Just a moment...
www.axios.com

“We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not.”

That’s gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I’ve heard in a while.

  • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    Incorrect. It’s unlikely, but “we can’t know that for sure.” Republicans were, at one point, “the third party.” You can’t keep going back to “what we likely know is true” because we’ve already established that “what is likely true” only matters when it helps your point, and ignored when it hurts it.

    Neither a third party candidate nor an independent candidate has ever won the presidential election in this country. That’s not a statistical anomaly. We live in a two party system.

    I tend to agree here. Except when it comes to who you support for POTUS. If you’re voting for a candidate, literally the thing that most shows your support for a candidate, you can’t say they don’t support the candidate they are literally voting for. Well, you can say it, but we’ve already established that you will say bat-shit crazy things in a desperate attempt to not be wrong.

    For the purposes of counting votes, voting third party or independent for a presidential election is the same as not voting.

    No, it’s absolutely an ad hominem. Like the most pure form of it. You are questioning their motives instead of what they are literally saying. It’s a textbook case of it. Do you mind if I point some students to this in the future as a perfect example of the ad hominem?

    No, I refuted their central point in that statement by establishing the logical contradiction there in. I think the most obvious reason for them to say a meaningless statement like that is to save face. This supposition about their motive for doing such a thing is not the refutation of their central point.

    Your central point is that they are supporting Trump. That paragraph of desperate nonsense that kind of loosely resembles logic is your argument for that point. But make no mistake about it, your central point is that they are Trump supporters. Something they explicitly have said is untrue, and the only refutation you have against what they have expressly said is an unsupported accusation that they are lying, which is an ad hominem. You’re argument falls apart because it relies on an unsupported attack on their character for it to be true, and you pointed out early how bad arguments that rely on ad hominems are. Of course, you were wrong at the time that my argument hinged on an ad hominem, I was just insulting someone who kind of deserves it, but you were right that if your argument relies on it, like yours does, that it’s pretty clear how “unconvincing” your argument is.

    This is at least in the right ball park. Again, I think they are pro-trump in the sense that they are supporting him in the presidential election. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that most of these people voted Biden in 2020 and do not identify as MAGA hat wearing Republicans.

    Anyway, I think you have the idea now. Refuting an argument’s central point makes for arguments that are far more persuading.

    • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      Neither a third party candidate nor an independent candidate has ever won the presidential election in this country.

      The republican party didn’t even form until 1845. For a while it was the Whigs and the Democrats. We’ve had at least 5 different parties win the POTUS. I’m not saying this is astonishing, but the claim that a third party has never won is laughably wrong. I even explicitly noted it to you and you weren’t smart enough to go look it up on your own.

      For the purposes of counting votes, voting third party or independent for a presidential election is the same as not voting.

      Incorrect. The votes still count. When it comes to the electoral system, it’s effectively the same on the outcome.

      However, when it comes to showing who you support, clearly who you actually support (especially if we are talking by giving them your vote) it’s not even remotely the same.

      And this is the central part of what we are arguing here - something you keep insisting we stick to. … of course only when it suits your point, going off on ridiculous logical tangents is “persusive” when it helps you make your point. lol - so trying to argue that you don’t actually support the person you are voting for, but some other person, is just plain bat-shit crazy reality denialism.

      I refuted their central point in that statement by establishing the logical contradiction there in.

      No, you refuted nothing. You just called them liars with zero evidence. Your accusation is based solely on the fact that it contradicts the conclusion you’ve already come to. You don’t care about reality, you care about trying to convince people you are right.

      But are you just going to drop the fact that you used the ad hominem to refute their claim?

      Actually, you know what? You’re lying right now and you actually agree with me, because no one would be stupid enough to hold your position. That was easy. lol I like this style of debate.