Upload
Login or register

kidink

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:10/11/2011
Location:Germany belgium
Stats
Comment Ranking:#3379
Highest Content Rank:#2949
Highest Comment Rank:#2226
Content Thumbs: 3283 total,  3625 ,  342
Comment Thumbs: 5966 total,  7620 ,  1654
Content Level Progress: 98% (98/100)
Level 130 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 131 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 68% (68/100)
Level 250 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 251 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:10
Content Views:167772
Times Content Favorited:51 times
Total Comments Made:1785
FJ Points:7950
RALPS Y U NO GIVE ME SKYPE SHOW?

latest user's comments

#8 - Picture  [+] (1 reply) 09/10/2016 on My Life ain Memes Part 23 +65
User avatar
#56 - askafj (09/11/2016) [-]
This made me laugh so much because it's so dead on.

And now I'm sad.
#49 - What im sayin is when like 3% vote for simpson 2% vote for Sch…  [+] (1 reply) 09/06/2016 on Nothing is Acheived Here 0
User avatar
#50 - nigeltheoutlaw (09/06/2016) [-]
That's not how things work here. We don't go by popular vote, it goes by the electoral college, where electoral voters cast their vote for their districts (which usually go on a "winner takes all" basis for the whole state) based off of what the people there voted. So let's say there's State A with the following vote breakdown:

-45% Clinton
-38% Trump
-7% Johnson
-4% Stein
-6% write ins and other smaller candidates

Even though the voter breakdown is fairly diverse, the actual electoral votes goes towards Clinton. She takes everything though the electoral college.

So if you think write ins don't mean anything because the candidate didn't win, then your vote is also meaningless if your district doesn't go the way you voted. Everybody who didn't vote for Clinton could have stayed home for all the difference it would make in this hypothetical situation.

What I meant earlier when I said "CA will go towards Clinton" is that it's almost guaranteed that more voters will vote for Clinton than anyone else in my state, which means that my vote has no import under the electoral college system. I could vote for Trump, or a third party, or a write in, and nothing will change. So no, write ins do not equal not voting at all unless you think losing is the equivalent of not trying at all.

And finally, there is no "lesser bad". This is a false dichotomy that we've been force fed for decades to justify what a fucking train wreck the political climate is in the U.S.A. Trump is a completely unqualified narcissist who has been wildly inconsistent on every policy he's ever floated, and has not brought up a single workable idea that he didn't just reneg on later. His only saving grace is that he's anti-establishment, but he's so inconsisten that he's sometimes pro-establishment as well. Clinton is a criminal war hawk who supports "free trade" agreements that would hurt America and speed our increasing economic inequality. Her only saving grace is that her social policies are ok for the most part.
#47 - Its not gonna help make the world better if 3% of US populatio…  [+] (3 replies) 09/06/2016 on Nothing is Acheived Here 0
User avatar
#48 - nigeltheoutlaw (09/06/2016) [-]
Obviously, I was simply illustrating that with write-ins, you can literally write in any candidate that you want. I don't intend to vote for a fictional cartoon boy.

You said "Were living in a libtard LGBT Muslim fairy tale in which everyone denies the reality and is scared to have his own opinion". I'm not denying reality, I'm center left at best, I'm an atheist, and I am not afraid to voice my opinion even when it differs from other people's. I fly against every one of your hyperbolic claims about the state of the world, so clearly it is better than you thought it was.
User avatar
#49 - kidink (09/06/2016) [-]
What im sayin is when like 3% vote for simpson 2% vote for Schwarzenegger and maybe 10% write in a professionel candidate it is useless. Its what happened in germany a couple of days ago. Ppl voting for irrelevant parties caused the afd to be on 2nd rank close to the 1st on first try. I think that a write in equals not voting at all, except ppl organize and vote collectiveley for a good politician. But what are the odds. U gotta go with the lesser bad
User avatar
#50 - nigeltheoutlaw (09/06/2016) [-]
That's not how things work here. We don't go by popular vote, it goes by the electoral college, where electoral voters cast their vote for their districts (which usually go on a "winner takes all" basis for the whole state) based off of what the people there voted. So let's say there's State A with the following vote breakdown:

-45% Clinton
-38% Trump
-7% Johnson
-4% Stein
-6% write ins and other smaller candidates

Even though the voter breakdown is fairly diverse, the actual electoral votes goes towards Clinton. She takes everything though the electoral college.

So if you think write ins don't mean anything because the candidate didn't win, then your vote is also meaningless if your district doesn't go the way you voted. Everybody who didn't vote for Clinton could have stayed home for all the difference it would make in this hypothetical situation.

What I meant earlier when I said "CA will go towards Clinton" is that it's almost guaranteed that more voters will vote for Clinton than anyone else in my state, which means that my vote has no import under the electoral college system. I could vote for Trump, or a third party, or a write in, and nothing will change. So no, write ins do not equal not voting at all unless you think losing is the equivalent of not trying at all.

And finally, there is no "lesser bad". This is a false dichotomy that we've been force fed for decades to justify what a fucking train wreck the political climate is in the U.S.A. Trump is a completely unqualified narcissist who has been wildly inconsistent on every policy he's ever floated, and has not brought up a single workable idea that he didn't just reneg on later. His only saving grace is that he's anti-establishment, but he's so inconsisten that he's sometimes pro-establishment as well. Clinton is a criminal war hawk who supports "free trade" agreements that would hurt America and speed our increasing economic inequality. Her only saving grace is that her social policies are ok for the most part.