this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
884 points (87.1% liked)

Political Memes

5489 readers
2820 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
rjc@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
884
"No, I'm not doing nothing I'm raising awareness!" (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 weeks ago by Lauchs@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
511 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] null 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Then prove that voting is objectively and endorsement of a candidate/party. That’s your claim.

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." I suppose you could argue they're technically different if you lie about how you're voting or don't tell anyone about it.

For the second, you already agreed previously that it is tactically the best move.

Blatant lie. I have consistently disagreed with that at every single point of this conversation.

[–] null 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] null 2 points 3 weeks ago

Good a place as any.

Cheers.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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 1 points 3 weeks 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?