I’ve edited your quote so that it now tries to look like a logical argument:
For ballots in any given election to be genuinely fungible they’d need to be, the “rightful” “property” of one (or more) of the nominees in question, prior to their being cast, in the first place. There would be votes that were already “rightfully” McCain’s (let’s say), prior to their being cast, simply because he had a capital letter “R” next to his name on the ballot. Anyone casting one of those votes for anyone other than McCain would, in essence, be stealing from him, as “fungible” automatically implies ownership, or the possibility of same.
In the real world, however, of course: no voting adult “owes” his or her ballot to any given candidate(s), solely on the basis of party, or past votes cast. This is not a land of kings, and we are not yet serfs, obliged to show fealty to our self-annointed, self-appointed feudal lords. Each and every single, last ballot vast on behalf of any given candidate must, irrefutably — like a job’s wages; like a credit rating; like a decent reputation among one’s peers — be, instead, be earned.
-
You are correct that a vote must be earned but there are only 2 choices. Either McCain wins or the democrat wins. What matters is the result. There is no choice called “both not win.” If that was the case, then not voting for mccain would not help the democrat. But since the democrats will vote for the democrat and you won’t counter that vote, your not voting helps the democrat win, de facto even if not de jure. The practical result is still the same.
It (demonstrably) already was; instead, you've merely succeeded in clumsily making a hash of things. Congratulations, of course, if such was your actual intention; if not, then you'd be materially better off leaving such matters to those of us as have concretely evidenced day-to-day competence in doing so for a living. Observe:
You are correct that a vote must be earned but there are only 2 choices. Either McCain wins or the democrat wins. What matters is the result. There is no choice called “both not win.” If that was the case, then not voting for mccain would not help the democrat. But since the democrats will vote for the democrat and you won’t counter that vote, your not voting helps the democrat win, de facto even if not de jure. The practical result is still the same.
In order to lecture or admonish authoritatively, re: "logical arguments," it's rather helpful to be able, first, to credibly advance one of one's own. What you have jury-rigged, above, does not even remotely meet the minimum requirements for same, as:
1.) You fail to acknowledge your own (increasingly painfully apparent) inability to wrestle successfully with the concept of fungibility. Instead, you merely restate, obdurately: "But since the democrats will vote for the democrat and you won’t counter that vote, your not voting helps the democrat win" (are you an ESL student, incidentally?) -- thereby simply re-demonstrating once again that, all huffed protestations and indignant arm-wavings aside, you still patently believe that there are somehow mysterious, phantom "votes" out there "rightfully" the property of either one candidate or the other (!!!).
Incredible. Simply incredible.
Once more, solely out of charity, and then never again: any ballot not cast on behalf of Candidate "A" does not, magically, transform itself into a ghostly ballot on behalf of Candidate "B." To believe otherwise is not one whit or jot different from a similarly sincerely held belief in the corporeal existence of unicorns, the Great Pumpkin, or Narnia; and, in all honesty, forevermore brands one as someone who, really and truly, probably shouldn't be allowed to vote for anything more lasting or significant than the position of Home Room Monitor, in any event. Whether or not you opt to continue publicly self-identifying as such, from this point forward, is your own lookout, of course.
2.) You hamfistedly attempt to distract with a straw man argument, and are caaught doing so. Not having ever once advanced your cobbled-up argument that "there is a choice called 'both not win'" (your own words) myself, you automatically cede all credibility in splutteringly attempting to remonstrate otherwise. That's a hard core leftist rhetorical habit, that is; you'll want to watch that, in the future, and restrain yourself simply to what's actually spoken (or typed), the way honest men do.
By all means, do avail yourself of the last word, if you like. I've taken your measure, and found it wanting; unless and/or until you eventually offer up anything better, you're dismissed.
Theres your first mistake...You ASSUME that all Dems will vote for Osama....
But.....just like the conservative (R)’s not voting for McCain...there is a big faction of elitist Clinton (D)’s that will not vote for a black man in the privacy of the voting booth....I know lots of ‘em!!!....They don't mind them on the plantation..but they damned sure would never let them run it!!!