I haven't done any trolling at all, nor have I licked any boots. I simply refused to engage with your irrelevant tangent.
All you did was perform a purity test to see if I'm a member of your tribe in order to discredit me, whole deploying thought-terminating cliches to distract from the fact that you were objectively proven wrong.
Edit: Busted!
Wtf is y'all's deal with this shit? You bring up these same two things in every conversation, regardless of how completely irrelevant they are, and then if the other person doesn't kowtow you act like you "busted" them? Absolutely bizarre, nonsensical behavior.
Congratulations, you revealed that I'm not a part of your tribe, which I never pretended to be in the first place. I guess now it doesn't matter that I proved you objectively wrong now, because I'm the "other," so your little in-group can write off anything I say, no matter how correct and sourced it is. Blue MAGA shit.
Lmao, you literally only know two events from all of history, don't you?
Well, for starters, I don't blindly believe anything people say about it.
Lower effort.
That doesn't give people license to lie about him.
Prove it's not. You're the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous. I don't know why you think that would change it so it's impossible for me to address your reasons.
Because the parties you established are the voter, and the party asking for votes. Those are not the parties presented in the original argument.
That's called an analogy.
Of course it does.
No it doesn't.
It establishes the logical framework for the opposing case. Making the opposing case requires additional assumptions, such as, where your minimum requirements ought to be set, exactly how good/bad Biden is, etc. Those would be tangents that I don't really want to get sidetracked by, because my goal was just to establish the logical framework for the opposing case. My comment was long enough as it is, and I've frequently had comments that long been (rudely) dismissed as being too long. My purpose for that comment is not to persuade but to explain.
I’ve never seen any sort of logical response to this argument.
:::spoiler I can provide one, and I'll also say, I've never seen a logical response to this argument, beyond drive-by downvotes.
Voters have something politicians want (votes) and politicians have something voters want (the ability to set policy). That means that there's a negotiation to be had. And the worst thing you can do in a negotiation is to say that you'll unconditionally agree to whatever terms the other side offers.
To use an example, there's a game/social experiment called "The Ultimatum Game." In it, the first player offers the second player an offer on how to split $100, and the second player chooses to accept or deny the offer. If both players behave as rational, "homo economicus" the result will be that player 1 offers a $99-$1 split. But in practice, most second players will reject offers beyond a certain point, usually around $70-$30, and most first players will offer more even splits because of that possibility. The only reason that the $99-$1 case is "rational" is because it's a one-off interaction. There is a cost associated with accepting such a deal, and that cost is that you've established yourself as a pushover for all future interactions, and there is no reason that anyone would offer you more than $1 if the game were repeated.
In the same way, an organized political faction that can credibly threaten to withhold support unless a baseline of demands are met will have more political leverage compared to a faction that unconditionally supports the "lesser evil." If a politician only needs to be marginally less bad than the alternative to win your vote, then they have no incentive to be more than marginally less bad. It's the same way that if you know the second player will act rationally, you can get away with only offering them $1 because $1>$0. Declaring a minimum baseline and sticking to it is a valid political strategy, in the same way "I won't accept less than $30, even if it means I get nothing" is a valid game strategy.
Whether you think that applies in this particular case is another question, but if you were looking for an logical explanation of the reasoning, there it is.
The Count of Monte Cristo will always hold a special place in my heart because I read it as a kid and it was the first real "grown up book" I ever read, and it absolutely hooked me. I was reading it under the covers with a flashlight when I was supposed to be asleep. It has the vivid, detailed descriptions you find in the classics, but without slowing down the pace. There's a bunch of different threads and subplots to follow, and I generally feel like most adaptations don't do it justice, because it takes more than a movie or miniseries to tell the story - the one exception being Gankatsuo (as mentioned here already) which changes the setting but follows the story pretty faithfully, giving it a full season and starting midway through.
On top of the action, adventure, and schemes, it also has social commentary, philosophy, and interesting characters. The count occupies this unique position in the upper class in that he's not old money and not tied to the aristocracy, but not exactly new money either, in that he's not a merchant or capitalist. He's just this free agent with his own agenda and values, and nobody knows what to make of him.
It's fun, it's very thought-provoking, and the imagery is striking. Big fan.
It's a bit of a leap, but I think there's some similarities with another one of my favorites, Crime and Punishment. In fact, looking back at what I wrote, "On top of the action, adventure, and schemes, it also has social commentary, philosophy, and interesting characters" is exactly on point for it too. It feels more modern that the era it was written, I've seen it described as a thriller and I think that fits.