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

    Alright, so at least as a theoretical abstraction, it has potential to work. You can argue whether I’m right to try to apply that tactic in this situation, but as a tactic, it is very much logical and coherent.

    You haven’t actually presented any reason why, given that it works in the abstract, it couldn’t work in this situation. All you’ve said is that it won’t work, but unless you can actually support that position there’s no reason to think that.

    • ultranaut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      You didn’t answer my question, and thinking through your answer should make it clear why applying that tactic is the dumbest choice you can make under the circumstances if you genuinely believe Trump winning is the worse outcome.

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

        What do you think voting is doing if its not increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a candidate winning?

        Establishing a credible threat of defection in response to unacceptable policy. Building up a party that actually represents my interests.

        If there’s only two possible outcomes between three choices, and one of those choices is clearly the worst outcome and another one of them is clearly not a possible outcome, which choice would you make and why?

        That question is much too abstract.

        A third party winning this election is not realistic, but there are other tactical and ethical reasons for voting for them that have nothing to do with winning, as I said.