ultimately, the national media quickly moved into "take him serious. deadly serious." mode, so the conn. seems flimsy.
you're arguing that Trump winning would be an acceptable outcome because it could result in a game changer for greens.
-
-
that's a fair argument (I don't agree, but I understand it), but it doesn't work if that outcome isn't available.
-
I'm actually not arguing that (though that would be an additional benefit). My core argument is here:https://34justice.com/2015/12/19/why-i-reject-lesser-of-two-evils-ism/ …
-
it's hard for me to understand your tweet as not-an-argument for this position. Say more?
-
right, and I understand, respect, but disagree with that argument.
-
but it's problematic to make (imo) a weak but more persuasive argument and fall back to the stronger but less persuasive.
-
My tweet gave one reason a Stein vote is beneficial. It did not presume to say that's the only reason or prime reason I'd vote for her.
-
am I presuming incorrect that you think that argument is persuasive to people not already persuaded?
-
I hope it's persuasive to some people, especially those in states that typically are pretty safe for one or the other major-party candidate.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.