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
This post is a perfect example of what your argument includes. Your argument tries to apply my argument's logic to a more general circumstance to demonstrate its incorrectness. I explain in my argument that my logic is correct more generally, I give examples, and explain that the more general cases are irrelevant when discussing the specific case. Then your argument attempts to use word play to make it seem my argument's explanation for the more general case contradicts the more specific case when it does not.
You assert in your argument that my argument's logic, in the general case, contradicts the logic for the specific case we are discussing. Your argument does this in order to make it appear it is building a case, but no where did your argument actually do so. All the while your argument never addresses the actual topic of discussion and simply dismisses the know facts. Your argument boils down to an attempt to pretend as if your argument demonstrated a flaw in my argument's logic without actually having done so. Your argument is an exercise in theater, because your argument lacks anything of substance to refute my central point.
In this new post your argument opens with a series of ad hominem statements. Your argument then contains an explanation for what it is unsuccessfully trying to do. Another ad hominem statement is thrown into the mix. Then your argument misrepresents what my argument has stated in order to mislead.
We can know which states have historically been swing states, and I refer to such states as historic swing states. I make this distinction because a person can not know with absolute certainly if their historic non-swing state could become a swing state in the next election. That is to say more generally, given enough low voter turnout, any state will flip Republican because Republicans benefit from low voter turnout. This is especially true in historic swing states where we have every reason to believe the election will already be close. Thus the people threatening to make Biden lose by utilizing their knowledge of our voting system, to not vote in historic swing states, are supporting Trump.
Your argument has failed to refute my point in the more general case. My argument's logic is consistent across the more specific and general cases, despite your argument's assumption to the contrary. Since there is no contradiction, your argument simply pretends that there is, which isn't particularly convincing. And the general case is not relevant to our discussion, because we are specifically referring to a group of people who are planning not to vote in historic swing states. Your argument has yet to touch on the specific case we are discussing, instead focusing solely on the unrelated general case. edit: typo
Again, this is what you are doing. You are the one trying to deny that we have strong confidence in what the swing states are, dismissing the application of your logic there because "we can't be 100% certain" while at the same time arguing that because more people voting tends to help democrats, that is somehow 100% fact that them not voting is going to help Republicans. You hate your own logic.
Yes, and again, we "can not know with absolute certainly" that low turn out will help the republicans. It just tends to be that way. Hell, we "can not know with absolute certainly" that these people not voting will even lead to low voter turnout. It might even increase turn out.
And thus the people not moving to historic swing states to cast their vote there, are supporting Trump. It's your logic, my man, not mine. Why the desire to reject your own point is beyond me.
Incorrect. In fact, it's the exact opposite of reality. You knowing something "for certain" is only a requirement when it helps your point, when it contradicts your position, it is ignored. This is not consistent. Inadvertently likely helping Trump win via inaction is support for Trump when it supports your point, but not when it contradicts your position. This is not consistent. You claim that in a two party system, if you don't support one candidate, you are supporting the other. When that means they are supporting Trump when they aren't supporting Biden, it's used. When it means they are supporting Biden because they don't support Trump. . .well that doesn't count. This is not consistent.
I'm the only one consistently applying your logic. You just hate it because your ego is too big to admit you're just plain wrong.
High voter turnout helps Democrats. We only know which states have been swing states in the past. Which states will be swing states in the future is conjectured with statistics which by definition is not absolute certainty.
We know that low voter turn out benefits Republicans because of how our voting system works and the demographics Republicans appeal to. Suggesting the opposite is baseless speculation.
People moving states doesn't change the number of votes overall, just the demographics and vote count in each state. This would do nothing to help either candidate overall and isn't relevant to the discussion. The people we are discussing already live in historic swing states.
Their statement that they don't support Trump, when they are actively planning to help him win an election, is meaningless. My argument's point is that they are supporting Trump with their actions. Actions speak louder than words.
Your argument is what is known as a Straw Man Fallacy.
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-straw-man/
Ignoring the fact that this is absolutely not certain. It just tends to be that way. If something is uncertain, it doesn't count. . .well, of course, only when it suits your purpose, of course. lol
Ignoring the fact that we also know that swing states exist and regularly, very confidently, can declare which are going to be close. Suggesting the opposite is baseless speculation.
True. But our system is electoral based, and so switching from a "certain" state to a "swing" state makes your vote more meaningful. So by not moving to a swing state to support Biden, you are actually supporting Trump.
I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about all the people who live in non-swing states who stay there. By your logic, their inaction to support Biden is actually support for Trump. lol. How is this not clear by now? You're so busy chasing your own tail trying to be right that you've got yourself completely turned around.
No, they are not actively doing this. They are running an anti-Biden campaign while also being anti-Trump. They don't support either. That's the point. They are likely just going to sit the vote out because they don't support either candidate. You can paint this as stupid and something that is likely to hurt them, and I would absolutely agree, but their point is that they are playing a long game and by pulling support from Biden, because he is doing stuff they think is bad for Muslims, they will get more support from Democrats in the future. They are just okay with Biden losing because they think even that would be better in the long wrong.
Incorrect, it's not the straw-man fallacy because I'm not saying you are making this argument, I'm applying your logic to another situation that you are sure to disagree with, to demonstrate how ridiculous your logic is. It's called reductio ad absurdum and it's a well established method of debating. If we want to pull out the debate books, what you are doing is called false dilemma. It's like you realize the faults of your own argument and you are simply alerting me to them. I appreciate it.
Then your argument is not addressing my central point and is a Straw Man Fallacy. Once your arguments address my central point instead of other positions, they will improve considerably.
Unfortunately for your argument, I do agree with my argument's logic in the other circumstances so that didn't work either.
Our two party system is a zero-sum game. One candidate must win and the other must lose. Thus it is impossible for anyone to be neutral in such a system. By not voting for Biden in historic swing states, these people are helping Trump to win. They know this to be true, which is why they are organizing a movement around this idea. They think punishing the Democratic party in this way will benefit them in the long run because it will force Democrats to be more progressive. This reasoning is flawed, because if elected, Trump will dismantle our democracy and there will not be future elections.
Ignoring the context in which that statement was made to misrepresent it, attacking that, and then accusing me of straw-manning. Hilarious.
lol. It's literally my argument that you only accept your logic when it supports your point. You just unintentionally admitted I am right.
Incorrect. This is the false dichotomy. You need it to be true or your whole point falls apart, but as we see here there are at least 3 options: support Trump, Support Biden, support neither.
You're confusing "this is a bad idea that is going to hurt you" with "supporting Trump." These are not the same things. I agree that they are doing a dumb thing, but they also are not "supporting Trump."
I need to know, are you actually this dumb or are you just trolling? Your writing makes it sound like you aren't a complete idiot, but your the content of your arguments reveal a complete lack of critical thought.
The context was another straw man.
Perhaps reread my sentence. I fully believe my argument's logic is consistent across all circumstances you have raised in your argument. I believe this because that is the case.
Not voting for either candidate benefits the Republicans. The people we are discussing are basing their movement around this idea.
These concepts are not mutually exclusive. They have been doing both of those things.
I am not relevant to the topic of discussion. But since you asked, I think my commitment to addressing arguments is an indication of my desire to have good faith discussions. That being said the internet is an imperfect mechanism for conveying intentions. So believe what you want about me.
"We don't have two options. We have many options," Jaylani Hussein, director of Minnesota's Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chapter, said at a press conference in Dearborn, Michigan, when asked about Biden alternatives. "We're not supporting (former President Donald) Trump," he said, adding that the Muslim community would decide how to interview other candidates.
Literally and explicitly straight from the horse's mouth. If you're committed to addressing the arguments in good faith, you'll admit that you are wrong now. Well, of course, unless you're a troll or a complete idiot. And, no, that's actually not a false dichotomy.*
*actually it probably is, there are probably a number of other embarrassing reasons you might try to deny it. And based on how much you've simply ignored reality in this debate during while "arguing" in "good faith" I'm sure you'll try. lol
This is the kind of meaningless statement I've been talking about in my argument. They are planning on not voting for Biden in historic swing states so that he loses and Trump wins. Them saying "We're not supporting Trump" doesn't mean anything if they help Trump win an election. They are empty words meant to save face. Another way to put it is this person is lying.
The reality of that is so obvious, given what we know about our election system and the two parties we have to choose from, that simply stating the opposite isn't a compelling argument. Rather than trying to articulate why the opposite is true, your argument simply relies on ad hominem statements. But this topic has nothing to do with me and thus your argument isn't persuasive.
Also, a good faith discussion doesn't mean one of the people arguing has to admit that they're wrong. I believe another person can see my arguments and not be convinced by them.
You're arguing that they are supporting Trump. They are literally and explicitly saying they don't support Trump. Yet pointing this out is "meaningless." Holy shit the lengths people will go to avoid admitting that they are wrong will never cease to amaze me.
So, maybe they are lying about not supporting Biden. We "can't know for sure" which way they are lying. So, as usual, your point is self-defeating and your flailing contradicts something you said earlier.
Let me guess: "I can claim they are lying when it suits my point. . .but when you can claim they are lying in the same exact way, that doesn't count!"
But "they're lying!" is classic. I'm cracking up over here.
I literally just linked you an article with them saying something explicitly that proves you wrong. Trying to pretend that my arguments "rely" on the ad hominem is just a desperate attempt to protect your own ego.
If them telling you, outright, that they don't support Trump isn't going to persuade you that they don't support Trump, you're all but outright admitting that nothing will persuade you away from your delusion. At this point, I'm no longer trying to persuade you, it's just entertaining watching you lash out and flail around. I've never seen such a fragile, yet proud ego. . .so unwilling to admit they are wrong and at the same time stick it out. Most people would have either just admitted that they were wrong by this point, or slink off. You, however, wow. Impressive. To stick around while getting so repeatedly flogged. Amazing.
Agreed.
If this thread is any indication of how you typically argue, that probably happens a lot. lol
The fact that the statement is meaningless can be deduced from the fact we live in a two party system. Since one candidate must win and the other must lose the situation is a zero-sum game. We also know that Trump, as the presumed Republican candidate, will benefit from low voter turnout as all Republican candidates generally do. Not to mention these peoples' movement resets on the idea they can influence the election simply by not voting for Biden in order to punish the Democratic party. In short, we know the statement "We're not supporting Trump" is false, because all the available facts contradict it. All their statement proves is that they don't want to admit they are supporting Trump in the election.
I read the posted article and saw their claim that they don't support Trump. I did not take their word at face value because I saw the contradiction in their statement.
Your argument is good at making it seem like it won the debate and its aggressive nature makes it seem like it is constantly on the attack. But ultimately a lot of effort is wasted on posturing without delivering any substance with it. With half as much effort put at refuting my argument's central point, your arguments would be much more compelling.
Except, of course, the fact that you can actually support pretty much anyone you want for POTUS and are not restricted to the nominees of two major parties, and the fact that they have openly said that they don't support Trump. I mean, those are only the most damning facts for your argument. There are plenty of others that we have hashed over that also demolish your self-contradictory position.
Of course not because it would force you to admit that you are wrong, and you're not arguing in good faith, but desperately trying to pretend that you are not not wrong. Just like a child.
But, of course, by accusing them of lying, this is also an ad hominem. Something you were hilariously and hypocritically up in arms about me doing just a little while ago. I'm shocked it took me this long to realize that that accusation was just a warning that you were going to do it at some point.
Your central point is absolutely demolished by the fact that they explicitly said they don't support Trump. Your central point relies 100% on claiming they are lying when you have zero evidence to support this accusation. All I've done throughout this debate is show how the same absurd logic you've used to justify your point can be used to justify claiming tons of people who are actually going to vote for Biden are actually Trump supporters. I can only presume this is because it would catch you in the net too, and you don't want to have to admit you are a Trump supporter. You are about as intelligent as one, so you would be among your kind.
It is well understood no third party candidates or independent candidates have any chance at winning the presidential election. Choosing a candidate who has no chance of winning is the same as not voting for the purpose of counting votes. The only real options are Republicans or Democrats for presidential elections.
This is not an ad hominem because I am pointing out the logical contradiction in their statement. Rather than directing my arguments at them, I am refuting their central point in their statement.
edit: Adding this to respond to your edit.
Again, here is my refutation of their central point:
If you want to refute my central point in your argument, then direct your argument at this paragraph.
Incorrect. It's unlikely, but "we can't know that for sure." Republicans were, at one point, "the third party." You can't keep going back to "what we likely know is true" because we've already established that "what is likely true" only matters when it helps your point, and ignored when it hurts it.
I tend to agree here. Except when it comes to who you support for POTUS. If you're voting for a candidate, literally the thing that most shows your support for a candidate, you can't say they don't support the candidate they are literally voting for. Well, you can say it, but we've already established that you will say bat-shit crazy things in a desperate attempt to not be wrong.
No, it's absolutely an ad hominem. Like the most pure form of it. You are questioning their motives instead of what they are literally saying. It's a textbook case of it. Do you mind if I point some students to this in the future as a perfect example of the ad hominem?
Your central point is that they are supporting Trump. That paragraph of desperate nonsense that kind of loosely resembles logic is your argument for that point. But make no mistake about it, your central point is that they are Trump supporters. Something they explicitly have said is untrue, and the only refutation you have against what they have expressly said is an unsupported accusation that they are lying, which is an ad hominem. You're argument falls apart because it relies on an unsupported attack on their character for it to be true, and you pointed out early how bad arguments that rely on ad hominems are. Of course, you were wrong at the time that my argument hinged on an ad hominem, I was just insulting someone who kind of deserves it, but you were right that if your argument relies on it, like yours does, that it's pretty clear how "unconvincing" your argument is.
Neither a third party candidate nor an independent candidate has ever won the presidential election in this country. That's not a statistical anomaly. We live in a two party system.
For the purposes of counting votes, voting third party or independent for a presidential election is the same as not voting.
No, I refuted their central point in that statement by establishing the logical contradiction there in. I think the most obvious reason for them to say a meaningless statement like that is to save face. This supposition about their motive for doing such a thing is not the refutation of their central point.
This is at least in the right ball park. Again, I think they are pro-trump in the sense that they are supporting him in the presidential election. I think it's a reasonable assumption that most of these people voted Biden in 2020 and do not identify as MAGA hat wearing Republicans.
Anyway, I think you have the idea now. Refuting an argument's central point makes for arguments that are far more persuading.
The republican party didn't even form until 1845. For a while it was the Whigs and the Democrats. We've had at least 5 different parties win the POTUS. I'm not saying this is astonishing, but the claim that a third party has never won is laughably wrong. I even explicitly noted it to you and you weren't smart enough to go look it up on your own.
Incorrect. The votes still count. When it comes to the electoral system, it's effectively the same on the outcome.
However, when it comes to showing who you support, clearly who you actually support (especially if we are talking by giving them your vote) it's not even remotely the same.
And this is the central part of what we are arguing here - something you keep insisting we stick to. .. of course only when it suits your point, going off on ridiculous logical tangents is "persusive" when it helps you make your point. lol - so trying to argue that you don't actually support the person you are voting for, but some other person, is just plain bat-shit crazy reality denialism.
No, you refuted nothing. You just called them liars with zero evidence. Your accusation is based solely on the fact that it contradicts the conclusion you've already come to. You don't care about reality, you care about trying to convince people you are right.
But are you just going to drop the fact that you used the ad hominem to refute their claim?
Actually, you know what? You're lying right now and you actually agree with me, because no one would be stupid enough to hold your position. That was easy. lol I like this style of debate.
Political parties have come and gone. But there were only two main parties at any given time. Characterizing new parties as third parties when they only had one political party as opposition is disingenuous.
The votes count, but since they are towards a candidate with no chance of winning, it is the same as not voting for the purpose of counting votes for the main two political parties, Republicans and Democrats.
In a two party system, support for a third party is measured in the votes it detracts from the candidates from the two main parties. For example, the Green Party took votes from Al Gore in Florida and cost him the 2000 presidential election.
I have already copy and pasted my argument once. Pretending my argument doesn't exist won't help your argument.
I pointed out that their meaningless statement was false and therefore that they were lying, for the sake of clarity. Your argument has unsuccessfully attempted to misrepresent this clarifying statement as my argument. Not because it was my argument, but because my argument saying they were lying sounds like it was making an ad hominem statement as the basis of my argument when it was not.
My argument's position is that they are supporting Trump, by not voting for Biden. Their statement that they are not supporting Trump, is false. Therefore it is a lie. But the fact that they are lying is simply the conclusion I reached by following my arguments logic. It is not how I arrived at that conclusion.
I think you have convinced yourself with your arguments. But the goal of debating someone is to convince others. I know my arguments. I know your argument is misrepresenting them. Your argument is not going to fool me. I can see your arguments misrepresentation clearly and write down exactly what it's doing. Anyone else can do the same. If you want to convince people, argue against what was said and not what you've decided was said. Or keep doing what you're doing, but it won't convince anyone.