Red Mosquito

If the democrats put up another shit candidate in 2020 I'm spite voting for the orange buffoon.

MissYouAllDay wrote:If the democrats put up another shit candidate in 2020 I'm spite voting for the orange buffoon.

You deserve to be punched.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

MissYouAllDay wrote:If the democrats put up another shit candidate in 2020 I'm spite voting for the orange buffoon.

You deserve to be punched.

Come get some, bro

MissYouAllDay wrote:If the democrats put up another shit candidate in 2020 I'm spite voting for the orange buffoon.

Given that the DNC has doubled down on propping up their establishment since losing, I'd love to see the same bloodbath that hit establishment Republicans last primary happen to them. Getting over the superdelegate hurdle won't be easy.

Not sure who it would be, though. Bernie again?

No, The Rock 2020.

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The same logic that portrays the democratic party as the party of the KKK portrays the GOP as the party of black liberation.

It's almost as if things changed over time without the need for anti-democracy voting laws forcing citizen to vote the "right" way.

weren't you talking about how voter id laws are perfectly acceptable before? That's not anti-democracy? I mean you're sounding more and more like every republican pundit that cries foul over anything that might hinder their candidate of choice, but says it's reasonable and justified when it goes against any opponents. why do that? It's cheap and unoriginal

malice wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The same logic that portrays the democratic party as the party of the KKK portrays the GOP as the party of black liberation.

It's almost as if things changed over time without the need for anti-democracy voting laws forcing citizen to vote the "right" way.

weren't you talking about how voter id laws are perfectly acceptable before? That's not anti-democracy? I mean you're sounding more and more like every republican pundit that cries foul over anything that might hinder their candidate of choice, but says it's reasonable and justified when it goes against any opponents. why do that? It's cheap and unoriginal

There's nothing anti-democracy about requiring a voter to be who they say they are in order to vote. The opposite in fact. It should probably be free and easier to get the ID though.

BurtReynolds wrote:

malice wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The same logic that portrays the democratic party as the party of the KKK portrays the GOP as the party of black liberation.

It's almost as if things changed over time without the need for anti-democracy voting laws forcing citizen to vote the "right" way.

weren't you talking about how voter id laws are perfectly acceptable before? That's not anti-democracy? I mean you're sounding more and more like every republican pundit that cries foul over anything that might hinder their candidate of choice, but says it's reasonable and justified when it goes against any opponents. why do that? It's cheap and unoriginal

There's nothing anti-democracy about requiring a voter to be who they say they are in order to vote. The opposite in fact. It should probably be free and easier to get the ID though.

I just wrote three paragraphs which you won't care about, it doesn't matter though, i just cringe every time you stoop to the kind of rhetoric i hear off of fox news.

I wouldn't know, I don't watch Fox news.

BurtReynolds wrote:I wouldn't know, I don't watch Fox news.

Not my point, but ok

You're both right. Voter ID laws aren't inherently bad, but the people pushing them are doing so for bad reasons.

I want to know why we can't vote online yet.

I don't think the Republican party is the party of Lincoln, for what it's worth.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:We deserve whatever comes to us for electing such a trainwreck.

But what's great is that in a democracy we really do deserve it! Though in this case, I guess most of us didn't vote for the orange clown man, so uh... maybe not so much.

We're not a democracy. We're a republic. If we were a true democracy, Trump wouldn't be president.

i wonder if the FLOTUS and POTUS have done anal in the lincoln bedroom yet

96583UP wrote:i wonder if the FLOTUS and POTUS have done anal in the lincoln bedroom yet

I get the feeling she hasn't let him touch her in a few years.

BurtReynolds wrote:

96583UP wrote:i wonder if the FLOTUS and POTUS have done anal in the lincoln bedroom yet

I get the feeling she hasn't let him touch her in a few years.

who said she let him

96583UP wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

96583UP wrote:i wonder if the FLOTUS and POTUS have done anal in the lincoln bedroom yet

I get the feeling she hasn't let him touch her in a few years.

who said she let him

I think she could take him in a fight.

BurtReynolds wrote:

96583UP wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

96583UP wrote:i wonder if the FLOTUS and POTUS have done anal in the lincoln bedroom yet

I get the feeling she hasn't let him touch her in a few years.

who said she let him

I think she could take him in a fight.

but he is a seasoned rapist. he has technique, and cocaine-fueled rape rage strength

BurtReynolds wrote:

malice wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The same logic that portrays the democratic party as the party of the KKK portrays the GOP as the party of black liberation.

It's almost as if things changed over time without the need for anti-democracy voting laws forcing citizen to vote the "right" way.

weren't you talking about how voter id laws are perfectly acceptable before? That's not anti-democracy? I mean you're sounding more and more like every republican pundit that cries foul over anything that might hinder their candidate of choice, but says it's reasonable and justified when it goes against any opponents. why do that? It's cheap and unoriginal

There's nothing anti-democracy about requiring a voter to be who they say they are in order to vote. The opposite in fact. It should probably be free and easier to get the ID though.

And I don't think there's anything anti-democracy about requiring a candidate to be who they say they are in order to run for office. Comme ci comme ca.

meatwad wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

malice wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The same logic that portrays the democratic party as the party of the KKK portrays the GOP as the party of black liberation.

It's almost as if things changed over time without the need for anti-democracy voting laws forcing citizen to vote the "right" way.

weren't you talking about how voter id laws are perfectly acceptable before? That's not anti-democracy? I mean you're sounding more and more like every republican pundit that cries foul over anything that might hinder their candidate of choice, but says it's reasonable and justified when it goes against any opponents. why do that? It's cheap and unoriginal

There's nothing anti-democracy about requiring a voter to be who they say they are in order to vote. The opposite in fact. It should probably be free and easier to get the ID though.

And I don't think there's anything anti-democracy about requiring a candidate to be who they say they are in order to run for office. Comme ci comme ca.

I assume he has a driver's license.