politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That’s a clever way to continue to dodge the questions.
Do you agree that it will be one or the other?
Do you agree that one is worse than the other?
Do you agree that telling people to not vote for one is the same as shilling for the other?
These are easy questions and you are dodging them.
Hey, don't blame me if you can't understand subtext. I answered all your less-than-inane questions already, just not directly. But fine, here you go:
Sadly, most likely, yes.
If I wanted a candidate who's a zero, then they're 10 and -10. Either way, things will get worse for everyone, just in a different order.
No, and the fact that so many people think that is a big part of the problem.
Let’s just take the first and third questions to start.
You answered question 1 with yes, which is, to the dismay of us both, the correct answer, congratulations.
Given the context of your correct answer to 1, your answer to question 3 is irrational.
Let’s say you are at a grocery store and they offer you paper or plastic bags. Let’s say you have too many things to carry and you forgot your reusable bag at home. You have two choices, paper or plastic, and no other choices. If you are absolutely going to leave the store with one of those two choices, and I tell you not to take plastic, then I am at the same time telling you to take paper. This is the law of the excluded middle.
Now if you reply to my example with a ‘well I just won’t go to the store’, or ‘that’s a false dichotomy’ then re read the example again a few more times and see your answer to question 1.
On to question two.
I read your response to question two at least 5 times and I still can’t find the words yes OR no. If you think both choices are equally bad, you would answer no. If you think one is worse than the other, you would answer yes. Easy peasy. Instead, you responded with incoherent nonsense… negative ten and positive ten equals zero, things will get worse in a different order… what the hell are you talking about? The question is a very simple yes or no question. You can’t even get this one wrong so long as you answer with yes or no, I am asking your opinion.
If you think they are equally bad, we can discuss that, but you didn’t choose an answer here. No need for subtext, just yes or no will do nicely.
Despite your embracing the roll of a dishonest interlocutor, you made some progress here by, reluctantly, answering question one with a straight answer.
So if you share in my goal of holding as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible, would you like to take another shot at question two, and then show your work for your answer to question 3?
Dishonest, am I? I've answered each of your insultingly inane questions as honestly as I can. My answers just aren't as binary as you were hoping.
In your grocery store analogy, telling me not to choose plastic may be the same as telling me to choose paper from your perspective, but that ignores the option of choosing neither and taking my items out in the cart to load them into my car without bags.
You go on to say I should answer yes or no to whether I believe one candidate is worse than the other, but those aren't the only options. If you insist I use one of those specific words in my answer, then my answer is yes and no. They're wildly different, but either will likely pull us into World War III. One is more likely to have an immediately harmful effect on a marginalized class, while the other is more likely to have an immediately harmful effect on a different (but not mutually exclusive) marginalized class. There's no lesser between these two evils; they're just evil in different ways.