is unwise of Democrats to go against the sentiment of a majority of the American public. It will backfire upon them in the elections. You can think that something is wrong, but realize that the greater good is keeping republicans out of office. For all of us - the American public and the muslims that are being terrorized by ISIS and by our own bombs. You know the republicans will only make things worse for them if elected.

[Trajan]

40. 'if they sweep the elections ...'

'if they break down my door and steal my cookies ... I'll be cookieless .... COOKIELESS!'

Oh the humanity! ... Just say the words and POOF!, it's a reality set in stone? ...

The republicans are a bunch of fucking numbskulls ... Try to hug them, and you'll be gored ....

I will never live in fear ...

[smirkymonkey]

42. You will under a republican dominated administration.

[Trajan]

44. Yes, and if Martians landed and forced radioactive potato chips up my ass

Well ... Where would I be then? ...

I'd be in big trouble ... BIG trouble!

Oh the fuckin humanity ... I am in deep shit now ...

(Psst ... Don't try to scare me with questionable hypotheticals ... Yeah, IF Hitler returned from the dead and invaded my kitchen, I would be astounded ... But that doesn't mean it's going to happen, and neither do these 'scary' pronouncements)

[smirkymonkey]

48. LOL! Are you drunk or something? Your post is just bizarre.

Whatever. You seem to be completely out of your mind.

[riversedge]

8. Sen Feinstien is sponcering a Senate bill as an alternative to the draconian House bill

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/senate-democrats-visa-waiver-program

[dlwickham]

26. her bill requires people who have gone to Syria or Iraq to get a travel visa

not seeing the problem with it

am i missing something

[rockfordfile]

9. What's with the spamming of the right wing crap

"It does not matter what "the facts are" " yes they do.

[Iggo]

18. My personal favorite is "Why can't liberals accept conservative values, policies, and candidates?"

That was a good one...lol.

[merrily]

11. 14th Amendment is about protecting minorities from the bigoted majority. FAIL.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

56. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to foreign nationals trying to come to the U.S.

Nor does any other part of the Constitution.

Fail.

[merrily]

57. Really? Give me your analysis on that, using the plain language of the Constitution or a

Supreme Court case. FYI. Your simply asserting something doesn't make it sol

Thanks.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

59. FYI.

Why would you believe that the U.S. Constitution applies to foreign nationals who aren't in this country? If that were the case, every person in the world could claim U.S. Constitutional rights.

I'll certainly look for a case, but I doubt there is one, because I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to actually bring a case claiming something so ridiculous.

[merrily]

60. "every person in the world could claim U.S. Constitutional rights."

No, only if the US purports to be denying those rights.

The Constitution empowers the US government to do certain things and also restricts the US government in what it may do.

When the US government enacts any law, that law must be constitutional.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

62. So how do you believe that someone in France

applying for a travel visa has a U.S. Constitutional right to have that visa granted?

[merrily]

71. I already answered that. The Constitution always applies to the US government.

See also Reply 70.

[COLGATE4]

63. The Constitution empowers the US government to do

certain things AS THOSE THINGS REGARD ITS CITIZENS. It has no force or effect on non-citizens. Action taken regarding non-citizens not present in the U.S. is by definition constitutional.

[merrily]

70. Your bare declaration does not do it anymore than the other poster's.

The constitution sometimes mentions citizens, sometimes people and sometimes simply prohibits the government from doing something. The Constitution always applies to the US government. Sometimes it protects everyone, sometimes only citizens. Depends on the wording of the individual provision. The Framers were sticklers for things like that, much more so than modern courts or lawyers. If they used different words, they meant something different, especially when they switched words right within the same provision.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Three categories, right in one section. They're not interchangeable. Of course, the 14th was for states.

However, other provisions apply to the US govenrment.

The solution here is in Article I, not in claiming that the Constitution applies only to citizens or those located within the US. Of course, different rules apply in war and those may come into play since we are now in endless war.

[COLGATE4]

77. And your thesis is totally unsupported by any jurisprudence.

Please cite to ANY caselaw that confers rights under the Constitution to non-citizens who are not under the US' jurisdiction. Just one case.

[merrily]

78. My thesis that 3 different terms for a human in the same section are not interchangeable is

supported by rules of interpretation of legal writings developed in common law over centuries and very known to the Framers then, if not to you today. What is your premise that they're interchangeable supported by? Where is the plain language and/or case that supports your position?

[COLGATE4]

79. You're running down a rabbit hole of your own making

trying to attribute some heretofore undiscovered meaning to the 3 different terms used for 'humans' in Article I. This is an extraordinary claim, one which, if true would alter Constitutional jurisprudence like practically no other decision in our history. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So, once again, please give me some proof of the validity of your assertion by citing to ANY caselaw which supports your contention.

[merrily]

80. You don't run down a rabbit hole You fall into one. Words have meanings. Person does not have the

same meaning as citizen. It's called the plain meaning rule.

[COLGATE4]

81. Actually, rabbits do. Humans would be quite

unlikely to fall into one. But getting back to the point of this 'discussion', your proof of your assertion?

[merrily]

83. eye roll. I cannot give you three years of law school on a message board and for free. But here's a

start. When the Constitution was written, the colonies had adopted the written laws and jurisprudence of the era of Queen Elizabeth I as their foundation, and then modified it, colony by colony, statute by statute, case by case. So Elizabethean English common law would be the place to start. The Framers were steeped in it.

Another place to start. Articles on the rules of interpretation of legal writings, like statutes and contracts, even though they are modernized. There are many. Here's one.You;ll probably need to read more before you really get it.

http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/english-legal-system/statutory-interpretation.ph

Enjoy, read more and get back to me in three years.

You could also look at the dictionary definitions of "people" "citizens" and "people located within the state" and grok those three terms, by definition, are not interchangeable.

Either way, your argument that "citizen" and "person" in a legal document, mean identical things, regardless of the dictionary definitions of those words, simply because you say so is sheer nonsense and I'm done.

[COLGATE4]

84. Oh, come on now. As a trained, legal professional you should

at least be able to answer the question I asked instead of throwing up a whole stream of bullshit like the above. On the internet anyone can pretend to be anything the want. But that only goes so far in the real world. I would advise you to pick another profession to imitate next time around. This effort at playing lawyer is just embarrassing.

[merrily]

85. I never said I am a trained legal professional. However, I've answered your unsupported claims time

after time and I just gave you a link to support what I was saying. Apparently you chose not to even glance at it before devolving into personal insults. Y9u won't even look at a damn dictionary.

How do I prove something to someone who won't even look at a link?

Do you really think legal interpretation or Constitutional law is susceptible of a two sentence answer on a message board? What the hell do you think law schools are for?

You're being personally insulting while being totally unreasonable. It's not a good combination. If you think it's making you look good or clever, think again.

[COLGATE4]

87. I already knew that, even though you mightily

tried to imply it with the 'I can't give you three years of law school...'snark. I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble but Constitutional questions aren't resolved on the basis of " my opinion is", "I think" or "it seems to me" or "it ought to be this way". They are resolved through case law, precedent and stare decisis. If you are making the argument that "x" means "y" then you are required to factually support it by citing to case law favorable to your position, (not by pointing to an internet link from a service that provides canned dissertations for Law School teachers). As you are unable to do this your assertions are nothing more than your personal, unsupported opinions. I'm sorry if you find this to be unreasonable - unfortunately, that's how it works.

[merrily]

88. Your reading comprehension is no better than your analysis: I never said I wasn't, either.

On a message board, the only thing that matters is whether my posts are correct of not. On this, I am correct, but you will not read the article I lined or look at a dictionary before you go ad hom. Or use your common sense about law school. That's what I called unreasonable.


What the hell does self-righteousness have to do with anything? Dude, seriously, invest in a dictionary. Or google some definitions.

[COLGATE4]

90. Doesn't matter.

Last edited Fri Nov 20, 2015, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

The fact is that you are not. I used up my common sense about Law School when I graduated from one 26 years ago and have been practicing ever since. After all those years and hundreds, if not thousands of conversations/arguments with other lawyers about this or that legal question you get to know what a real lawyer sounds like, talks like and thinks like. And, trust me, that just isn't you.

[merrily]

74. You're right. But I think the real power of the feds on this is in Article 1.

I should have checked language of the 14th myself before posting. My bad. But the reason I'm mistaken is not that the Constitution does not always bind the US government. It's because, by its own language, the 14th applies to states. See Reply 70. Other provisions prevent discrimination by the US government though.

Do you think a law that treats Chinese people or black people differently from everyone else in the world just because they were born Chinese or black would survive a court case?

We had such laws a century ago, but I don't think they were ever tested in the Supreme Court.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

98. A law that treat Chinese people or black people differently here in the U.S.?

No, it wouldn't survive a court challenge.

A law that treats Chinese or black people differently that live in another country and have never set foot in the U.S.?

I have no doubt it would be thrown out, because citizens of other countries that don't fall under U.S. jurisdiction have no protection under the U.S. Constitution.

[COLGATE4]

95. Good luck trying to convince our

resident Constitutional 'scholar' about that.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

12. Political cowardice. Democrats should have been out in front of this, and demostrating leadership

like the example set by Pres. Obama. Instead they appear to have had their fingers in the wind while demagogues on the right ran with it. Pathetic.

[randome]

13. I normally acknowledge that political realities cannot be ignored.

But in this case, I think an exception can and should be made. There are real people -not political theories- who will suffer because of this. And it's absolutely shameful for America to quiver in fear from persecuted people.

"Make America Great Again"? Or "Make America Cowardly Again"? Which is it to be?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[backscatter712]

14. Your bigotry and cowardice are noted... n/t

[Iggo]

15. No. What's clear is that a majority of the House wants that.

[spanone]

16. that's a big 'ol wheel barrel of bull

[demwing]

19. It sure as hell DOES matter what the facts are!

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Nothing else after that comment really mattered...

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. "It is very clear the majority of Americans want at the very least pause or review of......."

Do you have a source for this statement? Thanks in advance.

[Pisces]

21. Leaders lead and wimps follow the whims and fears of the masses.

[Joe Turner]

22. That would be a factor in the republicans keeping the Senate

Americans are to be right to be concerned about this. The president's position on this is just mystifying. Allowing tens of thousands of Syrians or other middle east refugees most certainly does increase the chance of domestic terrorism and social conflict. How many more lessons do western nations need before it's too late.

[randome]

25. Yet there is far more domestic terrorism from home-grown Christians. What's to be done about it?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Joe Turner]

27. I'll file this in the Loony Bin

[randome]

45. Why? Because white, male, religious kooks aren't 'true' Christians?

You do realize that it's white, male religious kooks who have done most of the mass killings in this country in recent years, right?

And if you think anyone who worships the ascendancy of white maleness isn't adhering to a true religion, I'd suggest you give that some thought.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[ellie]

65. Please explain why this is loony

[BootinUp]

23. The bill that was passed is a joke. nt

[DFW]

24. The House only has a Republican majority due to gerrymandering

It is certainly NOT due to a majority of voters preferring Republicans-study after study shows that they do NOT.

Therefore, while a majority of members of the House of Representatives may vote Republican, that House IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE. Reid and Obama have not only the right, but the DUTY (sorry, President Jefferson, I had to borrow that) to stand in opposition to a minority that is in opposition to its very constituency.

Reid and Obama are not obliged to bend to a reality created by Fox Noise. On the contrary, they are obligated to do what is best for the country, not what is best for Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch.

[edhopper]

28. The elections are a long way away

refugees will not be a big issue by then.

[abelenkpe]

29. It's very clear?

According to who? News pundits? Gibbering radio personalities? Sincerely doubt the majority of Americans think any such thing.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. Sorry

I can't agree with you on this. I personally just hope that this bill doesn't even get through the Senate. Maybe Bernie can launch a filibuster? After a few weeks and nothing more happens (what happened didn't even happen here in the US for crissakes), the furor will probably die down and the media and candidates will move on to the next "shiny object". If the 2016 election was more imminent, I'd be a lot more worried but we still have time for things to die down and for everybody to re-focus to other topics. Anybody still talking much about Ebola after being a year out? There was a bunch of fear and paranoia ginned up over that and we were seeing the same kind of paranoia and fear running amok over refugees whom stand almost no likelihood of harming anybody- that ultimately amounted to nothing. Maybe I'm wrong/naive but it seems like a bigger issue now than it probably will be in a little under a year. And it hasn't even been a full week since everything happened in Paris. Interesting what gets the Republicans in Congress to do a little work, eh?

[Blue_In_AK]

31. I strongly disagree.

If this isn't the time to take a strong moral stand, when is?

I'm sick and fucking tired of people just rolling over for these bastards.

[Todays_Illusion]

34. and I agree with you. For me the mark is against the supporters of this pile of bigoted fake concern

[Todays_Illusion]

33. OP, I disagree with you because you and I an everyone can be made to forget this kerfuffel long

before the election and for this voter voting with the hate and fear pushers is a much bigger wrong.

*add; The propaganda is showing us just how easy it is to jerk everyone around even our elected.

[Duckhunter935]

37. FYI

6:33 PM
Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Thu Nov 19, 2015, 04:26 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

If Harry Reid blocks the GOP , the Democrats can kiss any chance of winning the Senate goodbye.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027363208

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

So what makes this poster think Democrats are supposed to do the Republicans' bidding? This poster is spewing bigotry and right-wing talking points, which doesn't belong on DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Nov 19, 2015, 04:33 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This person is trying to hide someone's point of view? Come on, get a life!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ridiculous OP, but an even more ridiculous alert.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I disagree very strongly with the poster, but they are not engaging in transparent bigotry (and there have been plenty of those doing just that).
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages

7-0 to keep

[Blue_In_AK]

38. And I'm sure this won't be the last ridiculous OP we see here.

Fear is an easy sell.

[Duckhunter935]

39. And the last bad alert

[Solly Mack]

41. Pfft

[alc]

43. Representatives should do what "we" want

But we complain if the follow the people's wishes or if they follow their own judgement.

I prefer they do what "we" want even if it's not what they want or what "I" want

[Drunken Irishman]

47. Most Americans supported the Iraq War in 2002 & early 2003.

So, by your logic, our elected officials who supported the war voted correctly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. "Bend"? Or, surrender....again?

In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place. Mahatma Gandhi

[tabasco]

50. Thanks for your concern

and enjoy your stay.

[Maeve]

51. I'll stand with the facts--fuck the fear eom

[BlueJazz]

53. Yep, and I'll stand with you. I'll be damned if I'll give up my integrity for some dumb fucks.

[jeff47]

52. You don't win elections via cowardice. (nt)

[valerief]

54. Huh?

It is very clear the majority of Americans want at the very least pause or review of the screening process.

How'd you reach that conclusion? Because the war profiteers have paid their House stooges to beat the wardrums via fear-mongering? That has nothing to do with "the people." "The people" are, as usual, ignored and lied to.

[Joe the Revelator]

58. agreed 100%, and god forbid if there is an attack or even an attempted attack....

The democrats will own it, no matter the facts, and we'll have a President Trump.

[Logical]

68. OMG! You fucking fall for the hype! I assume you want another Patriot Act! nt

[Marr]

61. I think you're right, but I also think taking them in is the right thing to do.

I don't know... some things are just bigger than elections.

[loyalsister]

64. I think that was the political calculus in 2003 when voting for the IWR

It didn't benefit us much in 2004.

[Waiting For Everyman]

66. This sort of thing is why we lose elections.

Living in a damn John Lennon song is more important to some than the stated first responsibility to our citizens -- to be safe.

If some want to take risks with their own lives, that's fine. But they don't have the right to take risks with mine, and other Americans'. That goes for Obama too. He's being a complete ass on this. And yes, there will probably be a political price to pay for it -- not that he cares.

I'm glad to see that some Dem leaders are being adults.

Couldn't agree more, OP.

[Logical]

69. LOL, wow, even the DU caves to fear. And ISIS is laughing their asses off. nt

[SomethingFishy]

97. You said it!

Came here for the first time in months.. Now I remember why I avoid this place.

[Logical]

100. +1000 nt

[SalviaBlue]

94. More like a Jackson Browne song...(is your name ironic?)

Waiting for Everyman

Everybody I talk to is ready to leave
With the light of the morning
They've seen the end coming down long enough to believe
That they've heard their last warning
Standing alone
Each has his own ticket in his hand
And as the evening descends
I sit thinking 'bout Everyman

Seems like I've always been looking for some other place
To get it together
Where with a few of my friends I could give up the race
And maybe find something better
But all my fine dreams
Well thought out schemes to gain the motherland
Have all eventually come down to waiting for Everyman

Waiting here for Everyman-
Make it on your own if you think you can
If you see somewhere to go I understand
Waiting here for Everyman-
Don't ask me if he'll show - baby I don't know

Make it on your own if you think you can
Somewhere later on you'll have to take a stand
Then you're going to need a hand

Everybody's just waiting to hear from the one
Who can give them the answers
And lead them back to that place in the warmth of the sun
Where sweet childhood still dances
Who'll come along
And hold out that strong and gentle father's hand?
Long ago I heard someone say something 'bout Everyman

Waiting here for Everyman-
Make it on your own if you think you can
If you see somewhere to go I understand

I'm not trying to tell you that I've seen the plan
Turn and walk away if you think I am-
But don't think too badly of one who's left holding sand
He's just another dreamer, dreaming 'bout Everyman

[pampango]

67. "Facts do not win elections, perception does." There's a republican mantra if there ever was one.

So we can't win elections unless we act on fear and emotion rather than on facts and history.

Then voters really should vote for republicans rather than for Democrats who are trying to act like republicans.

[Darb]

72. Concern noted,

and dismissed.

[bemildred]

73. Actually, facts do win elections.

And all the rest of that is horseshit too.

[Cosmocat]

75. This is an Iraq War Resolution Moment

Same sort of dynamics.

Here is the thing, what you are saying is correct in terms of the politics at this moment.

But, it is wrong, flat out. What you are proposing is why democrats are always losing.

While you accurately have pegged the politics at the moment, you are wrong about the impact for voting for allowing this to occur for democrats.

Voting for or supporting this does no good for democrats. Same as voting for the IWR did democrats no good.

It is NOT a political gain to bow down and support it. And, it will only effect the republicans being assholes about it marginally. Even if every democrat were to support it, they still would beat democrats over the head with it.

It is a literal no win situation for democrats, what we face in these situations every time.

The best you can do is the right thing, STATE IT STRONGLY AND DON'T BACK DOWN, and let the chips fall where they fall.

THIS is the trap democrats, being weak, gutless pukeballs, fall into every time.

Rolling over with republicans are flat wrong on something, which makes democrats look weak, and when republicans scream they are weak everyone looks at it and sees it.

Stand for what is right, speak STRONGLY TO IT, and go back at republicans - call them the weak, scared POS they are trying to take advantage of a time of uncertainty for political gain ... Say America is greater than these terrorist scumbags, and we won't react in fear over what they do, they can't change our values and our way of life.

If it turns out bad now, it turns out bad now, and won't be any better if democrats capitulate.

Meanwhile, down the road when it has proven to be wrong, you have staked your position and can point to it.

I can't tell you how many times I have conservatives totally absolve Bush and company from lying us into the Iraq War because democrats voted for it ...

[LonePirate]

76. This issue will be forgotten by the electorate in 11.5 months when Election Day arrives.

What was the big issue roughly a year ago? Ebola. How much of a political issue is that subject today? The same will be said of this refugee dust up in a year.

[Logical]

82. What a fail! Silly silly stance! nt

[obnoxiousdrunk]

86. You did get

at least four DU'ers falling for this bullshit. That's what bothers me.

[JEB]

89. Nothing like kissing bigot ass to win elections.

Not.

[mountain grammy]

92. No, I strongly disagree! n/t

[SomethingFishy]

96. Oh for fucks sakes...

"It is very clear the majority of Americans want at the very least pause or review of the screening process."

Clear to who? The only thing that is "clear" to me is that politicians are chickenshit cowards.

And say the "Majority of Americans" want what you say. Why should they get it? They also want legal weed. They also want the architects of the 2008 financial collapse in prison. They want income equality. They want affordable decent medical care. They want something done about Climate Change, they want college to be affordable, they want corporations to pay their taxes, they want equal pay for women, and safe access to abortions. There are a ton of things the "Majority Of Americans" want. But we don't seem to get them.

[alarimer]

99. I don't care.

If you are correct, our elections are pointless and Americans really shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

Whiny, scared little stupid babies is what we are, as a nation. As far as I am concerned, anybody who falls for the bullshit really isn't smart enough to be allowed to vote. Stupid people are what's destroying this country.

[randys1]

102. NEVER bow to bigotry