null

Because one being better than the other is not the same as being an acceptable choice.

But you already agreed that for swing state voters, there are effectively only 2 choices, and that one is better than the other in both the short and long term.

If I'm in a burning building, what fundamentally needs to happen is that I escape. You can argue that the flames on one side of the room are higher than the flames on the other side of the room, but I don't care, because if I stay in the room I'll die.

Again, you agreed that escape is effectively not an option through voting. Moving toward the side of the room with fewer flames is objectively the better choice while you work on establishing an escape.

Why on earth would you stand in the middle and let the fire decide?

You asked if I thought a third party could win this election, and the answer is no. But could a third party win a future election? The answer to that is yes, maybe. The results of this election will inform voters in future elections of whether a third party is viable.

No. Not in a first-past-the-post system. Can't happen.

I bet we'd agree that that system needs to change, but it will not happen by voting 3rd party every 4 years.

The most important thing is increasing the chances of getting to an acceptable outcome, everything else is secondary to that goal.

Precisely. And within this system, with this short of a runway, Kamala is the only acceptable out of the 2 outcomes we agree are the only 2 possible.

I'm not asking about you and your vote, I'm asking about the position and rhetoric you push around here.

If you agree that Kamala would be better than Trump short and long term, and that one of them will be president, then how can you, in good faith, advocate for people not to vote in a way that increases the odds of the better option and decreases the odds of the worse one?

In that case, do you think people in swing states should vote for Kamala?

So in the short and long term, based on our best assessments, we agree the better outcome of this election is for Kamala to win over Trump*.

Do you also agree that there is an (effectively) 0% chance of a third-party candidate winning this election? That come election night, the winner will either be Kamala or Trump?

And in the long term?

(Thank you for finally answering)

There is no conceivable situation where I would vote for either.

Since you refuse to engage, let's rephrase:

Which would be the better outcome, Trump winning, or Kamala winning?

Let me make this simple for the people that might be swayed by your rhetoric.

When you throw away your vote, you will still be forced to have either Kamala or Trump as your president after the election. That's a simple fact.

But as a vegan, you will continue to have the option of not eating any meat.

Again, you're not stupid enough to actually try and make that comparison. I'm just appalled that you're so disingenuous that you'd do it anyways.

I must have missed that footnote in their rhetoric.

Come on, guy.

Of course I understand what a hypothetical is, and I answered what I would do in the situation you presented me with.

No, you created your own hypothetical and answered based on that. My hypothetical has only 2 possible answers, and you refuse to answer it because you know it dismantles your stance.

The hypothetical you presented about asking a vegan if they'd eat pork or beef is perfectly valid by the way. If they answered "neither" they would also not be answering the question. But that wouldn't make veganism indefensible, don't put words in my mouth.

Do you just not understand what a hypothetical is?

For those reading, the reason Objection won't answer this very simple question is because they're smart enough to know exactly where I'm going with it, and they know that it reveals their position as indefensible.

This is the Lemmy Lefty playbook to a T.

Again, the question is Kamala or Trump, no other options.

Can you answer this very simple question?