• null@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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?

    • OBJECTION!
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Under FPTP, one can absolutely use their vote to denounce a candidate and vote against them taking office.

      Only by contradicting yourself. To denounce a candidate is to say that you shouldn’t vote for them.

      Do you need me to link that for you?

      None of those things are the same as concluding that voting for Kamala is tactically correct, which I have repeatedly explained to you and been completely consistent on. That you think I should conclude that is not the same as me concluding it. To say that that’s what I concluded and that I already conceded the point when I’ve plainly told you otherwise is a blatant lie. You will retract that claim or this conversation is over, I will not continue with someone who lies about what I said.

      • null@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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”.

        • OBJECTION!
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I’m getting an error of “max comment depth reached,” so it seems we’ll have to call it.

        • OBJECTION!
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Prove it.

          To denounce a candidate is to say that you shouldn’t vote for them. To vote for a candidate who you say doesn’t deserve a vote is self-contradiction.

          Define “tactically correct”.

          A tactically correct action is an action that best furthers your goals.

          • null@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            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?