communist

joined 4 months ago
[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 5 days ago (5 children)

No, because it only bothers people who are toxically masculine

people who aren't simply think it's stupid

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (13 children)

But it is not correct to say that it benefits Trump without that qualification.

The problem is that in the real world that qualification exists. There is no escaping it.

You're letting the water evaporate... which is no different.

You're letting trump have better odds.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (15 children)

You are being purposely obtuse in pretending otherwise.

Your inaction will benefit trump. End of story.

If you don't vote for kamala, and you support kamala more, you are helping trump.

There are three options:

  1. +1 kamala
  2. 0 kamala
  3. +1 trump, which we will consider -1 for the purposes of this demonstration

Rank them by which benefits trump the most, and you discover that +1 for kamala is better for kamala and worse for trump.

The fact that you cannot understand this is insane. Your inaction is still a choice that benefits the party you least support, because if you had voted for the party you don't least support, you'd be benefitting the party you support.

Even by your own example, not turning the water on will cause the pool to evaporate, which is not as bad as directly draining it, but still causing it to drain more than if you had done something to benefit it. Your inaction has consequences.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 0 points 6 days ago (17 children)

You are failing to take an opportunity to increase Kamala’s chances and decrease Trump’s

that is literally the exact same thing. By not increasing kamalas chances, you have increased trumps chances.

I do not understand how you are confused by this. At this point I have to just accept that there is just something wrong with your brain.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 0 points 1 week ago (20 children)

Neither an increase nor a decrease.

how do you not understand that neither an increase or a decrease, when there are two choices, is equivalent to a neutral vote, and therefore you are increasing the odds of the side that you don't want to win, than if you had voted for the side you do want to win.

How is this so complex for you? I am genuinely baffled.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (22 children)

and the same is a lower chance for the candidate you prefer than if you had voted for them.

How are you confused by this???

if you vote for kamala

+1 chance for kamala

if you do not vote

+0 chance for kamala

If trump is an option, and you didn't increase the chance for kamala, you have increased the chance for trump

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (24 children)

Yes, the same, which is WORSE for the candidate you prefer.

I'm not, I'm encouraging them to vote strategically

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (31 children)

that accomplishes nothing but improving the odds of your last choice. It's not like your vote is an endorsement... everyone knows about strategic voting, so, the fact that you're voting strategically makes it obvious that you don't support that person just because you voted for them.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 5 points 1 week ago (42 children)

Then you would indeed be a kamala supporter and you are indeed negatively impacting your better choice with this

view more: ‹ prev next ›