Something I had forgotten I realised last cycle that this post somehow reminded me of:
People argued we had to vote for democrats because they would lose without our votes. To them not voting and voting third party was essentially the same and it was actually just like voting for Trump, since the party would not be able to win if they did not get our votes.
Yet if you were to point out that since we aren't voting for genociders like the democrats and therefore the party is sure to lose and thus, by their own reasoning, their votes are wasted; then they have to vote for the party I want them to vote for, if we are to beat Trump. It should be entirely reasonable if all that matters to them is beating Trump, yet somehow the argument was clearly faulty, despite it being the very same they make: "[Your party] will not be able to get enough votes to win, the most important thing is beating Trump, therefore you have to vote for [my party] otherwise it will not be able get enough votes to beat Trump!"
They can see the issue with the reasoning as long as it does not benefit them. Odd how that is.
top 50 comments