President Joe Biden is arguing that “there is something dangerous happening in America” as he revives his warnings that Donald Trump and his allies represent an existential threat to the country’s democratic institutions.
“There is an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs of our democracy. The MAGA movement,” Biden says in excerpts of the speech Thursday in Arizona, released in advance by the White House, referring Trump’s Make America Great Again slogan.
Although voting in the 2024 Republican primary doesn’t begin for months, Biden’s focus reflects Trump’s status as the undisputed frontrunner for his party’s nomination despite facing four indictments, two of them related to his attempts to overturn Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.
More like "I'm just not going to choose to be shot, thanks, you all have fun with that".
Unless you are leaving the country, you're getting shot
You have misunderstood the metaphor. (edit: Rather, the people you're describing have.)
You cannot opt out. Someone will take the office.
Rather, I reject the flawed nature of the metaphor and its poor fit. That's true - someone will take office… and you're not obligated to choose to be shot in either the leg or the head. You can, say, make no choice. You can choose, say, the hand.
We're all going to be shot through what some choose. Some will go for everyone getting headshot, some will go for everyone losing a leg… and roughly the same will decide such a choice is absurd and not make a choice at all. Some few will choose something less damaging entirely.
Of course, one has the freedom to cast their vote, or not, as they like. But I can't fathom why someone would "choose" an impossible outcome that ultimately makes the fatal scenario more likely instead of moving the needle toward the survivable one. It strikes me as irrational, which I could ignore if it were mere self-sabotage, but this affects others too.
Does voting third party or abstaining somehow increase the count of votes for Republicans? I realize I've been out of school a while, but my understanding was it did not.
Would this be more or less irrational than actively perpetuating the problems with a party and its candidates by guaranteeing them your vote for no reason other than they're not as bad as a different party?
No, I'm only describing the spoiler effect here.
It would be more irrational, because if the "shoot me in the leg, I guess" party loses, everyone dies, and nobody gets to have opinions about anything ever again.
I think we can both agree that voting to avoid bad outcomes rather than to select good ones is fucked.
Then the question still applies: in what way would a spoiler increase the count of either establishment candidate? My understanding of basic math is that it cannot.
That's certainly one opinion on the matter… coincidentally one perfectly aligned with a partisan propaganda viewpoint and, thus far, is nothing but alarmist hyperbole.
We sure can.
Correct, and to claim otherwise would be absurd. Have I done that? The absolute count of votes is immaterial. Elections are decided by the proportion of votes cast for each candidate. That's what admits the spoiler effect. Thanks, FPTP.
It's no coincidence. This is the means by which the establishment perpetuates itself. Doesn't mean both parties are the same.
I'm tapping out after this, but I appreciated the discussion. Have a great weekend.
Sure, let's play that game.
Candidate A: 50/100 Candidate B: 50/100 Candidate C: 0/100
If one abstains, there is no impact: Either candidate has 50/100 = 50%.
If one votes Candidate C, there is no impact: Candidate A and Candidate B are now both at 50/101 = 49.5%.
There is no spoiler.
Sure, and I'm not saying both parties are the same.
I'm saying one isn't obligated to vote for Party A for them merely being less awful than Party B - that doing so perpetuates the awfulness of either party; that trying to convince voters to do so is to perpetuate the awfulness of a given party.
You, too.