Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

Or they recognize that the checks and balances of our government are not magic, and that Trump being elected as the nominee of a major party would also reflect a shift in the political landscape which would be reflected, particularly, in the actions of other politicians in that party, especially in the other elected branch -- and that those two branches together have the power to reshape the remaining branch.

Yes, electing Trump means that a substantial portion of the voters wanted conservative authoritarianism.

> And a political shift doesn't mean Trump can become a dictator.

A shift in favor of the type of authoritarianism Trump proposes means that the structural mechanisms which permit one branch to check the actions of the others are unlikely to be used to prevent the institution of conservative authoritarianism.

> It's still unconstitutional and Congress, no matter which side they are on, would never allow that.

The Constitution, in practice, means what people in positions to act decide it means at the time; Congress allows things that are arguably unconstitutional all the time (sometimes later being checked in real time by other institutions, like the Supreme Court, sometimes not.)

> The armed military would never allow it.

This conclusion is based on...what?

> The armed military would never allow it.

This conclusion is based on...what?

> The well-regulated armed militia like the Minute Men would never allow it.

The idea that the "Minute Men" (presumably, referring to the Minuteman Project [0]) are "well-regulated" in any sense is amusing; the idea that they would, as an organized mass, oppose a conservative authoritarian dictatorship with a strong flavor of anti-immigrant white nationalism is even more amusing, and the idea that they would be a substantial check on a dictatorship in any case is perhaps the most amusing element of the inclusion of this claim in your post.

> The armed National Guard would never allow it.

This conclusion is based on...what?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project

That is not what I said, though I don't necessarily disagree. I am making the argument that voting is a self-interested exercise one way or the other; even voting for the "greater good" is an exercise in personal self-interest. So if you evaluate the two candidates who have any chance of winning and find a significant difference in how you and your peers' lives will be affected, then it's rational to vote for one of those candidates even if your views align better to a non-viable third-party candidate.

> The second point you are trying to make is saying that you should only vote for a viable candidate

No, that is again not what I am saying or have said. You're inferring something I'm not implying. Everyone should vote how they want to vote. What I don't like is the philosophical grandstanding about how if one doesn't really like either candidate that they should not vote or vote third-party, or that voting third-party or abstaining is some symbol of moral strength or "rightness."

It's easy to laud the nobility of voting third party or abstaining, futility of outcome or not, when you view the outcome of either viable candidate as basically equivalent. But they aren't equivalent, especially to certain subgroups of people. You specifically encouraged people not to vote for "evil candidates"; if you meant the word "evil" literally then fine, ignore this. But I don't think you did, and therefore I found your suggestion quite distasteful.

Why would the military disregard the Constitution and start killing all the members of Congress just because Trump order them to? Though the military take orders from the President, the military has to uphold the Constitution. The President can't just order the military to disband Congress. The military would never do that. What would actually happen is that the military will instead arrest Trump and Congress will put Trump to trail to impeach him.

Again, the scenario where Trump become a dictator of the United States is never going to happen, because there is just too many groups and too much opposition to him.

There is no way the military will kill their own family members just to satisfy Trump's order.

Cops are NOT under the control of the federal government. Cops are under the control of the 50 states. Why would the 50 states give control of the police force to the President? Why would the 50 states just sit back and let Trump become a tyranny without fighting back? Why would cops go against their own cities, just so Trump can become a dictator?

Why would armed people joined up with Trump, especially arms Black people?

Why would the National Guard, who's duty is to protect the country, why would they go against the country just so Trump can become a dictator?

Again. Never gonna happen. There are too many groups who value democracy and freedom. And they will all oppose Trump if Trump decides to do something unconstitutional.

And you seem to be under the assumption that Trump supporters want a dictatorship. That's ridiculous. Trump supporters do not support a dictatorship. Trump supporters supports conservatism (aka, less government), which is the opposite of a dictatorship (total government control).

ALSO: Minutemen was just an example. Now-a-day, it's the NRA and other militia groups. And Minutemen actually refers to these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen

Obviously, all these doesn't matter if everyone in the United States (that means, all the people, Congress, judges, police forces, etc. everyone) agrees that Trump should be a dictator and voted to turn the government into a dictator. But that's never gonna happen. People come from other countries into the United States because of its democracy. Why would they allow the government to turn into the same dictatorship they ran away from?