Skip Navigation

So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them

theconversation.com So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them

If you’re an unhappy voter and want other unhappy voters to hold their noses and vote for the major candidate they least dislike, think about the Golden Rule.

So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them

It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?

269
United States | News & Politics @midwest.social fukhueson @lemmy.world

So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them

-3 0

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
269 comments
  • If you are right then show the data.

    When I point out your asymmetric proof demands you just repeat them.

    I continue to await anyones data driven response to my initial question.

    …and there it is.

    Of course i continue to await your data.

    This actually made me chuckle. It's like you can't help yourself.

    i continue to post data

    It's silly to boast about data that doesn't even add up! It's nonsense data! You claim 3.5% of the country are non-Democrat Trump haters, and conclude that they must all be Republicans because there are 8.5% of the country who are Republican Trump haters!

    Each non-Democrat Trump haters is three Republican Trump haters so the third party voters can't hate Trump?!?!

    This is the data you're so proud of quoting! It's so obviously BS because, and I'm surprised that I have to point it out to you a third time, one people can't be three people. Your math isn't mathing.

    • I've addeessed this every time you've stated it. Rather than continue two threads i am going to link to my response from the other one where i adress it once again. https://lemmy.world/comment/12887849

      • No, you've repeated it every time once stated it. You require proof of statements you disagree with and are uncritical of statements you agree with. It's called confirmation bias and it's very, very normal.

        The difference with you is that you act like you think that believe what you believe because you carefully and neutrally analysed the data and drew only logical conclusions from it. [But we saw where you concluded that 3.5% of Americans were trump hating non democrats and that since 8.5% of Americans were trump hating republicans and that number is bigger, all the trump hating non democrats must be republicans and none of them could possibly be third party, and once you finally understood that you had made a big mistake (because each of the non democrats had to be approximately three republicans), you didn't admit that your argument was flawed, you didn't reconsider your position, you doubled down and just edited the numbers for one and found another poll that was slightly less inconsistent because it only requires 7 non democrats to be 8 republicans which for some reason you now think is logical because, what? 7 and 8 are so close?]

        So no, you're not deciding what you believe is true from what the data tell you, you're frantically trying to find data, any data, that looks even slightly consistent with your pre-conceived opinion, and not even applying basic critical thinking whilst doing it.

        So no, I don't respect your call for proof because your double standards on what constitutes proof are stark and no amount of data or logical thinking can ever cause you to rethink. It's a fools errand for me to start engaging with your logic-free gish gallop.

        • You sound like you're scared that you won't be able to find any good data that supports you.

          you concluded that 3.5% of Americans were trump hating non democrats and that since 8.5% of Americans were trump hating republicans and that number is bigger, all the trump hating non democrats must be republicans and none of them could possibly be third party,

          This is a mischaracterization of the conclusions i made. I have made it clear that i only need to argue for it being possible that half or more of the 3% third partiers could be in favor of Trump over Harris. Of course many of them favor Harris. You find me where i said otherwise. I double dog date you. Im fact, it was the original article that made the preposterous unsupported claim that almost all third partiers are closet-aupportera of one side or the other. My argument this entire time has been that this claim is BS unless someone can provide support for it.

          Since you keep skipping over all of my points in order to get to the part where you criticize me as quickly as possible i am going to ask you exactly one question this time. Please answer.

          What exactly is the range of percentages for anti-Trump Republicans that you would accept to be in support of my conclusion?

269 comments