Stiff;9480546 said:
xxCivicxx;9480523 said:
Stiff;9480514 said:
xxCivicxx;9480510 said:
Stiff;9480495 said:
xxCivicxx;9480477 said:
smp4life;9480460 said:
xxCivicxx;9480443 said:
smp4life;9480431 said:
xxCivicxx;9480420 said:
smp4life;9480407 said:
xxCivicxx;9479688 said:
blackrain;9479669 said:
D. Morgan;9479659 said:
blackrain;9479646 said:
I've yet to see any viable alternatives as to what exactly not voting will accomplish...and anyone who thinks a Trump presidency wouldn't do far more harm than Hilary is very misinformed. I've yet to see anyone say Hilary is perfect and her flaws are very well known but to pretend as if it will make no difference between her running the country vs Trump is where you expose your own ignorance
What sense does it make to keep going for the status quo?
In any other instance I'm all for challenging the status quo...but when the alternative is 4 years under Trump many find that risk not with taking
Again, your entire argument in favor of hillary has nothing to do with her or her policies
You've been programmed to think trump whenever someone mentions hillary's past
You are literally brainwashed
Because it's a binary choice dude. It has nothing to do with "brainwashing."
It's not a binary choice
The fact that you think it is is proof of your brainwashing
Either Clinton or Trump will win the presidency. Two choices. A one or a zero. That's the definition of a binary choice.
You don't decide who becomes president, the electoral college does
You show faith in the system by participating in voting
Your choice in whether to participate or not is not binary
And who decides how the electoral college votes? Also, participating or not is also a binary choice. Any yes or no or choice or 1 thing out of 2 possible choices is by DEFINITION binary.
The electoral college decides how the electoral college votes
You're confusing yourself
Nah the electoral college goes off of the popular vote of the state. There's never been an instance in American history where the popular vote of a state went with one candidate and the electoral college said nah we going a different way. ONE or TWO single voters in the electoral college might try to vote a different way on some "protest" shit but it has never swayed the election.
People always point to the Bush vs Gore election...but that was a case where the popular vote NATIONALLY went to Gore but the way the math worked out with the individual states and their votes, Bush got more electoral votes (even though that's only because Gore didn't press the issue with Florida and if he had he would have won)
Lol you literally just contradicted yourself in your post
The popular vote has nothing to do with the electoral vote
The electorate normally vote with the popular vote so as to avoid revolts and keep the masses docile, but they are not obligated to vote how the people vote
Bush lost the popular vote by 2 million and became president. No matter how you want to slice it, the fact remains that you saw the irrelevancy of the popular vote in your own lifetime
The popular vote is irrelevant on a NATIONAL level. On a state level the popular vote is THE determining factor of how the state's electoral college vote goes. The electoral college has historically ALWAYS voted with the popular vote of its state with the exception of one or two "faithless electors" which are rare and don't ever sway the election.
You're agreeing with me so I'm not sure these posts are about
And once again, saying "always" and then "with the exception" is a contradiction
And once again, the electoral college is not OBLIGATED to vote how the people vote
And once again, they do so only to keep the facade/ritual going
What you appear to be saying is that the popular vote is irrelevant and the electoral college decides the election. You're pointing to the 2000 election to support your argument.
What I'm telling you is that the popular vote on a STATE level is what determines who gets the electoral college votes for that state. And the whole "always" and "with exception" hang up is basically this:
If California has 55 electoral points and Candidate A wins the popular vote in California, then candidate A is
entitled to 55 electoral points. When it's time for the ceremonial vote casting of the electors one of the 55 electors says "ahh fuck it I'm writing in my mom" then sure Candidate A will technically will only get 54 votes from California but it will be inconsequential.
There's NEVER in the history of the country been an instance where a state's entire electoral college decided to flip against the popular vote of its state. To state that the electoral college is not obligated to vote how the people vote is to argue hypotheticals with no historical precedent.
And AGAIN, I REPEAT, Al Gore won the popular vote ON THE STATE BY STATE LEVEL
And AGAIN, I REPEAT, the electoral college did not vote the way of the popular vote
"Entitlement" and "obligation" are 2 completely different concepts. I'm not sure what you're arguing
I've already explained to you multiple times why the electoral college CHOOSES to vote with the people in most instances
The fact that the electoral college has not completely disregarded the popular vote yet is irrelevant. They have the power to, this is what you aren't understanding
