• OBJECTION!
    link
    fedilink
    -59 hours ago

    Because you haven’t demonstrated it to be a viable strategy…

    Can you give examples of this tactic playing out favorably in the past?

    Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters. It’s very intuitive that if a significant number of people defect from a party, the party will be reconsidering the issue that caused the break. I don’t think this needs to be proven.

    Why am I not surprised you didn’t say “We’ll endorse the Democrats / Republicans if and only if they do X.”?

    Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?

    If the only thing that matters is escape, then the only thing that makes sense is choosing the scenario that’s most likely to allow for it.

    …what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the “more comfortable fire to die in” is because escape was ruled out entirely.

    If you think both of the only 2 possible outcomes are unacceptable, then acceptability is a moot point.

    No, it isn’t. Unacceptable means unacceptable.

    • @Rhoeri
      link
      English
      59 hours ago

      Dude… you are getting wrecked here. You should seriously start thinking about finding something else to do with your time. Because this Isn’t working out very well for you.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters.

      And under FPTP there can only and will only be 2 parties with any real opportunity to enact policy. Do you think the Democrats are worried that you’re going to vote Republican? That the GOP is going to start appealing to Leftists?

      Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?

      Of course not. But the implication is that the Democrats could be influenced. Which is exactly why I can’t agree with advocating for swing state voters to do anything but vote against Trump.

      …what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the “more comfortable fire to die in” is because escape was ruled out entirely.

      Nah, I think escape is possible, but we need to move away from the bigger flames. You’re the one who thinks standing still and letting the fire choose is the way to go – for some reason…

      Unacceptable means unacceptable.

      It sure does. It’s still moot in this context though.

      • OBJECTION!
        link
        fedilink
        -59 hours ago

        Do you think the Democrats are worried that you’re going to vote Republican?

        Yes? That’s why they’re all about Dick Cheney.

        Nah, I think escape is possible, but we need to move away from the bigger flames. You’re the one who thinks standing still and letting the fire choose is the way to go – for some reason…

        Then you agree that escape is what matters and choosing the more comfortable flames to die in is not what’s important. There’s a difference between claiming “I can survive longer in these flames which will help me to escape” vs the previous position you were arguing for, “Forget escaping, what matters is these flames are more comfortable than those flames.”

        It sure does. It’s still moot in this context though.

        No it isn’t.

        • @Rhoeri
          link
          English
          3
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          How many different analogies and what-if scenarios does it take for you to finally have a valid point?

          Jesus man!

          The moment someone calls out your bullshit you move on to another ridiculous version of reality to try and mold into something that resembles an actual point-

          And you fail every time!