Did Pelosi just un-invite Trump from the State of the Union?

Oh? How big is your army?

A pure democracy? I don’t think so.

What we have here in the US is pretty good all things considered.

I’m sure you have a fabulous imagination that makes it easy to imagine anything. I do too, and can, for example, imagine Mitch McConnell riding a purple dragon into battle against the Munchkins of Oz, all the while singing “Take on Me” by Aha and puffing out his neck like an aroused bullfrog.

But I wasn’t asking for what you can imagine.

It’s great that you recognize the difference between the constitution and the flag, unlike many conservatives who conflate them; but since your evidence is of someone shitting on the flag, not on the constitution, it’s irrelevant and in no way acts as evidence to support your opinion.

Yes, “someone literally shit on the” flag. It’s also true that “someone literally shit on” a toilet. Neither of those are the constitution. You had to end the quote before the most important word in order to try to make it sound like evidence for your opinion, which is a curious way to edit quotes.

You ask if I’m having fun. Honestly, no; instead I’m growing a little impatient waiting to see if you have any evidence to support your opinion.

A good place for agreement; I certainly don’t expect you to ever fully understand Pelosi’s strategies, either.
It’s possible that it never occurred to Pelosi that Trump would strike back. Sure. It’s possible that she’s so naive about politics, so unsavvy, that she’s just won her position repeatedly by being charismatic and good at staging large rallies or something (maybe Russia interfered in her election?), and that the possibility of retribution took her by surprise.

And McConnell may like 80s pop music for his fantasy battle hymns.

Because the right to vote means so little that one should be stripped of it for life, for driving with a suspended license.

Yeah, that’s the sort of dangerous criminal you’re talking about here. Damn straight they should be able to vote. (The referendum didn’t let murderers, rapists, and the like regain the right to vote, just so you know.)

And if a murderer is paroled after 30 years in prison in a state that fully restores his voting rights at that point, which are you more worried about? That he might murder again? Or that he might vote?

I submit that anyone who is free to walk the streets should also have the right to vote. If there’s a problem here, it’s not about the right to vote; it’s about their having been released while still a danger to society.

And I’m sure Pelosi was so looking forward to visiting Afghanistan…

I personally think that you do your sentence you should have most if not all rights and privileges restored. I also am not naive enough to think that that does not disproportionately help one party.

And some, I’m sure, are good people.

I’m fine with Manafort, Flynn, et al voting again when they have served their time. It’s an advantage I’m willing to concede.

Nobody says otherwise. I personally think that overseas soldiers should be able to vote using absentee ballots and should have the ballots counted if possible, even if the post office fucks up the date stamps on them. I know this benefits Republicans.

What I don’t do is come into threads about counting overseas absentee military ballots and snark about how Republicans must only believe in this for selfish reasons.

You seem confused about the fundamental nature of opinions. If someone says, “I think Trump is so mean that he would steal candy from a baby”, they don’t have to have actually witnessed President Trump stealing candy from a baby to hold that opinion. If he had stolen candy from toddlers, and children, and young adults, that would all be “evidence” that support that opinion.

Likewise, the fact that liberals have something of a habit of shitting on things they don’t like leads me to conclude, quite reasonably, that they might well literally take a shit on the Constitution one day.

Today, in reality? No. One branch has taken and / or been given far more power than the other two.

Hm. I guess conservatives really do embrace authoritarism.

How many liberals have shit on the flag? If I can point to a conservative pedophile can I conclude, quite reasonably, that conservatives are pedophiles?

I don’t “embrace” it. It’s not my preference, but it’s the reality today.

ETA: “it” being that the executive branch has acquired more power in recent decades than the other two branches

If you mean the presidency then yeah. You’re right.

I’m afraid that in this case, reality has a conservative bias. Congress has ceded a lot of power to the presidency.

“Might makes right!” A fine conservative principle!

Literally? At least one. I’m not sure what the upper limit is there. Metaphorically? A lot of them.

It’s fascinating that you think it’s reasonable that a far-left activist shitting on one thing would lead to a a liberal shitting on something very different, but your opinions on “reasonable” aren’t supported.

Also you say “something of a habit.” What defines “something of a habit”? How many does it take to make something a habit?

When you say they have a habit of shitting on things they don’t like, do you think that means everything they don’t like?

What is your evidence that liberals don’t like the Constitution? Or will you equivocate and claim that, since some liberals interpret the constitution differently from you, that’s the same thing as not liking it?

Huh. And with that, I think I’m done. Somehow I’m finding this “let’s demand cites for trivial bullshit instead of addressing the meat of the thread” less satisfying than you find it; I’ll return to discussing the meat of the thread and consider this a failed experiment in trivial bullshit hunting.