3 ms·

Everyone who decided not to vote literally relinquished their voice in the matter. They simply don't count. They were "OK" with whatever others decided. Thei

• Terr_ 2y ago
  > The people spoke very clearly [that] they wanted this. > [Nonvoters] were "OK" with whatever others decided. Those are not the same thing! Stop contradicting yourself in order to sanewash Trump.
  • khazhoux 2y ago
    Not a contradiction at all. And this isn't about "sanewashing" Trump. There is a set of people eligible to vote. There is a set of people who do vote. Anyone in the first set who chooses not be in the second set, is no longer included in statements about What The People Want. You snooze, you lose. The time to say whether you want or don't want a President is in November. You stay quiet then, you don't get to complain in January "This isn't what I wanted!" To stay home by choice is be OK with whatever outcome others decide. And those others spoke clearly that this is the outcome they wanted. Honestly, my head hurts at the apologism over non-voters. If you don't vote, you don't count!
    • Terr_ 2y ago
      You're saying that 7 people could vote with the rest of the nations staying home, and then when Bob wins with 3/7 votes, I can say: "Look, the people spoke very clearly that they wanted Bob!" No, that'd be frickin' insane, since: 1. Basically none of the "the people" ever "spoke" at all. 2. Even when non-voters somehow aren't "the people", there's nothing remotely "clear" Bob winning with a minority. The moral fiber of nonvoters is irrelevant, this is about how you exaggerated a weak signal to the point of outright falsehood.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]