meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Really? People are still pushing this crappy generalization that we helped Trump by abstaining?

I have no interest in qualifying it, but everyone who voted in the election is partially responsible for the results of the election. There is no math in which people voted but weren't involved in the result. If you voted you're involved in who is President.

To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

Well if you have no interest in qualifying it don't bring it up. To be clear the generalization was about people who didn't vote. I am not asking for math but unless someone can provide data about how people not voting helped Trump and where - this is just another bull**** claim.

Every eligible voter in United States is responsible for the outcome of the election in some fashion, period. Of course anybody had multiple choices, including not voting at all. But we knew the result was binary, and whatever you chose to do affected that result.

Every vote or no vote for one of the two people who was going to win the race affected the odds of the other person winning the race. That is just a mathematical objective fact. Any subjective argument otherwise comes off as defensive. People don't try to rewrite objective math on a whim.

Whatever your reason, which of course was well within your rights, you didn't vote for choice A, you positively affected the chances of choice B. You can argue why your choice was the better one, and that's fair, but the idea that you're seemingly trying to push - that you had no role in the outcome, is objectively false.

The logic above is the type of tripe that has gotten our electorate into making these ridiculous false choices of choosing the least bad outcome.

Not voting for A means helping B to win? Since I didn't vote at all, so not voting for B means also helping A at the same time, right?

Run Forrest, run!

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/915690825849364480

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Really? People are still pushing this crappy generalization that we helped Trump by abstaining?

I have no interest in qualifying it, but everyone who voted in the election is partially responsible for the results of the election. There is no math in which people voted but weren't involved in the result. If you voted you're involved in who is President.

To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

Well if you have no interest in qualifying it don't bring it up. To be clear the generalization was about people who didn't vote. I am not asking for math but unless someone can provide data about how people not voting helped Trump and where - this is just another bull**** claim.

Every eligible voter in United States is responsible for the outcome of the election in some fashion, period. Of course anybody had multiple choices, including not voting at all. But we knew the result was binary, and whatever you chose to do affected that result.

Every vote or no vote for one of the two people who was going to win the race affected the odds of the other person winning the race. That is just a mathematical objective fact. Any subjective argument otherwise comes off as defensive. People don't try to rewrite objective math on a whim.

Whatever your reason, which of course was well within your rights, you didn't vote for choice A, you positively affected the chances of choice B. You can argue why your choice was the better one, and that's fair, but the idea that you're seemingly trying to push - that you had no role in the outcome, is objectively false.

The logic above is the type of tripe that has gotten our electorate into making these ridiculous false choices of choosing the least bad outcome.

Not voting for A means helping B to win? Since I didn't vote at all, so not voting for B means also helping A at the same time, right?

Run Forrest, run!

The LEAST bad outcome was the CLEAR CHOICE! Just cuz you're incapable of discerning this doesn't make your lack of choice noble. If Trump gets us into trouble you can wrap yourself up in your self righteousness and see how much that helps.

No it wasn't. Choosing between bad and worse is not a choice I am interested in and I am not self righteous. But I think you are missing the point, I am not trying to help. I am happy to see centrist Democrats get their ass handed to them. You are blaming me on the assumption that what you want and what I want are aligned, they are not.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Really? People are still pushing this crappy generalization that we helped Trump by abstaining?

I have no interest in qualifying it, but everyone who voted in the election is partially responsible for the results of the election. There is no math in which people voted but weren't involved in the result. If you voted you're involved in who is President.

To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

Well if you have no interest in qualifying it don't bring it up. To be clear the generalization was about people who didn't vote. I am not asking for math but unless someone can provide data about how people not voting helped Trump and where - this is just another bull**** claim.

Every eligible voter in United States is responsible for the outcome of the election in some fashion, period. Of course anybody had multiple choices, including not voting at all. But we knew the result was binary, and whatever you chose to do affected that result.

Every vote or no vote for one of the two people who was going to win the race affected the odds of the other person winning the race. That is just a mathematical objective fact. Any subjective argument otherwise comes off as defensive. People don't try to rewrite objective math on a whim.

Whatever your reason, which of course was well within your rights, you didn't vote for choice A, you positively affected the chances of choice B. You can argue why your choice was the better one, and that's fair, but the idea that you're seemingly trying to push - that you had no role in the outcome, is objectively false.

The logic above is the type of tripe that has gotten our electorate into making these ridiculous false choices of choosing the least bad outcome.

Not voting for A means helping B to win? Since I didn't vote at all, so not voting for B means also helping A at the same time, right?

It means your choice helped influence the outcome. You can try to narrative-it all you want, that's just math.

A couple months back John McCain could've voted yes, could've voted no or could've abstained in a vote. All three choices would've directly impacted the eventual outcome, period. And moreover, at the time, he knew effectively an abstain equaled a yes. He have the courage to take responsibility for his actions.

Your argument is very political in nature. Whether its 100 votes or 50 million, your actions mattered in the outcome. Again, that's just math, not an argument.

markvmc wrote:This whole bit about how voting for a third party candidate means you helped Trump win is utter nonsense. If we lived in a democracy it might be true. But we live in a federal republic, and there are some states like NY and Alabama, where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I live in NY, I voted for the Greens in the safe and certain knowledge that Clinton was going to carry the state. My vote was completely irrelevant in the "who wins" stakes. It had no part in determining that Trump won. Literally no part.

OK but what would you have done in a Battleground state? Seems to me that there were millions of meaningful votes in key states and that's really the point.

nixluva wrote:

markvmc wrote:This whole bit about how voting for a third party candidate means you helped Trump win is utter nonsense. If we lived in a democracy it might be true. But we live in a federal republic, and there are some states like NY and Alabama, where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I live in NY, I voted for the Greens in the safe and certain knowledge that Clinton was going to carry the state. My vote was completely irrelevant in the "who wins" stakes. It had no part in determining that Trump won. Literally no part.

OK but what would you have done in a Battleground state? Seems to me that there were millions of meaningful votes in key states and that's really the point.

Sure, in a battleground state, I would have voted for Clinton. But as there are millions of voters who don't live in battleground states, it simply isn't correct to say that anyone who voted for a third party is responsible for Trump.

meloshouldgo wrote:

markvmc wrote:This whole bit about how voting for a third party candidate means you helped Trump win is utter nonsense. If we lived in a democracy it might be true. But we live in a federal republic, and there are some states like NY and Alabama, where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I live in NY, I voted for the Greens in the safe and certain knowledge that Clinton was going to carry the state. My vote was completely irrelevant in the "who wins" stakes. It had no part in determining that Trump won. Literally no part.

Correct. It's pure sophistry.

Unfortunately, the Democrats that wanted Hillary to win, can't accept that she wasn't capable of winning. So they need to blame other people using this tortuous ass-backwards logic.

Utter unadulterated garbage.

Come on BRUH! Dude won Electoral College by less than 80,000 votes in 3 states. All the Russian BS and Comey! It's not that hard to imagine things being much different and I'll never forgive the voters who went for Trump or 3rd Party. In fact those people should hide in shame for that horrible decision. You can't try to obfuscate the truth of such a bad decision.

TRUMP was a HORRIBLE and UNFIT candidate and every observable fact made this clear!!! The man is a disgrace to the office and the country.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/joyannreid/status/915675881217167360

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

markvmc wrote:This whole bit about how voting for a third party candidate means you helped Trump win is utter nonsense. If we lived in a democracy it might be true. But we live in a federal republic, and there are some states like NY and Alabama, where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I live in NY, I voted for the Greens in the safe and certain knowledge that Clinton was going to carry the state. My vote was completely irrelevant in the "who wins" stakes. It had no part in determining that Trump won. Literally no part.

Correct. It's pure sophistry.

Unfortunately, the Democrats that wanted Hillary to win, can't accept that she wasn't capable of winning. So they need to blame other people using this tortuous ass-backwards logic.

I wanted Hillary to win (and I suspect you did too) but completely recognize she was an incredibly flawed candidate and could only win against another incredibly flawed candidate, which happened to be the dynamics of the race. To suggest she wasn't capable of winning that race is exemplary of what you're accusing other people of.

But I will give you this, by focusing on the dynamics of the race, I think you successfully avoided what it is actually the more relevant issue.

Trump or Clinton was going to be our next president - on November 3 of last year, which of those two candidates did you prefer to be our next president? The answer to that question should be simple and straightforward.

I have answered that question multiple times, I don't think you are capable of listening.
Just because you think the outcome of a race is binary doesn't mean I have to have a preference. I didn't want either of them to win and didn't/don't care which one did. They are both bad for the country in different ways. We will not agree on the extent of potential long term damage Hillary would have caused, so let's just move on.

nixluva wrote:This is a great article on American Gun Ownership

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/kendilaniannbc/status/915697906384031745

Thanks for posting. Informative.

meloshouldgo wrote:You have three choices and two outcomes

Choices 1, 0 and -1
Outcomes 1 and -1

Apparently if you choose 0, and and regardless of what other people choose the math says, that for the population of people that choose zero

0+0+0+0+0... = 1 for very large values of zero

OR

0+0+0+0+0... = -1 for very small values of zero

And whichever outcome you get the math of adding up zeros to get to THAT outcomes is true and undeniable. Because it is just math. It may even be factorial!!!

I am definitely not an expert on math but for the sake of the betterment of the country I hope Knickoftime isn't teaching math somewhere, or logic for that matter, he seems capable of neither.

But what do I know.

I think what's clear is your absolute motivation to believe you had no role in events affecting you. The pride in the belief of your passivity is the odd part.

You didn't do anything good or noble, you believe (to a degree falsely) you let other people decide for you. Congratulations, you gave other people authority over you. Yay you!