Well, it took 20 comments of you deflecting with ad hominem and baseless accusations, but you finally answered the question πππ
I swear, you waste so much time with this pointless, unproductive bullshit that it's impossible to discuss anything with you.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. That is all true and all on Trump, except for the first which is also on Netanyahu, since he's his own person and doesn't have to do whatever Trump tells him to, but still demonstrates that Trump would be awful.
Now that I answered all of your questions, answer mine. You won't because you can't. The reason I can answer yours and you can't answer mine is because my beliefs are based on reality and yours are just fantasy based around whatever makes your team look good.
Yes, it was, unlike what you said.
Do you even acknowledge the fact that Biden bypassed congress to send more weapons to Israel? Yes or no.
Still didn't addressa single point I made, because you can't.
Can I drain a pool of water by standing next to it with a hose that's turned off? By not turning the water on, I am not increasing the amount of water in the pool, and according to you, not increasing is the same as decreasing, and it stands to reason that if I decrease the amount of water long enough, eventually there will be none left. That's the logic you're using and obviously it's nonsense.
In the same way that standing next to a pool with the hose turned off does not increase or decrease the amount of water in the pool, not voting for Kamala or Trump does not increase or decrease their chances of winning.
This is extremely simple. You are being purposely obtuse in pretending otherwise.
Grifters grifting grifters lol.
Republicans: Minorities are eating people's dogs!
Normal response: No they aren't, and if a culture does eat dogs it's no worse than other kinds of meat.
Liberal response: We're gonna get the actual dog-eating minorities!
Stop letting them define the terms of discourse, stg.
It's objectively false to say that you "mathematically helped the one you dislike." If you remove a third party voter from existence, then both major parties receive the same number of votes and have the same chance to win. What you mean to say is that third party votes pass on an opportunity to help/hinder the candidate the voter prefers more/less.
It's not at all complex, and I am not confused by it. You are just obviously and objectively wrong.
than if you had voted for the side you do want to win.
Of course, as long as you specify that, then you are correct. In the same way it's correct to say that I stopped a nuclear war today compared to if I had started one. But it is incorrect to say that I stopped a nuclear war with no disclaimer about what I'm comparing it to, and it is incorrect for you to claim that I'm helping Trump by not voting for Kamala with no disclaimer about where you are setting the baseline.
In an objective sense, I am not helping Trump. I am only helping him relative to if I were going to vote for Kamala (which I wasn't).
It would be much clearer to simply say, "You are failing to take an opportunity to increase Kamala's chances and decrease Trump's," which is 100% true. But you can't accept that, because that's using language in a way that's actually fair and accurate. Instead, you'd rather make the dishonest, false accusation that I'm not merely failing to hurt Trump, but actively helping him. And then you call me names and say I'm "confused" and too dumb to understand when I call out your dishonesty and manipulative use of language.
Than if you had voted for them. You didn't say that before. When you don't specify that, the statement is false.
Relative to a baseline of starting nuclear war, I stopped a nuclear war today. That doesn't mean that I actually stopped a nuclear war in an absolute sense, or relative to doing nothing. If I went around telling people I stopped a nuclear war, I'd be lying. In the same way, it's false to say that not voting is "helping" Trump, unless you specify that you mean relative to doing something that hurts Trump.
If trump is an option, and you didnβt increase the chance for kamala, you have increased the chance for trump
For example, this is false.
if you do not vote
+0 chance for kamala
There you go, you just said it yourself. Neither an increase nor a decrease.
No, the same which is the same for the candidate you prefer. The chances only change if you vote for them or for their opponent. It is objectively, mathematically false to say that the chances change when you do nothing, it's not even a coherent statement, doing nothing by definition changes nothing.
I haven't said any "Republican talking points," unless in their double-talk on the issue they happened to land on something similar to what I said. If so, I'm unaware of it, and they obviously don't mean it since they contradict themselves all the time. At that point, virtually any statement about anything could be called a "Republican talking point."
I of course will not be voting for Harris since genocide is a red line and unlike Biden, when I draw a red line I actually mean it. And I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser-evilism, so I do not feel compelled at all to pick between two candidates who are both completely awful and unacceptable.