johnkclark at gmail.com
Sun Aug 14 23:41:16 UTC 2016
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> California's electors will go to the Democratic candidate, with over 99%
I don't know where you got that 99% figure. Historically betting odds have
proven to be a better predictor of the future than polls or
anything else and as of today
there is a 93.5% probability that Clinton will win California and a 6.5%
probability that Trump will
I freely admit
California is no
swing state but the probability that Trump will win it is not negligible
a 6.5% chance I'd get killed the next time I drove my car to work I'd take
the bus. In California voting for a third party candidate would only be 2.5
times less dangerous than playing Russian Roulette.
> Now, if you would like to stop accusing the rest of us of wholeheartedly
> supporting genocide when we are not in fact supporting genocide, in theory
> or in practice, that would be appreciated.
I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but your your discomfort doesn't
change the facts and reality can not be fooled.
> As demonstrated, your chain of logic that suggests that third party votes
> increase the chance of Trump's victory, regardless of what state said votes
> are cast in, is in error.
This year voting for a third party is a very bad idea, in some states it
would be a worse idea than others but no matter where you live it's always
a bad idea. I've voted for the Libertarian Party candidate in the past and
would probably do so again this time if it were a normal election, and
unlike you I live in a swing state that's about 50-50, but this is far from
a normal election because Donald Trump is not normal.
> I might almost wonder if you are a paid employee of the Democratic party:
Oh for Christs sake.
John k Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat