That's not what you said in the comment I responded to. You claimed that Nader could have won if progressives had voted for him instead of Gore, but there aren't enough progressive votes.

Voting in a FPTP two party system is a coordination game, one where it is mathematically impossible for third parties to win. Pretending otherwise is sadly delusional.

It's like you're trying to decide which building to buy as a group to start co-op housing. Almost everyone prefers building A, but you prefer building B. If you all don't compromise, then there is not enough money and you're all homeless. In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don't believe in democracy, or you're happy with things never getting better.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I said "that argument goes both ways" meaning "my candidate would have won if X, Y, and Z happened" is always valid regardless of the candidate.

You can't rewrite the past, so you're inventing a hypothetical/fictional scenario based on your opinion. In a fictional scenario, anything is possible. Your argument was "if more people voted for Gore, he would have won" and I countered with "if more people voted for Nader, he would have won." You can't claim Gore was the best choice because the best choice is the one who wins the election.

In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don't believe in democracy, or you're happy with things never getting better.

What a joke. The "you" here is the entire American public while "everyone else" is a small handful of wealthy, powerful individuals.

Can you explain how continuing to elect corporate Democrats makes things better? Are we better now than 10 years ago? Are we better than we were 20 years ago? There's obviously a quality of life trend here, and it hasn't trended up in quite a long time. You'll predictably place the blame solely on Republicans even though Democrats make up 50% of that equation. Republicans sure don't seem to have the same issue passing their legislation. Why do you think that is?

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You got 3 upvotes within minutes after you posted on a 2 day old post? And I got 3 downvotes at the same time? You're pathetic.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Lmao what does that have to do with me? Upvotes don't mean anything on lemmy and it's a bit pathetic to whine about them. And if you think I'm using multiple accounts to downvote you, consider that many people sort by "new comments" here since lemmy doesn't get the traffic that reddit does.

You ought to change your username though because you're far from open minded.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

lol Funny how no one else seems to be voting anywhere else in this thread anymore, except minutes after your comment. It’s embarrassing that you’re doubling down. Sociopathic behavior.

It is pointless arguing with someone so devoted to winning an internet debate. Can’t reason with that.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sociopathic behavior is sitting and monitoring an entire post's vote tallies to see how your comment is doing. I literally don't give two shits about the vote counts. The fact that you've abandoned your argument to whine about karma is pretty telling.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

Ah yes, the real problem is the person calling you out on your BS. What an honest and productive conversation I’m missing out on!