I’m not asking about you and your vote, I’m asking about the position and rhetoric you push around here.
If you agree that Kamala would be better than Trump short and long term, and that one of them will be president, then how can you, in good faith, advocate for people not to vote in a way that increases the odds of the better option and decreases the odds of the worse one?
Because one being better than the other is not the same as being an acceptable choice. If I’m in a burning building, what fundamentally needs to happen is that I escape. You can argue that the flames on one side of the room are higher than the flames on the other side of the room, but I don’t care, because if I stay in the room I’ll die. The only thing that matters is finding the door.
You asked if I thought a third party could win this election, and the answer is no. But could a third party win a future election? The answer to that is yes, maybe. The results of this election will inform voters in future elections of whether a third party is viable. The most important thing is increasing the chances of getting to an acceptable outcome, everything else is secondary to that goal.
In the meantime, voting third party can influence things in other ways. If the Democrats can only win by getting a third party’s endorsement, then they can potentially be brought to the bargaining table.
Because one being better than the other is not the same as being an acceptable choice.
But you already agreed that for swing state voters, there are effectively only 2 choices, and that one is better than the other in both the short and long term.
If I’m in a burning building, what fundamentally needs to happen is that I escape. You can argue that the flames on one side of the room are higher than the flames on the other side of the room, but I don’t care, because if I stay in the room I’ll die.
Again, you agreed that escape is effectively not an option through voting. Moving toward the side of the room with fewer flames is objectively the better choice while you work on establishing an escape.
Why on earth would you stand in the middle and let the fire decide?
You asked if I thought a third party could win this election, and the answer is no. But could a third party win a future election? The answer to that is yes, maybe. The results of this election will inform voters in future elections of whether a third party is viable.
No. Not in a first-past-the-post system. Can’t happen.
I bet we’d agree that that system needs to change, but it will not happen by voting 3rd party every 4 years.
The most important thing is increasing the chances of getting to an acceptable outcome, everything else is secondary to that goal.
Precisely. And within this system, with this short of a runway, Kamala is the only acceptable out of the 2 outcomes we agree are the only 2 possible.
But you already agreed that for swing state voters, there are effectively only 2 choices
Hold up. All I agreed with is that in this election, it wasn’t realistic for a third party to win. You’re trying to take that as meaning there’s no reason to vote third party. As I explained, it’s possible for third parties to wield influence, and giving them more votes gives them more ability to do that.
There are effectively two possible winners but that’s not the same as there being effectively two choices. The question isn’t “Do you think a third party can win this election,” the question is, “Do you think voting third party cause any positive effects?” to which my answer is yes.
Again, you agreed that escape is effectively not an option through voting.
I did no such thing. You’re twisting my words and jumping to conclusions.
Moving toward the side of the room with fewer flames is objectively the better choice while you work on establishing an escape.
Why on earth would you stand in the middle and let the fire decide?
I’m amazed that you managed to miss the point that hard. I don’t give a shit which fire is more comfortable to burn to death in. If there’s no way out, then I will still try to wail on the walls until I can’t anymore.
Kamala is the only acceptable
Kamala is fundamentally unacceptable. Again, you’re just acting like things are established when they very much are not.
Hold up. All I agreed with is that in this election, it wasn’t realistic for a third party to win. You’re trying to take that as meaning there’s no reason to vote third party. As I explained, it’s possible for third parties to wield influence, and giving them more votes gives them more ability to do that.
Again – no shot. Not in FPTP. You virtue signaling every 4 years has never and will never change that.
I did no such thing. You’re twisting my words and jumping to conclusions.
Yes you did. You agreed that that only Trump or Kamala will be president after this election. Don’t backtrack, there’s a reason I insisted on these answers.
I’m amazed that you managed to miss the point that hard. I don’t give a shit which fire is more comfortable to burn to death in. If there’s no way out, then I will still try to wail on the walls.
Again, why would you not wail on the walls in the room with less fire? What an absurd stance…
Kamala is fundamentally unacceptable.
Again, you already agreed she is the better option of the only 2 outcomes that will happen. Don’t twist my words ;)
Again – no shot. Not in FPTP. You virtue signaling every 4 years has never and will never change that.
That is incorrect. Lets say the polls show, Green 15%, Democrat 40%, Republican 45%, and the Greens say, “We’ll endorse the Democrats if and only if they do X.” You have not addressed why this is not a viable strategy at all. Saying “no shot” doesn’t make it true.
Yes you did. You agreed that that only Trump or Kamala will be president after this election. Don’t backtrack, there’s a reason I insisted on these answers.
That’s not the same thing. You’re conflating “being able to win this election” with “being able to ever change things.” It’s possible to change things without winning, and it’s possible for future elections to be different. You’re taking a much more limited claim and expanding it to a much larger one that I never agreed with.
Again, why would you not wail on the walls in the room with less fire? What an absurd stance…
If anything, it’d be better to wail on the walls in the room with more fire, to die quicker. But the point is that that doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is escape.
Again, you already agreed she is the better option of the only 2 outcomes that will happen. Don’t twist my words ;)
And as I already stated, “better” does not mean “acceptable.” In the same way if you push a vegan into saying beef is better than pork, that doesn’t mean they consider beef an acceptable food.
You have not addressed why this is not a viable strategy at all.
Because you haven’t demonstrated it to be a viable strategy…
Can you give examples of this tactic playing out favorably in the past? How does your 3rd party vote materialize into meaningful, actionable pressure on the Democrats? Why am I not surprised you didn’t say “We’ll endorse the Democrats / Republicans if and only if they do X.”?
It’s possible to change things without winning.
Not under FPTP.
If anything, it’d be better to wail on the walls in the room with more fire, to die quicker. But the point is that that doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is escape.
If the only thing that matters is escape, then the only thing that makes sense is choosing the scenario that’s most likely to allow for it. Which is to move to the area with less fire. This should be absurdly obvious.
You can’t have both. If you choose the room with more fire then you’re admitting that your whole position is a facade and you’re actually just a deluded accelerationist. Which we both know you aren’t.
And as I already stated, “better” does not mean “acceptable.” In the same way if you push a vegan into saying beef is better than pork, that doesn’t mean they consider beef an acceptable food.
If you think both of the only 2 possible outcomes are unacceptable, then acceptability is a moot point. Better and worse still exist, and you already agreed on which is which.
Because you haven’t demonstrated it to be a viable strategy…
Can you give examples of this tactic playing out favorably in the past?
Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters. It’s very intuitive that if a significant number of people defect from a party, the party will be reconsidering the issue that caused the break. I don’t think this needs to be proven.
Why am I not surprised you didn’t say “We’ll endorse the Democrats / Republicans if and only if they do X.”?
Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?
If the only thing that matters is escape, then the only thing that makes sense is choosing the scenario that’s most likely to allow for it.
…what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the “more comfortable fire to die in” is because escape was ruled out entirely.
If you think both of the only 2 possible outcomes are unacceptable, then acceptability is a moot point.
Yeah, people already explained to you that you can choose neither beef nor pork and you will get neither beef nor pork, but if you choose neither the geriatric loony nor the sane candidate, you will still definitely get one of them. The vegan analogy is bogus because it’s a scenario in which there’s a free choice from a vast number of options. You keep saying you want neither, but you can’t have neither. You have to have one of them as president.
What a vegan wants isn’t just to not eat either pork or beef, but for neither animal to be killed. You can kill them anyway, but that doesn’t mean I have to eat. Same way, you can elect whichever of the awful candidates you want, but I don’t have to support them.
No. I don’t live in a swing state, but even if I did, I wouldn’t. However, I can respect their decision as long as they respect mine.
I’m not asking about you and your vote, I’m asking about the position and rhetoric you push around here.
If you agree that Kamala would be better than Trump short and long term, and that one of them will be president, then how can you, in good faith, advocate for people not to vote in a way that increases the odds of the better option and decreases the odds of the worse one?
Because one being better than the other is not the same as being an acceptable choice. If I’m in a burning building, what fundamentally needs to happen is that I escape. You can argue that the flames on one side of the room are higher than the flames on the other side of the room, but I don’t care, because if I stay in the room I’ll die. The only thing that matters is finding the door.
You asked if I thought a third party could win this election, and the answer is no. But could a third party win a future election? The answer to that is yes, maybe. The results of this election will inform voters in future elections of whether a third party is viable. The most important thing is increasing the chances of getting to an acceptable outcome, everything else is secondary to that goal.
In the meantime, voting third party can influence things in other ways. If the Democrats can only win by getting a third party’s endorsement, then they can potentially be brought to the bargaining table.
But you already agreed that for swing state voters, there are effectively only 2 choices, and that one is better than the other in both the short and long term.
Again, you agreed that escape is effectively not an option through voting. Moving toward the side of the room with fewer flames is objectively the better choice while you work on establishing an escape.
Why on earth would you stand in the middle and let the fire decide?
No. Not in a first-past-the-post system. Can’t happen.
I bet we’d agree that that system needs to change, but it will not happen by voting 3rd party every 4 years.
Precisely. And within this system, with this short of a runway, Kamala is the only acceptable out of the 2 outcomes we agree are the only 2 possible.
Hold up. All I agreed with is that in this election, it wasn’t realistic for a third party to win. You’re trying to take that as meaning there’s no reason to vote third party. As I explained, it’s possible for third parties to wield influence, and giving them more votes gives them more ability to do that.
There are effectively two possible winners but that’s not the same as there being effectively two choices. The question isn’t “Do you think a third party can win this election,” the question is, “Do you think voting third party cause any positive effects?” to which my answer is yes.
I did no such thing. You’re twisting my words and jumping to conclusions.
I’m amazed that you managed to miss the point that hard. I don’t give a shit which fire is more comfortable to burn to death in. If there’s no way out, then I will still try to wail on the walls until I can’t anymore.
Kamala is fundamentally unacceptable. Again, you’re just acting like things are established when they very much are not.
Again – no shot. Not in FPTP. You virtue signaling every 4 years has never and will never change that.
Yes you did. You agreed that that only Trump or Kamala will be president after this election. Don’t backtrack, there’s a reason I insisted on these answers.
Again, why would you not wail on the walls in the room with less fire? What an absurd stance…
Again, you already agreed she is the better option of the only 2 outcomes that will happen. Don’t twist my words ;)
That is incorrect. Lets say the polls show, Green 15%, Democrat 40%, Republican 45%, and the Greens say, “We’ll endorse the Democrats if and only if they do X.” You have not addressed why this is not a viable strategy at all. Saying “no shot” doesn’t make it true.
That’s not the same thing. You’re conflating “being able to win this election” with “being able to ever change things.” It’s possible to change things without winning, and it’s possible for future elections to be different. You’re taking a much more limited claim and expanding it to a much larger one that I never agreed with.
If anything, it’d be better to wail on the walls in the room with more fire, to die quicker. But the point is that that doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is escape.
And as I already stated, “better” does not mean “acceptable.” In the same way if you push a vegan into saying beef is better than pork, that doesn’t mean they consider beef an acceptable food.
Because you haven’t demonstrated it to be a viable strategy…
Can you give examples of this tactic playing out favorably in the past? How does your 3rd party vote materialize into meaningful, actionable pressure on the Democrats? Why am I not surprised you didn’t say “We’ll endorse the Democrats / Republicans if and only if they do X.”?
Not under FPTP.
If the only thing that matters is escape, then the only thing that makes sense is choosing the scenario that’s most likely to allow for it. Which is to move to the area with less fire. This should be absurdly obvious.
You can’t have both. If you choose the room with more fire then you’re admitting that your whole position is a facade and you’re actually just a deluded accelerationist. Which we both know you aren’t.
If you think both of the only 2 possible outcomes are unacceptable, then acceptability is a moot point. Better and worse still exist, and you already agreed on which is which.
You’re destroying them at their own game. This is fucking beautiful!
Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters. It’s very intuitive that if a significant number of people defect from a party, the party will be reconsidering the issue that caused the break. I don’t think this needs to be proven.
Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?
…what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the “more comfortable fire to die in” is because escape was ruled out entirely.
No, it isn’t. Unacceptable means unacceptable.
Yeah, people already explained to you that you can choose neither beef nor pork and you will get neither beef nor pork, but if you choose neither the geriatric loony nor the sane candidate, you will still definitely get one of them. The vegan analogy is bogus because it’s a scenario in which there’s a free choice from a vast number of options. You keep saying you want neither, but you can’t have neither. You have to have one of them as president.
What a vegan wants isn’t just to not eat either pork or beef, but for neither animal to be killed. You can kill them anyway, but that doesn’t mean I have to eat. Same way, you can elect whichever of the awful candidates you want, but I don’t have to support them.