Incorrect. It’s unlikely, but “we can’t know that for sure.” Republicans were, at one point, “the third party.” You can’t keep going back to “what we likely know is true” because we’ve already established that “what is likely true” only matters when it helps your point, and ignored when it hurts it.

Neither a third party candidate nor an independent candidate has ever won the presidential election in this country. That’s not a statistical anomaly. We live in a two party system.

I tend to agree here. Except when it comes to who you support for POTUS. If you’re voting for a candidate, literally the thing that most shows your support for a candidate, you can’t say they don’t support the candidate they are literally voting for. Well, you can say it, but we’ve already established that you will say bat-shit crazy things in a desperate attempt to not be wrong.

For the purposes of counting votes, voting third party or independent for a presidential election is the same as not voting.

No, it’s absolutely an ad hominem. Like the most pure form of it. You are questioning their motives instead of what they are literally saying. It’s a textbook case of it. Do you mind if I point some students to this in the future as a perfect example of the ad hominem?

No, I refuted their central point in that statement by establishing the logical contradiction there in. I think the most obvious reason for them to say a meaningless statement like that is to save face. This supposition about their motive for doing such a thing is not the refutation of their central point.

Your central point is that they are supporting Trump. That paragraph of desperate nonsense that kind of loosely resembles logic is your argument for that point. But make no mistake about it, your central point is that they are Trump supporters. Something they explicitly have said is untrue, and the only refutation you have against what they have expressly said is an unsupported accusation that they are lying, which is an ad hominem. You’re argument falls apart because it relies on an unsupported attack on their character for it to be true, and you pointed out early how bad arguments that rely on ad hominems are. Of course, you were wrong at the time that my argument hinged on an ad hominem, I was just insulting someone who kind of deserves it, but you were right that if your argument relies on it, like yours does, that it’s pretty clear how “unconvincing” your argument is.

This is at least in the right ball park. Again, I think they are pro-trump in the sense that they are supporting him in the presidential election. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that most of these people voted Biden in 2020 and do not identify as MAGA hat wearing Republicans.

Anyway, I think you have the idea now. Refuting an argument’s central point makes for arguments that are far more persuading.

Except, of course, the fact that you can actually support pretty much anyone you want for POTUS and are not restricted to the two major parties, and the fact that they have openly said that they don’t support Trump. I mean, those are only the most damning facts for your argument. There are plenty of others that we have hashed over that also demolish your self-contradictory position.

It is well understood no third party candidates or independent candidates have any chance at winning the presidential election. Choosing a candidate who has no chance of winning is the same as not voting for the purpose of counting votes. The only real options are Republicans or Democrats for presidential elections.

But, of course, by accusing them of lying, this is also an ad hominem. Something you were hilariously and hypocritically up in arms about me doing just a little while ago. I’m shocked it took me this long to realize that that accusation was just a warning that you were going to do it at some point.

This is not an ad hominem because I am pointing out the logical contradiction in their statement. Rather than directing my arguments at them, I am refuting their central point in their statement.

edit: Adding this to respond to your edit.

Your central point is absolutely demolished by the fact that they explicitly said they don’t support Trump.

Again, here is my refutation of their central point:

The fact that the statement is meaningless can be deduced from the fact we live in a two party system. Since one candidate must win and the other must lose the situation is a zero-sum game. We also know that Trump, as the presumed Republican candidate, will benefit from low voter turnout as all Republican candidates generally do. Not to mention these peoples’ movement resets on the idea they can influence the election simply by not voting for Biden in order to punish the Democratic party. In short, we know the statement “We’re not supporting Trump” is false, because all the available facts contradict it. All their statement proves is that they don’t want to admit they are supporting Trump in the election.

If you want to refute my central point in your argument, then direct your argument at this paragraph.

The fact that the statement is meaningless can be deduced from the fact we live in a two party system. Since one candidate must win and the other must lose the situation is a zero-sum game. We also know that Trump, as the presumed Republican candidate, will benefit from low voter turnout as all Republican candidates generally do. Not to mention these peoples’ movement resets on the idea they can influence the election simply by not voting for Biden in order to punish the Democratic party. In short, we know the statement “We’re not supporting Trump” is false, because all the available facts contradict it. All their statement proves is that they don’t want to admit they are supporting Trump in the election.

I read the posted article and saw their claim that they don’t support Trump. I did not take their word at face value because I saw the contradiction in their statement.

Your argument is good at making it seem like it won the debate and its aggressive nature makes it seem like it is constantly on the attack. But ultimately a lot of effort is wasted on posturing without delivering any substance with it. With half as much effort put at refuting my argument’s central point, your arguments would be much more compelling.

“We don’t have two options. We have many options,” Jaylani Hussein, director of Minnesota’s Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chapter, said at a press conference in Dearborn, Michigan, when asked about Biden alternatives. “We’re not supporting (former President Donald) Trump,” he said, adding that the Muslim community would decide how to interview other candidates.

This is the kind of meaningless statement I’ve been talking about in my argument. They are planning on not voting for Biden in historic swing states so that he loses and Trump wins. Them saying “We’re not supporting Trump” doesn’t mean anything if they help Trump win an election. They are empty words meant to save face. Another way to put it is this person is lying.

Literally and explicitly straight from the horse’s mouth. If you’re committed to addressing the arguments in good faith, you’ll admit that you are wrong now. Well, of course, unless you’re a troll or a complete idiot. And, no, that’s actually not a false dichotomy.*

The reality of that is so obvious, given what we know about our election system and the two parties we have to choose from, that simply stating the opposite isn’t a compelling argument. Rather than trying to articulate why the opposite is true, your argument simply relies on ad hominem statements. But this topic has nothing to do with me and thus your argument isn’t persuasive.

*actually it probably is, there are probably a number of other embarrassing reasons you might try to deny it. And based on how much you’ve simply ignored reality in this debate during while “arguing” in “good faith” I’m sure you’ll try. lol

Also, a good faith discussion doesn’t mean one of the people arguing has to admit that they’re wrong. I believe another person can see my arguments and not be convinced by them.

Ignoring the context in which that statement was made to misrepresent it, attacking that, and then accusing me of straw-manning. Hilarious.

The context was another straw man.

lol. It’s literally my argument that you only accept your logic when it supports your point. You just unintentionally admitted I am right.

Perhaps reread my sentence. I fully believe my argument’s logic is consistent across all circumstances you have raised in your argument. I believe this because that is the case.

support neither.

Not voting for either candidate benefits the Republicans. The people we are discussing are basing their movement around this idea.

You’re confusing “this is a bad idea that is going to hurt you” with “supporting Trump.”

These concepts are not mutually exclusive. They have been doing both of those things.

I need to know, are you actually this dumb or are you just trolling? Your writing makes it sound like you aren’t a complete idiot, but your the content of your arguments reveal a complete lack of critical thought.

I am not relevant to the topic of discussion. But since you asked, I think my commitment to addressing arguments is an indication of my desire to have good faith discussions. That being said the internet is an imperfect mechanism for conveying intentions. So believe what you want about me.

I’m not talking about them.

Then your argument is not addressing my central point and is a Straw Man Fallacy. Once your arguments address my central point instead of other positions, they will improve considerably.

I’m applying your logic to another situation that you are sure to disagree with

Unfortunately for your argument, I do agree with my argument’s logic in the other circumstances so that didn’t work either.

what you are doing is called false dilemma.

Our two party system is a zero-sum game. One candidate must win and the other must lose. Thus it is impossible for anyone to be neutral in such a system. By not voting for Biden in historic swing states, these people are helping Trump to win. They know this to be true, which is why they are organizing a movement around this idea. They think punishing the Democratic party in this way will benefit them in the long run because it will force Democrats to be more progressive. This reasoning is flawed, because if elected, Trump will dismantle our democracy and there will not be future elections.

Again, this is what you are doing. You are the one trying to deny that we have strong confidence in what the swing states are, dismissing the application of your logic there because “we can’t be 100% certain” while at the same time arguing that because more people voting tends to help democrats, that is somehow 100% fact that them not voting is going to help Republicans. You hate your own logic.

High voter turnout helps Democrats. We only know which states have been swing states in the past. Which states will be swing states in the future is conjectured with statistics which by definition is not absolute certainty.

Yes, and again, we “can not know with absolute certainly” that low turn out will help the republicans. It just tends to be that way. Hell, we “can not know with absolute certainly” that these people not voting will even lead to low voter turnout. It might even increase turn out.

We know that low voter turn out benefits Republicans because of how our voting system works and the demographics Republicans appeal to. Suggesting the opposite is baseless speculation.

And thus the people not moving to historic swing states to cast their vote there, are supporting Trump. It’s your logic, my man, not mine. Why the desire to reject your own point is beyond me.

People moving states doesn’t change the number of votes overall, just the demographics and vote count in each state. This would do nothing to help either candidate overall and isn’t relevant to the discussion. The people we are discussing already live in historic swing states.

When that means they are supporting Trump when they aren’t supporting Biden, it’s used. When it means they are supporting Biden because they don’t support Trump. . .well that doesn’t count.

Their statement that they don’t support Trump, when they are actively planning to help him win an election, is meaningless. My argument’s point is that they are supporting Trump with their actions. Actions speak louder than words.

I’m the only one consistently applying your logic. You just hate it because your ego is too big to admit you’re just plain wrong.

Your argument is what is known as a Straw Man Fallacy.

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-straw-man/

You have to be joking. This has to be a clever troll. By no stretch of the imagination am I ignoring the premise. My whole argument is using your logic in another case to demonstrate how bunk it is. Every attempt you make to dismiss this also dismisses your own argument. How you can call this “ignoring” it makes no sense. Additionally, I’ve ignored no facts. You just think your opinion is a fact, which it isn’t. You know what is among “the facts that are generally accepted”? That there are known swing states. You’re seeing your own faults in me, but I assure you they are yours and yours alone.

This post is a perfect example of what your argument includes. Your argument tries to apply my argument’s logic to a more general circumstance to demonstrate its incorrectness. I explain in my argument that my logic is correct more generally, I give examples, and explain that the more general cases are irrelevant when discussing the specific case. Then your argument attempts to use word play to make it seem my argument’s explanation for the more general case contradicts the more specific case when it does not.

You assert in your argument that my argument’s logic, in the general case, contradicts the logic for the specific case we are discussing. Your argument does this in order to make it appear it is building a case, but no where did your argument actually do so. All the while your argument never addresses the actual topic of discussion and simply dismisses the know facts. Your argument boils down to an attempt to pretend as if your argument demonstrated a flaw in my argument’s logic without actually having done so. Your argument is an exercise in theater, because your argument lacks anything of substance to refute my central point.

In this new post your argument opens with a series of ad hominem statements. Your argument then contains an explanation for what it is unsuccessfully trying to do. Another ad hominem statement is thrown into the mix. Then your argument misrepresents what my argument has stated in order to mislead.

We can know which states have historically been swing states, and I refer to such states as historic swing states. I make this distinction because a person can not know with absolute certainly if their historic non-swing state could become a swing state in the next election. That is to say more generally, given enough low voter turnout, any state will flip Republican because Republicans benefit from low voter turnout. This is especially true in historic swing states where we have every reason to believe the election will already be close. Thus the people threatening to make Biden lose by utilizing their knowledge of our voting system, to not vote in historic swing states, are supporting Trump.

Your argument has failed to refute my point in the more general case. My argument’s logic is consistent across the more specific and general cases, despite your argument’s assumption to the contrary. Since there is no contradiction, your argument simply pretends that there is, which isn’t particularly convincing. And the general case is not relevant to our discussion, because we are specifically referring to a group of people who are planning not to vote in historic swing states. Your argument has yet to touch on the specific case we are discussing, instead focusing solely on the unrelated general case. edit: typo

We know as much as we can know anything, when it comes to elections, in regards to low voter turn benefiting Republicans. In 2016 Hillary Clinton lost because of low voter turnout in key swings states. In 2020 Biden won because of high voter turnout in key swing states. These people are planning on using that information to ensure low voter turnout in key, historic swings states in the 2024 election so Biden loses. Your argument ignores the premise of what we are discussing and the facts that are generally accepted to be true and thus is not compelling. My point is that by choosing to make Biden lose in a two party system, where we know low voter turn favors Republicans, they are supporting Trump. No amount of word play, off topic tangents, or ad hominem attacks, that your argument uses, will change that.

Your own link kind of supports my point.

No, there were people that were lead to believe that these states were not swing states when they were in fact swing states. Thus countering your argument’s point that a person can be absolutely certain if their state is a swing state.

Trying to make it a dichotomy, because our system tends towards two parties, doesn’t reflect reality.

It does reflect reality. We live in a two party system. An argument that relies on denying this fact is not compelling.

Absolutely relevant because you are claiming that non action that helps trump win is support from trump, even with pretty explicit lack of support for trump. Repeating that “we don’t know for sure” it will help him win, thus it doesn’t count, is a double-edge sword for you because these people pulling their support for Biden might lead to other people to support him, thus it helps him. So we can’t know for certain this will hurt him, thus dismantling your own point too.

We know for sure that low voter turn out helps Republicans and thus Trump. People not voting for Biden reduces the number of votes he will get. There is no measurable effect that demonstrates more people will vote for a candidate if other people say they won’t vote for them. This is baseless speculation.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Watch me.

The fact that swing states are not static is irrelevant.

This is the core part of what we are discussing. These voters are planning on not voting, in historic swing states. This will drive those states further to the right in the presidential election.

Yes because they, explicitly, support neither candidate. Yet this is support for one candidate to you, because we live in a two party system

It’s math. If Trump gets more votes, because Biden got fewer votes, Trump wins. The people who withhold their votes from Biden will have supported Trump. Saying they don’t support Trump while actively helping him win doesn’t hold any water.

No one thinks your argument is complicated, it’s just based on ridiculously thoughtless logic that is often, if not always, self contradictory. To accuse me of splitting hairs is the same “making it about me” that you are whining about here.

The reason my argument isn’t complicated is because it relies on facts and logic. Your arguments rests on dogging around the word support to conflate supporting Trump in the election with being a MAGA Trump supporter. I have been addressing your argument. These statements about my thoughts are directed at me. edit: typo

I don’t know what the “blue wall” is

https://web.archive.org/web/20150322214945/http://rare.us/story/democrats-say-a-2016-electoral-college-blue-wall-means-republicans-cant-win-wrong/

As I said, some people suspected the blue wall theory was wrong, but the Democratic party pushed the idea that these states were solid blue strong holds which turned out to be wrong. The point is a person could reasonably believe their state is not a swing state before an election, so they assume their vote doesn’t matter, and then be in for a rude awakening after the election. Hindsight is 20/20.

So using your own logic, that their inaction of not-supporting Biden makes them Trump supporters

Mathematically speaking that is the case, since we live in two party system. If a group of people makes Biden lose with low voter turnout they are supporting Trump, since one of the two candidates has to win.

if you live in a non-swing state

Again this is not relevant as the group of people we are discussing are planning on not voting, in historic swing states. I will point out there is no source that can verify with 100% certainty which of the 50 states with be swing states in 2024. There are of course some good guesses backed up with statistics, but statistics are not guarantees. If enough people decide to not vote, any state is more likely to swing Republican as the system disproportionality benefits low population areas that tend to go Republican.

Swing state doesn’t mean “it’s going to go from one party to another” it means “the outcome is reasonably uncertain.”

Yes. For example, the results in Florida used to be considered reasonably uncertain, with either party having a chance to win, but now they are a solid red state that consistently votes Republican. Our focus is in on swing states that might turn red for the presidential race because of low voter turn out in 2024.

You know who else won’t vote in swing states? People who don’t live there. Again, your logic, if you don’t move to a swing state, you are helping Trump.

This tangent isn’t helping your argument. Again, we don’t know for certain which states will be swing states in the next election. But regardless of that it isn’t relevant because these people are threatening to not vote, in historic swing states.

But they are also not supporting Trump so using this busted-ass logic, they are also Biden supporters. It’s mind-boggling it’s still being argued.

It is not the case that a typical voter in this country is completely random. While it is a generalization, the Democrats represent people in and around high population cities, where as Republicans represent low populations in rural areas. More people in America are represented by the Democratic party. A minority of people are hard core Trump supporters. If enough people voted, Democrats would dominate in elections across the country. But again, this tangent isn’t relevant. We are talking about a specific group of people in historic swing states, that are threatening not to vote.

I didn’t say you were, I just pointed out how little critical thought seemed to be going into the argument that I was “splitting hairs” when, in reality, it is you splitting hairs.

This sentence from your argument references me and not my argument. My thoughts have no bearing on this conversation. But since you asked, my argument is not particularly complicated as it relies on the fact we live in a two party system where Republicans win with low voter turn out. People threatening to not vote for Biden are supporting Trump. As I wrote before, it is your argument splitting hairs over the word support.

Trump didn’t win any blue states, he won most of the swing states. And we also knew these were the close states, and we know which states are likely to be close again. This idea that “well, we plumb just don’t know what will be close states” is pretty much nonsense.

This is a dumb argument used to totally miss the point.

We didn’t know they were swing states at the time. Some people suspected, but most people were surprised when the blue wall fell. It’s not missing the point. If enough Democratic voters don’t vote in any state, Republicans win, because Republicans win with low voter turn out. Apathy is how fascism wins.

Also, these people are planning on not voting in states that they believe are swing states, so your argument’s tangent misses the point.

Muslim Americans in swing states launch anti-Biden campaign

What if that person had voted, they would have voted for Trump? That voter is now hurting Trump’s chances, but according to this big-brain logic, that voter is actually helping Trump! lol.

Again.

Muslim Americans in swing states launch anti-Biden campaign

Muslim Americans have already been targeted as scapegoats with Trump’s travel ban which targeted Middle Eastern countries. So they probably weren’t planning on voting Trump. Regardless, if a hard core Trump supporter doesn’t vote then that is a detriment to Trump. But hard core Trump voters aren’t typical voters. While this is a generalization, people living in cities tend to vote blue and the majority of people live in or near cities. So if more people voted, Democrats should do better in elections.

You literally just argued “well, we don’t know for sure which are going to be swing states!” in an attempt to take down my point, and you’re accusing me of splitting hairs by pointing out that not supporting Biden does not mean you support Trump. Holy shit, this is hilarious. Do you even think about what you write down?

We never know the results of elections before hand, so we don’t know which states will be swing states in future elections. We know which states were swings states before, but voter turn out has been the greatest deciding factor in the last two presidential elections. So we need to call out the people who are threatening not to vote in historic swing states. But we also need to call out voters in historic non-swing states because those states could become swing states in the next election.

…not supporting Biden does not mean you support Trump.

We live in a two party system. If Biden loses then Trump wins. By not supporting Biden, they are supporting Trump.

Do you even think about what you write down?

I am not relevant to the topic of discussion.

Republicans typically represent rural communities with low populations and high surface area. The electoral college votes are allocated to states based on the number of senators and representatives. Both of these are in turn skewed in favor of Republicans as each state gets two senators no matter what and the total number of house seats is capped at 435. Since neither chamber is properly apportioned by population, Republicans are overrepresented in both chambers.

Using this tortured logic, if one doesn’t move to a swing state, even if they support and vote for Biden, their non action inadvertently helps trump get elected, so they actually support Trump.

No one knows for sure which states are swing states until it’s too late. Remember the blue wall in 2016? Not enough democrat voters showed up and what were supposedly blue states went to Trump.

If a person doesn’t vote in an election then they are helping Republicans. If a person doesn’t vote for Biden then they are helping Trump.

A person doesn’t have to declare their undying loyalty to a candidate in order to support them. Making the other guy lose the election is sufficient. Your argument is splitting hairs.

It is that black and white. We live in a two party system, that’s reality. It’s not twisting words, it’s math. If one candidate doesn’t win, the other candidate does. Republicans are overrepresented by the electoral college, not voting helps them win. The support may be inadvertent, but it’s still support. They can say they don’t support Trump all they want. If they don’t vote for Biden, they are supporting Trump.

I’m a trans, jewish, atheist, social democrat. I’m on the chopping block as much as you or anyone else if Trump wins in 2024. I’m going to be warrioring my keyboard up all of your asses if it means more people vote for Biden. Under a fascist dictatorship, I could very well be too dead to hear your judgments so keep them coming.

Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza strip against Palestinians. That doesn’t mean I’m going to go easy on people who inadvertently enable ethnic cleansing and genocide here in the US. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Our imperfect democracy is the best tool we have to enact positive change. Once it’s gone, typing about it won’t bring it back. So I’m going to type about it for as long as I can.

We have until November 5th, 2024 to convince people to vote against fascism. That means pointing out abstaining from voting or voting third party helps Trump and the fascists. A fascist takeover doesn’t benefit the Palestinians in the short term and it doesn’t benefit them in the long term. Biden is a hard pill to swallow, and we are going to have to remember that when we try to sell people on him, but silence in the face of fascism is death. edit: typo

I saw their reasoning and it is flawed. We might not even get a 2028 election if Trump wins in 2024. We are heading to a christofascist dictatorship under the Republican party. Once they get power they are going to do everything they can to keep it.

It takes activism between elections to push the Democratic party further to the left. Abstaining spits in the face of our democracy and the people fighting to keep it. It does nothing to influence Democratic politicians.

We live in a two party system. If you are against one presidential candidate, then you are helping the other presidential candidate. Attempting to make Biden lose makes them pro-Trump, as Trump ultimately beneifts. They can say it is long term thinking, but that doesn’t change the fact that Trump put three supreme court judges and many more lower court judges into office in one, four year term. Giving Republicans control is going to set us back decades.

We live in a two party system. If you form a coalition to make Biden lose, then you’re making Trump win. They’re pro-Trump because they’re helping Trump. What’s going on is a fascist takeover of our country. We aren’t giving slack to anyone who enables fascism. The fascists will kill more people not less. This is bad short term thinking and bad long term thinking. The reward for helping fascists is death.

My parents might have handed me some change to operate the box of newspapers outside the grocery store when I was three or four so I could try opening it. But I’m not even sure if I got to do that.

30

Newspapers. You paid for it, and it still got ads.

I have never done this and I doubt I ever will.