I responded to another comment of yours with the “we’re not voting for them because we’re not voting them” fallacy 2 hours ago. Apparently you didn’t read it, or if you did, you failed to comprehend it. Link: https://lemmy.world/comment/14469499
A population using “chance of winning” (i.e. “is the population voting for them”) as a criteria for voting for a candidate is circular logic and irrational. End of discussion. You can act like an arrogant know-it-all after you actually gain the first fucking clue what you’re talking about.
I responded to another comment of yours with the “we’re not voting for them because we’re not voting them” fallacy 2 hours ago. Apparently you didn’t read it, or if you did, you failed to comprehend it. Link: https://lemmy.world/comment/14469499
A population using “chance of winning” (i.e. “is the population voting for them”) as a criteria for voting for a candidate is circular logic and irrational. End of discussion. You can act like an arrogant know-it-all after you actually gain the first fucking clue what you’re talking about.