No, it doesn’t. Not voting for a candidate neither increases nor decreases their chances. Voting for a candidate is what increases their chances, voting for their opponent is what decreases them.
Yes, and this is so simple, if you vote for a candidate that you prefer, it will increase their chances, if you choose not to, you will decrease their chances. I am baffled that you are confused by this, you must be joking.
Nope, it’s actually mathematically false, you’re the one twisting numbers around. Remove me from existence and Trump and Kamala’s chances will be the same, so I’m not increasing or decreasing either’s chances.
Yes, but you prefer kamala, and could’ve raised kamalas chances, by choosing not to do that, you are actually raising trumps chances. Again, it is baffling that you do not understand that not voting is a possible choice here, and that it would reduce the chance of your preferred candidate to not vote for them.
Definitionally, endorsing a candidate is when you say, “This candidate is the best choice and I intend to vote for them.” It doesn’t mean, “I agree with everything this candidate says or does.” If you vote for a candidate, tell people you vote for them, and encourage others to vote for them, that is definitionally an endorsement.
You don’t have to do any of that, but you should because you prefer them! None of those things are the definition of voting for them. You’ll notice, i can vote for a candidate completely anonymously, say I voted for a different candidate, and NOBODY WOULD EVER KNOW!
ELECTIONS ARE ANONYMOUS, you raising a number by 1 and expressing the preference you yourself admit to, is not an endorsement, even by your own definition.
I’m in my 30’s. You’re just wrong about everything you said.
Then god help us. I wasn’t wrong about anything, except perhaps that, which only makes your case sadder, however teenagers are very prone to lying about being exactly 30. I was generously assuming your absolute stupidity was a function of your youth, by debunking that, you look even dumber.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, and this is so simple, if you vote for a candidate that you prefer, it will increase their chances, if you choose not to, you will decrease their chances. I am baffled that you are confused by this, you must be joking.
Yes, but you prefer kamala, and could’ve raised kamalas chances, by choosing not to do that, you are actually raising trumps chances. Again, it is baffling that you do not understand that not voting is a possible choice here, and that it would reduce the chance of your preferred candidate to not vote for them.
You don’t have to do any of that, but you should because you prefer them! None of those things are the definition of voting for them. You’ll notice, i can vote for a candidate completely anonymously, say I voted for a different candidate, and NOBODY WOULD EVER KNOW!
ELECTIONS ARE ANONYMOUS, you raising a number by 1 and expressing the preference you yourself admit to, is not an endorsement, even by your own definition.
Then god help us. I wasn’t wrong about anything, except perhaps that, which only makes your case sadder, however teenagers are very prone to lying about being exactly 30. I was generously assuming your absolute stupidity was a function of your youth, by debunking that, you look even dumber.
False. If you chose not to, the chances remain the same.
Yes, the same, which is WORSE for the candidate you prefer.
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.
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
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.
For example, this is false.
There you go, you just said it yourself. 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.
It’s not at all complex, and I am not confused by it. You are just obviously and objectively wrong.
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.
that is literally the exact same thing. By not increasing kamalas chances, you have increased trumps chances.
I do not understand how you are confused by this. At this point I have to just accept that there is just something wrong with your brain.
NARRATOR: They were incredibly confused by it.