You're changing the conversation.
Conversations naturally flow. You made some points. I responded to them. Those are my responses to your points.
You presented an issue profile for which you argued it was true that both candidates were equally vile. I responded that such an issue profile was unlikely, but that the conclusion was false regardless. I was not responding to every third party voter here, although I've responded to several in this thread.
You may think it's unlikely, but given that there are forum members who feel this way, along with voters who vote that way, it's more likely than you think.
Ascribing a negative moral evaluation to a Republican administration and and then ascribing a relatively similar moral evaluation to a Democratic administration when they do relatively similar actions isn't a false conclusion. It's consistency. If that's what grinds your gears the most, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you do. And I won't impugn your intelligence, capacity for reason, or admonish your right to vote if I happen to disagree with your reasoning.
You're trying to make a point about Obama and in so doing ignoring the actual conversation we're having.
It's a supporting argument.
These points are not germane to the actual conversation we were having, which was that a user claimed both major parties are "equally vile".
It's my explanation to you how someone rationalizes that sentiment. Single issue voters only care about a single issue. If both candidates suck on that issue, then for most intents and purposes, they are the same. Yes, it's simplistic. Who cares? Let them vote however they want.
Everyone has the right to vote how they want for any reasons including nonsensical ones. But others have a right, as part of the discussion, to critically reflect on, first of all, whether or not those reasons are externally coherent and make sense and reflect positively on the person making the decision, and second of all, whether or not those reasons are internally coherent and lead to the choice that best represents the values the person has. I choose not to engage with people on their external coherence, but I will engage with them on internal coherence.
Questioning voters' "sanity" and "coherence" isn't going to win them over to your side. Many understand the argument you are trying to make perfectly well, and are content to choose to act differently.
Again, this is not the conversation we're having. The conversation we're having is on the hypothetical that both parties are "equally vile". If a person believes the standard of behaviour for an incumbent president is higher than for a challenger and that Obama has not met that standard (IE he is a firing offence) then they do not believe that both parties are "equally vile".
Again, a supporting argument to illustrate nuance in regard to this point of view.
If you want to stick strictly with the "equally vile" thing, then:
Candidate Obama promised to end indefinite detention, warantless wiretapping, drone strikes, etc. President Obama maintained the status quo, started new "kinetic military actions" in foreign lands, expanded drone strikes, assassinated an American citizen and his son, but he did draw down Iraq and Afghanistan. Candidate Romney doesn't have a problem with any of this, except when he criticizes Obama for thinking we can "kill our way out of this mess", when his own solution is to kill our way out of this mess too, along with other humanitarian actions which may or may not take place. No one really knows what he'll do for sure, but it's likely that he will also maintain the status quo.
In a nutshell, if Bush's "war crimes" were "vile", and Obama does some of those same things, then that is "vile" as well, to be consistent. Therefore, in the interest of being consistent and whatever other principled assessment one might have on the actions of both major parties, they are both "vile" on that issue, since they have both done "vile" things and will probably continue to do those same "vile" things if elected or reelected. If, as some voters are wont to do, this is the main thing or only thing you are concerned about, then I don't begrudge you for thinking that both parties are "vile". Sure, there is a lot of additional nuance to the issue, but I don't find the main point to be terribly unreasonable if someone feels that way.
I've met many who do. I don't begrudge them their opinions, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they've thought about the very same arguments that the Democratic or Republican party faithful are inevitably going to berate them with.
It's the same thing in every third party thread. People scold third party voters, and give their reasoning, as if the third party voter hasn't already heard it a million times before
