Hello, I am a politician running on a proud history of supporting every war the US has been engaged in within my lifetime, as well as most of those outside of it. I would like to thank you for your vote, and please tell me - was your vote for me because of my warmongering or in spite of it? I sincerely await your answer, as it will mean a lot to what sort of policy I pursue <- How you seem to imagine it works when people vote for a warhawk despite their hawkishness.
So here, you say it’s the practical effects of my vote (electing a warhawk) that matters, not the ideals behind it that wish for a different outcome (foreign wars are often harmful and unnecessary). But when I’m voting in the general, suddenly those ideals (voting third party) would be more important than the practical effect (getting a republican elected)? Is there a reason for this difference?
Do you people pretend to be dense on purpose or something? Why do you insist on spending so much energy on constructing a simulacra of what those that disagree with you believe, instead of just engaging with their beliefs?
The practical effects of voting for a warmonger is legitimising a warmonger. The practical effects of voting for someone else is legitimising someone else.
No, see, you’re switching out what I’m saying there. The practical effect of a vote is who ends up getting elected if you cast it. If I vote third party instead of voting for a democrat, the chance of the third party getting elected doesn’t meaningfully improve, but the chance that a republican is elected does improve. The practical effect of my vote would be to increase the chance that a republican wins.
I find it ironic that you think I’m dense when I understand your argument perfectly fine and disagree with it, while you don’t seem to understand mine at all.
Hello, I am a politician running on a proud history of supporting every war the US has been engaged in within my lifetime, as well as most of those outside of it. I would like to thank you for your vote, and please tell me - was your vote for me because of my warmongering or in spite of it? I sincerely await your answer, as it will mean a lot to what sort of policy I pursue <- How you seem to imagine it works when people vote for a warhawk despite their hawkishness.
So here, you say it’s the practical effects of my vote (electing a warhawk) that matters, not the ideals behind it that wish for a different outcome (foreign wars are often harmful and unnecessary). But when I’m voting in the general, suddenly those ideals (voting third party) would be more important than the practical effect (getting a republican elected)? Is there a reason for this difference?
Do you people pretend to be dense on purpose or something? Why do you insist on spending so much energy on constructing a simulacra of what those that disagree with you believe, instead of just engaging with their beliefs?
The practical effects of voting for a warmonger is legitimising a warmonger. The practical effects of voting for someone else is legitimising someone else.
No, see, you’re switching out what I’m saying there. The practical effect of a vote is who ends up getting elected if you cast it. If I vote third party instead of voting for a democrat, the chance of the third party getting elected doesn’t meaningfully improve, but the chance that a republican is elected does improve. The practical effect of my vote would be to increase the chance that a republican wins.
I find it ironic that you think I’m dense when I understand your argument perfectly fine and disagree with it, while you don’t seem to understand mine at all.