- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”
“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”
Because that’s how election math works; a vote for Harris is taking a vote away from a third-party candidate and is giving it to Trump. So people who vote for Harris are really trying to help Trump win.
That’s the Lemmy logic that gets thrown at me all day every day, so I’m a believer now. You did it Lemmy!
Oh, I thought you were debating in good faith. My bad.
But I do believe that. And I am voting third party. So it is in good faith.
Yeah, they’ve never done anything in good faith. They’re allergic to it. Their main goal in life is to be an infuriating contrarian that everyone despises.
That does seem to be the case. Nobody can be that stupid. Just a troll doing troll stuff.
Yep. A shitbird through and through.
That math would only work if Harris was lower in the polls. If she had less of a chance to win.
She is tied for first place. So your math is backwards. A vote for a third party is taking votes from Harris.
I stand by what I said.
You are going for a degree in education, and you can’t understand how if Harris is higher in the polls, that a vote for somebody else is taking a vote away from her? You plan to teach individuals but can’t understand how if person is higher in the polls that if you vote for somebody who is lower in the polls, you’re taking votes from the person higher in the polls?
I mean technically a vote for anybody else is taking a vote away from somebody else, But I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of people would not see it your way.
You seem to be implying some light mockery of my degree, yet it seems you missed the nuance of my comment, which was actually turning the same logic people use against third-party voters back on them.
The point is to show how absurd it sounds when you reverse the argument. You say voting for anyone else is taking votes from Harris, but by that logic, wouldn’t voting for Harris be stealing votes from candidates who represent real change?
I understand how polls work, but I also understand that we’re allowed to vote based on who we actually believe in, not just who’s leading in the polls. It’s the classic “vote for the lesser of two evils” mentality, and I’m challenging that by showing how it leads to more of the same.
Better?
I ran an experiment: I only posted the facts without the reasoning. They’re not stupid. They reasoned it out quickly. But, the conclusions disturbed their comfort. It’s comfort they value most. Truth and justice be damned.
If you find one engaging IRL then investment there is a much, much better ROI for our future. All we can do here, in this format, is sow the seeds of doubt.