Will Joe Biden be the next president?

[Isaac]

Hey!....are you guys trying to suppress the vote?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Voting is symbolism, I live in CA the election is pretty much over by the time my vote isn't counted. I vote anyway.

 

[Jon]

There is nothing wrong with people voting. It helps to understand that your vote doesn't do anything though, and may actually have a negative impact on the world.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[NauticalGent]

Voting is symbolism. , I live in CA the election is pretty much over by the time my vote isn't counted. I vote anyway.

Simplified. My description is "voting is the illusion of choice and control".

 

[Pat Hartman]

[

I saw the most famous widow-in-waiting, what's her name Melanie? Speaking on TV, that's the first time I've heard her speak, for a foreigner, I thought she did well reading a script written by Orangeman.

@Col,
We know what your opinion is and you are entitled to it. However, rather than simply spewing venom on Melania for her accent, perhaps selling your point positively might convert someone to your "side" whatever that is. Your point isn't clear either. All we get is that you hate Trump and apparently his wife by association. Maybe you could write your next post in another language or are you limited to only English? Melania speaks four languages and although she has an accent, she is easy to understand unlike the Indians who I get when I need tech support.

It's been a long time since Presidents wrote their own speeches. I don't think President Trump has time in his schedule to write one for the First Lady. She has her own opinions and her own staff. Her staff, by the way, is a fraction the size of Queen Obama's.

My understanding is that the Democrats had to apologize for their mistake, but meanwhile, the damage was already done.

The accusations run for days on page 1 and on national TV. The apologize , if they are ever made, are in minuscule type on page 30.

@Issac, I forgot to mention marketing. I think that marketing to consumers should be banned for prescription drugs. Apparently, all the perks they give to doctors are not sufficient to get them to prescribe enough drugs.

@CJ_London, you are correct about Yellowstone. They've finally come to their senses and are either letting the fires burn or deliberately starting small ones when conditions are easier for them to control the spread in order to clear the underbrush when it gets really heavy. They've also reintroduced wolves which have become quite the tourist attraction. If you've never been to Yellowstone, go if you can. It is amazing. Stay far, far away from the animals. They are not pets.

 

[Pat Hartman]

My vote in Connecticut doesn't count either but hope springs eternal.

I once read a science fiction story about the search for the "average man". When they found him, he got to cast the single vote in the election.

 

[Jon]

The entire history of Western civilisation shows that no national election was decided by one vote. But the paradox is that you need people to vote.

 

[Isaac]

There is nothing wrong with people voting. It helps to understand that your vote doesn't do anything though, and may actually have a negative impact on the world.

What do you mean by this? I have a feeling you are referring to some idea other than simply the "well 1 vote doesn't decide anything" complaint, since that is easily answered by, as my Mom used to tell me about littering 'just once', "well imagine if everybody felt that way".

 

[Jon]

"well imagine if everybody felt that way"

That's easily answered by, "If everybody felt that way, then I would vote because my vote would then carry some weight."

Or were you referring to the negative impact part of my statement?

Edit: Remember that littering is cumulative and so even just once adds to the mess. With voting, it is binary. Only one person wins. The losing votes have zero effect. And all the votes over and above what is required for the winner also have zero effect.

 

[Isaac]

That's easily answered by, "If everybody felt that way, then I would vote because my vote would then carry some weight."

Or were you referring to the negative impact part of my statement?

Edit: Remember that littering is cumulative and so even just once adds to the mess. With voting, it is binary. Only one person wins. The losing votes have zero effect. And all the votes over and above what is required for the winner also have zero effect.

Ok, so basically you are just saying any one vote doesn't make a difference. Which of course is true, theoretically, but voting should still be encouraged because if too many people from any one side feel that way and are inspired not to vote, it means that one side might win for the sole reason that too many of their supporters bought into this interesting, but not useful, theoretical fact. That's the way I see it. I see what you are saying.

As for the littering, No - when my mom said that I'm pretty sure she wasn't thinking of the "one thing adds to the mess". She was thinking "Sure, any one thing makes virtually no difference to the overall result, but if we let people buy into that idea, then it WILL have a big difference to the result". Same as voting, binary or not.

 

[Jon]

It is not only true theoretically, it is also true period. Just name one national election that has been decided by one vote in the history of mankind in all of Western civilisation. I'm waiting... That suggests that your decision to vote has a nearly zero chance of making any difference.

voting should still be encouraged because if too many people from any one side feel that way and are inspired not to vote, it means that one side might win for the sole reason that too many of their supporters bought into this interesting, but not useful, theoretical fact

Voting is encouraged yet plenty of people from both sides are already not inspired to vote. Your personal decision not to vote does not influence masses of people from one side to not vote, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

As I explained, voting and littering are different. You dropping little still adds clutter, unlike voting. You adding litter may encourage others to do so. But you not voting is a) less visible, and b) unlikely to influence others because they are backward rationalising that it is rational for the individual to vote, just like you are doing. You see my decision not to vote hasn't influenced you, has it?

I feel the reason people want to fight this with me is because they start with the conclusion that it is rational for them to vote. Everybody says it, it must be true. But when confronted with a good explanation of reality, people want to contort the truth to prove the unprovable. Start with the data, then see where that takes you, rather than the other way around.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

That's easily answered by, "If everybody felt that way, then I would vote because my vote would then carry some weight."

Sorry, but that is a two-pass algorithm but life is one-pass and done.

 

[moke123]

I'm surprised to see how many elections have been decided by one vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results

@The_Doc_Man - Shouldn't you be evacuating?⛈⛈🌩🌩🌧⛈🌩🌬🌪🌪

 

[Jon]

@moke123, thank you for proving my point.

 

[Jon]

Sorry, but that is a two-pass algorithm but life is one-pass and done.

Sorry Doc, that was a little too opaque for me, even if I have an inkling on what you might be getting at. Care to clarify, so I can then clarify in response?

 

[Isaac]

It is not only true theoretically, it is also true period. Just name one national election that has been decided by one vote in the history of mankind in all of Western civilisation. I'm waiting... That suggests that your decision to vote has a nearly zero chance of making any difference.


Voting is encouraged yet plenty of people from both sides are already not inspired to vote. Your personal decision not to vote does not influence masses of people from one side to not vote, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

As I explained, voting and littering are different. You dropping little still adds clutter, unlike voting. You adding litter may encourage others to do so. But you not voting is a) less visible, and b) unlikely to influence others because they are backward rationalising that it is rational for the individual to vote, just like you are doing. You see my decision not to vote hasn't influenced you, has it?

I feel the reason people want to fight this with me is because they start with the conclusion that it is rational for them to vote. Everybody says it, it must be true. But when confronted with a good explanation of reality, people want to contort the truth to prove the unprovable. Start with the data, then see where that takes you, rather than the other way around.

I'm not directly arguing with your conclusion that one vote makes a difference. I'm just arguing with your second conclusion, the one that seems to have resulted out of the first conclusion...Which seems to be something like, Then it doesn't make sense to vote. If very many people bought into that, then that actually would make a difference, so for me I conclude then it does make sense for each person to make the decision to vote.

And I stand by my littering example. You have pointed out a difference between littering and voting which I don't disagree with. However, I'm emphasizing a similarity. Taken as one individual action, they both make somewhere between almost none and no difference. But if many people acted on that to conclude "I guess my action/inaction doesn't make a difference", then that makes a difference.

So it's not as much that I'm arguing whether you are right...Just whether or not the next conclusion you come to is sensible.

And as for data, it's on my side too. Just look at what happens to an election when too many people buy into your idea...Guess what, the other side wins.

 

[Jon]

@Isaac I think I understand your position. Let me start with the littering. So if someone fly-tipped a ton of rubbish into your driveway, so long as no one else in the country does it, it makes next to no difference. Correct?

Regarding the first part of your argument, I think I finally get it. What you are saying is that although one person might not vote, it could influence others to not vote en mass and therefore tip the result of the election. Its like you deciding to not vote has a snowball effect that ends up crushing the opposition. Your decision not to vote brainwashed people in bulk all on one side of the political divide, and that was enough to tip the outcome of the election. Correct?

And as for data, it's on my side too. Just look at what happens to an election when too many people buy into your idea...Guess what, the other side wins.

That is a hypothesis, not data. Do you have data that shows one persons decision not to vote swayed the election? When I decide not to vote, what exactly is the other side? It is apolitical position that either side of the political divide can adopt.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I found Biden's acceptance speech to be political noise and platitudes surrounding his lies regarding Trump and the state of the country. I was pleased to see that the BBC fact checkers pointed out at least one of his most egregious claims. This is the same lie that the left has been pushing for three years and way too many people still believe it. Too bad the American press is so completely dishonest that they couldn't point out the same lie.

BBC Fact-Checks Biden's Charlottesville 'Very Fine People' Claim and Shows What Trump Really Said

In his acceptance speech, Biden regurgitated the claim that Trump called white supremacists in Charlotte 'very fine people.'

www.westernjournal.com

 

[Isaac]

Let me start with the littering. So if someone fly-tipped a ton of rubbish into your driveway, so long as no one else in the country does it, it makes next to no difference. Correct?

Not exactly. But, it's my fault for not being clear enough in my littering verbiage. I meant, a scenario more like, you are in a large, 3000 square mile park (like Yellowstone National Park). One person might litter one candy wrapper, based on the assumption that it will make virtually no difference to the park - and they will be right. If many people take that view, then it will obviously make a difference. And once that happens, was the original premise very useful as a guiding principle? Despite being true? I'd say "no".
(If you wanted to stick to the driveway scenario, then I'd be referring to something more along the lines of one person littering one cigarette butt, compared to everyone who drove by littering one....Virtually no difference vs. Much difference....I think you get what I am saying).

Regarding the first part of your argument, I think I finally get it. What you are saying is that although one person might not vote, it could influence others to not vote en mass and therefore tip the result of the election. Its like you deciding to not vote has a snowball effect that ends up crushing the opposition. Your decision not to vote brainwashed people in bulk all on one side of the political divide, and that was enough to tip the outcome of the election. Correct?

No, I'm not even going that far. I'm acknowledging that even if your position is, one vote makes no difference, period ... Yes, you are correct.
What I'm saying is, if very many / enough people used that "truth" to guide their actions, the result would make a difference.

Let's take an easy example, exaggerated a bit to show what I mean. If 50% of all Republicans considered your "correct" principle to be useful and allowed it to guide their voting decision, resulting in them not voting, I don't think we need a scientific study to agree that that will make a difference in the election.

I'm saying it's a true statement, but not useful for the masses, because if too many people followed it on an individual basis "my vote makes no difference therefore I won't vote", then the results would be very significant - and definitely make a difference.