Trump picks Ohio Sen. JD Vance for vice president

[Hoodat]

The existence of an irrelevant or non sequitur choice does not render the effective binary choice (A or B) false.

For instance, if the question is who will win the boxing match between Mike Tyson and Oleksandr Usyk?

Then you can indeed choose Taylor Swift as your response. But given that Taylor Swift is not even a rational choice then the choice is moot and anyone betting on her to even be present for the Tyson-Usyk match is stupid.

@MeganC

Couple of things here that is wrong with your logic.  First off, Taylor Swift isn't an option in a fight between two people, neither of which is Taylor Swift.  Second, even this isn't a binary choice because of the way you worded it.  Your question is who would win.  Tyson and Usyk could end up in a draw, in which case neither wins.  So there are three outcomes:

- Tyson wins
- Usyk wins
- Neither wins

Not binary.  One can choose Tyson to win, Usyk to win, or neither to win.  Taylor Swift is not an option because only two persons are allowed in the fight, and she is not one of them.

This scenario differs significantly from the US Presidential election where.  There are more than two persons in the fight.  And there is no possibility of a draw.  Here are the possible outcomes:

- The Democrat Party nominee wins
- The Republican Party nominee wins
- The Green Party nominee wins
- The Libertarian Party nominee wins
- The Constitution Party nominee wins
- Independent candidate #1 wins
- Independent candidate #2 wins
- etc.

Again, not a binary choice.  And by definition, the existence of a third choice does indeed render void a true-false binary choice.  'A or B' is a binary choice.  'A or B or C' is not, regardless of how unlikely the outcome of C as long as 'C' is possible.

[libertybele]

@Hoodat

"Linda-Linda-Listen...Linda-Listen-Linda..."

You're purposefully contorted my post in order to give me an English lesson.  Eff off.

Don't care how many people are running for POTUS in November. 

The FACT is that the winner is going to be a Republican or a Democratic Party candidate. 

Any vote cast other than THAT BINARY choice we truly have is wasted and merely a protest vote.

In theory there is some truth to that, however, IF we had a third party candidate that qualified in ALL 50 states and was on the ballot, then it wouldn't be a wasted vote.  Yes, a 3rd party candidate's chances of winning is pretty much slim to none, but if they were to qualify in all 50 states, then there truly would be a possible win.  Therefore, that wouldn't be a wasted vote nor a protest vote.  And it would truly no longer be a binary choice, nor would there be a guarantee of a DEM or GOP candidate.

[DCPatriot]

In two years, I will be joining you and @massadvj  in that lifestyle


Nearly 40 years working for the American healthcare system takes its toll

And it isn’t getting better.

Congratulations @LMAO

But waiting two more years in this cultural atmosphere seems like an eternity!  Hang tough!!   

[DCPatriot]

In theory there is some truth to that, however, IF we had a third party candidate that qualified in ALL 50 states and was on the ballot, then it wouldn't be a wasted vote.  Yes, a 3rd party candidate's chances of winning is pretty much slim to none, but if they were to qualify in all 50 states, then there truly would be a possible win.  Therefore, that wouldn't be a wasted vote nor a protest vote.  And it would truly no longer be a binary choice, nor would there be a guarantee of a DEM or GOP candidate.

Love ya, @libertybele 

But, IMO, YOUR scenario is the theory right now.  Mine is reality as it exists right now.

[roamer_1]

There are 10 kinds of people in this world:  Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HA! That's right.

[roamer_1]

In theory there is some truth to that, however, IF we had a third party candidate that qualified in ALL 50 states and was on the ballot, then it wouldn't be a wasted vote.  Yes, a 3rd party candidate's chances of winning is pretty much slim to none, but if they were to qualify in all 50 states, then there truly would be a possible win.  Therefore, that wouldn't be a wasted vote nor a protest vote.  And it would truly no longer be a binary choice, nor would there be a guarantee of a DEM or GOP candidate.

A 'wasted' vote implies an ownership of that vote other than my own. "That vote should have gone to Tumpy," they snarl, 'Because Democrats n'shit"

No. it ain't Tumpy's vote. It's MY vote. And I can put it in any damn category I want to. Or I can put it in my pocket and walk away. In any case, the vote is not wasted. If I abstain, it might be considered a waste by the CP candidate, which is the only one with a chance in hell of receiving my vote otherwise.

It ain't at all more 'wasted' for Tumpy than it is for Bitem, because neither damn one of them were ever gonna get my vote anyway. BOTH of em are a hell no from the get go.

[DCPatriot]

A 'wasted' vote implies an ownership of that vote other than my own. "That vote should have gone to Tumpy," they snarl, 'Because Democrats n'shit"

No. it ain't Tumpy's vote. It's MY vote. And I can put it in any damn category I want to. Or I can put it in my pocket and walk away. In any case, the vote is not wasted. If I abstain, it might be considered a waste by the CP candidate, which is the only one with a chance in hell of receiving my vote otherwise.

It ain't at all more 'wasted' for Tumpy than it is for Bitem, because neither damn one of them were ever gonna get my vote anyway. BOTH of em are a hell no from the get go.

Well, aren't you 'Special'... 

[roamer_1]

Well, aren't you 'Special'...

Yes I am. And so are you. Just the same.

[roamer_1]

A wasted vote would be voting *FOR* what you DON"T WANT. That is a wasted vote. A vote with no ROI.

[Hoodat]

A 'wasted' vote implies an ownership of that vote other than my own. "That vote should have gone to Tumpy," they snarl, 'Because Democrats n'shit"

No. it ain't Tumpy's vote. It's MY vote. And I can put it in any damn category I want to. Or I can put it in my pocket and walk away. In any case, the vote is not wasted. If I abstain, it might be considered a waste by the CP candidate, which is the only one with a chance in hell of receiving my vote otherwise.

It ain't at all more 'wasted' for Tumpy than it is for Bitem, because neither damn one of them were ever gonna get my vote anyway. BOTH of em are a hell no from the get go.

@roamer_1

The 'binary choice' argument that is effectively being offered here is:

- Vote for Trump
- Not vote for Trump

The argument above is indeed a binary choice in theory.  But those proposing it aren't honest enough to admit that this is what they are proposing.  They dance around the second premise by taking all other options and placing them in the 'Not vote for Trump' pile, granting each the same moral equivalency.  A vote for Harris is the same as a vote for Kennedy, which is the same as a vote for Bob Good, which is the same as not voting at all.  They are all one - a 'not vote for Trump'.

It's been that way with them since my first day here.  You are either #AlwaysTrump, or you are #NeverTrump.  Everything else gets put in the #NeverTrump pile by default.  You voted for Trump, but you don't like him funding Planned Parenthood?  Then you're a #NeverTrumper.  You liked his foreign policy but can't back his liberal policies?  #NeverTrumper.  You admire Trump's stamina and his willingness to fight, but can't bring yourself to vote for another $8 trillion in debt?  #NeverTrumper.

THIS is the big lie.  Sure, they push the 'binary choice' schtick.  But they simply refuse to be honest about what that choice is.  They can't accept someone casting a vote for Jesus Himself, because that vote would go into the binary 'not a vote for Trump' pile.

[Hoodat]

A 'wasted' vote implies an ownership of that vote other than my own. "That vote should have gone to Tumpy," they snarl, 'Because Democrats n'shit"

No. it ain't Tumpy's vote. It's MY vote. And I can put it in any damn category I want to. Or I can put it in my pocket and walk away. In any case, the vote is not wasted. If I abstain, it might be considered a waste by the CP candidate, which is the only one with a chance in hell of receiving my vote otherwise.

  ↑   ↑   ↑   ↑
  T   H   I   S

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

The 'binary choice' argument that is effectively being offered here is:

- Vote for Trump
- Not vote for Trump

The argument above is indeed a binary choice in theory.  But those proposing it aren't honest enough to admit that this is what they are proposing.  They dance around the second premise by taking all other options and placing them in the 'Not vote for Trump' pile, granting each the same moral equivalency.  A vote for Harris is the same as a vote for Kennedy, which is the same as a vote for Bob Good, which is the same as not voting at all.  They are all one - a 'not vote for Trump'.

It's been that way with them since my first day here.  You are either #AlwaysTrump, or you are #NeverTrump.  Everything else gets put in the #NeverTrump pile by default.  You voted for Trump, but you don't like him funding Planned Parenthood?  Then you're a #NeverTrumper.  You liked his foreign policy but can't back his liberal policies?  #NeverTrumper.  You admire Trump's stamina and his willingness to fight, but can't bring yourself to vote for another $8 trillion in debt?  #NeverTrumper.

THIS is the big lie.  Sure, they push the 'binary choice' schtick.  But they simply refuse to be honest about what that choice is.  They can't accept someone casting a vote for Jesus Himself, because that vote would go into the binary 'not a vote for Trump' pile.

I know @Hoodat ... This whole damn line of thinking was debunked months ago... But here we go again. Again.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Is it time to lock this thread and make room for discussion on other topics?  Rumor has it there's a lot going on. 

@Cyber Liberty

[Timber Rattler]

Is it time to lock this thread and make room for discussion on other topics?  Rumor has it there's a lot going on. 

@Cyber Liberty

No.

[libertybele]

Love ya, @libertybele 

But, IMO, YOUR scenario is the theory right now.  Mine is reality as it exists right now.

You are absolutely correct; my scenario is never going to happen in this election.

Anyone can cast their vote for a 3rd party candidate, Libertarian, Constitution Party or otherwise, but at the end of the day the reality is we will wind up with either a candidate under the GOP umbrella or the DEM umbrella.  That IS reality.

[Cyber Liberty]

Is it time to lock this thread and make room for discussion on other topics?  Rumor has it there's a lot going on. 

@Cyber Liberty

Not yet.

[cato potatoe]

You are absolutely correct; my scenario is never going to happen in this election.

Anyone can cast their vote for a 3rd party candidate, Libertarian, Constitution Party or otherwise, but at the end of the day the reality is we will wind up with either a candidate under the GOP umbrella or the DEM umbrella.  That IS reality.

It's likely, but not reality until it actually happens.  You can help make it reality by participating in the farce. 

Joe Biden is unpopular.  Kamala Harris is unpopular.  All that was needed of republicans was to nominate someone with mediocre favorability.  That's all they had to do.  According to a recent AP poll, 57% of Americans want Trump to withdraw and allow his party to select a different candidate.  Now it's a coinflip between an 80 yr old child and a dingbat socialist.  The republicans chose poorly, and Trump chose poorly.  This is a pattern of behavior which has resulted in loss after loss in various contests.  And now instead of promising to change, they are exploiting your fear to bail them out again.  At some point you just have to walk away.

[roamer_1]

You are absolutely correct; my scenario is never going to happen in this election.

Anyone can cast their vote for a 3rd party candidate, Libertarian, Constitution Party or otherwise, but at the end of the day the reality is we will wind up with either a candidate under the GOP umbrella or the DEM umbrella.  That IS reality.

Which brings us finally and inevitably to Schroedinger's cat. The reality is the potential, not the reality itself...

And that leads inevitably to 'who gives AF?'

The potential of my vote was never destined for Tumpy. So what?
that it was destined for CP or even abstaining is no skin off your nose. It was never meant for Tumpy in the first place.

[MeganC]

@MeganC

Couple of things here that is wrong with your logic.  First off, Taylor Swift isn't an option in a fight between two people, neither of which is Taylor Swift.  Second, even this isn't a binary choice because of the way you worded it.  Your question is who would win.  Tyson and Usyk could end up in a draw, in which case neither wins.  So there are three outcomes:

- Tyson wins
- Usyk wins
- Neither wins

Not binary.  One can choose Tyson to win, Usyk to win, or neither to win.  Taylor Swift is not an option because only two persons are allowed in the fight, and she is not one of them.

This scenario differs significantly from the US Presidential election where.  There are more than two persons in the fight.  And there is no possibility of a draw.  Here are the possible outcomes:

- The Democrat Party nominee wins
- The Republican Party nominee wins
- The Green Party nominee wins
- The Libertarian Party nominee wins
- The Constitution Party nominee wins
- Independent candidate #1 wins
- Independent candidate #2 wins
- etc.

Again, not a binary choice.  And by definition, the existence of a third choice does indeed render void a true-false binary choice.  'A or B' is a binary choice.  'A or B or C' is not, regardless of how unlikely the outcome of C as long as 'C' is possible.

Aside from fanciful speculation irrelevant choices have no bearing on a binary option.

[mystery-ak]

Not good...this is just one comment there are many..

https://twitter.com/MeghanMcCain/status/1816442474467930294

[DB]

Aside from fanciful speculation irrelevant choices have no bearing on a binary option.

Basic logic shows that it is not a binary choice in terms of one's vote. Clearly if you have a vote choice between Hitler and Stalin you would vote for neither. After that is a matter of degree of the lesser evil. Not voting for evil is a valid choice. When you vote for evil you are condoning it.

[DCPatriot]

Not good...this is just one comment there are many..

https://twitter.com/MeghanMcCain/status/1816442474467930294

The women vote was put in extreme jeopardy when the 'Conservative' SCOTUS put the abortion issue in the hands of the States and not the federal government.

With "Information Dominance" it gave the Democrats and the Mainstream Media (but I repeat myself) the "Brass Ring"

[cato potatoe]

Not good...this is just one comment there are many..

Let's face it.  He sucked up to Trump more than anyone.  Youngkin is taller than Trump, and MAGA cannot deal with that.  Haley would be honest with Trump, and Donald could not deal with that.

I have to say though, the childless-by-choice presidents were terrible:  Harding, Jackson, and Buchanan.  Look in the senate now.  Mikulski, Cantwell, Baldwin, Sinema -- leftist cat ladies.  Corey Booker, Lindsey Graham -- hysterical closet cases.  He has a point.

[MeganC]

Basic logic shows that it is not a binary choice in terms of one's vote. Clearly if you have a vote choice between Hitler and Stalin you would vote for neither. After that is a matter of degree of the lesser evil. Not voting for evil is a valid choice. When you vote for evil you are condoning it.

There was a vote between Hitler and Stalin.

The bullets, bombs, and blood chose Stalin.

[DCPatriot]

Basic logic shows that it is not a binary choice in terms of one's vote. Clearly if you have a vote choice between Hitler and Stalin you would vote for neither. After that is a matter of degree of the lesser evil. Not voting for evil is a valid choice. When you vote for evil you are condoning it.

There has NEVER been a 3rd Party candidate elected POTUS in history.

Perot enabled Clinton to defeat George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992. 

Nevertheless, still proving that throwing a personal tantrum...withholding your vote because you don't like the GOP candidate is a wasted vote with adverse consequences.

ERGO, the "Binary" argument still holds.

[roamer_1]

There has NEVER been a 3rd Party candidate elected POTUS in history.

Perot enabled Clinton to defeat George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992. 

Nevertheless, still proving that throwing a personal tantrum...withholding your vote because you don't like the GOP candidate is a wasted vote with adverse consequences.

ERGO, the "Binary" argument still holds.

It does not. There are at least three choices. THREE.

The logic of 'withholding' a vote again implies an ownership that is false.

It appears to YOU that YOUR candidates attributes are self evident, and thereby the obvious choice... ergo the 'withholding' language - my vote ought to belong to Tumpy, according to you, and therefore I am withholding what is rightfully Tumpy's.

That is not true.

[Hoodat]

The women vote was put in extreme jeopardy when the 'Conservative' SCOTUS put the abortion issue in the hands of the States and not the federal government.

What does the Dobbs decision have to do with Vance's stupid, idiotic, asinine statement?

[Hoodat]

There has NEVER been a 3rd Party candidate elected POTUS in history.

[Hoodat]

Aside from fanciful speculation irrelevant choices have no bearing on a binary option.

@MeganC

When you say 'option', are you referring to choice, or are you referring to outcome?  Also, making yourself the arbiter of what is relevant does not change the fact that a third choice exists, thus making it non-binary by definition.

[Hoodat]

There was a vote between Hitler and Stalin.

The bullets, bombs, and blood chose Stalin.

How did Switzerland vote?  Option 1?  Option 2?  Or was there a third (non-binary) option?

[MeganC]

How did Switzerland vote?  Option 1?  Option 2?  Or was there a third (non-binary) option?

Switzerland bought and sold weapons to and from Germany during the war.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Is it time to lock this thread and make room for discussion on other topics?  Rumor has it there's a lot going on. 

@Cyber Liberty

Not yet.

What, if I may ask, is the objective of keeping this thread?  The Republican ticket is set ... the primary-style debate is finished.  Diminishing our candidates at this point and promoting not voting as virtuous  ----  and doing both over and over and over again seems counterproductive to victory in November. 

What am I missing here @Cyber Liberty ? 

[MeganC]

What, if I may ask, is the objective of keeping this thread? 

I'm personally hoping to hijack the thread into a lively discussion about Swiss-made arms in the WW2 era. 

[Polly Ticks]

I'm personally hoping to hijack the thread into a lively discussion about Swiss-made arms in the WW2 era. 

I can't help with WW2 era, but here are some nice Swiss-made arms:

[roamer_1]

What, if I may ask, is the objective of keeping this thread?  The Republican ticket is set ... the primary-style debate is finished.  Diminishing our candidates at this point and promoting not voting as virtuous  ----  and doing both over and over and over again seems counterproductive to victory in November. 

What am I missing here @Cyber Liberty ?

That might be true if we were a Republican house and not a Conservative one.

[Timber Rattler]

What, if I may ask, is the objective of keeping this thread?  The Republican ticket is set ... the primary-style debate is finished.  Diminishing our candidates at this point and promoting not voting as virtuous  ----  and doing both over and over and over again seems counterproductive to victory in November. 

What am I missing here @Cyber Liberty ?

You're really into that censorship thing, aren't you, when the heat in the kitchen gets a might toasty.

 

[Cyber Liberty]

What, if I may ask, is the objective of keeping this thread?  The Republican ticket is set ... the primary-style debate is finished.  Diminishing our candidates at this point and promoting not voting as virtuous  ----  and doing both over and over and over again seems counterproductive to victory in November. 

What am I missing here @Cyber Liberty ?

Briefers are still talking about it.

[DCPatriot]

What does the Dobbs decision have to do with Vance's stupid, idiotic, asinine statement?

The point is that Vance's statement isn't going to change anything.  You're just doing your standard criticisms because you're @Hoodat It's what you've being doing here since Ted Cruz did a face plant in 2016.

[Kamaji]

Only if you ignore reality and math. 


This IS math.  'Binary' means two choices - by its very definition.  Not sure how anyone can screw that up.  Simple logic.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world:  Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[LMAO]

You're really into that censorship thing, aren't you, when the heat in the kitchen gets a might toasty.

 

Yup

[LMAO]

It's likely, but not reality until it actually happens.  You can help make it reality by participating in the farce. 

Joe Biden is unpopular.  Kamala Harris is unpopular.  All that was needed of republicans was to nominate someone with mediocre favorability.  That's all they had to do.  According to a recent AP poll, 57% of Americans want Trump to withdraw and allow his party to select a different candidate.  Now it's a coinflip between an 80 yr old child and a dingbat socialist.  The republicans chose poorly, and Trump chose poorly.  This is a pattern of behavior which has resulted in loss after loss in various contests.  And now instead of promising to change, they are exploiting your fear to bail them out again.  At some point you just have to walk away.

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

You're really into that censorship thing, aren't you, when the heat in the kitchen gets a might toasty.

Nonsense.  I am into strategic thinking.  There's no point to this obsessive debate when the selection process has ended and the outcome is set ---- unless you enjoy being part of the opposition's research ---- and I'm starting to believe that is your raison d'être.  You are rooting for a Republican defeat in November.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Briefers are still talking about it.

This is a non-answer to a specific and legitimate question.   

[jmyrlefuller]

Nonsense.  I am into strategic thinking.  There's no point to this obsessive debate when the selection process has ended and the outcome is set ---- unless you enjoy being part of the opposition's research ---- and I'm starting to believe that is your raison d'être.  You are rooting for a Republican defeat in November.

After your side sabotaged the primaries, this is revenge. Just remember that.

[Cyber Liberty]

This is a non-answer to a specific and legitimate question.   

 

[Hoodat]

The point is that Vance's statement isn't going to change anything.

Your 'reasoning' here, @DCPatriot , is that Vance is immune to any backlash for anything he does because Conservatives have poisoned the well by overturning one of the most unconstitutional rulings the Supreme Court has ever put out.  By that same 'reasoning', JD Vance could go on The View with Hunter Biden, strip down naked, and start smoking crack while jacking off to a photo of Herman Goering, and all of that would have no effect on voters.  No, the reason according to you why anyone would not want to vote for JD Vance is because Conservative Justices (three of which were nominated by Trump) overturned Roe.

What horseshit!

You're just doing your standard criticisms because you're @Hoodat It's what you've being doing here since Ted Cruz did a face plant in 2016.

I began criticizing stupidity long before you and your ilk began posting lies about Ted Cruz.  It's not about Vance.  It's about what he said.  Substance over style.  Just as the Trump-supporting author pointed out, Vance's comment is pushing women she knows away from voting for Trump.

[Hoodat]

What, if I may ask, is the objective of keeping this thread?

What is the objective of you trying to close it?

[Hoodat]

You're really into that censorship thing, aren't you, when the heat in the kitchen gets a might toasty.

What once were vices are now habits.  They've been getting threads that don't go their way locked out since I first arrived.

[Right_in_Virginia]

What, if I may ask, is the objective of keeping this thread?  The Republican ticket is set ... the primary-style debate is finished.  Diminishing our candidates at this point and promoting not voting as virtuous  ----  and doing both over and over and over again seems counterproductive to victory in November. 

What am I missing here @Cyber Liberty ?

That might be true if we were a Republican house and not a Conservative one.

The problems with your post are  1.TBR is a big tent forum (look around, if you doubt me), and 2. Conservatives make damn near any other political persuasion look like strategic geniuses.

[Hoodat]

I'm personally hoping to hijack the thread into a lively discussion about Swiss-made arms in the WW2 era. 

I'm down with that.  If the Swiss had shared a border with the USSR, they would have been trading with them, too.