• Communist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    14 hours ago

    Yes, the same, which is WORSE for the candidate you prefer.

    • OBJECTION!
      link
      fedilink
      14 hours ago

      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.

      • Communist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        and the same is a lower chance for the candidate you prefer than if you had voted for them.

        How are you confused by this???

        if you vote for kamala

        +1 chance for kamala

        if you do not vote

        +0 chance for kamala

        If trump is an option, and you didn’t increase the chance for kamala, you have increased the chance for trump

        • OBJECTION!
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          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 didn’t 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.

          • Communist
            link
            fedilink
            English
            03 hours ago

            Neither an increase nor a decrease.

            how do you not understand that neither an increase or a decrease, when there are two choices, is equivalent to a neutral vote, and therefore you are increasing the odds of the side that you don’t want to win, than if you had voted for the side you do want to win.

            How is this so complex for you? I am genuinely baffled.

            • OBJECTION!
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              23 seconds ago

              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 what you are comparing it to.

              In an objective sense, I am not helping Trump. I am only helping him relative to if I were going to vote for Kamala.