I would also argue that the media took Sanders more seriously as he rose in the polls.
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.
-
fair enough re: safe states. I just think you have an obligation not to use a moral argument based on unavailable outcomes.
- 4 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.