• Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 天前

    If your argument is that from the politicians’ perspective they believe, or claim to believe, that people support them based on the amount of votes they receive while ignoring the context of what the other choices in that vote are, and use those votes as proof they should continue holding their current policies, then yes, that’s probably true. My reaction to this would be to say the proper place to give a politician “legitimacy” by voting for or against their policies while avoiding the negative consequences of a protest vote getting someone like Trump elected is in the primaries, not the general.

    • BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 天前

      Neat! Or whatever, I couldnt really give a fuck what you believe or your reaction is or whatever. I dont live in the fantasy-land you construct in order to avoid engaging with basic concepts, I live in the world where you dont vote “for or against policies” you vote for a party or a politician and that group or person uses the vote as a point of support for their policies. I think im going to end my interaction with this discussion here, because there’s nothing to gain from it at this point, its pretty clear you just want to play make-pretend.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 小时前

        I’m honestly confused why you would engage in discussion at all if you don’t believe you could learn anything from anyone else. If you think your opponents are all delusional, you might as well just go try arguing with a rock. The irony of you believing you understand the reality of the situation does not escape me.