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

Now that's a candidate I can get behind...

...or far, far ahead of.

djDaemon:

I really don't care who you vote for. I do care when people continue to argue that both sides, in their current iteration, represent a similar danger when they clearly do not.

Cool. Both sides represent something I don't want in the White House, hence my 3rd party vote. Which is what I've been saying.

There's always the possibility that if the wrong guy gets elected, you won't have that opportunity in the future. Just sayin'.

And we learned that if you live in a solid blue or red state, that could possibly be ok (though its not totally clear). But if you live in a purple state and vote that way, you are evil, dumb and hate America, democracy, apple pie and likely puppies. ;)

But no one cares who I vote for. Just to reiterate.

Vater:

Which is what I've been saying.

Right. But there's a difference between saying "I don't want either in the White House" and "both are an equivalent threat to my desired way of life".

Which is what I've been pushing back against and attempting to understand. To that end, I'm curious what policy or policies represent, to you, a similar threat compared to overt and ongoing threats to take control of the government by force.

If you think universal health care or whatever is an equivalent threat to the complete absence of democracy, I'm just curious how you get there. I understand the "big government bad" angle with regard to certain "left" policies, and as I've said I agree in some cases, but I don't see how a Christo-fascist patriarchy isn't worse, especially for "small government" types.

djDaemon:

But there's a difference between saying "I don't want either in the White House" and "both are an equivalent threat to my desired way of life".

You keep using the words "equivalent threat." I did not. So is it not enough that I already explained my reasoning for voting for one of the other legitimate candidates who I thought might make an ok President because "I [dIdn't] want either in the White House"? Or would you like me to concoct an explanation about both parties being the "equivalent threat" that I never once said was a thing? I can try I guess, but I'm not sure how heartfelt or honest it would be.

I think he's acknowledging that yes, you wouldn't vote for either one, and you either do or do not believe the two you're not voting for are equivalent threats to democracy. It's fine that you didn't use those words, he's just asking of you believe that.

That probably feels like a trap, to which he'll respond, "Then why would you vote third party?" But maybe not, because you've answered that question. If you do not believe that they are an equivalent threat, and you want to vote third party, I can accept that's your position even if I don't agree with it. It's hard, I suspect, for some of us, to separate "don't like either" with "they represent the same threat."

Lord Gonchar:

Nothing to do with morals and everything to do with, what I think at least, people mean when they say, "Both sides are the same."

Honestly, in hindsight, it seems I was the first to use the phrase in this thread.

I was paraphrasing the entire argument to inject another POV - no one actually used that before I did, I don't think. My fault for forgetting where I was. Naturally, those five words that no one actually said (and I typed in quotes the way we do around here) was the thing everyone clung for two weeks because Coasterbuzz.

However, since I'm here, in the sense of voting, I still feel it's fair. Once you cross a line to "wouldn't vote for" does it really matter to what degree you wouldn't?

wahoo skipper:
Honestly, just picture this for a moment: A black President does the EXACT same thing as Trump did...and throngs of angry, black men and women storm the Capitol building. Seriously...think about what would have happened in this country had THAT happened.

When I made a "flip the script" argument, I was told it was a straw man because the good guy would have never done what the bad guy did.

Pretty sure the "moral equivalence" concept pre-dates this thread on this board. Should be on the bingo card.

We will need to commission a peer review on that to get an official answer.

This thread started in July 2023.

Moral equivalence made an appearance in this thread (first page -- June 2023):

https://coasterbuzz.com/For...sney-world

Here on page 2 of this thread (April 2023):

https://coasterbuzz.com/For...y/2#985781

Here on page 5 (August 2017):

https://coasterbuzz.com/For...s/5#947530

Meanwhile, the Covid thread be like, “Hold my beer. Wake me up when you reach page #295.”

Lord Gonchar:

However, since I'm here, in the sense of voting, I still feel it's fair. Once you cross a line to "wouldn't vote for" does it really matter to what degree you wouldn't?

I think it's a valid question, yes. I myself said in [year] "I'll never ever ever ever vote for [ X ]. Ever. Unless it comes down to [ X ] vs. [ Y ]." Luckily, that didn't happen and I voted for [ Z ]

Vater:

You keep using the words "equivalent threat." I did not.

True, but I felt it was being implied (e.g. "I don't prefer Biden to Trump"), which of course is possibly me misinterpreting your position. In that case, nothing to see here, we can move on.

And no, it wasn't a trap or anything. It was simply pure curiosity as to how someone gets to that position, because, somewhat oddly, more often than not CB has been a place where I've gained perspective on things I haven't been able to elsewhere, and I thought that may be the case here. Not that I would have agreed with the position obviously, but it would be interesting to understand the perspective.

Lord Gonchar:
...I was told it was a straw man because the good guy would have never done what the bad guy did.

I don't think the hypothetical was necessarily that if a Democrat had done it, but more so that if a not-white-old-man from "their team" did it. Maybe I'm wrong.

I've made a similar argument to people who continue to claim January 6th was "no big deal" or whatever (not saying anyone here is making that claim!). But instead, I ask them if they think their response would be different if, say, the people who attacked the Capitol were bore a resemblance to the people who flew planes into buildings back in 2001. Because I don't think it takes much imagination to game out how dramatically different the response would be. I think that's the point wahoo was getting at.

I don't think the hypothetical was necessarily that if a Democrat had done it, but more so that if a not-white-old-man from "their team" did it. Maybe I'm wrong.

The paragraph before the hypothetical about the black President started:

I guarantee you that had a Democrat said things at the Capitol that incensed a riot...and then sat in his dining room while the Capitol was under attack without lifting a finger...

Well, I stand by my position whether the black President who did it was Democrat or Republican. And yes, if a brown President did something similar...or a gay President did something similar...in all cases it would be viewed much different by the demographic who is standing behind Trump hell or high water.

That's a different issue that the one to which I responded.

But in your situation described above, what do you think would be the response/view of the demographic standing against Trump hell or high water? What do you think would be the response/coverage of CNN and MSNBC?

I swear, I've been typing up a response since this morning, periodically going back and editing, rewording, deleting, cutting and pasting, etc., all damn day.

I don't know how I got to the position I took, other than to say I didn't want either clown in the White House, so I voted for another body on the ballot. I wasn't listing pros and cons each guy had, breaking out the calculator and thinking, "yeah, they're equally terrible." They both suck, in different ways, so much that I didn't want either to be President. I voted for the lesser of two evils in 2016, and after seeing the result over the next four years, decided I did not want to do that again, so I voted for someone who I felt was better than both old senile guys put together even though that person had a snowball's chance in hell. Didn't care. Still don't.

This response took about 3 minutes total.

If a minority president had been the one to fuel the riots on Jan 6, the outrage would be similar. However, the roles would be reversed with the opposite groups objecting to and defending the actions. And that is what is wrong with our very divided country. However, I cannot imagine anyone except the evil orange man and his minions actually doing it.