4个月前

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.

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

United States | News & Politics @midwest.social

fukhueson @lemmy.world

4个月前

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-dont-like-trump-or-harris-heres-why-its-still-best-to-vote-for-one-of-them-240632

-3 0

您正在查看对话串的一部分。

显示上下文

267 评论

Me:
You’re using an over-used debating technique where you cast doubt on others by demanding proof of any claims you don’t like but letting statements you agree with stand unchallenged.
You: condescending waffle and deflection. Also you:
If you are right then show the data.
When I point out your asymmetric proof demands you just repeat them.
- I have responded in good faith to each of your criticisms. I have provided polling data when you asked. I have not once waffled.. what do you think that means, exactly?
  I continue to await anyones data driven response to my initial question. "Why are we assuming that all of the third party votes would go to Harris if they were forced to choose between her and Trump?"
  If you have no real input to add then just stop responding.
  
  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.
  
  Are you pretending that you and i are not engaged elsewhere in this comment section where i continue to post data and you continue to post none? Of course i continue to await your data. What else can i do?
  I do this in the interest of an open discussion, despite the absurdity of a) an article giving bold directives to a group of people which are completely based an assertion made within the same article, b) the article giving zero support for this assertion, c) me asking for someone to please back up the assertion, and then d) you and others retorting with "no, you first."
  
  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?
  
  Well, I'm going to ask you a question that you have been ducking for over twelve hours: can one person be three, or were your reasoning, logic, and conclusions based on misuse of inconsistent and unreliable polling data?
  Your attempt to get me to take part in a rehash of the same logic with different data is futile. Your logic is nonsense.
  
  So you're not willing to answer my question?
  I have answered all of yours and responded in good faith to each of your less than civil comments. In fact, i have already answered the very question you just re-asked.
  Are you willing to answer my question, or should we let it drop?
  
  Are you willing to admit that polling data is unreliable and that it's nonsense to do arithmetic on results from separate pools? If not, there's no basis for engaging with you because you'll just repeat the same nonsense with poll after poll until you luck out on one that is less obviously misleading.

267 评论