null

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?

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".

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?

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.

Obvious, a vote is an endorsement, yes.

Nope, that's merely your opinion.

It's tactically wrong

False.

Accusing me of gaslighting while gaslighting me

Trolls can have a little salami, as a treat.

I think I see where this is headed.

Am I right to say that you view casting a vote as an endorsement of a candidate/party (like MAGA does), rather than as a chess move (like Liberals do)?

Lazy quote changing

Literally changes the quote

You have to be trolling.

It's not "outlandish" at all. You can't agree that it's "extremely obvious" that democrats care about gaining or losing votes in one case and that it's "outlandish" in another, it's completely arbitrary.

I didn't say it was "outlandish" to claim they care about gaining votes. I said it's outlandish to claim that voting 3rd party does anything to meaningfully pressure them into changing their policies to capture your vote. They are more concerned about changing their policies to capture the center-right, like you said.

I don't consider that obvious at all. First off, I dispute the claim that voting third party is "throwing your vote away," because I've already established the effects it can have regardless of not winning

No you have not.

But I also assert that it's better to throw away your vote than to support someone who is fundamentally unacceptable.

That is a ridiculous assertion.

I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser evilism, or to act utilitarianism.

There it is. You don't care any of the work that has to happen over the next 4 years to push for positive change. You just care about virtue-signaling.

"I hope I get to watch you suffer the consequences of your actions since you doomed me too"

"That's a death threat!"

Sure buddy.

You're the one who brought up the question of whether democrats are concerned about me voting Republican.

Right, in response to your ridiculous assertion that voting 3rd party puts any meaningful pressure on them.

The point is that they are concerned about the possibility of gaining or losing voters, which honestly isn't a point I should even have to argue for, because it's obvious.

I agree, it's extremely obvious. I'm not arguing against it. I'm arguing against your claim that voting 3rd party puts any meaningful pressure on Democrats.

I disagree, you haven't established this.

Because it's obvious. The outlandish claim is that throwing away your vote is better than using it to avoid the worse outcome.