I've Decided I'm Going to Vote Twice for President

[InTheLight]

I've already declared that I'm not voting for Trump this November. According to the twisted logic of the Trumpies, that means I'm actually voting for Hillary. So that's one vote.

But wait!

I'm not voting for Hillary either. According to the same fallacious logic, that means my non-vote for Hillary is really a vote for Trump. That's two votes.

So there you have it--I'm voting twice for President in November.

 

[exscentric]

If that is an example of yer logic, think I will avoid your posts

 

[InTheLight]

If that is an example of yer logic, think I will avoid your posts

It's an example of the logic of the Trumpies and the #AlwaysHillary people.

 

[Benjamin]

I've decided my first priority is #NeverHillary...

Therefore, being #NeverTrump does not compute.

 

[Benjamin]

Success @ #NeverTrump logically equals #AlwaysHillary.

 

[InTheLight]

Success @ #NeverTrump logically equals #AlwaysHillary.

So therefore not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump.

#NeverHillary = #AlwaysTrump

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Benjamin]

I've already declared that I'm not voting for Trump this November.
...
I'm not voting for Hillary either.

Then at best you are throwing away your vote. Although, it is pretty obvious around here your priority is not voting for Trump, which logically only leaves one alternative:

X = (Trump)

Y = (Hillary)

A, B, C = (NOTA)

Premise:

X and Y are the only Logically Valid Choices which have a possibility of winning.

Either X or Y

If not X then Y

If not Y then X

A, B, or C is not X or Y. (Duh)

A, B, or C (NOTA) has no logically valid possibility of winning.

Therefore, A, B, or C are not logically valid "choices" with a possibility of winning. (True)

If A, B, or C are not valid choices for winning then it is not logical to claim them as a possibility for such. (True)

A non-valid choice can be valid choice. (False)

X or Y are winning possibilities that exist. (True)

A, B, or C are winning possibilities that exist. (False)

Somehow both, X or Y and A, B, or C can be valued as winning possibilities, - AKA #NeverTrump Logic. (False)

Only X or Y are logical possibilities. (True)

Choosing not X by choosing A, B, or C is the same as or equal to choosing not Y and therefore somehow is still a valid choice even without a possibility for winning, - more twisted #NeverTrump Logic. (False)

There are only two logical possibilities for winning that exist. (True)

Conclusions:

Therefore, the only true possible choices for winning that exist are either X or Y,

Since you have declared your choice is not X (and you daily make that your priority to attempt to put down Trump), and it has been shown A, B, or C are not valid choices, then your only valid choice that by priority you are WILLING (by any logical means) to have left with a true possibility for winning is Y. (True)

You can abandon all logic about the only two possibilities of winning by declaring you have two choices and still go about choosing A, B, or C as if that has some sort of value toward choosing a winner. (False)

Premise: Some would justify having a non-valid choice as still having value as a choice by saying, “I am both, #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary”.

Your priorities can be equally both, not X and not Y (which both have the only true possibilities of winning) by choosing A, B, or C (which have no possibilities of winning) and this can be demonstrated by you as a true logical choice with actual value as such even after being logically demonstrated by me as a non-choice with no value toward winning. (False)

 

[InTheLight]

There are only two logical possibilities for winning that exist. (True)

Conclusions:

Therefore, the only true possible choices for winning that exist are either X or Y,

Since you have declared your choice is not X (and you daily make that your priority to attempt to put down Trump), and it has been shown A, B, or C are not valid choices, then your only valid choice that by priority you are WILLING (by any logical means) to have left with a true possibility for winning is Y. (True)

You are making the mistake of thinking that I want to vote for a "winner". I want to vote for someone my God would approve of and my conscience can live with. According to my criteria your choices are false choices.

Anyway, the whole point of my post, which apparently you did not grasp, is a non-vote for Trump IS NOT a vote for Hillary. If you say it is you must prove that a non-vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump. And you can't.

 

[Alcott]

What kind of a view does God and his Word take about wishywashiness?

He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters [Luke 11:23].

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth [Revelation 3:15-16].

On the other hand,

Someone in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.” But He said to him, “Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?” Then He said to them, “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions” [Luke 12:13-15].

Trump and Clinton both covet the office of president, and thus they covet your vote. Jesus refused to 'vote' in this matter of worldly covetousness. But he did 'vote' on many occasions for those who coveted healing-- he wasn't going to heal everyone who thus needed it, so there was covetousness to be counted among the fortunate few.

God is not bound by his own commandments, and thus he covets everything we think is ours. But since nothing is ours in the strictest sense, He doesn't covet what's ours because it's his. Or is our faith-- our choices-- actually ours, and therefore He covets it? That only lead to the predestination argument.

 

[HankD]

I am TOTALLY confused now.

Not surprising ey?

HankD

 

[Don]

My personal last word on "throwing away your vote."

The only vote thrown away is the one you don't cast. That's the ONLY case where you have no right to complain, because you've allowed others to make the choice for you.

"A vote for a third party is a vote for the other party" is a flat-out fallacy. It presumes that you were somehow for a particular party, but have decided to not support that party. Secondarily, it presumes that you MUST be against a candidate more than for another one.

Do I think Hillary's the best choice for this country? Absolutely not. Do I think Trump is a better choice? Absolutely not.

Those of you that support Trump because you actually think he's the best choice for our country--more power to you. Those of you that are supporting Trump because you're afraid of Hillary--find a better reason, because that means you don't actually think Trump is really better.

And those of you that still want to say that I'm throwing my vote away because I'm not voting for either of them -- well, there are three possible outcomes:
1) Hillary wins, and I go to bed at night and sleep well because I voted for what I believed was the right choice, and stayed true to my convictions;
2)Trump wins, and turns out to be a great president, and I eat crow and tell y'all "yeah, you were right";
Or 3)Trump wins, and it turns out he's no, or not very, different from Hillary, Bill, or Obama, and I go to bed at night and sleep well because I voted for what I believed was the right choice, and stayed true to my convictions.

I won't throw away my vote; I just won't vote the same as you, nor for the same reasons.

 

[Benjamin]

You are making the mistake of thinking that I want to vote for a "winner".

What purpose is a vote if it intentionally has no value? If your vote does have any sort of value, the only value that I have seen you place on this vote is to be on a mission about withholding it from Trump. Since there are only two logical possibilities for a victor in this election and the only value you have demonstrated is your commitment to take away your vote from one of them then that only leaves one logical conclusion (X or Y) to which logical possibility you value more.

I want to vote for someone my God would approve of and my conscience can live with. According to my criteria your choices are false choices.

If you want to claim moral consequentialism as your value, then in your “conscience” it would be wise to examine the only logical value you could have placed on your (non)vote has been laced in an one sided agenda to take it away from one of the only logical choices and this done so with far more conviction than taking it away from the other. This demonstrates your true choice between the only two logical possibilities, hence, what you logically value most. When you try to convince regular Republican voters likewise to abandon their party you demonstrate this conscious value even more so.

Anyway, the whole point of my post, which apparently you did not grasp, is a non-vote for Trump IS NOT a vote for Hillary. If you say it is you must prove that a non-vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump. And you can't.

No, you've missed the point that I must only demonstrate where you logically place the value of YOUR ONLY vote in regards to the easily demonstrated agenda YOU have undertaken on this board and then directly relate it to the only other logical conclusion for a victor in the upcoming election. This demonstrates your choice/vote, morally ...or otherwise, Mr. 2 Vote Man. .

Logically, such a demonstration gives very good cause to believe that my argument of your choice (vote), if it has any possible value whatsoever, that value would be logically observable as a preference for Hillary is a valid conclusion to come to since there are only two humans in this election to pick from as your country's leader in this world.

 

[InTheLight]

Benjamin said: logical choice....logical value....logic....logical possibilities...logically value....logically...logical conclusion...logically...logically observable...

Blah, blah, blah.

Bottom line: I'm not going to ratify evil with my vote.

 

[Benjamin]

I want to vote for someone my God would approve of and my conscience can live with.

Problem: Your choice for someone you believe your God would approve of is not in this race. It does NOT EXIST, yet you claim to vote for it while going about an agenda against one of the two true possibility that does exist.


If I offered you dinner of steak or eggs and you went on and on and on about how much you hate eggs I'm going to suspect you would prefer steak. If you then said, "I think I'll have a doughnut" every time I tried to tell you that we only have steak and eggs to eat at this table...well...I might begin to believe that you are not a very reasonable person. If you occasionally said, “I don’t care for steak either”, so I’m only going to settle for doughnuts, I’m SORRY, but that does not make your choice at this table any more reasonable ...and considering your constant rants about eggs it’s not likely to change mind that in your "secret conscience" that you prefer steak over eggs EITHER!!

 

[Rolfe]

And those of you that still want to say that I'm throwing my vote away because I'm not voting for either of them -- well, there are three possible outcomes:
1) Hillary wins, and I go to bed at night and sleep well because I voted for what I believed was the right choice, and stayed true to my convictions;
2)Trump wins, and turns out to be a great president, and I eat crow and tell y'all "yeah, you were right";
Or 3)Trump wins, and it turns out he's no, or not very, different from Hillary, Bill, or Obama, and I go to bed at night and sleep well because I voted for what I believed was the right choice, and stayed true to my convictions.

Perfectly stated.

 

[HankD]

Does this scripture apply?

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.


HankD

 

[InTheLight]

Problem: Your choice for someone you believe your God would approve of is not in this race. It does NOT EXIST, yet you claim to vote for it while going about an agenda against one of the two true possibility that does exist.


If I offered you dinner of steak or eggs and you went on and on and on about how much you hate eggs I'm going to suspect you would prefer steak. If you then said, "I think I'll have a doughnut" every time I tried to tell you that we only have steak and eggs to eat at this table...well...I might begin to believe that you are not a very reasonable person. If you occasionally said, “I don’t care for steak either”, so I’m only going to settle for doughnuts, I’m SORRY, but that does not make your choice at this table any more reasonable ...and considering your constant rants about eggs it’s not likely to change mind that in your "secret conscience" that you prefer steak over eggs EITHER!!

Knowing there was only steak and eggs at your table, and since I don't like either of them, I would never sit at your table.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[Use of Time]

Perfectly stated.

Don just hit a walk off Homerun. Love it.

 

[Alcott]

Blah, blah, blah.

Bottom line: I'm not going to ratify evil with my vote.

Have you ever ratified evil by voting for anyone for anything before?

 

[InTheLight]

Have you ever ratified evil by voting for anyone for anything before?

Have you stopped beating up little kids?

Can you imagine a world without hypothetical questions?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.