If you're too autistic to grasp the difference "will not happen because of standing conditions that make it impossible" and saying "won't happen"... then any further argument on that point is a waste of my time.
I'll note that your original comment was that they "can't win", not "won't win". The former is factually false, while the latter is a reasonable opinion. Let's not move the goalposts.
If you're too autistic to grasp the tactical and strategic difference between someone voting for a real threat to their power and someone that is voting for someone that is not a threat to their power... then any further argument on that point is a waste of my time. What is more, you're not contradicting that people are being blacklisted based on who they support in an election. Would you be so sanguine if this were applied against Hillary supporters?
I do grasp the tactical and strategic difference between someone voting for a real threat to their power and someone that is voting for someone that is not a threat to their power. That's exactly why I was questioning your original claim that people are being blacklisted for supporting "anything but the democrats". To the best of my knowledge, nobody is being blacklisted for supporting non-Trump candidates, specifically because [in my opinion] non-Trump candidates are not perceived to be a real threat to Clinton. Indeed, I'm not contradicting that people are being blacklisted based on who they support in an election, because that wasn't your original claim. I'm contradicting that people are being blacklisted for supporting "anything but the democrats", when it is clear that supporters of non-Trump candidates are not being blacklisted. Furthermore, I would be very happy to see Hillary supporters blacklisted right alongside Trump supporters (as I clarified in my last post), but I'm not sure how this is relevant to the thread.
How many times in the history of the United States of America has a national write in Candidate won the national election? If you have a point then this happens with some frequency. If it doesn't then you're throwing out more irrelevancies. I can't tell if you're going out of your way to be obtuse to argue points in bad faith or if you're so autistic that you honestly think these are valid points.
I don't believe a write-in candidate has ever won a national election in the US, but two US Congressmen have. However, it's not clear how that's relevant, there is no requirement for previous write-in candidates having won for a future write-in candidate to win (and if there were such a requirement, it could never be met, even in theory). While I acknowledge that the likelihood of a write-in candidate winning is negligible, that's not sufficient grounds to claim that it is not possible. Furthermore, the viability (or lack thereof) of write-in candidates has no bearing on the fact that there are at least three choices for President actually on the ballot in all 50 states, which contradicts your claim of only "two choices". I understand that the other candidates are exceedingly unlikely to win the election, but voters may choose them just as easily as they can choose a Democrat or Republican, and for this reason your claim is factually false.
Because you're either being intentionally obtuse or unintentionally autistic, I suspect you won't acknowledge that were the shoe on the other foot the existing political and social orthodoxy would not be comfortable with Hillary supporters being given the same treatment.
I have no problems acknowledging that the existing political and social orthodoxy (where Democrats increasingly outnumber Republicans) would probably not be comfortable with Clinton supporters being given the same treatment. This is consistent with my view that people are generally being self-interested duplicitous hypocrites when they're allowed to be. What I don't understand is why you seem to think I'm less critical of Clinton supporters than I am of Trump supporters.
P.S. Kudos for repeatedly using autistic as a pejorative. Also recommended: retarded, gay.