HOO WUN??

[Dill]

(09-30-2020, 10:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: On Facebook  one of my Jo Jerguson supporting friends called Biden "unfit" to be POTUS and said that he and Trump were two sides of the same coin.  I strongly disagreed with that.

Out exchange went like this:
J: I’ll respectfully disagree. He’s a bumbling buffoon, easily triggered and has an abhorrent track record in almost half a century in D.C. He’s the perfect example of two sides of the same coin when you look at the blithering blowhard idiot on the other side. Two old men who should be doing pretty much anything besides running our country. Possibly the saddest part of all this is even if Biden wins, pretty much nothing will change.

This is what I wish I better understood about people like "J"--Two puzzles here for me.

1. Why does this guy think the Trump/Biden are somehow EQUALLY "blithering blowhards"?  Biden's description of policies, consequences, etc. are much more precise; Trump's are mostly exaggerations, vague generalities, and lies.  Further, Trump embraces conspiracy theories and actively encourages voter distrust in the system. What on Biden's side is the equivalent? Biden was trying to play be the rules, Trump was actively breaking them, disrespecting the process, the obligation to inform the public. Biden does not claim to know more than the generals, or our intel agencies, or the doctors, or the economists, or to be a stable genius. 

2. Why does this guy see "no difference" between the guy who backed us out of the TPP, the IRan Deal, WHO, and the Paris Agreement, let Kim out of his box, rolled back environmental regulation, linked his pandemic response to the stock market, and signed a historical tax break for the wealthy--and the guy who would go the opposite direction on all those points?  What could he mean by "nothing will change"?  I have no idea. Our chances of weathering economic, pandemic and military threats, of stable continuance of government, would seem greater under Biden. But that's a good "no change," right? 

This incredible and extreme "bothsidesism" seems to undercut any possibility of critical thought, and of repair of toxic divisions.  It's like people think they are "seeing through" politics and politicians when they construct these depthless equivalences. 

I seriously wonder if people who think these candidates are "equally blowhards" could really recognize a candidate who transcended these supposed flaws, paradoxical as that might sound.