Er, except I provided solid evidence to back up my valid assumptions. You, on the other hand, have not.
Your definition of evidence as 'this is how people voted and if more voted it would be different because" is not evidence.
Why continue to resort to misrepresentations of my postions and hyperbole if you’ve got facts and good reasoning on your side?
I didn’t say my evidence was my valid assumptions. I clearly said (read where you quoted me) that I provided evidence to back up my valid assumptions. I mean, it’s right there where you quoted me.
I provided evidence including actual voting records and percentages that clearly showed without a doubt that Democrats voted in vastly larger numbers against the Iraq War than Republicans did. You, on the other hand, provided a false percentage out of nowhere, stated it as fact and I corrected you.
It doesn’t take rocket science or a competent mathematician to deduce that means if there was more Democrats in office, they would statistically vote in larger numbers against the Iraq War. I already explained to you that enough Democratic votes by the population existed. The problem was at that time, the voters previously choose the path of not voting at all along with embracing false equivalency and flip-flopping to vote in more Republicans. A flip-flop problem we’ve had for decades.
I’ve explained to you how the House and Senate works and that 60 percent of Democratic Representatives voted against the Iraq Resolution while less than 3 percent of Republican Representatives voted against it. That’s called evidence. That’s not conjecture, it’s fact. I also showed you how Democrats destroyed Republicans in the Senate on the vote as well. More evidence.
You, on the other hand, have only provided a bogus percentage that was easily corrected. Maybe it’s time to look at what evidence you’re bringing to the table? So far, it’s very little while you ironically chastise me for not bringing forth evidence. I mean, that’s getting delusional.
I on the other hand need no evidence since I am not trying to prove anything. I’m simply stating that I think voting is immoral and violent.
Um, you should really read those two sentences back to yourself. It’s called contradicting yourself. Why should anyone take your second sentence seriously after your first sentence there?
Saying that you don’t need to provide evidence is frankly just another extremely weak way of saying that you can’t back yourself up with facts and you have issues with admitting mistakes.
Also, it’s not going unnoticed that you are being disingenuous. You tried to provide a fact and it was a percentage you pulled out of your behind. Now that I’ve corrected you, instead of admitting your error, you simply try to say evidence doesn’t matter now. You can’t have it both ways.
You don’t need evidence, but I do? You’re now reminding me of the tactics of climate change deniers at this point. C’mon, you’re better than this, aren’t you?
You seem incapable of viewing this issue outside the boundaries of a voting system and partisanship.
You seem incapable of dealing with our current day realities which involves a voting system. You also seem incapable of noticing my repeated mentions of my loathing for the Democratic Party (as a whole) and my desire to eventually unseat them with a third party that truly stands for peace and equality for this nation.
When you say lesser of two evils I’m floored. My entire point here is that the system is evil, corrupt, violent, etc and that the moral stance is to effect change outside this paradigm.
The problem is you haven’t provided any evidence that you have any plausible solution outside of our current reality. All you’ve told me is you think “not voting” is some glorious answer to our problems and you are so infallible as to not need any evidence to support it. Yet, I must provide evidence to the contrary and when I do, you simply ignore it.
Yet you are happy to vote for evil since it seems less evil than another choice
You aren’t really reading my posts very closely or if you are, you’re not apply reading comprehension very well. Nowhere have I remotely implied that I’m “happy” to vote for evil. As a matter of fact, I’ve stated repeatedly why I’m loathe to vote Democrats.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil. You know that right?
Why keep flaunting your ignorance as if it’s something to be proud of? I’ve stated that literally and repeatedly and explained my position on it. I’m reading everything you’re writing to me. I wish you’d have the dignity to return the favor.
Looks like your ego is getting in the way of that.
(and I’m not talking 3rd parties here (but it’s unlikely you will get that))).
Do you not know what third parties are?
Let me point out the basic fallacy in your reasoning.
Please do and do it without evidence to back yourself up since you are infallible.
You assume that a higher voter turnout would result in more Democrats being elected which you see as good and lower voter turnout results in more Republicans, which is bad.
That’s a modern, historical fact that lower voter turnout more often results in Republican wins and higher turnout more often results in Democratic wins.
However, in the latest elections, more people voted Republican.
We’ve been discussing Presidential elections, are you now resorting to yet another climate change denier tactic of moving the goal posts? How quaint.
One of the only Democrats to win in recent times with lower turnout from his predecessor was Carter (but still higher than Reagan). Reagan won with even lower turnout than Carter and HW Bush won afterwards when turnout went even lower (almost its lowest in modern times).
When voting shot upwards again after being in a slump for 20 years, it was Clinton who won. Yep, a Democrat. You might focus on the voter turnout slump for Clinton’s reelection but then you’d have to be ignorant of the scandal where errant pre-election polls drastically overstated Clinton’s lead over Dole and swayed voter apathy on both sides. You do understand anomalies, don’t you?
Obama won with extremely high voter turnout. Very much near the level we saw with Kennedy’s levels (Yet another Democrat who won with extremely high record voter turnout)… and Obama did it twice with his extremely high turnout. Actually, it was the highest turnout in 40 fucking years in BOTH elections.
This isn’t my observations. This isn’t conjecture. This is reality based upon the actual history of the United States of America and our Presidential elections in modern history.
But, please… do go on…
An unbiased observer might point out that increasing the numbers only increases the total number of votes and not the percentages for any given party.
That wouldn’t be an unbiased observer, that would be a biased observer that ignores history.
Secondarily, you seem to believe that the only true path to citizen participation is in the legitimization of a two party system bought and paid for by big money
Once again, that clearly shows that you honestly are not reading my posts. If my posts are too long for you to comprehend all of it, let me know and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I’ve stated that literally and repeatedly that the two party system is inadequate. That’s why I want both the Democratic party and the Republican part to be defeated by ushering in alternative third parties. I’ve also repeatedly linked to active campaigns I support to fight corrupt money in politics.
You’ve repeatedly countered that it’s simply enough to “not vote” and you also are above providing evidence to support such wild claims while disingenuously demanding that I provide evidence to support my claim even after I’ve repeatedly done so.
I’m reading everything you’re writing to me. I wish you’d have the dignity to return the favor or quit wasting my time.
Failure to vote for one of the prescribed candidates is harmful in your view which in my mind is at once myopic and phobic.
Right, your same view that you now outright refuse to back up with actual evidence after your frail attempt at providing supporting evidence failed and failed miserably.
I have no interest in becoming mired in your hatred of certain parties or party members.
Ok.
I invite you to read The Ethics of Voting by Jason Brennan, The Immorality of Democratic Voting by Kel Kelly, Consent to Tyranny: Voting in the USA by Mark E Smith, and Your Obligation to Not Vote by Alex R. Knight III
I’ve read them. Next.
Oh and do note that despite your insistence that I can’t comprehend your superior concepts, etc. – Your first comment about “free market” principles made it painfully obvious you’re a libertarian or at least lean that way.
so that you may gain some basic understanding of the issue beyond your partisan talking points.
I’ve read them. Next.
If you can demonstrate a basic understanding of positive rights vs negative rights and how that applies to our current situation, then we may have enough common ground to have a rational discussion.
A rational discussion would involve providing evidence for your opinions. How about you meet me halfway?
I’ll discuss positive rights vs negative rights and how that may or may not apply to our current situation and you also start providing evidence for your opinions especially while you demand it of me?
And if your evidence is found to be wrong (i.e., your percentage you offered), you start admitting where you’re wrong if I correct you. Makes things progress that way instead of just sounding off and appearing obtuse and belligerent.
Here’s our own thread to do it in right here:
And yes, you are a partisan. Anyone who reads your rants can clearly see that.
You are only seeing what you want to see. A partisan would be a strong supporter of only the Democratic party. I only support some elements of it and overall (as I’ve told you repeatedly) want it either reformed drastically so it doesn’t hardly resemble the party it is today or destroyed. Either way, I want third parties and third party candidate to take control (as I’ve told you repeatedly).
You’re either not reading what I’m saying or you understand what partisanship means as well as you understand percentages and the importance of backing up one’s opinions with evidence.
Taking stock of yourself is called for at this point because you seem to be living in a self delusion of objectivity without even realizing how impossible that is.
You’re projecting at this point. If I didn’t take stock in myself and try to be objective, I wouldn’t feel the need to provide evidence, analyze said evidence for its veracity and continue to provide evidence even while you refuse to do so.
I provide evidence because I question things. I’ve gathered this evidence because I don’t think basing one’s opinions on falsehoods and ignoring actual history is wise. You obviously disagree or at least changed your position to disagree once your evidence fell apart.
Not sure why you’d think I’d miss that.
At this point, I don’t think you even have the tools to discuss this in any other way than oft repeated talking points and the common narrative of the state.
More projection on your part. Once again, I’ve provided evidence that backs up my statements and suppositions. Meanwhile, you don’t even come to the plate with proper evidence. And when you tried and failed, you simply tried to switch up and say you’re above providing any evidence.
That is ridiculous and an embarrassing way to take yourself out. Sometimes it’s better to own up to the small mistakes you get wrong and work harder on getting the newer stuff right. Otherwise, it’s really difficult to trust you or respect your opinions.
