At least you tried.

Stop being a dunce.

I... you're right.

https://www.amazon.com/mirrors/b?ie=UTF8&node=3736371

Answer me, why Johnson instead of Stein? What kind of moron would vote for Johnson if he would vote for Clinton if there were only two options and no write ins/third parties?

Johnson got votes from people who would vote for Trump if they couldn't vote third party. To think otherwise only shows that you're delusional or don't understand the ideals of all four leading candidates.

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com...8&h=427&crop=1

It would be THE MOST ELECTRIFYING PRESIDENCY IN AMERICAN HOSTORY!

florida chose someone who doesn't believe in global warming, as the everglades are being threatened by seawater seepage haha.

So there is a silver lining.

People are voting for third parties because they're tired of the neoliberal consensus, war in foreign countries, starvation wages, unemployment, lack of proper welfare services, debt, the endless money circus called American "democracy", and so on. It's not about protesting against the right and the left - the Democratic Party and the GOP are both right-wing parties that stand for the interests of the bourgeoisie. Clinton is not left-wing, just another neoliberal. Some left-wing candidates are Jill Stein and Gloria La Riva.

I don't think a Norwegian communist is really qualified to say what Americans are voting against. We really are in fact sick of the actual parties.

To win Florida, Clinton would've had to gather ~74% of those Johnson/Stein votes. Even if you think the voters for those parties would lean towards choosing her, that's quite a large portion to say for certain.

First off, stop with the condescension for just this once. I understand just perfectly. Based on Florida, Johnson got 4 out of 5 third party votes. So he was a much more recognizable candidate. And again, most people fed up with the right and left are voting third party not on actual political platforms (seeing as a third party candidate hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of winning) but just to buck the system.

Call it rebel without a clue.

So, you hate the right and the left and want to make a statement (not elect a president) so you vote for the third party candidate who will make the most dissenting noise, even though it's useless noise.

Or maybe you just agree with the policies. The Libertarian party has been gaining more and more traction over the past few years.

Takes two to tango, dunce.

I think that you're painting with too broad of a brush when you assume the intentions of those who vote third party. It's analogous to thinking that all Muslims are terrorists, that all liberals are absolute retards, or that all conservatives are misogynistic and racist.

You just didn't answer the question as to how those votes cost Clinton Florida.

Trump 48%
Clinton 48%
Johnson 3%

Yup, watch out for the Libertarians.

And Frownland, you're doing your usual argue for argument sake on this. Do you honestly believe that anyone who pushed a button for Johnson last night really thought he had a chance? Those were purely "I hate Clinton and Trump" votes. Not "I agree with Johnson and want him as president" votes.

Again, how did those votes cost Clinton Florida?

No, this is genuinely how I feel. I gave Ki **** about it when he lamented Florida going to Trump and blaming Johnson last night. I'd agree with you but I can't find the off switch for my brain. Not saying what you describe doesn't exist because people are stupid and reactionary but I think it is nowhere near a majority of those voters like you're trying to depict them as.

Still doesn't negate my point that the votes were not stolen from Clinton, but from Trump.

Also is anyone surprised that now Trump is elected, a white cisgender male is going around telling segments of the population how they think? Ja me neither. Check your privilege, Chula.

Why not both?

Two candidates who didn't stand a chance, who didn't earn a single electoral vote, who may have had 46% of their votes go to Clinton if they hadn't been on the ticket is my point.

Again, Gore would have won Florida in 2000 if not for Nobody-Nader.

Too much "might" without any grounding in reality.

That's not a valid explanation as it just vaguely hints that Clinton MAY have had a winning majority stolen from her without any actual math to back it up. Don't be wishy washy. How would Libertarian votes have gone to a Democrat?

And you're totally what's wrong with the two-party system. You will never support a third party cause there will always be the threat of a spoiler candidate, and so the cycle repeats itself ad nauseum until Coke and Pepsi have a bloody civil war for control of America.

I'm not going to repeat myself any more.

Been telling him this for months. Ain't gonna stick.

Fair enough.

You haven't said anything of value. Do the ****ing math, you bitter conspiracy theorist, or stop talking. Or stop drinking.

Independent voters have a mix of both right and left ideologies. It should be assumed that every independent is not the same as other independents.

Not everyone wants Clinton to be president. Not everyone even agrees that she's the lesser evil.

What comes around goes around. Didn't Clinton use Ross Perot to siphon votes from George H. W. Bush? (or at least benefit from him running?) The night before the election the news had Pennsylvania solidly in Hillary Clinton's column, which didn't pan out for her. Then went on how Trump had an uphill battle to win all the flip states while at the same time keeping all the Romney/Paul states. You can play Monday night quarterback with the intentions of Floridian Libertarians, but it was the Rust Belt that rallied behind Trump gave him the presidency.

So if I'm a libertarian I should vote for Clinton or Trump because voting for the candidate I like the most would be pointless? Ah. I see.

Your math is wrong here though. She'd need much more than just 46% of those votes to win:

Back to the old twisting words thing again. It's just opposing opinions man. I say up, you say down. Let's move on.

https://66.media.tumblr.com/86a881de...gykyo1_500.gif

Agreed.

Agreed. Mostly.

Enlightenment = good.

I'm feeble.

You say "up, because!" I say "down, because of ****ing gravity you moron."

That being said, if you can back up your point I will admit to twisting your words. But until then...

What "point" are we talking about here?

That Johnson's votes are responsible for Hillary losing Florida. That thing we've been discussing this whole time.

I assume that a majority of his votes would have gone to Clinton.

You assume that a majority of his votes would have gone to Trump.

There is no point.

I'm still gonna kill people

It's not just majority. It would have to be a landslide in Clinton's favor.

Err, no. My "assumption" is based on things like the reality of voter ideologies. Yours is based on the canon that everyone who votes for third party is doing it out of protest (as opposed to siding with their beliefs) and the liberal echo chamber that you live in. If they would have swung to Hillary if there were only two options, those that voted Johnson would have voted for Stein BECAUSE. OF. HOW. MUCH. CLOSER. JOHNSON'S. VIEWS. ARE. TO. TRUMP'S. THAN. THEY. ARE. TO. HILLARY'S.

I thought you said you weren't going to repeat yourself? Could've left it at this:

Oh ja, I want to gloat too: this is what you get for not voting for Bernie, Chula.