Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
He was only really in play in Utah, though, and I get the sense he ran specifically in protest against Trump. Not that he appeared to like Clinton, either, but I think any other Republican candidate would not have garnered such a response.
We know that. It still makes sense to try that than constant impotent presidential bids.
edited 14th Nov '16 10:08:05 AM by AceofSpades
This just reminds me that my own Grandpa voted for Trump, which shocks me. He's a good honest man full of integrity who raised his stepchildren not to be closed-minded bigots, and we all love him. And yet he still voted for Trump. Apparently, it's because he's a diehard Republican all the way who hasn't voted Democrat yet and won't now, which also shocks me because being a Republican in this day and age goes against every single one of the values his stepchildren and grandchildren (like me,) ended up inheriting from him and hold dear to their hearts. I'm assuming he's a Republican for economic reasons more than anything else, because he's not a conservative on a social level. What really gets me is that he's better than this, but then again, if he voted for Trump, maybe he's not.
edited 14th Nov '16 10:10:37 AM by kkhohoho
Tens of thousands voting for Harambe seems unlikely since most states require a candidate to file paperwork for votes towards them to be counted.
The media literally pulled the number of Harambe "Supporters" out of their ass.
Also, you have to be over the age of 35 to qualify for candidacy.
Harambe was only 17.
There's also that fact that he's a gorilla.
And also dead.
GIVE ME YOUR FACEMy mother told me a story she'd read online somewhere: A 77-year-old man, who had never voted before in his entire life, registered and cast his ballot for the very first time — against Trump.
Not that it did any good, but still... For every double-thinking, state-of-denial, insane troll logic voter, there's another who finally got their head on straight.
edited 14th Nov '16 10:21:51 AM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.@Philosopher Stones-
Writing in a name doesn't have any legal effect. Like if hypothetically, somehow more people wrote in say Colin Powell than voted for any of the candidates on the ballot, that doesn't mean that Powell would become President, since he was never actually running.
So when people are writing in names, it's basically just as a gesture to indicate they didn't want to vote for anyone on the ballot.
edited 14th Nov '16 10:17:27 AM by Hodor2
Last I heard, Harambe had received north of 14,000 votes, making it real possibility that a dead gorilla garnered more support than some of the actual third party candidates who appeared in only a handful of states.
On the other hand, those same reports claim it a fake. And with write ins frequently not fully tallied, there is no way to know-though I am genuinely curious.
edited 14th Nov '16 10:21:42 AM by ViperMagnum357
By the way, if it wasn't so horrific in its consequences, it would be hilarious how the Electoral College is now producing the opposite of the Founders' intention - it was meant to keep a popular demagogue from becoming POTUS by shielding the office from the dumb and easily swayed voters, but now it's putting a demagogue into the Oval Office against the will of the popular vote.
edited 14th Nov '16 10:43:24 AM by Balmung
![]()
For all the popularity of the saying "If you're not a liberal at 20 you don't have a heart, if you're not a conservative at 40 you don't have a brain" there's a lot of fear-stoking and appealing to ineffectively/oversimplified models of the world and so on involved in modern conservatism.
It appeals to many of us in our youth, when we have a narrow and limited experience of the world.
When and if we grow up, many of its ideas become less palatable.
edited 14th Nov '16 12:00:08 PM by ThePaul

edited 14th Nov '16 10:07:09 AM by CaptainCapsase