You're viewing part of a thread.
I'm not a psychic, so it's difficult to say, but I will answer Kamala since you are so insistent on unambiguous answers.
So in the short and long term, based on our best assessments, we agree the better outcome of this election is for Kamala to win over Trump*.
Do you also agree that there is an (effectively) 0% chance of a third-party candidate winning this election? That come election night, the winner will either be Kamala or Trump?
Yes.
In that case, do you think people in swing states should vote for Kamala?
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.
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.