Trumps Presidency 2025

[gehringer_2]

30 minutes ago, pfife said:

candidate a:  has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years.

candidate b:  has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years, but country would be better.

candidate c :   has no chance to win, but explicitly does not support policy that voter things would result in death of spouse within 2 years. 

 

your reasoning:  everyone owes their vote to candidate b.  and if you had the audacity to NOT vote for candidate B, you, not everyone who voted for Candiate A, are responsible for everything candidate A does.

 

Me: I'm not voting to kill my spouse.   

The weakness in your logic is that your vote still did nothing to help keep your spouse stay alive and if it helped elect candidate A instead of candidate B maybe you helped kill someone else's spouse.

In this hypothetical, your vote is going to make no difference to the policy that may kill your spouse regardless. You simply have to find other ways to work against that policy than your vote.

Edited 1 hour ago by gehringer_2

[pfife]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

you logic fails because your vote still did nothing to help keep your spouse stay alive.

But I didn't vote to kill my spouse.  That you would seemingly conclude someone do that is really something

And, your logic fails again because you again just waived your hand like a wizard and supplanted MY reasoning (not voting to kill my spouse) for MY vote with YOUR reasoning (keeping spouse alive) for MY vote.  

That was the second time.  The first time you did it was when I said the reasoning for the vote was b/c the pol supported policies that hurt someone I care about, and you just ignored that and supplanted it with "what's best for the country" in response.

 

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, pfife said:

But I didn't vote to kill my spouse.  That you would seemingly conclude someone do that is really something

And, your logic fails again because you again just waived your hand like a wizard and supplanted MY reasoning (not voting to kill my spouse) for MY vote with YOUR reasoning (keeping spouse alive) for MY vote.  

That was the second time.  The first time you did it was when I said the reasoning for the vote was b/c the pol supported policies that hurt someone I care about, and you just ignored that and supplanted it with "what's best for the country" in response.

 

No hand waving at all. Your vote did no good, it made no difference. That sucks when you want to believe voting is a chance to stand for what you want, but it's the reality of it. The reality of who may win an election and who can not is not a matter of my hand waving or yours it just is what it is. Not all change is in play in any given election, it may have to be worked at by other means. Which is why if there is no choice you can make that you can realistically believe is both useful and morally supportable, don't vote -- go work on the issue by other means.

Edited 1 hour ago by gehringer_2

[pfife]

cool dodge

I'm beyond fine with not voting to kill my spouse in that situation.    I'm also beyond fine with other people not voting to kill their spouses in that situation.   No one should be compelled to do that because a dude on a message board poorly reasoned it while ordaining themselves as the decider of other peoples votes 

Edited 1 hour ago by pfife

[gehringer_2]

Look - you engaged me in this thread - I was responding to @ewsieg. You asked me a question - I gave you an answer and you've got your panties all in a bunch. If you don't want an answer, don't ask a question.

[pfife]

I'm fine with you giving an answer.  I just disagree with the one that you gave

sorry your panties got in a bunch because someone had the audacity to disagree with YOUR reasoning for THEIR  (not your) vote. 

Should folks just get their ballots mailed to you and MB?  It seems like MY opinion on MY vote is very inconvenient for YOU and I'm a solutions oriented person.  All voters' free agency with their vote is obviously secondary to your opinion and I hate that you are inconvenienced  

Proudly in the pro-not voting to kill spouse caucus.   LOL at you not being so

Edited 1 hour ago by pfife