I don't think you know what anarchism means.
Also, governments can build infrastructure without supporting foreign genocide.
The Original Commenter (OC) of this thread isn't saying they want to abolish government entirely. They are saying that government has been twisted and no longer represents the wishes of its people.
wear or display items arousing reasonable suspicion of membership
Bro, they're making it illegal to wear a fucking keffiyeh. What a shitty fucking law.
People in the UK should protest en masse so that this damn police state can't arrest everyone.
I think it's pronounced "hwite"
admit it was actually 90mn
I knew it was 90mn long before this god awful conversation with you. I misremembered this time. Check my account.
insist on being right somehow
I am right. You're too busy jacking/jilling off to this debate that you can't confirm that. Again, check my account for the full calculations. The links I shared have the correct information.
You provided zero proof that it was in fact a small percentage.
Except I did provide proof... And even if you want to ignore the Wikipedia article that reported primary vote numbers, the Ballotpedia articles I linked showed the 3rd party general vote numbers (~3mn). 3rd party votes fall under the definition of protest voting, so that is hard evidence of the low and insignificant amount of protest votes. Sorry we don't have more evidence of the other kinds of protest voting to quiet your sorry ass. But that's how claims work. You have evidence, then claim based on that. You don't get to just hallucinate your best wishes and claim that as reality. If you do, you have more important things to care about than this debate.
If others, or yourself are assuming 10%
I never assumed 10% you idiot. That was another commenter AND YOU. The 8mn voters that bailed on the Democrats from 2020 to 2024 could have done so for a multitude of reasons. Protest voting could be one of them, but we can't assume that. You doing that means you have no fucking clue how logical debate works.
10% is a significant amount.
To who? In statistics, usually 95% is how we decide something is significant. If my next paycheck came back with 95% more money, I'd call that significant: not 10%. If the next restaurant I go to has a 95% discount on some of their menu items, I'd call that significant, not 10%. If all of the climate tipping points had a 95% chance of occuring, then that's way more significant than a 10% chance. If a presidential candidate receives 95% of the vote, that's significant: 10% alone or even 10% more than the other candidate is not significant.
Stop pretending like I said all non-voters were protest voters.
Let's address what you did say:
90 million registered voters didn't vote, the most in US history. Please share what you have that points to the protest vote being a small percentage of that 90 million.
I'd love to see hard data, if it exists. Not holding my breath.
You doubt the protest vote is small. This is your PoV. You even said so, many times at this point.
You doubting this means you believe the contrary. You believe the protest vote is large.
I have presented evidence to the argument that the protest vote was small: 1% or less of the total vote. Neither you or I have given evidence for the types of protest voting that don't involve voting. The only claims that can be made are the ones based on evidence, not hallucinations.
With what evidence do you back up your opinion here?
Significant: important and deserving of attention; of consequence.
Aww, you gave a dictionary definition. That's cute. Except pulling a definition out of your ass still doesn't contribute to your argument. You have yet to give evidence that the protest vote in the 2024 US General Election was more than 1% of the voting population, and more than 0% of the non-voting population. The only evidence I need to claim that the protest vote was small is that the 3rd party vote was 1% or less.
strawman
I haven't straw man'ed shit. I've given you evidence directly invalidating your beliefs, and you refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not mine.
ad hominem
Oh honey, I stopped respecting you in this debate when you stopped respecting me. Tolerance goes both ways jackass.
I'm not retarded enough to keep up with you.
Certainly not. You can't fathom a world that's contrary to your world view. And that suckssss for you.
Mark another tally on your whiteboard to track internet arguments you've won.
Gladly. Evidence always trumps hallucinations. If only liberals would stop sticking their heads in the sand and start paying attention to the disastrous performance of Democrats in the recent elections, not the antics of voters.
I don't see 120m anywhere in those links.
So I calculated the eligible non-voting population from those links in a comment I made a few months back, and I came up with a little under 90mn. In this thread, I took the non-voting percentage I thought I remembered (~36%) from those Ballotpedia articles, then multiplied that by the total US population (340mn). I should have multiplied it by the eligible population of about 255mn, which gives a little over 90mn.
Nonetheless, the same numbers from the University of Florida are in the Ballotpedia articles. Too bad Ballotpedia didn't serve that information to you on a silver spoon. Seems like that's the only way you'll respond to evidence.
Please point out anywhere that I said all non voters are protest voters.
You said this:
Please share what you have that points to the protest vote being a small percentage of that 90 million.
And this:
You are making the claim that it's an insignificant amount.
Both of these statements put you as the disbeliever to the argument, which means you believe that 1) protest voters were a large percentage, and 2) protest voters were a significant amount.
Once again, I have presented clear evidence of protest voters via the Noncommitted Movement. I'd welcome more evidence if you could demonstrate it, but you've failed in that regard. The numbers I presented are small and insignificant compared to 90mn, which means they don't align with your apriori worldview. This is a problem for you, isn't it?
I simply said that protest voters didn't vote.
That's the definition dumbass. No shit.
some protest voters also voted third party
Once again, that's the definition of protest voting, and the Ballotpedia articles I previously shared indicate that the 3rd party vote was 1% of total voters. Do you think 1% is significant compared to 36%? Do you even know what significant means?
Do you want to know how I know protest voters didn't vote for Red or Blue? It's simple. It's because they didn't vote.
Protest voting means that voters declined to vote at the voting location, voted none or 3rd party, organized in a protest like the Uncommitted Movement, or submitted blank, null, or spoiled ballots.
In all of these cases except for organization, the voters handled the ballots and either returned them, declining to vote, or submitted them per the above.
Another case that you conveniently seem to be leaving out is that eligible voters might simply have chosen to not vote whatsoever, which does not meet the definition of protest voting. Abstaining from an election without showing up to a polling place does not count as protest voting. That's a fact, by definition.
It's simple. People that didn't vote Red or Blue might just have not voted! You can't automatically assume that all of those people were protesting! Well, if you're an idiot I guess you can.
And as another person pointed out the protest voters accounted for about 10% on the non voters.
Noooo, that commenter highlighted 10% and assumed that all 8mn of those voters were protesters. That's an assumption based on NO facts.
And based on your comment here, where you took that assumption as fact, I'm highly inclined to believe that you are an idiot.
Which, and I'll just go ahead and tell you, is a significant percentage.
Do you even know what significant means?
I don't know where you get the 120 from
Keep up:
https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elections
It's common knowledge that protest voters didn't vote.
All non-voting eligible voters != Protest voters.
There can be more motivations than just dissatisfaction with the choices on the ballot.
You as equating the two. You are wrong.
You are making the claim that it's an insignificant amount.
Are you making the claim that all 120mn that didn't vote were protesters?
Likewise, you cannot make the claim that an entire group is something. You need proof to substantiate your positive claim, not the negative. I have given my proof already
I have evidence of at least 700k protesters.
What evidence do you have?
Please share what you have that points to the protest vote being a small percentage of that 90 million.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommitted_National_Movement
Will you inform non-voters as well, for they carry vastly more of the burden than protesters?
How do you know how many people who didn't vote did so because of protest?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommitted_National_Movement
Number's more like 700k instead of 800k. There were likely more protesters not affiliated with this movement too, but this is the main organization.
magically disappeared
What makes you think it was magic and not a causal response to how both Biden and Harris dreadfully handled the race?
Did no one think to break open the windows?