[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

That may be the case for the legislative branch (Which is highly unlikely), but like I said, the Supreme Court only cares if it's constitutional or not. While they may have showed bias in some cases, I doubt that they would in a case such as banning a certain race, religion, or anything else that seems absurd.

A real life example of what Unoski said, and a continuation of my thought, these were the results for the 1992 US election:

The first Clinton, Bill Clinton, won against Bush by 5.4%. Ross Perot was a conservative, most of his voters would have voted for Bush if Perot wasn't in the race, and many of them were voting for him to prove a point that they didn't think Bush was conservative enough. Now, Bush lost by 5.6%, and Perot received 18.9% of the vote, so those conservatives that didn't think Bush was conservative enough and voted for Perot gave the presidency to Clinton, who of course is far from conservative.

Well when you use Town of Salem references it kinda makes sense, I guess? Here in Canada we have 4 "main" parties, though 2 of them ever matter (Liberal and Conservative, though the Green Party and NDP are kinda close). Here in Canada if enough votes actually go to a third party they can actually become a member of parliament. For example our Green Party, the party that would only ever be in power if all the other members of parliament suffered a heart attack has a seat in parliament because enough people voted for someone in their party.
Now in Canada voting for a third party doesn't really throw your vote away since it's possible to give independent parties seats in parliament.
In case you don't know here is how our government works in Canada. Every "medium" sized city is a riding and people from almost every party run in that riding. Now people vote for whoever they like in their riding. For example I'm in INSERT CANDIAN CITY NAME HERE, so I can't vote for people in Toronto's riding or Ottawa's. People who win in their riding get a seat in the House of Commons.
Once that's all done the party with the most seats in the House has their leader become the Prime Minister of Canada. This system allows third parties a chance to have some power as not all the power is given to one party it's given to the big 3 plus whatever third party may have made it.

I would have expected that your independent parties would have somewhat of a chance, of course like I said before I'm not one to know your system and it's flaws and strengths.

That really does make more sense than the way we do it, honestly, The political system here is by no means perfect... I see lots of room for improvement. Like the electoral college, in my opinion it should just be done away with entirely. At this point the system is pretty much grandfathered in because it's always been the way we've done it, but it was created when a popular vote wasn't feasible, so they had representatives to vote for their groups. Now we have technology to count every single vote and get an accurate grand total number. With the electoral college if you vote conservative in California or if you vote liberal in Texas your vote really doesn't even matter because the electoral votes are going to go to the state's majority anyway. That's why when voting ends on the west coast, California and Oregon are automatically called for the democratic candidate with 0% of the votes counted.

No

Yes

Here's something that sums everything up pretty well I think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b9gDAdT9sw

Yes, because killing everyone who had nothing to do with American politics will show that we are a higher-order life form to other forms of life out in the universe...

I don't know if people have thought about it, but those extraterrestrial life forms are probably very disappointed at us right now for this political season; reflects on us humans as a whole...

Very nicely said, and I am, myself, scared for what's going to happen. There's going to be a lot of fallout, and it'll probably linger into future years as well...

(I hope you consider locking/closing this thread after tomorrow; you bet some fallout will likely spill onto here.)

It was a joke, definitely not the first time in this thread that's gone completely over your head xD

there is no freakin aliens bruh, and sorry to spoil it for ya ;-)

To be honest I don't think they'd give a shit. If they can see us they're a higher level of civilisation than us and likely don't care about we do - provided extraterrestrial life can even make a civilisation.

Good luck to those voting today. I hope you get what you voted for when the result is announced.

Stone cold.

I'm fine with a joke, but if it doesn't make sense, then I'm going to call it out, like I just did.

If that's what you want to believe, but Stephan Hawking says otherwise, and he's vastly more superior than you in terms of intelligence, sorry to spoil that for you...

I take it that you'd deny that global warming exists?

I'd go third party anyway. There is no lesser of the two evils. They're both terrible.

I wouldn't say it like that, I'm assuming that the reason we can't find life outside of our world is because they're hiding from us; they don't want to be found. They're much higher up than we are in terms of intelligence and they know that if we came into contact with them, some shit would go down. Hence the reason that they're hiding from us.

I'm gonna bet Gawa can do a 100m sprint faster than him though.

Just because he's smarter than someone doesn't mean he's absolutely, 100% correct. Albert Einstein was vastly superior to any of us in terms of intelligence and many of his theories are suspected to be wrong (which is bad seeing as they provide the basis for all modern physics lol). As it stands, the existence of aliens is entirely subjective to a persons' opinion. You can't use 'Stephen Hawking says otherwise' to say the other person is wrong. I'm sure there are many people who are smarter than me who believe in a God - who, much like aliens, can't have its existence proved - yet just because I don't believe in a God my opinion is invalid.

Anyway, yeah, presidential debate thread...

If they ever found us they'd likely just invade us and take what they want from our inferior species. Take one look at our own history (European colonialism) and you'll quickly find why.

I don't think we've found them yet because nobody has ever invented faster-than-light travel. Star systems are light years apart - we don't even know the requirements on a planet for life, so the nearest habitable planet could be in another galaxy.

That, or we're the first life forms to get this far. Or there's some organisation stopping aliens from interacting with us. Or maybe we have found them, we just don't realise it (probably likely, if they know we exist).

True, but I'd like some proof that there isn't a possibility that in the infinite universe, there's 0% chance of finding life. He's pretty much saying that there's a 100% chance that we're alone with the statement he said, I'd like to see some proof of that.

Yeah, haven't thought of that, and I wouldn't be too surprised if that does happen. I guess a better question is this: Why haven't they done it already?

Stephen Hawking wouldn't say a damned thing, because he can't. That you think he is so intelligent is not a testament to your own intelligence

Today's young students believe that repeating random garbage that is fed to them at school is any indication of intelligence. Then I ask you: How does George W. Bush have a degree from Ivy league schooling? Stephen Hawking is a vegetable. That he is even alive is miraculous but a vegetable doesn't really argue when you pretend he said something.

As far as Alber Einstein, there is sooo much evidene that Einstein was not only not a genius, but just above average in any respect of intelligence. Much like the worshipped Tyson of today he was nothing more than a puppet all dolled up and used by people much more intelligent than he. If you actually do research into Albert Einstein you will find that all of his work is plagiarized and was already published by German scientists decades before his own publications.

Albert Einstein is famous(I like to think infamous) for his ridiculous theory of relativity that hinges on one major error, the speed of light is constant. Which of course, if you study physics in any practical sense(especially concerning radio) you will find that this is in no way the case. It also hinges on another unproven and impossible to prove(by design?) theory: gravity. Introducing these smart phones and tiny computers has forced the hand of the global community of scientists to reconsider that this theory of relativity is bullshit... or as their cognitive dissonance is pushing on them "well it has flaws." That's not the case though, it is total bunk and so is half the things you are taught in "science" class.

If you are interested in talking to someone that has actually studied physics I'm usually hanging around the forums. If you are just going to parrot what someone else told you that someone else told them that someone else told them without taking the time to listen or even consider that most of what you know is intentionally dumbed down crap... well then I will probably just end the conversation short

So. How about that voting day?

Going to cast my vote shortly. Hopefully no Trump supporters cut me down with their assault rifles because my hair's too long or my skin is too tan. Just kidding. I'm in a battlefield state too. Trump has to win this one or will lose. I waited til today to vote because you get the cool "I Voted" sticker. Worth it even if I have to wait in a line.