You're viewing part of a thread.
False.
Then prove that voting is objectively and endorsement of a candidate/party. That's your claim.
For the second, you already agreed previously that it is tactically the best move.
Then prove that voting is objectively and endorsement of a candidate/party. That’s your claim.
That's just definitionally what those words mean. To say "This candidate is the best choice, I'm voting for them and others should to" is an endorsement, and to say "I endorse this candidate" means, "This candidate is the best choice, I'm voting for them and others should too." I suppose you could argue they're technically different if you lie about how you're voting or don't tell anyone about it.
For the second, you already agreed previously that it is tactically the best move.
Blatant lie. I have consistently disagreed with that at every single point of this conversation.
That's just definitionally what those words mean. To say "This candidate is the best choice, I'm voting for them and others should to" is an endorsement, and to say "I endorse this candidate" means, "This candidate is the best choice, I'm voting for them and others should too."
Under FPTP, one can absolutely use their vote to denounce a candidate and vote against them taking office. Especially if that vote has a chance of actually pushing the needle far enough to make that happen.
Blatant lie. I have consistently disagreed with that at every single point of this conversation.
Blatant lie.
You agreed that:
- Kamala or Trump will be elected president
- Trump losing would be better overall in the short term
- Trump losing would be better overall in the long term
Do you need me to link that for you?
Under FPTP, one can absolutely use their vote to denounce a candidate and vote against them taking office.
Only by contradicting yourself. To denounce a candidate is to say that you shouldn't vote for them.
Do you need me to link that for you?
None of those things are the same as concluding that voting for Kamala is tactically correct, which I have repeatedly explained to you and been completely consistent on. That you think I should conclude that is not the same as me concluding it. To say that that's what I concluded and that I already conceded the point when I've plainly told you otherwise is a blatant lie. You will retract that claim or this conversation is over, I will not continue with someone who lies about what I said.
Only by contradicting yourself.
Prove it.
None of those things are the same as concluding that voting for Kamala is tactically correct
Define "tactically correct".
I'm getting an error of "max comment depth reached," so it seems we'll have to call it.
Good a place as any.
Cheers.
Prove it.
To denounce a candidate is to say that you shouldn’t vote for them. To vote for a candidate who you say doesn't deserve a vote is self-contradiction.
Define “tactically correct”.
A tactically correct action is an action that best furthers your goals.
To denounce a candidate is to say that you shouldn’t vote for them.
Or you can vote against them.
To vote for a candidate who you say doesn't deserve a vote is self-contradiction.
They deserve a vote solely for the reason that doing so is the only possible means of voting against the other candidate. It's not a self-contradiction.
A tactically correct action is an action that best furthers your goals.
What are the goals in this scenario?