You have not addressed why this is not a viable strategy at all.
Because you haven’t demonstrated it to be a viable strategy…
Can you give examples of this tactic playing out favorably in the past? How does your 3rd party vote materialize into meaningful, actionable pressure on the Democrats? Why am I not surprised you didn’t say “We’ll endorse the Democrats / Republicans if and only if they do X.”?
It’s possible to change things without winning.
Not under FPTP.
If anything, it’d be better to wail on the walls in the room with more fire, to die quicker. But the point is that that doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is escape.
If the only thing that matters is escape, then the only thing that makes sense is choosing the scenario that’s most likely to allow for it. Which is to move to the area with less fire. This should be absurdly obvious.
You can’t have both. If you choose the room with more fire then you’re admitting that your whole position is a facade and you’re actually just a deluded accelerationist. Which we both know you aren’t.
And as I already stated, “better” does not mean “acceptable.” In the same way if you push a vegan into saying beef is better than pork, that doesn’t mean they consider beef an acceptable food.
If you think both of the only 2 possible outcomes are unacceptable, then acceptability is a moot point. Better and worse still exist, and you already agreed on which is which.
Because you haven’t demonstrated it to be a viable strategy…
Can you give examples of this tactic playing out favorably in the past?
Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters. It’s very intuitive that if a significant number of people defect from a party, the party will be reconsidering the issue that caused the break. I don’t think this needs to be proven.
Why am I not surprised you didn’t say “We’ll endorse the Democrats / Republicans if and only if they do X.”?
Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?
If the only thing that matters is escape, then the only thing that makes sense is choosing the scenario that’s most likely to allow for it.
…what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the “more comfortable fire to die in” is because escape was ruled out entirely.
If you think both of the only 2 possible outcomes are unacceptable, then acceptability is a moot point.
Dude… you are getting wrecked here. You should seriously start thinking about finding something else to do with your time. Because this Isn’t working out very well for you.
Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters.
And under FPTP there can only and will only be 2 parties with any real opportunity to enact policy. Do you think the Democrats are worried that you’re going to vote Republican? That the GOP is going to start appealing to Leftists?
Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?
Of course not. But the implication is that the Democrats could be influenced. Which is exactly why I can’t agree with advocating for swing state voters to do anything but vote against Trump.
…what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the “more comfortable fire to die in” is because escape was ruled out entirely.
Nah, I think escape is possible, but we need to move away from the bigger flames. You’re the one who thinks standing still and letting the fire choose is the way to go – for some reason…
Unacceptable means unacceptable.
It sure does. It’s still moot in this context though.
Do you think the Democrats are worried that you’re going to vote Republican?
Yes? That’s why they’re all about Dick Cheney.
Nah, I think escape is possible, but we need to move away from the bigger flames. You’re the one who thinks standing still and letting the fire choose is the way to go – for some reason…
Then you agree that escape is what matters and choosing the more comfortable flames to die in is not what’s important. There’s a difference between claiming “I can survive longer in these flames which will help me to escape” vs the previous position you were arguing for, “Forget escaping, what matters is these flames are more comfortable than those flames.”
It sure does. It’s still moot in this context though.
“The Democrats are all about this hardcore Republican as a means of capturing the Leftist vote”
…huh?
Then you agree that escape is what matters and choosing the more comfortable flames to die in is not what’s important.
Yes I agree, your burning house analogy isn’t actually applicable to the scenario at hand (like the vegan analogy you keep doubling down on). That’s my bad for trying to take it in good faith.
“The Democrats are all about this hardcore Republican as a means of capturing the Leftist vote”
They are trying to appeal to right-leaning democrats and centrists who might consider voting republican. What I mean is that they are concerned about the possibility of their voters changing sides, not Leftists specifically.
Yes I agree, your burning house analogy isn’t actually applicable to the scenario at hand
Whether it is directly applicable or not isn’t important, and if you’re trying to take it that way, I guess that explains your absurd takes on it. The purpose of the analogy is to demonstrate that one thing can be marginally less bad than another, but both options still fundamentally unacceptable and not worthy of consideration. “Would you rather burn to death in these flames or those flames,” “Would you rather eat a bowl of rusty nails or a bowl of arsenic,” whatever, I could give you an answer if you really push me, but if you can’t take my answer and serve me one and expect me to accept it. Because the real answer is that both are fundamentally unacceptable, so which one is preferable doesn’t really matter.
They are trying to appeal to right-leaning democrats and centrists who might consider voting republican.
Correct. What they are not concerned about is far-Leftists somehow becoming Republicans. Which is why your game of pressuring them by voting 3rd party in a federal election is ridiculous.
Whether it is directly applicable or not isn’t important
It doesn’t matter if your analogy is analogous? Gee, that explains a lot.
The purpose of the analogy is to demonstrate that one thing can be marginally less bad than another, but both options still fundamentally unacceptable
No shit. But it completely ignores the part where you are stuck with one of those “unacceptable” options no matter what.
Every single one of your analogies conveniently ignores that vital factor.
How many different analogies and what-if scenarios does it take for you to finally have a valid point?
Jesus man!
The moment someone calls out your bullshit you move on to another ridiculous version of reality to try and mold into something that resembles an actual point-
Because you haven’t demonstrated it to be a viable strategy…
Can you give examples of this tactic playing out favorably in the past? How does your 3rd party vote materialize into meaningful, actionable pressure on the Democrats? Why am I not surprised you didn’t say “We’ll endorse the Democrats / Republicans if and only if they do X.”?
Not under FPTP.
If the only thing that matters is escape, then the only thing that makes sense is choosing the scenario that’s most likely to allow for it. Which is to move to the area with less fire. This should be absurdly obvious.
You can’t have both. If you choose the room with more fire then you’re admitting that your whole position is a facade and you’re actually just a deluded accelerationist. Which we both know you aren’t.
If you think both of the only 2 possible outcomes are unacceptable, then acceptability is a moot point. Better and worse still exist, and you already agreed on which is which.
You’re destroying them at their own game. This is fucking beautiful!
Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters. It’s very intuitive that if a significant number of people defect from a party, the party will be reconsidering the issue that caused the break. I don’t think this needs to be proven.
Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?
…what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the “more comfortable fire to die in” is because escape was ruled out entirely.
No, it isn’t. Unacceptable means unacceptable.
Dude… you are getting wrecked here. You should seriously start thinking about finding something else to do with your time. Because this Isn’t working out very well for you.
And under FPTP there can only and will only be 2 parties with any real opportunity to enact policy. Do you think the Democrats are worried that you’re going to vote Republican? That the GOP is going to start appealing to Leftists?
Of course not. But the implication is that the Democrats could be influenced. Which is exactly why I can’t agree with advocating for swing state voters to do anything but vote against Trump.
Nah, I think escape is possible, but we need to move away from the bigger flames. You’re the one who thinks standing still and letting the fire choose is the way to go – for some reason…
It sure does. It’s still moot in this context though.
Yes? That’s why they’re all about Dick Cheney.
Then you agree that escape is what matters and choosing the more comfortable flames to die in is not what’s important. There’s a difference between claiming “I can survive longer in these flames which will help me to escape” vs the previous position you were arguing for, “Forget escaping, what matters is these flames are more comfortable than those flames.”
No it isn’t.
“The Democrats are all about this hardcore Republican as a means of capturing the Leftist vote”
…huh?
Yes I agree, your burning house analogy isn’t actually applicable to the scenario at hand (like the vegan analogy you keep doubling down on). That’s my bad for trying to take it in good faith.
They are trying to appeal to right-leaning democrats and centrists who might consider voting republican. What I mean is that they are concerned about the possibility of their voters changing sides, not Leftists specifically.
Whether it is directly applicable or not isn’t important, and if you’re trying to take it that way, I guess that explains your absurd takes on it. The purpose of the analogy is to demonstrate that one thing can be marginally less bad than another, but both options still fundamentally unacceptable and not worthy of consideration. “Would you rather burn to death in these flames or those flames,” “Would you rather eat a bowl of rusty nails or a bowl of arsenic,” whatever, I could give you an answer if you really push me, but if you can’t take my answer and serve me one and expect me to accept it. Because the real answer is that both are fundamentally unacceptable, so which one is preferable doesn’t really matter.
Correct. What they are not concerned about is far-Leftists somehow becoming Republicans. Which is why your game of pressuring them by voting 3rd party in a federal election is ridiculous.
It doesn’t matter if your analogy is analogous? Gee, that explains a lot.
No shit. But it completely ignores the part where you are stuck with one of those “unacceptable” options no matter what.
Every single one of your analogies conveniently ignores that vital factor.
How many different analogies and what-if scenarios does it take for you to finally have a valid point?
Jesus man!
The moment someone calls out your bullshit you move on to another ridiculous version of reality to try and mold into something that resembles an actual point-
And you fail every time!