Doug

I expected you 6.2 stardates ago

Didn't watch Gravity Falls but as far as I knew they were confirmed gay, admittedly in the finale.

There was also a gay cop in Onward

I also don't agree that Finn was a minor character, he was a regular focal point in two movies much to the annoyance of the same conservative groups.

I'm by no means suggesting Disney is anywhere in the neighborhood of acceptable. Gay characters have a tendency to be tiny roles or unpromoted movies (I watch a lot of movies and I hadn't seen anything for Strange World before it released). I'm just saying "never" is probably inaccurate for modern Disney.

You mean the Disney that conservative groups got mad at because two women had a split second "kiss" in a movie, or the Disney that made Song of the South?

Been a while since I saw a reference to exceptional strength

Not enough robot arms to be Magnus Burnsides

Probably for the same reason we haven't here.

I'm not sure what that reason is but if I were to venture a guess it's that the instance isn't necessarily an issue, just a lot of the users that like to brigade and/or start shit

And Robert Duncan McNeill was not-Tom Paris before he was Tom Paris.

Or was he Nicholas Locarno before later being not-Nicholas Locarno

Also a Hirogen in Voyager, Smallville, SG-1, Chuck, you've seen him a lot probably regardless of what you usually watch.

He's also the voice of Venom in the most recent Spider-Man game

That's just a side effect of early warp testing

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 In that same time a third party candidate has received any votes from electors (which are outdated but still very much the ones who are counted thus important to the process as it exists) in 6 elections.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.

Because they're an instrumental part of how the election process works for quite a while now. If a candidate is receiving 0 electoral votes they are functionally as electable as you or I.

You've more than proven yourself to be in bad faith here though, so you'll have to pester someone else with future efforts.

I assumed you understood how a presidential election worked in the US. Was I mistaken?