Former GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee to attend Dem Convention

Yahoo! News ^ | 8/17/12 | Liz Goodwin - The Ticket

[NormsRevenge]

Former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee will attend the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte in September, WPRI reports.

Chafee is now the independent governor of liberal Rhode Island, and has been drifting away from the Republican Party since at least 2006, when he lost his re-election bid for the Senate. (In 2004, he withdrew his support for President George W. Bush's re-election.) Chafee backed President Barack Obama's 2008 run, and is a co-chair for his campaign.

[Nervous Tick]

It’s not a semantic game; it presumes an audience composed of rational conservatives who dislike the current president and deeply desire to replace him.

There are three components of that presumption:
** rational
** conservative
** hate Obama.

With the RDS crowd here on FR, one, two, or all three of those presumptions may not apply.

[Balding_Eagle]

OK, so how does all that turn someone who doesn’t go into the voting booth voting for Obmama?

And does that vote for Obama just include people who normally vote, or does that include everyone of voting age who doesn’t vote in November?

[KantianBurke]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21626048@N00/220542627/

[Nervous Tick]

You mean, a rational conservative who hates Obama and ordinarily would vote against him because it’s in his best interest to get rid of him? That’s what I said my premise is. I don’t give a rats ass about losers or pets or what have you. Just rational conservatives who hate Obama. Like I thought inhabited this forum.

If that guy doesn’t vote, or votes for a sure loser as a “protest” vote, then the serious challenger to Obama — the one that might actually remove him — gets one less vote.

One LESS vote for candidate A in a two-candidate race is mathematically exactly the same as one MORE vote for candidate B.

And don’t kid yourself — this IS a two candidate race.

I don’t even know why I’m bothering to explain this — you and the others going down this “logical” rathole already know the answwer, you are just engaging in sophism.

If you don’t know what sophism is, look it up.

[Balding_Eagle]

One LESS vote for candidate A in a two-candidate race is mathematically exactly the same as one MORE vote for candidate B.

Does that 'one less vote' include all eligble voters?

The answer can be short, using only two, or maybe three letters of the alphabet.

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

Not much surprise here. Benedict Arnold relocated to England after the hostilities, if I recall correctly. What’s the diff?

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

Oh, wait! I can answer my own question. Benedict Arnold at first served his country well and was a military leader at the Battle of Saratoga. At least he was good for something at one time.

Lincoln Chafee has always been good for nothing.

[exit82]

Maybe Chaffee can do a musical number with Jim Jeffords.

[Nervous Tick]

Read for meaning, Eagle. I have posted enough that if you do so, you’ll know clearly where I am coming from.

You’re not an idiot, far from it. I know that for a fact; I’ve had pleasant and stimulating discussions with you here, although it’s been a while. As I recall, you’re not only thoughtful, but you’ve also been around the block a time or two. And I have learned from you, and I appreciate that.

If memory serves, you’re a farmer or rancher by trade — correct?

Please read — at your leisure — the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism

If you’re still interested in exploring this rathole after that, by all means let me know, and we’ll do so. If I’m correct in my guesses, I think you’re doing yourself a disservice by joining the RDS brigade.

FRegards

[Balding_Eagle]

This has nothing to do with RDS, it has to do with the idea that simply not voting for someone (candidate A) is the same as casting a vote for candidate B.

That is simply false, as I demonstrated in my first post to you.

Not voting for candidate A is just that, he gets zero votes. So does candidate B.

To be redundant; If the guy behind me, in my example, goes into the booth and doesn’t vote for candidate A, candidate B doesn’t automatically get a vote in his column.

I further demonstrated the false emotional argument you presented by saying that my imaginary voter later did, in fact, cast a vote for candidate B.

When he leaves the booth, candidate Bs’ count goes up by 1 vote, not 2, and candidate As’ count remains unchanged.

Naturally, if that happens enough, the election will go in Bs’ favor, but not because the voters all voted for B, but rather because A did not get enough votes.