“We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not.”
That’s gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I’ve heard in a while.
They can: the two statements are not contradictory. You’re making more specific claims unrelated to the topic.
They “can”.
The sun “could” explode tomorrow and kill us all.
But neither will happen and we both know it.
So you agree that saying the sun can explode tomorrow and saying it probably won’t is not contradictory, right? This contradicts your own points.
Don’t forget the last part.
Which doesn’t change the fact that it is not contradictory like you claim it to be.
Hey while you’re here, you wanna bet the $1000 I offered the other guy?
I could use the money.
Again, you don’t understand what contradictory means. Does saying the sun can explode tomorrow and saying it has a low chance of doing so contradictory? Similarly, saying a third party can win if people switch their votes away from the Dems is not contradictory to saying there is a low chance of that happening.
You’re doing a logical fallacy by assuming that statements made about possible alternative events are equivalent to statements that claim the event is likely to happen.
I’ll take that as a no. I wouldn’t take the bet either as we know it won’t happen.
You’re still talking about odds as if it has anything to do with my point. What’s the point of replying if you don’t even understand the point you’re arguing against? Talking to you is like talking to a flat earther. They also like to cling to a single point without actually addressing the actual point people are bringing up.