[-] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 0 points 42 minutes ago

The audience I wish to reach doesn't need their hand held as a child.

[-] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 1 points 44 minutes ago

You failed to be adequate in either reading comprehension or presentation.

[-] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

I'm sorry you feel that way. Try something different next time.

[-] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

need to vote third party on an occasion when third party will actually get that 5% threshold

non sequitur

You weren't really very open to ideas. And, you were the best of the bunch in this thread.

[-] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago

bad citizen. Bad!

[-] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip -1 points 3 hours ago

Do you simply have no answer, or are you withholding them so you can feel smug?

false dichotomy

[-] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 hours ago

I asked a question. I received a fallacy sandwich in return. There's no point in investing further.

Simply naming fallacies isn't teaching.

unsupported

The point of learning fallacies isn't so that you can just name them and feel like you've made a point.

strawman

[-] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 4 points 12 hours ago

The false assumption that most make is that one cycle doesn't effect the next.

However, if a third party garners just 5% of the general election vote for POTUS then their platform and higher quality candidate will be on every ballot in the next cycle.

If there's a third choice on every ballot then the the third party platform places tremendous and immediate pressure upon the platforms of the two major parties. The third party doesn't actually win unless the other refuse to compromise. Long term, the continued threat is of greater value than a subsequent victory.

But, the electoral scheme doesn't work unless leftists trust leftists to determine the collective risk of voting third party for the states they reside in. Even Jacobin failed to trust twice.

Things are pretty fucked. Electoral means are slow. I tend to advocate for boycott, strike, and riot (encompassing a wide scope of wisely breaking laws).

[-] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 2 points 14 hours ago

Accelerationism is more ethical than neoliberal denial. By voting for the bigger evil you've made yourself the lesser evil.

[-] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 3 points 14 hours ago

The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist.

There's false assumptions necessary to reach this conclusion. Typically the false assumption is that the role of a third party is to win. The root cause of making this assumption is often that the scope of evaluation has been limited to one term or cycle.

[-] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 2 points 14 hours ago

If 5% of the general election popular vote for POTUS, knowing that the candidate cannot win, still voted for the Green Party platform then what effect would that have upon the Democratic Party platform?

On a five point difficulty scale this is a two. The test gets way harder than this.

view more: next ›

ReadMoreBooks

joined 3 days ago