No, DeSantis isn't "winning" against Walt Disney World

I don’t believe all democrats want healthcare for all, I know a majority don’t support full student loan forgiveness. It’s a false equivalency, those are left wing tenants, and again they’ve been mainly sidelined. The right wing however is now the decision makers for the GOP

How far do I have to move the slider to get out of "false equivalence" territory?

Touchdown:

left wing tenants

The more time I spend talking to Europeans about healthcare, the more ridiculous I find the US to be.

Lord Gonchar:

Which may explain exactly why both sides seem so far away from common ground.

Maybe, but I've had this reaction to you often, well before our current political context. I've learned to just roll with it because I find trying to understand you pointless (well, more accurately too difficult to bother doing, but you get the idea).

metallik:

Both party's sole mission is to remain in power.

Fixed your post.

The false equivalence here between what the two parties are offering is staggering, depressing, and, most importantly, a necessary ingredient to our march toward Christo-fascist authoritarianism.

Wanting a third party option says nothing about whether you think the parties are the same. Not sure why so many connect the two. FWIW, my interest in a third party pre-dates Trump by at least 2 decades.

Serious question: what about Joe Biden “screams” third-party to you?

Again, my interest in a third party didn't start with Biden. Or Trump. Its more the parties themselves than individual candidates. I think Joe's age is more than just a shoulder shrug. Have a family member who is almost 10 years older than Joe with dementia. With each passing day, watching/listening to Joe reminds me more and more of my family member. Difference being my family member's only power is to decide what to have for dinner (from a specially limited menu). And we aren't looking at how Joe is now but how he will be 6 years from now. Worse. And likely much worse.

And Joe has spent a lifetime eating from the government trough making himself rich on the process. I am not a fan of that though he isn't the only one. For whatever reason, there are a lot of people who appear to have trouble stepping out of the limelight. And its not limited to politicians. Have seen folks in business with the same issue.

Most people don't want Trump or Biden to run (including 57% of democrats).

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/1...shows.html

I understand the third sentence. I do not understand the first two. Living in a state that has seen all three branches of government transition from R to D in the past few cycles suggests to me that there is at least some material and non-trivial difference between the two.

Neither may be a perfect or even very good fit to one's personal preferences, but they are different in some dimensions that matter to many people.

Looks like the difference is one of perspective. You appear to be looking at it from a micro perspective while I am looking at it from a macro perspective. View of the party if you will rather than people on the ground, lives impacted, etc.

You can vote for a third-party candidate, or not vote at all, rather than vote for your not-quite-least-favorite among the two major nominees. And the practical impact of not voting for your not-quite-least-favorite candidate is that it increases the chances that your least-favorite candidate wins the job. If that doesn't matter, (or for some reason you genuinely see them as equally bad) then it doesn't have to influence your decision.

Practically speaking the impact is more theoretical than practical given we each have one vote. Though the parties both agree with the concept as you state (and often toss in "you are wasting your vote" for good measure).

The_Orient_of_Express:

metallik:

Both parties' sole mission is to remain in power.

Fixed your post.

Fixed your grammar.

Also, this is potentially a good thing, the same way it's a good thing if Ford Motor Company's mission is to remain profitable by selling cars that people like. In a functioning democracy, parties remain in power by doing popular things (passing good legislation, building needed infrastructure, administering important programs successfully).

At present, however, one of the parties is seeking to remain in power by restricting people's ability to vote and subverting the rules by which elections are governed.

Brian Noble:

I've learned to just roll with it because I find trying to understand you pointless...

Oh my god, I love this. How do we get everyone else on board?

I guess the basest point (again, for me, can't really speak for the others) is that neither side even comes close to really representing me, nor do they seem to want to. On top of that I don't particularly agree with either.

Not a fan of either side in Jeff's example - don't like fascists, P-control, big military budgets, universal health care or free college.

Politically, both "sides" (and the fact that we are even able to use that term in this context says enough) suck equally and want to do or enact things (in the broad sense that it's a stereotypical idea that none of us really questioned when Jeff presented it as such) that I'd prefer our government don't really get into it either way.

At that point the moral argument (and this is to Jeff's point) is truly just a case of picking the lesser of the two evils. I feel Vater on that.

That's why I think I understand it when these guys say things like, "Both sides are equally bad."

I hope that's pretty simple to follow and would politely suggest that at this point it's definitely on your end - even if it is merely lack of interest.

It's a tremendous luxury to be able to look at the current American political landscape and not bother to find differences between the two parties.

Jeff:

The more time I spend talking to Europeans about any quality of life topic, the more ridiculous I find the US to be.

FTFY

Brian Noble:

Lord Gonchar:

Which may explain exactly why both sides seem so far away from common ground.

Maybe, but I've had this reaction to you often, well before our current political context. I've learned to just roll with it because I find trying to understand you pointless (well, more accurately too difficult to bother doing, but you get the idea).

I'm still trying to figure out why he doesn't wear a seatbelt.

Why would you try to do that?

Lord Gonchar:

...neither side even comes close to really representing me, nor do they seem to want to.

That's just fundamentally not how democracy works. You don't get your way 100% ever, and it seems a little naive that it would ever be possible in a nation of 330 million people.

Lord Gonchar:
I'd prefer our government don't really get into it either way.

This is just Reagan era fear mongering. He went a long way toward insisting that government is useless, just so he could run the government. If I dropped you in the middle of Norway and made you a citizen, explain to me how government there would adversely affect your life. For real, that's not a rhetorical question.

And yes, it's a great luxury right now to feel that the outcome of the election doesn't affect you either way. There are a great many people who do not have that luxury.

Ok, then the Republican party overall tend to trend more towards my approach (even if that venn diagram only has a sliver of overlap). Guess I'll go vote for the facist, criminal, vagina-regulating, warmonger as not to flaunt my luxury and privilege.

But you guys don't want me doing that either. In summary:

Not voting (or throwing your vote away) is a gross display of privilege. A luxury most don't have.

Voting for the fascist pussy grabber has already been declared morally wrong.

I guess I only have one choice left - which is why these inevitably turn to in jokes about my seat belt habits.

As far as Norway, I have no idea how they run things. Context leads me to believe there's more government in everything. I feel like you're taking what you know about me in general (I am a "less government is better than more" guy) and applying it to this argument. Because I'm arguing keeping them out of vaginas and large scale weapons purchases just like you. It just so happens I'm also arguing keeping them out of my healthcare and any more of my education. I suspect the latter is what causes Reagan-Era fear mongering accusations.

Disagree and its because you were dropped on your head too many times growing up or brainwashed by someone evil. Understand that and you will be fine.

I am evil because, growing up, I was brainwashed by someone dropped on their head too many times.

Which is exactly why trying to understand the **** I type is totally pointless.

(Would you believe that last sentence was 80% autocomplete on my phone?)

Look, it might be a privilege to be able to say I don’t have to care about unborn babies. It’s a privilege to be able to say I don’t have to worry about someone from Mexico and/or China taking my job. It’s a privilege to be able to say I’m not worried about being mugged in the street. It’s a privilege not to come from a family of coal miners where the mine has been shut down. The privilege is not having to care because none of this really affects you (other than maybe one party wants to take more of the money you’re privileged to have).

Jesus, find some empathy, of any sort, for anybody.

GoBucks89:

Wanting a third party option says nothing about whether you think the parties are the same. Not sure why so many connect the two. FWIW, my interest in a third party pre-dates Trump by at least 2 decades.

Again, I don't take issue with folks wanting to vote third party candidate (I've got Ron Paul schwag too), I take issue with the fact that you and others are equating the post-Trump era GOP, where we have seen how remarkably far the party is willing to go to maintain power, with the pre-Trump GOP. And further and more specifically, I take issue this continued insistence that both parties represent the same immediate danger.

It was one thing to fly the "both parties are the same" flag in 2016, it's quite another to fly it now, given the extent we've seen they'll go, which is quite literally to incite a violent, deadly terrorist attack on the United States to overturn an election, and to make overt steps to avoid accountability, legal and otherwise, for that attack. These "both parties are the same" arguments give this GOP precisely the cover they need to know they can push things further next time, because if they're not being punished by voters for it, why the hell would they NOT go further next time?

I can understand positions against universal health care, free college, etc., and in some cases agree with those positions. What I cannot understand is how anyone can, with a straight face and in good faith, continue to suggest both parties represent a similar danger given what we've seen these last few years. Bad policy sucks, I get that, and both sides have more than enough to go around. But are the "both sides" folks truly arguing that bad policy is as dangerous a Christo-fascist authoritarian takeover of the US Government? Because history has taught us again and again that that's where this is headed. And at that point there's effectively no such thing as policy, good or bad, or even voting anymore. That may be fine for straight white Christian males, but it's much less good for anyone else. That's the "macro view".

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative in a hostile sense or whatever. I'm genuinely curious what policies the "both sides" camp sees coming from the left that present a similar danger, because I simply don't see it. I've learned over the years here that I can gain a lot of perspective, so I'm hoping that can be the case here.

GoBucks89:

You appear to be looking at it from a micro perspective while I am looking at it from a macro perspective. View of the party if you will rather than people on the ground, lives impacted, etc.

I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here. If you are saying my view==micro==how lives are impacted, then yes that's exactly what I am doing. I am voting for the candidate I think does more to make life better for more people.

The reason I'm not sure is that the order is reversed from what you wrote.