Democrats are a formal fallacy because they are unsound due to their structure and the Republicans are an informal fallacy due to their content making them unsound.
A false dilemma is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available.[1][2][3] In its most simple form, called the fallacy of bifurcation, all but two alternatives are excluded. A fallacy is an argument, i.e. a series of premises together with a conclusion, that is unsound, i.e. not both valid and true. Fallacies are usually divided into formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are unsound because of their structure, while informal fallacies are unsound because of their content.[3][4][1][5] The problematic content in the case of the false dilemma has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives.[1] Sometimes a distinction is made between a false dilemma and a false dichotomy. On this view, the term “false dichotomy” refers to the false disjunctive claim while the term “false dilemma” refers not just to this claim but to the argument based on this claim.[1]
What’s false about the situation? Do you realistically believe a third party candidate will win, or even be competitive? If so, on what evidence?
Else the options are NOT erroneously limited.
You’d have to go back to 1850 I think to find a non R or D president, and there’s zero consistent comparison between the elections of today and back then.
living in country with citizens who already think they have lost their options no do not think third parties will have any chance until the people finally wake up
I’m all for building new candidates and platforms and “platforming” their ideas. But if that platform is used to try to kneecap the current “best” of our establishment leaders (bad as they are), then it’s all junk.
By attacking your nearest neighbor (not so near, but nearest) all you’ve done is strengthened the much more chaotic, much more hateful other option.
Build consensus, then shift the window.
Edit look at how Bernie Sanders, AOC, or ilhan omar do business. They are generally aligned with the democratic party, but are pushing to the left. Great stuff, we need way, way more of them.
Democrats are a formal fallacy because they are unsound due to their structure and the Republicans are an informal fallacy due to their content making them unsound.
False Dilemma
What’s false about the situation? Do you realistically believe a third party candidate will win, or even be competitive? If so, on what evidence?
Else the options are NOT erroneously limited.
You’d have to go back to 1850 I think to find a non R or D president, and there’s zero consistent comparison between the elections of today and back then.
living in country with citizens who already think they have lost their options no do not think third parties will have any chance until the people finally wake up
Waking up happens by building viable candidates with down ballot support, not trying to shoehorn a fantasy third in an election year.
but with the Republicans and Democrats doing everything they can to snuff out third parties we may never be a truly free country
only free to think what is advertised to us via propaganda and
galasDemocrat/Republican conventions keep forgetting the lingoOk sounds like you’re resigned to it.
I’m all for building new candidates and platforms and “platforming” their ideas. But if that platform is used to try to kneecap the current “best” of our establishment leaders (bad as they are), then it’s all junk.
By attacking your nearest neighbor (not so near, but nearest) all you’ve done is strengthened the much more chaotic, much more hateful other option.
Build consensus, then shift the window.
Edit look at how Bernie Sanders, AOC, or ilhan omar do business. They are generally aligned with the democratic party, but are pushing to the left. Great stuff, we need way, way more of them.