If you wanted to rig your enemies election...

[Starman]

I think the opinions of 53% of Americans is important.

Their opinions are not important. The popular vote means nothing. The electoral college, however, is important. And does mean something.

Even if you had a valid point (which you don't), it doesn't mean what you think it means. A majority of voters couldn't agree on who the president should be. No candidate was able to win a majority of the popular vote. This is exactly why the popular vote is garbage, and why it was never chosen as an adequate method for selecting the president.

The electoral college produces winners who by default must win a majority of the electorate. A little education on the subject goes a long way.

 

[Starman]

I never said she did.

53% of the voters that voted voted for anyone but Donald Trump.

And 53% of the voters voted for anyone but Hillary Clinton, Irrational Poster. Funny how you use the same mathematical calculations I used earlier (and to which you replied, derp dat's not how majorities werk, dude) to make your weak arguments now.

The "majority" couldn't agree on anything. No candidate won a majority of the popular vote. Right or wrong?

 

[Starman]

So you can't answer the question you repeatedly told me you already answered.

Rimjob, I answered it. Multiple times. You just don't like the answer. If you want a better answer, ask a better question.

 

[Rational Poster]

Their opinions are not important. The popular vote means nothing. The electoral college, however, is important. And does mean something.

Even if you had a valid point (which you don't), it doesn't mean what you think it means. A majority of voters couldn't agree on who the president should be. No candidate was able to win a majority of the popular vote. This is exactly why the popular vote is garbage, and why it was never chosen as an adequate method for selecting the president.

The electoral college produces winners who by default must win a majority of the electorate. A little education on the subject goes a long way.

It's an accurate measure of what the majority of Americans think of the candidate though and we're already seeing the results of that belief in special elections.

Those opinions will continue to manifest in the midterms too.

 

[Starman]

It's an accurate measure of what the majority of Americans think of the candidate

Candidates. Not candidate. And, as I said, that is the problem with the popular vote. They can produce winners that a majority of the country didn't like. Do you understand now?

though and we're already seeing the results of that belief in special elections.

Special elections have zero to do with the popular vote. People aren't voting in special elections because Hillary won the popular vote.

Those opinions will continue to manifest in the midterms too.

And none of those opinions will have anything to do with whether or not Mr. Trump won the popular vote. Those opinions will be based on his performance, or the biases of the voter.

 

[Rational Poster]

Candidates. Not candidate. And, as I said, that is the problem with the popular vote. They can produce winners that a majority of the country didn't like. Do you understand now?



Special elections have zero to do with the popular vote. People aren't voting in special elections because Hillary won the popular vote.



And none of those opinions will have anything to do with whether or not Mr. Trump won the popular vote. Those opinions will be based on his performance, or the biases of the voter.

Republicans are losing special elections because the majority of the country doesn't like Donald Trump.

It's a barometer of public opinion.

 

[HIMBOB]

Rimjob, I answered it. Multiple times. You just don't like the answer. If you want a better answer, ask a better question.

Quote it then.

Edit, I think you have become confused with the difference between an answer and a response.

 

[Starman]

Republicans are losing special elections because the majority of the country doesn't like Donald Trump.

It's a barometer of public opinion.

No it isn't. The popular vote is a barometer of how many voters voted for a presidential candidate nationwide. The popular vote has zero influence on who wins the presidency, and it has zero influence on who wins special elections. How voters in special elections vote has an influence on special elections.

No one in Georgia voted for Karen Handel instead of Jon Ossoff because Hillary won the popular election but lost the presidency. People in Georgia voted for Karen Handel because they thought she was better suited for the job.

Georgia voters literally could not care less how people in California, New York, Texas, Alabama, Florida, or any other stated voted in the national election.

It is completely asinine and retarded to think how 10 million people in L.A. County voted in a national election would somehow be a barometer for how people in Georgia or Kentucky will/would vote.

It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

All that said, this has zero to do with your initial response. I said Hillary Clinton did not win a majority of the votes. You laughed and said, "derp, that's not how elections werk, bro, lolz, I'm an idiot who doesn't understand math."

What you are trying to do now is back peddle and pretend you said something else because you finally realized how stupid you looked.

 

[Starman]

Quote it then.

Edit, I think you have become confused with the difference between an answer and a response.

I will repost again, for your convenience. And just out of curiosity, is English your first language?

If you were a world leader and wanted to rig your enemies election which of the following would be desirable outcomes?

You are creating an imaginary situation and ascribing motive to it. A "rigger" could want whatever you imagine they want.

And I quote
"If you were a world leader and wanted to rig your enemies election which of the following would be desirable outcomes?"

Which bit is confusing you?

I used small words and everything.

Nothing is confusing to me, though you seem to be having a bit of trouble separating reality from fantasy.

You asked "If you were a world leader and wanted to rig your enemies election which of the following would be desirable outcomes?"

That is literally a second conditional sentence [if + past tense, would + base verb]. We use second conditional sentences to talk about unreal situations, imaginary situations, impossible situations, or unlikely situations.

As I said earlier, your entire premise is imaginary. You are imagining "riggers", and asking us to imagine "riggers" as well. It's not real. It didn't happen. You are asking us what we think imaginary riggers would want in your imaginary situation.

As I told you, imaginary riggers could want whatever you imagine they wanted. It has no bearing or connection with reality whatsoever.

Maybe you should stick to reality rather than unfounded, unsubstantiated, imaginary hypotheticals.

Don't blame me (or anyone else) for failing to respond to your stupid questions. And it wasn't just me ignoring your dumb shit. You felt the need to come in on page 3 and whine how NO ONE was answering your retarded questions.

EDIT: we are into page 3 and still no one has suggested something else a rigger would want nor have they attempted to refute anything I said. Come on people I doubt my list was perfect on the First attempt.
I want suggestions people!!!!! ( And no they don't have to be displayed by the current admin).

I gave you some friendly advice earlier, and I will do so again. You seem to desperately crave attention and discussion from strangers over the internet, so perhaps you could consider posing ACTUAL questions, instead of hypothetical nonsense.

As I said, you are asking everyone to IMAGINE what fictional people want. Fictional people can't want anything. The only thing fictional people could ever want is what you imagined them to want. It's a stupid question not worth seriously debating.

If you want to be taken seriously ask a serious question. If you want to be treated like the joke you are, keep doing the same shit you've been doing, and everyone here will continue to ignore you, and you will continue to whine 3 pages in about how no one is responding in the way you'd like.

 

[Rational Poster]

No it isn't. The popular vote is a barometer of how many voters voted for a presidential candidate nationwide. The popular vote has zero influence on who wins the presidency, and it has zero influence on who wins special elections. How voters in special elections vote has an influence on special elections.

No one in Georgia voted for Karen Handel instead of Jon Ossoff because Hillary won the popular election but lost the presidency. People in Georgia voted for Karen Handel because they thought she was better suited for the job.

Georgia voters literally could not care less how people in California, New York, Texas, Alabama, Florida, or any other stated voted in the national election.

It is completely asinine and retarded to think how 10 million people in L.A. County voted in a national election would somehow be a barometer for how people in Georgia or Kentucky will/would vote.

It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

All that said, this has zero to do with your initial response. I said Hillary Clinton did not win a majority of the votes. You laughed and said, "derp, that's not how elections werk, bro, lolz, I'm an idiot who doesn't understand math."

What you are trying to do now is back peddle and pretend you said something else because you finally realized how stupid you looked.

I was never talking about Hillary, you just brought her up to obfuscate for your Dear Leader's poor performance in the popular vote.

 

[HIMBOB]

I will repost again, for your convenience. And just out of curiosity, is English your first language?

Don't blame me (or anyone else) for failing to respond to your stupid questions. And it wasn't just me ignoring your dumb shit. You felt the need to come in on page 3 and whine how NO ONE was answering your retarded questions.



I gave you some friendly advice earlier, and I will do so again. You seem to desperately crave attention and discussion from strangers over the internet, so perhaps you could consider posing ACTUAL questions, instead of hypothetical nonsense.

As I said, you are asking everyone to IMAGINE what fictional people want. Fictional people can't want anything. The only thing fictional people could ever want is what you imagined them to want. It's a stupid question not worth seriously debating.

If you want to be taken seriously ask a serious question. If you want to be treated like the joke you are, keep doing the same shit you've been doing, and everyone here will continue to ignore you, and you will continue to whine 3 pages in about how no one is responding in the way you'd like.

It's a hypothetical asking what you would want in theoretical situation.

What you have done is provide a response that questions the validity of the question.
That's not an answer.

Spend a minute on Google and learn the definition of response and of answer. It should clear things up.

Lastly i asked about what you would want not what others would want. I've been very clear and consistent on that but your responses you keep referring to a they, which is why I don't think you understand the question.

 

[Starman]

I was never talking about Hillary, you just brought her up to obfuscate for your Dear Leader's poor performance in the popular vote.

I was talking about Hillary in the very post you responded to, nimrod. I said "Hillary did not win a majority of the vote." To which you responded, "Derp, dat's not how majoritees werk, dude. LOLZ."

Did this or did this not happen?

65,853,652 people voted for Hillary Clinton. 71,271,832 people voted for anyone but Mrs. Clinton. The majority of the country did not vote for Mrs. Clinton. She did not win a majority of the vote.

That's not how majorities work dude.

You can try to twist it all you want. The fact is you made a complete ass of yourself, making a snarky, douchebag comment that resulted in nothing but you highlighting what a completely retarded and irrational poster you are.

 

[Starman]

It's a hypothetical asking what you would want in theoretical situation.

Correct. Good job. You finally got it. Bravo. 9 pages in, but you got it.

What you have done is provide a response that questions the validity of the question.
That's not an answer.

Your question does not require an answer.

Spend a minute on Google and learn the definition of response and of answer. It should clear things up.

Re-read my posts. Ask a legitimate question and you will get a legitimate answer. Then you won't have to spend 9 pages whining about no one answering the way you think they should.

Lastly i asked about what you would want not what others would want. I've been very clear and consistent on that but your responses you keep referring to a they, which is why I don't think you understand the question.

The "they" refers to people who rig elections, which is what you want everyone to imagine they are. It's completely ludicrous, as I've said multiple times. If you have something to prove, prove it. If you have something you want to say, say it. Stop slow-walking everyone and pussy-footing around and make your fucking point already. It's 9 pages in, Rimjob. Time for you to put a cohesive argument together. Obviously no one is interested in traveling down the rabbit hole with you.

 

[Rational Poster]

I was talking about Hillary in the very post you responded to, nimrod. I said "Hillary did not win a majority of the vote." To which you responded, "Derp, dat's not how majoritees werk, dude. LOLZ."

Did this or did this not happen?





You can try to twist it all you want. The fact is you made a complete ass of yourself, making a snarky, douchebag comment that resulted in nothing but you highlighting what a completely retarded and irrational poster you are.

That wasn't the first post of yours I quoted.

 

[HIMBOB]

Correct. Good job. You finally got it. Bravo. 9 pages in, but you got it.

Your question does not require an answer.

Re-read my posts. Ask a legitimate question and you will get a legitimate answer. Then you won't have to spend 9 pages whining about no one answering the way you think they should.



The "they" refers to people who rig elections, which is what you want everyone to imagine they are. It's completely ludicrous, as I've said multiple times. If you have something to prove, prove it. If you have something you want to say, say it. Stop slow-walking everyone and pussy-footing around and make your fucking point already. It's 9 pages in, Rimjob. Time for you to put a cohesive argument together. Obviously no one is interested in traveling down the rabbit hole with you.

See above.