I’m aware I have no way of solving this problem. Never claimed otherwise.
Then it makes even less sense to vote for a third party because you know it doesn’t do anything.
Even if progressives and leftists managed to get a halfway decent candidate through the primaries all that would happen is that liberals and moderates would be the ones who vote Republican, vote 3rd party or don’t show up. We’re at an impasse.
I’m not taking about the primary, i’m talking about how the vote is done. If we can get rid of fptp voting system, and replace it with something like star voting, then people are more free to vote for who they want instead of using reason and voting strategically. This is the way to increase the chances of getting more liberal people elected.
The rules that it has are I get to choose who I vote for. Not you.
By no stretch of the imagination did I even remotely suggest I get to choose who you vote for.
I can stay home if that would make you feel better?
This is the second bad faith argument you’ve made. Why?
Never going to happen with the kind of candidates who make it through the primaries.
Which is why I said you have to work from the ground up.
Ok then accept I’m going to vote 3rd party and stop trying to convince me to do something else.
I’m defending being rational and reasonable. Even if it won’t convince you, it might stop some other person who reads this from irrationally acting counter productive to their interests.
There is no course of action which is productive to our interests.
If you honestly believe this, then the only rational move is to use your vote strategically to increase the chances of the viable candidate - who most closely aligns with your belief - getting elected. Effectively throwing your vote away on an unviable candidate increases the chances of the candidate less like you will win.
Play the game you’re playing, not the one you wish you were.
And to answer your question, definitely 2. Although I believe i’m missing something.
Not a bad faith argument, and characterizing it as that is disingenuous.
They’re telling you: the ways in which they are willing to participate in the system is to vote for someone they actually care about, or to let the system run itself into the ground. It’s kindof akin to “live free or die”.
If the mentality of “live free or die” does not sound reasonable to you, you are welcome to pursue your own brand of reason. Clearly, they will pursue theirs.
The issue at hand is that the system stops working when people vote based on perceived power. Yes, we should also work to change the system. But the other person is not at all alone in having little faith in the system - and really, that’s what’s holding the system up, mostly - the faith it constantly breaks.
It is absolutely 100% bad faith because they knew exactly what I meant and “staying home” is effectively the same. It was even couched in dismissiveness with the “if that makes you feel better” part.
If the mentality of “live free or die” does not sound reasonable to you, you are welcome to pursue your own brand of reason.
But to defend it like this, maybe you actually can’t see right through it. Or, maybe you just think bad faith arguments are good arguments.
The dismissiveness and “if that makes you feel better” is necessary because you’re getting hot and bothered about what they’re doing in their life. It’s not a bad-faith argument - they are simply telling you the other option they are willing to take. Which they know, I know, you know, and everybody who reads this thread knows is not your preferred outcome, but it clearly demonstrates that that is more of an option to them than toeing the party line in a broken system that they lack faith in.
Regardless of what you consider it, I consider it a reasonable argument and tells you where they stand.
Regardless of the reason for it, it was a bad faith argument, because it doesn’t change anything about the point I made. And you still have not addressed this.
I consider it a reasonable argument and tells you where they stand.
“they know, I know, you know, and everybody who reads this thread knows” where they stand. This isn’t hard to grasp. What I’m pointing out is that their response to it is irrational. We both agree that we would prefer it be different. The difference between us is I understand the game we are playing, and understand I should be using my vote with that in mind. The other poster is just going to throw it away due to vanity, as actually voting third party does absolutely nothing to solve anything.
Their response is not irrational. They feel unrepresented by the system, so they would rather let it fall to pieces and fight, if it comes to that.
The difference is that you wish to win, following the rules of the game. They want to change the game. Perhaps your method will work, perhaps it won’t. But letting it escalate will definitely bring change. Perhaps it will be change they end up hating. Perhaps it’ll be what they want. Either way, things change. Implicit abuses of authority are hard to fight unless you have a solid bead on the issues. Explicit abuses of authority at least give you a target - and if things have gotten to the point of war, you can actually shoot at that target.
In any case, rationality is often the enemy of action. A thousand people waiting until they have the definitively right direction end up doing little. A thousand people with a rough idea of what they want, and willing to take action, win, lose, or draw, will get things done.
This relates to the whole “reality-based community” issue.
Their response is not irrational. They feel unrepresented by the system, so they would rather let it fall to pieces and fight, if it comes to that.
Except I was feeling them out for what is their ultimate goal, and at no point did they say anything about the whole system falling apart. You are trying to rationalize their actions, but it is, frankly, just irrational. But even if it were “let the whole system fall apart” that’s also irrational because, chances are, it’s not them that is going to come out on top. It will continue to be people who currently have the power.
The difference is that you wish to win, following the rules of the game. They want to change the game
Not mutually exclusive. I understand the game I am playing, and play with those rules, and act rationally within those rules. I understand that you don’t change this by voting third party for president. I know that might feel good, like you are doing something, making your voice heard. But it’s just pissing in the wind. If one wants to change this, it comes from the floor up, and it’s something I do push locally as well.
In any case, rationality is often the enemy of action. A thousand people waiting until they have the definitively right direction end up doing little.
We do know the way forward, it’s working from the ground up. It’s getting our election system changed. No single president can change this, which is exactly why protesting the presidential election in this way is pointless.
Some of us are the people the other side wants dead. Taking the gamble on that change is literally risking our lives. I’d much rather a broken government that won’t oppress me to a functional one that will, and anyone who’d argue against that is arguing for betting my life on a positive change
Then it makes even less sense to vote for a third party because you know it doesn’t do anything.
I’m not taking about the primary, i’m talking about how the vote is done. If we can get rid of fptp voting system, and replace it with something like star voting, then people are more free to vote for who they want instead of using reason and voting strategically. This is the way to increase the chances of getting more liberal people elected.
By no stretch of the imagination did I even remotely suggest I get to choose who you vote for.
I can stay home if that would make you feel better?
Never going to happen with the kind of candidates who make it through the primaries.
Ok then accept I’m going to vote 3rd party and stop trying to convince me to do something else.
This is the second bad faith argument you’ve made. Why?
Which is why I said you have to work from the ground up.
I’m defending being rational and reasonable. Even if it won’t convince you, it might stop some other person who reads this from irrationally acting counter productive to their interests.
There is no course of action which is productive to our interests.
As an aside, hypothetically, if you had a choice between:
Which would you choose? You can only pick one and there is no third option in this purely hypothetical situation.
If you honestly believe this, then the only rational move is to use your vote strategically to increase the chances of the viable candidate - who most closely aligns with your belief - getting elected. Effectively throwing your vote away on an unviable candidate increases the chances of the candidate less like you will win.
Play the game you’re playing, not the one you wish you were.
And to answer your question, definitely 2. Although I believe i’m missing something.
I am. I hope to demonstrate the Democrat party is non-viable when it refuses to make material compromises with leftists and progressives.
You admit it’s not a way forward, but then argue as if it is. I don’t follow.
It’s a hail mary that will likely fail.
Who are you even voting for?
Not a bad faith argument, and characterizing it as that is disingenuous.
They’re telling you: the ways in which they are willing to participate in the system is to vote for someone they actually care about, or to let the system run itself into the ground. It’s kindof akin to “live free or die”.
If the mentality of “live free or die” does not sound reasonable to you, you are welcome to pursue your own brand of reason. Clearly, they will pursue theirs.
The issue at hand is that the system stops working when people vote based on perceived power. Yes, we should also work to change the system. But the other person is not at all alone in having little faith in the system - and really, that’s what’s holding the system up, mostly - the faith it constantly breaks.
It is absolutely 100% bad faith because they knew exactly what I meant and “staying home” is effectively the same. It was even couched in dismissiveness with the “if that makes you feel better” part.
But to defend it like this, maybe you actually can’t see right through it. Or, maybe you just think bad faith arguments are good arguments.
The dismissiveness and “if that makes you feel better” is necessary because you’re getting hot and bothered about what they’re doing in their life. It’s not a bad-faith argument - they are simply telling you the other option they are willing to take. Which they know, I know, you know, and everybody who reads this thread knows is not your preferred outcome, but it clearly demonstrates that that is more of an option to them than toeing the party line in a broken system that they lack faith in.
Regardless of what you consider it, I consider it a reasonable argument and tells you where they stand.
Regardless of the reason for it, it was a bad faith argument, because it doesn’t change anything about the point I made. And you still have not addressed this.
“they know, I know, you know, and everybody who reads this thread knows” where they stand. This isn’t hard to grasp. What I’m pointing out is that their response to it is irrational. We both agree that we would prefer it be different. The difference between us is I understand the game we are playing, and understand I should be using my vote with that in mind. The other poster is just going to throw it away due to vanity, as actually voting third party does absolutely nothing to solve anything.
Their response is not irrational. They feel unrepresented by the system, so they would rather let it fall to pieces and fight, if it comes to that.
The difference is that you wish to win, following the rules of the game. They want to change the game. Perhaps your method will work, perhaps it won’t. But letting it escalate will definitely bring change. Perhaps it will be change they end up hating. Perhaps it’ll be what they want. Either way, things change. Implicit abuses of authority are hard to fight unless you have a solid bead on the issues. Explicit abuses of authority at least give you a target - and if things have gotten to the point of war, you can actually shoot at that target.
In any case, rationality is often the enemy of action. A thousand people waiting until they have the definitively right direction end up doing little. A thousand people with a rough idea of what they want, and willing to take action, win, lose, or draw, will get things done.
This relates to the whole “reality-based community” issue.
Except I was feeling them out for what is their ultimate goal, and at no point did they say anything about the whole system falling apart. You are trying to rationalize their actions, but it is, frankly, just irrational. But even if it were “let the whole system fall apart” that’s also irrational because, chances are, it’s not them that is going to come out on top. It will continue to be people who currently have the power.
Not mutually exclusive. I understand the game I am playing, and play with those rules, and act rationally within those rules. I understand that you don’t change this by voting third party for president. I know that might feel good, like you are doing something, making your voice heard. But it’s just pissing in the wind. If one wants to change this, it comes from the floor up, and it’s something I do push locally as well.
We do know the way forward, it’s working from the ground up. It’s getting our election system changed. No single president can change this, which is exactly why protesting the presidential election in this way is pointless.
Some of us are the people the other side wants dead. Taking the gamble on that change is literally risking our lives. I’d much rather a broken government that won’t oppress me to a functional one that will, and anyone who’d argue against that is arguing for betting my life on a positive change