Ethicists - Voting Your Heart is Immoral

[Shiranu]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-case-against-jill-stein-w436362

-She has lost basically every election she has ever been in, at any level of the government. That in itself says alot about her. If she isn't deemed fit by more than 1.4 of the people of Massachusetts to be govenor, how can she be qualified to rule 300 million+ people?
-She was extremely excited about Brexit... until she realised it was better to not be, in which case she edited her post and never apologized. Rather she said it must be user error for seeing the post wrong.
-She was very quick to label Clinton a warhawk for approving of air operations in Syria, then sits with Putin on RT and talks about how terrible America's foreign policy is with nothing to say about Russia's terrible foreign and domestic policy.
-Asks Donald Trump to show his tax returns... while not releasing her own.
-Is a doctor and thinks that "Wifi beams are not something we should subject kids to." and egged on Anti-Vaxers and 9/11-Truthers by implying that they have any validity in their arguments.
-Picked a woman who called Obama an "Uncle Tom" and contributed to a book declaring the Paris and San Bernandino Shootings never happened and that was edited by a Holocaust denier.
-She believes "quantitative easing" would be the tool to fulfill her one main policy position, and yet cannot explain how it works... or the fact that it is not something the president is authorized to do by themselves.

A great video on the subject...

As for Obama... yes, he is Republican-lite and frankly that is the best we can have as Americans. The people have spoken, and we get Republican-lite or Republican-heavy. It sucks, but you have to work with what you got. All things considered he was great because there were very few viable candidates who could do better... the last two were Joe Biden and Al Gore.

[Hurt]

As for Obama... yes, he is Republican-lite and frankly that is the best we can have as Americans. The people have spoken, and we get Republican-lite or Republican-heavy. It sucks, but you have to work with what you got. All things considered he was great because there were very few viable candidates who could do better... the last two were Joe Biden and Al Gore.

I'll review the rest of what you posted shortly but OMFG, republican-light is the best we can have? That is incorrect and small minded thinking that only serves to fulfill itself.

We can do much better as demonstrated by Sanders. Your dick finger quotes around socialist jew to describe Sanders in another thread was either a sad demonstration of your thoughts of the majority of Americans or your personal feelings. He would have wiped the floor with Clinton had it been a level playing field during the primaries and certainly would have beat Trump. We likely would have seen more democrats in the house and senate due to a massive turnout of liberal democrats and independants. A lot of conservative voters who didn't want to vote for Trump would have stayed home or voted third party. I work with several conservative christians who said that very thing leading up to the election but ended up voting for Trump because they hated Clinton more.

If you aim for mediocrity that's usually what you get.

[Hurt]

-“She has lost basically every election she has ever been in, at any level of the government. That in itself says alot about her. If she isn't deemed fit by more than 1.4 of the people of Massachusetts to be govenor, how can she be qualified to rule 300 million+ people?”

How many people that vote for a particular candidate does not mean that candidate is not qualified. I’ve reviewed her qualifications and think she is much better than any republican, light or otherwise.

-“She was extremely excited about Brexit... until she realised it was better to not be, in which case she edited her post and never apologized. Rather she said it must be user error for seeing the post wrong.”

From what little I’ve seen of this it looks like she wasn’t as PC as some people think she should have been and instead of clarifying in the open she swapped the write up on her website. I don’t agree with how she did it but not a disqualifier. She still approves of “Brexit” BTW. Anytime people can take control of their country from other nations is a good thing. That's how we became free, right?

-“She was very quick to label Clinton a warhawk for approving of air operations in Syria, then sits with Putin on RT and talks about how terrible America's foreign policy is with nothing to say about Russia's terrible foreign and domestic policy.”

Clinton is a “warhawk” is she not? The rest is a non-story. Everyone knows the Russians are shit to their people, all of the right leaning people in this country want the same power that Putin has, including Clinton and Obama.

-Asks Donald Trump to show his tax returns... while not releasing her own.

She released them, they’re on her website.

-Is a doctor and thinks that "Wifi beams are not something we should subject kids to." and egged on Anti-Vaxers and 9/11-Truthers by implying that they have any validity in their arguments.

Her stance on wifi is more research is needed, she is pro vaccinations, she has a problem with pharmaceutical companies influence on the FDA, which some “Anti-Vaxers” share the same opinion. I also share that opinion. Read her own words on 9/11 http://www.jill2016.com/on_911

-Picked a woman who called Obama an "Uncle Tom" and contributed to a book declaring the Paris and San Bernandino Shootings never happened and that was edited by a Holocaust denier.

Picked a woman… for what? More information is needed.

-She believes "quantitative easing" would be the tool to fulfill her one main policy position, and yet cannot explain how it works... or the fact that it is not something the president is authorized to do by themselves.

She has many policy positions, student loans are just one of them. John Oliver did a huge disservice to his viewers when he did that piece. It can be done, especially if the secretary of treasury, appointed by the president and the Fed chair, nominated by the president, work towards that goal.

She is worlds better than Clinton and Obama just on policy positions alone.

[GSOgymrat]

I fucking loved that!

When I saw it I immediately thought of you.

[Baruch]

I'm sure a "Socialist Jew" would have been able to beat Trump. Especially since Americans still have a huge issue with the idea of the first woman president.

There has already been a first woman leader in other countries ... going back to Pharaoh Hatshepsut at least, 3500 years ago.  There have been Black leaders too ... also Pharaohs (from Nubia about 3000 years ago).  America isn't first in anything it is dead last compared to Egypt.

I don't think you understand Jewish politics in the US.  Most Jews today are solid Republicans ... not radical Socialists.  Not many of us would have gone for Bernie ... nor would it be necessary, since Jews are a small minority (except in NYC).  I am an exception to that rule.

[Baruch]

That depends on what you want in a candidate. Bernie wanted most of the same things that I want for this country. When he gave up, Jill Stein was the closest.

What do you want for the country that made Clinton such a good choice?

Unfortunately, status-quo of WH incumbent (give me more Obama) didn't work for me like it might have for others ... and clearly Hillary was that continuation by other means.

[drunkenshoe]

https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs

This was the most politically correct bullshit I have ever seen about the elections so far.

-Do you guys realise that the understanding advertised in this video COMPLETELY removes the responsibility of the voter; choice of the individual; people from the result of the elections?

-Do you realise that he assumes that people voted for a change even its a terrible one, while the demographics are clear in voting? ONLY 7 % black people voted for Trump as opposed to an overwhelming amount white men and women vote between certain ages? How doesn't this tell anything to anyone?

-Do you realise that Trump actually OFFERED a renewed hold on to the OLD America before Obama, let alone offer a change, but something against that change that has been already going on in the last decade AND succeeded by playing into the identity politics of that OLD REPUBLICAN AMERICA? Every white men in the media hated any SJW or anti-racist group and they all collectivelly backlashed to it. Calling it a regressive left bullshit.

-Do you realise that Trump actually offered NOTHING to his voters, literally NOTHING?

-Do you realise that the man in the video presenting a huge contradiction with saying all that^ and stating that Sanders it would be different?!


Oh god, how do people actually swallow this bullshit? Give Americans an angry mainstream rant thrown in British English about politics, they forget everything about what actually happened.

People VOTED for Trump. And BEFORE that THEY VOTED FOR HILLARY. They Haven't VOTED for Sanders. They would never have voted for Sanders to win. If it was Sanders VS Trump the result would be the same.


I also realised in this couple of days that people have a very distorted, crude views of 'racism and sexism' in frame of these elections. They think it is something like the caricaturistic villains in movies, but never ordinary people, I suppose. Clearly the idea is that people actually are aware if they are racists or sexists and than not, also that they do not get affected by the years of toxic media campaigns directed by a few media companies. LOL

Oh yeah America is such a place out of human culture that no White people got affected by any of the years on going migrants bullshit, anti-SJW and anti-racist groups bullshit, all that media promotion about end of the White America hype AND especially never Trump's campaign even though the only thing was put forward is a toxic identity politics.

Democrats go on fooling themselves with the same bullshit, Trump is getting the second term for sure.

[Baruch]

"Do you realise that Trump actually offered NOTHING to his voters, literally NOTHING?"

How is that better than being offered a false something?  I don't think your observation is new ...

It seems that Obama allowed himself to be used as a projector for D hopes also ... even though he actually governed as an R.

I think you are too meta-meta-narrative ... ultimately all politicians are the same, and all human transactions are the same if one is sufficiently "meta".

[drunkenshoe]

"Do you realise that Trump actually offered NOTHING to his voters, literally NOTHING?"

How is that better than being offered a false something?  I don't think your observation is new ...

I didn't say it was. I am talking about the man in the video in the context he provides.

It seems that Obama allowed himself to be used as a projector for D hopes also ... even though he actually governed as an R.

I think you are too meta-meta-narrative ... ultimately all politicians are the same, and all human transactions are the same if one is sufficiently "meta".

Err...Dems actually defended the exact opposite of this common known fact in practice as an excuse for voting for Trump against Hillary. The important part was 'against Hillary'. Trump is as principled, ethical and uncorrupt as if russian mafia fucked yakuza and had an orange baby on the pill. What false promises you are talking about, Baruch?

And it also contradicts with your first statement. Hillary would be a mainstream, ordinary president. If she was a man, being corrupt and usual scandals would hurt anyone a lot less.

I don't believe Trump's reign will trigger any awakening or a 'reboot' for dems. It's a delusion. And on top of that he can destroy everything. I'd rather recognise Trump as what it is the holding on to dream of the white America, instead of some hope of pink fantasy that will never happen. Either truth or happiness...Never both.

[Baruch]

"I didn't say it was. I am talking about the man in the video in the context he provide". ... I got that, you are more interesting than the guy in the video.

Feminist ... has to work twice as hard as a man, to be considered half as good, even in political corruption?  Cry me a river, baby ;-)

I don't vote for ordinary mainstream Presidential candidates, never have ... others may do so.  I didn't have it out for Hillary as a woman, but as an ordinary mainstream Presidential candidate (an R hiding under a D rug in fact).  I also voted against her choice of husband ... unforgivable in a candidate of either sex.  Would I vote for a virtuous Bill Clinton where Hillary is the slut instead?  No way Jose!  There is only so much Caligula I can stand.

[drunkenshoe]

"I didn't say it was. I am talking about the man in the video in the context he provide". ... I got that, you are more interesting than the guy in the video.

Feminist ... has to work twice as hard as a man, to be considered half as good, even in political corruption?  Cry me a river, baby ;-)

I don't vote for ordinary mainstream Presidential candidates, never have ... others may do so.  I didn't have it out for Hillary as a woman, but as an ordinary mainstream Presidential candidate (an R hiding under a D rug in fact).  I also voted against her choice of husband ... unforgivable in a candidate of either sex.  Would I vote for a virtuous Bill Clinton where Hillary is the slut instead?  No way Jose!  There is only so much Caligula I can stand.

Baruch, again, there is an idea marketed in the video on why Trump won. And that is the context I am talking about. Not about your choices or sex fantasies, dear. :)

[Baruch]

Baruch, again, there is an idea marketed in the video on why Trump won. And that is the context I am talking about. Not about your choices or sex fantasies, dear. :)

Sorry toots ... unlike Trump or Arnold S ... I don't go for younger women ;-)

[drunkenshoe]

Sorry toots ... unlike Trump or Arnold S ... I don't go for younger women ;-)

I meant Hillary...*runs

[GSOgymrat]

This was the most politically correct bullshit I have ever seen about the elections so far.

-Do you guys realise that the understanding advertised in this video COMPLETELY removes the responsibility of the voter; choice of the individual; people from the result of the elections?

-Do you realise that he assumes that people voted for a change even its a terrible one, while the demographics are clear in voting? ONLY 7 % black people voted for Trump as opposed to an overwhelming amount white men and women vote between certain ages? How doesn't this tell anything to anyone?

-Do you realise that Trump actually OFFERED a renewed hold on to the OLD America before Obama, let alone offer a change, but something against that change that has been already going on in the last decade AND succeeded by playing into the identity politics of that OLD REPUBLICAN AMERICA? Every white men in the media hated any SJW or anti-racist group and they all collectivelly backlashed to it. Calling it a regressive left bullshit.

-Do you realise that Trump actually offered NOTHING to his voters, literally NOTHING?

-Do you realise that the man in the video presenting a huge contradiction with saying all that^ and stating that Sanders it would be different?!


Oh god, how do people actually swallow this bullshit? Give Americans an angry mainstream rant thrown in British English about politics, they forget everything about what actually happened.

People VOTED for Trump. And BEFORE that THEY VOTED FOR HILLARY. They Haven't VOTED for Sanders. They would never have voted for Sanders to win. If it was Sanders VS Trump the result would be the same.


I also realised in this couple of days that people have a very distorted, crude views of 'racism and sexism' in frame of these elections. They think it is something like the caricaturistic villains in movies, but never ordinary people, I suppose. Clearly the idea is that people actually are aware if they are racists or sexists and than not, also that they do not get affected by the years of toxic media campaigns directed by a few media companies. LOL

Oh yeah America is such a place out of human culture that no White people got affected by any of the years on going migrants bullshit, anti-SJW and anti-racist groups bullshit, all that media promotion about end of the White America hype AND especially never Trump's campaign even though the only thing was put forward is a toxic identity politics.

Democrats go on fooling themselves with the same bullshit, Trump is getting the second term for sure.

Perhaps his emotionalism, vulgar language and state of undress distracted you from his point: Hillary Clinton was the wrong choice for the Democratic candidate. I'm not arguing your points so let's set those aside for the moment and I'll explain why as a Democrat I agree with him that Clinton was the wrong choice.

Back in 2008 when Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama there was a narrative that Clinton would be the next president. Obama broke the racial barrier and next Clinton would break the glass ceiling-- this was her turn. During Obama's eight year administration she beefed up her experience, networked and prepared her campaign. Hillary and the leaders of the Democratic party made it understood that she was the candidate and no one else should bother running. I mean, Hillary Clinton IS Tracy Flick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u3GAQgZpww

However people started using the word "coronation", which didn't play well, and so Bernie Sanders entered the race-- a prop to give Democrats the illusion of choice. But there was never a choice. I marveled at the naiveté of Bernie supporters believing that choosing a Democratic party candidate was an egalitarian process. The Democratic leaders were genuinely surprised that Sanders had such passionate support, and it changed some of Clinton's positions, but she was their candidate. Sanders also made Democrats finally wake up and say to each other, "Umm... Did you want Clinton? No. Did you? Not really." Unfortunately it was too late.

So now the Democratic leaders have given us Clinton, who looks great on paper, but the problem is few people actually like her. I believe part of the discontent is sexism but she also has serious things working against her. She is the ultimate insider when the Left and the Right are unhappy with the status quo, which is why Sanders and Trump elicited such passion. Her calculated personality and machinations, which I find endearing, turn most people off and played right into Trump's unfiltered, anti-PC, "tell it like it is" appeal. When Clinton feels pressured to "tell it like it is" her response is to call Trump supporters "deplorables" which confirms what everyone thinks about her-- she's an elite snob who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with her is a rube. Even if Trump supporter are deplorable, racist, xenophobic mouth-breathers SHE can't say that, she is not a populist candidate and she can't pull off Trump's shtick. Positions she thinks are liberal are perceived as moderate by actual liberals. She claims she is a feminist but her attacks on her husband's mistresses were terrible and it was transparent she was protecting her investment in him. I wish she had just said, "My thanks to all the women who have fucked Bill because frankly I have better things to do"-- THAT would have been a feminist response. Benghazi and the emails were just normal political issues. The big problem was Clinton was an unlikable, faux-liberal insider of suspect character who was offering politics as usual in a polarized social climate against a populist opponent who changed the game.

I am not arguing Sanders would have been more successful but that Democrats were lazy and should not have just accepted it was Clinton's turn prior to the primary.

[drunkenshoe]

Thank you, GSOgymrat. But in the end Sanders has never been a winning card. Actually, I think the emotionalism caused people to see him as the real exit they missed back in the path looking back to him in a lime light. So highly likely the result would have been the same. People punished democrats -actually themselves, because they 'chose' to hate a typical candidate for bullshit reasons. This is not different than what I have been saying. And if that typical candidate was a man, negative traits wouldn't poke the eyes so much, people would be able to dismiss them as 'eh in the end just a politician, the devil I know, other one is catastrophie'.

She was so demonised, I don't think Americans saw Clinton as an ordinary politician at all. Which exactly she is. (For the record, I never saw her as a feminist, may be you are aware I never even wrote anything related to that but that is a personal opinion.)

My objection to the this approach is seeing this result as something caused by one factor, but nothing people actually decided themselves. 'They did it, not us' kinda thing. Removing the responsiblity from the voters. Actually, I will go further and say this is an obvious trait of this culture. Nobody questions why nobody takes a responsibility for something went bad. Like as if it all just happens by itself. An accident. More than that defending a harmful choice with bullshit reasons because you know, at that point the people suddenly become 'individuals' with choices. Ignoring people's choices and very simple, deliberate things that shaped those choices made without thinking; out of bitter, childish spite. Like lethal identity politics Trump made and used so cunningly through people who actually have screamed their heads off about being against any identity politics. That's the impression video conveys.

The other thing is, considering that this catastrophie will not cause an awakening in democrats -really, do not expect anything like that or you'll be crushed worse- and that there is a lot of things at stake now, people actually chose to gamble with their country to punish a party, actually punished themselves and voted for purely emotional reasons.

Unfortunately, this was not a popularity contest.

Why do I think democrats cannot reform themselves is that because they need to compete with the republicans. There is no chance for a second party that cannot deal a game out for that tight rope that has existed between these two parties since. You cannot create something from scratch or even change it.

The possible irony coming in the future is that after Trump, it could be so bad that people will jump to vote for a democrat WHOEVER they find available and highly likely he will be WORSE THAN Hillary Clinton. The drowning man will clucth at a straw. She won't look so bad then.

I sincerely hope that I am completely wrong and just being emotional about all this. That would make me happy.