On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 07:20:33PM -0500, John Newman wrote: > > > On Nov 10, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 06:16:33PM -0300, Juan wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:30:30 -0500 > >> grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Razer <ray...@riseup.net> wrote: > >>>> So the final numbers for Election Day are: > >>>> > >>>> 231,556,622 eligible voters > >>>> > >>>> 46.9% didn't vote > >>>> 25.6% voted Clinton > >>>> 25.5% voted Trump > >>>> > >>>> NOBODY got the most votes! > >>> > >>> I'm ok with that... means there's plenty of room > >>> for someone representing and executing a different > >>> arrangement of ideas to get 25.7%. > >> > >> > >> I think the point is that "nobody" got the most votes so > >> "nobody" should be president.... > >> > >> Also voting age is of course statist nonsense so the number of > >> votes for "nobody" is even higher. > > > > I want to marry my rock, and my rock wants to vote, it's an assisted > > rock, assisted by me, so I assist it to the voting booth, the only > > slight difficulty might be proving sentience, assuming such state > > ordered nonsense as "sentience" were set as the minimum bar for voting > > -though if it can be tested, I can prolly write a computer program for > > my robot to demonstrate sentience. > > Sentience test??? That's voter disenfranchisement. > > Anyone dumb enough to think their vote means jack shit is barely sentient > anyway.... =)
Just as well my rock doubles my sentience quotient - AND gives me^B ahem, ahem, my rock, an extra vote, sorry, its own vote!