I think the two of you are having different arguments together.
You're saying it's a contributing factor and they're saying it's not the cause. Both of these things can be true.
We are taught in school that planes can fly because of the shape of the wing. That isn't necessarily true even if it does have influence. It can happen without the wing shape. It may happen more effectively with it, but that wasn't the claim.
You can both be right here.
That's it exactly
Against my better judgement, why not.
If you're acting in good faith why did you not answer when I asked if you understood how our elections work?
If you're acting in good faith where did I state you were an elector?
If you're acting in good faith why are you badgering with a question that you already know the answer to?
No. You are not "literally just asking you to explain your own understanding of presidential elections" and you know it. You refuse to participate in the discussion in favor of your own, possibly with the intent of seeking some kind of so-called gotcha moment. It's not coming. They're are functionally two parties within our presidential elections.
Since 1900 a third party candidate has received more than 5% of the popular vote (that's you and me) roughly 6 times. That number drops to about 4 if you want more than 10%. In that same time a third party candidate has received any votes from electors (which are outdated but still very much the ones who are counted thus important to the process as it exists) in 6 elections. The last one was in 1972.
And just to further reinforce, that's any votes from electors. The highest in that time was in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt received 88. George Wallace later got 46 in 1968 and Strom Thurmond managed 39 in 1948. They continue downward from there.
So no, as you've been told by others, a third party candidate is generally not electable in the system we have. This is why the system is often called a two party system despite the existence of third parties. You'll notice in common parlance they're not counted, they're called third parties. This is not a controversial opinion I hold, it's how it is widely discussed by laymen and experts alike.
But you already knew all that and instead chose to badger to try and, I can only assume, have some kind of moment or way you were right. You were acting in bad faith and I have no more time or energy for your type of "discussion". Goodbye.
I'm more confused by the pollution in 2009 that didn't exist in 1979.
And why didn't they make the last one 2039?
I'm not convinced they will regardless, but you have a point
How many different ways do we have to say things in English?
Do Tamarians have poetry?
It's been a long time since I watched this one. Do they explain why Thomas has a beard?
Damn
In the same way your TV does, sure.
It becomes your problem when the thing you want to see is not available because it shut down.
Whether or not they can make money on traditional advertising is a complex thing when I'm not sure what you mean by traditional advertising. Can a website offer traditional advertising? If so how do you think the existence of ad blockers has contributed to its decline? I remember when TiVo was a big thing we started seeing banners at the bottom of shows advertising other shows. Seems like a pretty clear correlation to me.
And they didn't sign a contract and are under no obligation to serve you content. That road goes both ways. Is a contractual obligation the only way you deal with something you don't like to get to something you do?
Given the state of banking and corporations in general in the US sometimes "not the worst" is the best option
Maybe it's just me but it doesn't?
That tower in 22 looks like it's covered in some kind of goo and the lighting feels artificial even though it's outside.
Yes but he serves a different community