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

Lord Gonchar:

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

I don't care who you (or anyone) votes for* in a Presidential election. I'm thinking more about why someone votes the way they do, specifically in the context of a third party candidate. And, my take is that the "right" way to think about it is:

1: If you think the country is materially better off (equivalently, less materially worse off) with major party candidate A vs. major party candidate B, then you should vote for A.

2: If you think the country is equally fine (or screwed) regardless of candidate A or B, then vote for any of the others as a protest vote against the system.

The reason #1 trumps (sorry) #2, is that one of those two people is going to be the President.

That's the Elections 101 version. In Elections 201, those living in an area that is deeply uncontested for its electoral vote(s) (the District of Columbia on one end; Nebraska's 3rd on the other) means your individual vote has negligible impact, in which case a protest vote is easier to cast.

----------------

*: Okay, I do care. But, I also realize that there's no point in trying to change most people's minds if they've already decided. It's much more effective to generate turnout on "my side" and focus on the truly undecided voter.

**: I suppose I could also try to depress turnout on "the other side" which we've seen plenty of in the past two cycles. But, that rubs me the wrong way because democracy.

Lord Gonchar:

As far as Norway, I have no idea how they run things.

Isn't this exactly the reason that you're being challenged about your view on the role of government in healthcare, and by extension, your dismissal of the danger the modern GOP represents for marginalized people and democracy itself? Not only does democracy not custom fit itself for individuals, but it works best when the electorate is informed.

American healthcare objectively sucks by nearly every metric you can count, starting with cost per capita, life expectancy, infant mortality and outcomes in general.

Somewhat related to all this:

Last year, we advised the kids to consider jobs in other countries, not just in the US. There were a couple of reasons for that. We are in the midst of a global trend towards authoritarianism, xenophobia, etc., but some places are not as far along that path as the US seems to be. Many other countries have a stronger sense of shared responsibility and community, with better developed social safety networks, longer life expectancy, etc.. Heck, some countries even think taking vacations is important!

This isn't because I think they will be materially better off in those places. They are both highly educated, have no educational debt, and are likely to be financially successful if they stay in the US. In fact, I suspect they will end up earning/keeping slightly less in many other places. But, they will have more than enough, and there can be some benefit to living in a place that is slightly less eat-or-be-eaten.

Unfortunately, M and I are getting to be too old to emigrate--most countries have scoring systems that prefer younger people with more productive years ahead of them. We might be able to get a golden visa, but even that might be tough. We are doing fine, but we aren't doing that well.

Jeff:

Isn't this exactly the reason that you're being challenged about your view on the role of government in healthcare, and by extension, your dismissal of the danger the modern GOP represents for marginalized people and democracy itself?

hambone:
Jesus, find some empathy, of any sort, for aanybody.

Ok. Exactly, what I expected. You guys are arguing specific policy and yelling down anyone who disagrees. It's exactly why I wrote this room off for this kind of conversation a long time ago.

I'm not at all interested in discussing universal healthcare and my lack of empathy.

I'm just trying to explain how I completely understand the idea of "both sides being the same" or having to "choose the lesser of two evils."

Speaking of which:

DJDaemon

But are the "both sides" folks truly arguing that bad policy is as dangerous a Christo-fascist authoritarian takeover of the US Government?

No. You're applying "both the same" to a "lesser of two evils" scenario.

I'm repeating myself, but.

1. Throwing away my vote in any way is privilege.
2. Voting for the scary orange man is a horrible choice.

Thats leaves 3 - vote for the candidate that remains

That is very literally the definition of no real choice. (and, oddly, what some are arguing without realizing it, I think)

Then again, a lot of this discussion has nothing to do with choices and everything to do with, "My position is right."

So let me ask the room:

If the positions were reversed. All policy issues were the same, but Biden was the criminal fascist.

Do we obviously vote for Trump and his vaginal control and military spending and privatized healthcare and no student loan forgiveness and such? Because I would still choose to express my disgust with a non-vote...and I certainly wouldn't waste time telling you you're "wrong" for having a different opinion than me.

(And that's mostly homework. A rhetorical to think about on your own. I don't want actual answers.)

hambone:

(other than maybe one party wants to take more of the money you’re privileged to have).

It's a privilege to have money that I worked for? Am I reading that correctly?

I almost posted a follow up saying “cue the complaints that ‘I worked hard for my money’”

Some combination of factors got you to the point where you can waste time posting on C’Buzz:

• genetics
• geography
• good parents
• a wonderful third-grade teacher
• good health and avoiding accidents
• marrying well, and not having catastrophe in your family
• being interested in and/or choosing a good career
• taking a job with a company that didn’t go out of business instead of one that did
• any number of other things

Lots of people work hard. Housekeepers at hotels. Chicken processors at packing plants. Iphone assemblers in China. Seamstresses. They don’t necessarily get disposable income out of it.

About $60,000 a year puts in in the global 1%*. You and I won what my friend calls the ovarian lottery. I’m perfectly comfortable with the understanding that having something to show for my work is a privilege in this world.

*Please don’t explain exchange rates to me; I know about that isht.

It must be hard to walk around with so much guilt on your shoulders all of the time.

I empathize.

Nowhere did I indicate that I do or you should feel guilty about anything. I don’t think you’re empathizing, I think you’re projecting.

I guess I should just stfu and thank the ruling class for taking a third of the money I don't deserve to help other people the way they see fit. That's true empathy.

Where did anyone say you don’t deserve it?

The reactions to simply having it pointed out that you (and I!) have more than other people are … interesting.

Perhaps I misread?

You just keep using and arguing privilege in what I think everyone would agree is a negative connotation - or, at the least, to represent an inequality or lack of fairness, that for whatever reason you continue to want to point out, explain and detail to everyone.

There's no reason the keep hitting that note unless it's the point.

The only explanation that added up to me was a sense of guilt.

I guess I'm just confused on how we're supposed to feel about this privilege you have made us so aware of?

Again, all I've learned so far is that using my privilege to express disgust and create non-particpipatory protest (or apathy) is wrong.

In fact, it seems like voting for or really, believing, anything other than the issues you personally agree with is me not recognizing my privilege.

Funny how that works.

It's also still you just yelling down at people who will never agree.

Are we really having fun?

(I don't even remember buying a ticket for the Ovarian Lottery. You gotta play to win!)

Privilege is just kind of a thing. None of us bought tickets for the lottery. I just think you should be aware of it and maybe acknowledge it.
What you do with that awareness, if anything, is up to you.
The only thing I’m arguing against here is the apathy of saying “the two parties are the same, it doesn’t matter” when for many people it absolutely does, to the point of being a question of life and death. I think it’s, yes, a privilege to be able to feel that way, and you ought to be aware of it.
Apologies if my tone became strident in making that point.

Cool.

Lord Gonchar:

I'm not at all interested in discussing universal healthcare and my lack of empathy.

I'm just trying to explain how I completely understand the idea of "both sides being the same" or having to "choose the lesser of two evils."

Those issues are evidence about why the sides are not morally equivalent. If you're not interested in that, you're not making an argument richer than "I don't care." But if you didn't care, you wouldn't be engaging, I suspect.

Lord Gonchar:

If the positions were reversed. All policy issues were the same, but Biden was the criminal fascist.

Do we obviously vote for Trump and his vaginal control and military spending and privatized healthcare and no student loan forgiveness and such? Because I would still choose to express my disgust with a non-vote...and I certainly wouldn't waste time telling you you're "wrong" for having a different opinion than me.

But that's not all the positions reversed. This is a strawman argument of the worst kind. If Biden were a fascist, he wouldn't be interested in fixing healthcare, and if Trump wasn't a fascist, he wouldn't be trying to control vaginas.

Vater:

It's a privilege to have money that I worked for? Am I reading that correctly?

No, the privilege is that you were born into a situation where that was possible. Had you been born in North Korea, the odds of you having that money would likely be a rounding error. And this is why the topic matters, because if you care about the environment that your kin will live in, and your country, it's vital to engage. It's not limited to people in other countries. Trans kids and people driving while black, for example, have to literally worry about their safety in ways that you do not.

You don't have to feel bad about it or guilty, and you shouldn't. You didn't make those problems. But you (as in, you, Johnny America, not you specifically) can be a part of the solution by acknowledging the problem by not voting for people who seek to dismantle democracy and create the environment that harms those folks who aren't you. I don't think that's a big ask, to look out for other humans.

Jeff:

I don't think that's a big ask, to look out for other humans.

1. It isn't.
2. I didn't vote for the orange man (at least not a second time).
3. I look out for other humans in many other ways beyond voting every four years.

So again, my conscience is clear. That I didn't vote for the only-clear-choice-of-2020-Joe-Effing-Biden is apparently an issue with some of you, but that's an issue that isn't mine. And if anyone says that's not the issue and that you're not telling me who to vote for again...then I don't know what the hell we're arguing anymore.

And yes, I acknowledge my privilege of not being born in North Korea.

I would like to just copy Vater's answers.

Plagiarism is a privilege. Or something.

Not in North Korea.

Jeff:

But if you didn't care, you wouldn't be engaging, I suspect.

Honestly, I just jumped in because of posts like this that imply other's opinion or how they form them are "incorrect". Or worse.

I'm barely interested in the politics and more interested in the social aspect taking place here.

I'm still with Vater. All you're doing is telling me I'm voting incorrectly...or for the wrong reasons...or whatever the point is at this stage.

We keep being told we must participate by choosing the one correct candidate.

Which feels awfully oppressive...almost fascist in nature.

You're just flat out not adressing that.

(And when we start arguing the argument, the argument is probably played)

I'm not telling you anything, that's a conclusion you're getting to all on your own. I'm asking you to debate the merits of a person's character and whether or not that disqualifies them for the highest office.

OK, let me reframe this.

One of two people can watch your kids. They have differing views on economic, domestic and foreign policy. That said:

• One person has actively attempted to circumvent American democracy, has made it clear that they don't like brown and black people, gay and trans people, and believes they're entitled to sexual assault.
• The other person is none of those things.

Which one do you disqualify from watching your kids? If their policy positions matter more, even more than tearing down our way of life and "suspending" the Constitution, why?