Muslim Americans in swing states launch anti-Biden campaign

GiddyGap@lemm.ee to politics @lemmy.world – 285 points –
axios.com

"We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not."

That's gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I've heard in a while.

495

You are viewing a single comment

I'd bet its not democrats if people stopped voting for them.

Maybe I wasn’t clear.

I’ll bet you any amount you like that no third party wins the next election. You game?

The fact that no one ever takes me up on this shows y’all fucking know I’m right but don’t want to admit it.

If they won, they would no longer be a third party. If democrats became a third party, another party would become first party.

That’s why I worded it the way I did the first time.

I bet you $1000 that either the Democrat or the Republican wins the next presidential election.

No one is disagreeing about that. Its irrelevant to the topic.

It directly contradicts your claim that another party can win.

They can: the two statements are not contradictory. You're making more specific claims unrelated to the topic.

They "can".

The sun "could" explode tomorrow and kill us all.

But neither will happen and we both know it.

So you agree that saying the sun can explode tomorrow and saying it probably won't is not contradictory, right? This contradicts your own points.

Don’t forget the last part.

Which doesn't change the fact that it is not contradictory like you claim it to be.

Hey while you’re here, you wanna bet the $1000 I offered the other guy?

I could use the money.

Again, you don't understand what contradictory means. Does saying the sun can explode tomorrow and saying it has a low chance of doing so contradictory? Similarly, saying a third party can win if people switch their votes away from the Dems is not contradictory to saying there is a low chance of that happening.

You're doing a logical fallacy by assuming that statements made about possible alternative events are equivalent to statements that claim the event is likely to happen.

2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...