4mo ago

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

4mo ago

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

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

267 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?
  
  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.
  
  How on earth did you miss the part where i just explained in detail that making claims about what the polls show was something presented by someone on your side of the argument. I am literally here showing how the polls, whether you think they are wortheless or not, do not show what that person was claiming. If your complaint is with polls in general why are you huffing and puffing at me and not at that person. Could it be because that person just so happens to be arguing something that you'd like to be true and i am not?
  
  Because the other person didn't do insane arithmetic between polls in a way that counted some people as three people then defend it three times before backing down, and then refuse to admit for another 24 hours that their logic was flawed.
  
  Because the other person didn't do insane arithmetic between polls
  The other person did no arithmetic at all. Nor did they provide any data at all. But you know what they did do? They claimed that the polling data supported the idea that third partiers support Harris over Trump. And they claimed that a couple very specific types of polling data supported this claim. You know which types? Yep, the exact ones i pulled polling data for. So, critisize the choice of those specific polls all you want, and go on about how i shouldn't compare two polls of disparate groups of people (which was one of my own points before you latched onto it, you're welcome), but in the end you're only making my case for me that the commenter who said the polls support their claim is wrong.
  Since then you have: A) misinterpretted my original comment in which i linked the polls, B) repeated your "1 = 3 = magical math" argument, and most recently, C) cast aspersions on all polling data.
  We are past (A). I have addressed (B) multiple times and until you answer my question about the exact percentage range that you would accept as proof, i will consider your argument defeated. Now (C) i am in complete agreement on, but polling data being unreliable only helps my argument. I.e. if polls are unreliable then why was the other commenter stating that polling data would prove them right? If polling is unreliable then what basis does the article have for claiming that third partiers prefer Harris over Trump?
  before backing down,
  No, no, no. I have asked you a very specific question which you have refused to answer. This is not what me backing down looks like.
  
  B) repeated your “1 = 3 = magical math” argument,
  before backing down,
  No, no, no.
  Oh, sorry, I thought you had backed down from this:
  I took the total percent of voters who disapprove of Trump (52.5%) and subtracted the percent of those voters who are Democrats (49%). The remaining 3.5% is therefore the percentage of voters who disapprove of Trump who are not Democrats.
  I then showed that there are a full 8.5% of voters who are Republicans that dissaprove of Trump
  I mean initially you stood by it, then you said the data was approximate then you found another survey where the numbers were closer (4% rather than 8.5%, but still with a magical 7 non-democrats being 8 republicans), then I thought you accepted that you couldn't do arithmetic with data from different polls, but here you are recanting your admission?
  I have asked you a very specific question which you have refused to answer.
  I have addressed (B) multiple times and until you answer my question about the exact percentage range that you would accept as proof, i will consider your argument defeated.
  Lol. "Give me a precise percentage to use in my meaningless poll arithmetic or you're definitely wrong." isn't as convincing as you think it is. I shall not participate in your illogical nonsense.

267 comments