Will Joe Biden be the next president?

[Isaac]

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

The RNC has (I think personally), done a GREAT job so far. Absolutely phenomenal. Whether it's enough to sway voters who are taking everything they know into account, or not, I'm not knowledgeable enough in marketing and PR to even hazard a guess ...
Of course having the "last word" (RNC after DNC) doesn't hurt.

 

[Jon]

Its ok @Isaac, I knew what you meant. The difference between littering and voting is that dropping one piece of litter will always make a difference, however small. But an individuals vote makes a) no difference if on the losing side, and b) only make a difference if the election would have otherwise been a tie.

Do I think no littering is a good principle? Yes, because it will always make a difference. I never drop litter. When I was 18, my friend used to throw his McDonalds out of the car window into the countryside. Do I think voting is a good principle? Yes, because people vote to decide a winner. This is where people misinterpret what I say. I am very clear in my meaning but people read different things into it. Do I believe it is rational for an individual to decide to vote? No it is not. Reality and history proves this beyond doubt.

What I'm saying is, if very many / enough people used that "truth" to guide their actions, the result would make a difference.

Yes! Yes! I now get it!! You mean this:

1. My truth only influences one side of the political divide.
2. Enough of them hear about it to tip the election, because I am out there with a loud hailer day and night spreading this truth.
3. My truth melts their minds and they all take my position, unlike anyone here on the forum.
4. People only listen to my truth and not the millions of other non-voters and the voters.

In the US, about 92 million eligible voters don't vote. My decision turned that into 92,000,001 voters deciding not to vote. That extra non-vote was enough to sway even more non-voters to make the difference in the election. Is that your reasoning?

 

[Jon]

The RNC has (I think personally), done a GREAT job so far. Absolutely phenomenal.

I agree. I thought Melania's speech was really good. I think Col alluded to that too.

Of course having the "last word" (RNC after DNC) doesn't hurt.

I think the last word will actually be the riots. People will surely get fed up with all the vandalism and arson. That is where you need strong law and order to take back control. Plenty of people getting killed out there.

 

[Isaac]

Its ok @Isaac, I knew what you meant. The difference between littering and voting is that dropping one piece of litter will always make a difference, however small. But an individuals vote makes a) no difference if on the losing side, and b) only make a difference if the election would have otherwise been a tie.

Fair enough. I'm being a little sloppier in my analogy, but the analogy still has value to the point I'm making, which is: Even if individual actions make no OR little difference, it would be undesirable for numerous people to follow this principle, because then it WILL make a difference. Whether the original principle is "little difference" or "no difference", my point is the same...It be irrational on an individual level to take or avoid the action that will make little or no difference, but on a large scale of people doing that, then they have collectively made a difference--the exact opposite effect they'd hoped.

In the US, about 92 million eligible voters don't vote. My decision turned that into 92,000,001 voters deciding not to vote. That extra vote was enough to make the difference in the election. Is that your reasoning?

More like this: About 92 million eligible voters don't vote - and each one of them uses your reasoning, the oft-repeated excuse for not voting. None of them individually made the difference, but 92 million of them certainly did.

You're focused on the logic that one person might use against their own decision to vote. I'm focused on what the result is in reality when millions of people use that logic on themselves.

 

[Isaac]

Another way to look at what I am saying, in order to break free of the laser focus on voting, might be this:
Assume a war has 2 possible outcomes: winning or losing. Assume a war has soldiers; in this hypothetical, all soldiers' effort collectively is what factors into the final outcome.

I'm suggesting that it isn't wise to preach the principle--however "absolutely true" you may say it is--that one individual soldier's effort makes little or no difference to the outcome. Very many soldiers take that to heart, and you can see what happens....
As we know already does happen in voting. Participation is what I am after, as a way of supporting democracy and representation.

 

[Jon]

but on a large scale of people doing that, then they have collectively made a difference

Over 50 million people voted for Hillary. Did that make a difference? 50 million pieces of litter would be a very big difference.

None of them individually made the difference, but 92 million of them certainly did.

You are now conflating groups of voters with an individual voter. They are not the same. If you said that 92 million extra people voted, then that indeed could make a difference. But you are not 92 million people. You are just you. This argument comes out quite often, once the facts close in that indeed it is irrational for the individual to vote. Years of programming convince you that its true, it becomes like a religion.

So I agree that 92 million people may influence the outcome of the election, if they don't vote in the same balance as the existing voters. But you haven't influenced 92 million people.

You're focused on the logic that one person might use against their own decision to vote. I'm focused on what the result is in reality when millions of people use that logic on themselves.

Earlier you were arguing that one individual can sway the election due to influencing others, but now you are saying that you are talking about huge numbers using that logic on themselves. It seems that you have either changed your mind or altered your argument in the face of my irrefutable logic!!

 

[Jon]

I'm suggesting that it isn't wise to preach the principle--however "absolutely true" you may say it is--that one individual soldier's effort makes little or no difference to the outcome. Very many soldiers take that to heart, and you can see what happens....

If you want to use that analogy, a soldier is already a voter. Someone who decides to not go into the army is a non-voter. But you are arguing as though the soldier is a non-voter. It is the opposite.

Participation is what I am after, as a way of supporting democracy and representation.

Is it rational to participate in a process where your vote doesn't make any difference?

And I haven't even covered the negative aspects of voting!

 

[Jon]

Something to consider...can you name any of the people you know that have influenced enough to decide any national election in their lifetime? Any relatives? Any friends of friends? Look to reality for answers, rather than what you think reality should be or what others tell you it is.

Maybe 20 people know of my view. Not one changed their mind. It didn't sway an election.

Your natural instinct will be to argue against what I have said, which means you haven't heard the message.

 

[Isaac]

You are now conflating groups of voters with an individual voter. They are not the same. If you said that 92 million extra people voted, then that indeed could make a difference. But you are not 92 million people. You are just you.

That's just it. You've missed my whole point. I've already conceded that an individual vote makes no difference - that issue is settled. I'm sure I've said that at least twice now, or 3x with this post.

I've just suggested that the large blocks of people (millions) not voting, they probably use your logic in order not to do so. And that is consequential. Because it's no longer one - it's 92 million. I think you get the truth of what I'm saying - and unfortunately I've run out of ways to say it.

One vote doesn't make a difference, but it sure makes a difference when 92 million people think that way.

 

[Isaac]

Earlier you were arguing that one individual can sway the election due to influencing others

No, that was never what I meant. All I was trying to convey was the very simple idea that using your logic, large blocks of people don't vote - and that is consequential.

 

[Jon]

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying it is irrational for one person to decide to vote, because it makes no difference?

 

[Isaac]

I'm saying focusing on whether it's irrational or rational on the individual level alone is nonsensical and harmful because it is likely adopted by larger (consequential) blocks of voters.

 

[Jon]

I think you are confusing causation and correlation. Whether or not other non-voters have the same thoughts as me or not, does not mean I have influenced them to think that way. I am not their cause. Therefore, I have not affected one way or the other how they decided to act. Like I said, about 20 people know my views on this and no one changed their mind. There are 92 million Americans who do not vote. Do you still believe that my decision to not vote has influenced enough of them to swing an election? You are persisting in suggesting that I am like a block of voters when I am not. Focusing on if it is rational to vote or not has no harm to others, because I am not influencing larger blocks of voters.

Let's say 92 million non-voters all had the same reasoning as me. Was that because of me? Nope. Did my individual decision not to vote influence them? Nope. Your argument hinges on me influencing enough people to swing an election. There is zero evidence to support that view at all. None.

 

[Isaac]

I think you are confusing causation and correlation. Whether or not other non-voters have the same thoughts as me or not, does not mean I have influenced them to think that way. I am not their cause. Therefore, I have not affected one way or the other how they decided to act. Like I said, about 20 people know my views on this and no one changed their mind. There are 92 million Americans who do not vote. Do you still believe that my decision to not vote has influenced enough of them to swing an election? You are persisting in suggesting that I am like a block of voters when I am not. Focusing on if it is rational to vote or not has no harm to others, because I am not influencing larger blocks of voters.

Let's say 92 million non-voters all had the same reasoning as me. Was that because of me? Nope. Did my individual decision not to vote influence them? Nope. Your argument hinges on me influencing enough people to swing an election. There is zero evidence to support that view at all. None.

I don't know where you're getting this idea that I'm saying that anything causes anything. I'm just saying if many people adopt your point of view it has a harmful result. Period.

 

[Jon]

Ok, so you accept I am not influencing others to not vote. I believed you were saying that was the case. "Adopt" sounds like they are copying my point of view rather than them just having the same point of view.

Is it irrational for one person to decide to vote, because it makes no difference? You avoided answering that one.

92 million people have already decided not to vote. In what way has that been harmful? I presume you mean that you would have preferred Hillary to be in power, since you say it has a harmful result.

 

[Isaac]

Ok, so you accept I am not influencing others to not vote. I believed you were saying that was the case.

Accepted.

Is it irrational for one person to decide to vote, because it makes no difference? You avoided answering that one.

I'm still not sure on that point. if people were making that decision in a vacuum, then you might say it was irrational. But since they know they're making it as part of a conglomerate of other people making a similar decision, I'm not even sure that statement is entirely true.

92 million people have already decided not to vote. In what way has that been harmful?

Whether or not you think it is harmful probably has to do with how you view participation in the Democratic process.

 

[Jon]

But since they know they're making it as part of a conglomerate of other people making a similar decision, I'm not even sure that statement is entirely true.

Can you show me the math that being part of a conglomerate of other people makes any difference to the vacuum? I can give you some math if you like.

One vote doesn't make a difference, but it sure makes a difference when 92 million people think that way.

I think you were talking about its ability to influence the election in earlier posts, by suggesting larger numbers of people could impact the election Have you switched to it being about the Democratic participation instead?

 

[Jon]

But since they know they're making it as part of a conglomerate of other people making a similar decision, I'm not even sure that statement is entirely true.

I think we have come back to the influecing argument again!!

 

[pbaldy]

If the site owner wasn't involved I'd probably split all this off into it's own thread.

 

[Isaac]

Can you show me the math that being part of a conglomerate of other people makes any difference to the vacuum? I can give you some math if you like.

I didn't suggest that it makes any difference to the vacuum. I'm suggesting the rational basis for the decision might be based on things outside of the vacuum.

think you were talking about its ability to influence the election in earlier posts, by suggesting larger numbers of people could impact the election

nope I never was. I was only saying if many people take your principal to heart, it will have an effect.