Ethicists - Voting Your Heart is Immoral

[Shiranu]

Rankings on how liberal she was in the Senate... I'm sorry, but this idea that she is "basically a Republican", or "not liberal enough" is not based in reality but in buying all the shit she received in the media.

National Journal's 2004 study of roll-call votes assigned Clinton a rating of 30 in the political spectrum, relative to the Senate at the time, with a rating of 1 being most liberal and 100 being most conservative.[448] National Journal's subsequent rankings placed her as the 32nd-most liberal senator in 2006 and 16th-most liberal senator in 2007.[449] A 2004 analysis by political scientists Joshua D. Clinton of Princeton University and Simon Jackman and Doug Rivers of Stanford University found her to be likely the sixth-to-eighth-most liberal senator.[450] The Almanac of American Politics, edited by Michael Barone and Richard E. Cohen, rated her votes from 2003 through 2006 as liberal or conservative, with 100 as the highest rating, in three areas: Economic, Social, and Foreign. Averaged for the four years, the ratings are: Economic = 75 liberal, 23 conservative; Social = 83 liberal, 6 conservative; Foreign = 66 liberal, 30 conservative. Total average = 75 liberal, 20 conservative.[nb 16] According to FiveThirtyEight's measure of political ideology, "Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate."[451]

Based on her stated positions from the 1990s to the present, On the Issues places her in their "Left Liberal" region on their two-dimensional grid of social and economic ideologies, with a social score of 80 on a scale of 0 more-restrictive to 100 less-government stances and an economic score of 10 on a scale of 0 more-restrictive to 100 less-government stances.[452] Crowdpac, which does a data aggregation of campaign contributions, votes, and speeches, gives her a 6.5L rating on a one-dimensional left-right scale from 10L (most liberal) to 10C (most conservative).[453] Through 2008, she had an average lifetime 90 percent "Liberal Quotient" from Americans for Democratic Action,[454] and a lifetime 8 percent rating from the American Conservative Union.[455]

[PickelledEggs]

What I see is people in this thread refusing to accept the fact that we realistically have 2 choices and that Trump is leading in polls.

If your first priority is not preventing a Trump presidency and you honestly think Hillary is as bad as Trump will be, then that's your deal then maybe your priorities are justifiably different than what they should be... although I can't understand why anyone that would be ok with letting trump become president. If you think that Hillary is even the slightest bit less malignant, you need to reevaluate your priorities.

[PickelledEggs]

Yes, I think he would make a terrible president because he is a one-trick pony. I do not think he could garner enough support from both parties to get even a 10th of his views across, and his inexperience and lack of addressing issues outside his core two or three means we have no idea what to expect or that he has the know-how to get it done.

Dude. What?

Where did you hear that crap? He is very experienced, it there is anything that would make him a bad president it would be one thing, and it's not his lack of ability, if anything, it would be the house and senate's refusal to cooperate with him.

[Shiranu]

Dude. What?

Where did you hear that crap? He is very experienced, it there is anything that would make him a bad president it would be one thing, and it's not his lack of ability, if anything, it would be the house and senate's refusal to cooperate with him.

Again, that's what I mean by lack of experience (in getting things done). He doesn't compromise which, like it or not, is what being a politician is about.

[Duncle]

Sanders has plenty of experience, and just as importantly is honest and committed to the good of ordinary Americans. Imo he would've made a great president. An added bonus to a Sanders nomination would've been this: We wouldn't be having a worried conversation about the real possibility of a Trump presidency. All of the polls showed that he was a far stronger candidate vs Trump than Hillary is- partly because he's an outsider too, and partly because he isn't hated by half the country.

Would've, could've, should've. But isn't. Its Hillary against Trump, and although I agree that she's appalling, she isn't dangerous in the way that Trump is. And by dangerous, I mean a possible existential threat to American democracy and civil liberties.

[PickelledEggs]

Again, that's what I mean by lack of experience (in getting things done). He doesn't compromise which, like it or not, is what being a politician is about.

Ah. OK yeah I can agree with that

Sent from your mom.

[Shiranu]

Yeah I worded that wrong... I didn't mean lack of experience as not having worked in that field. I shoulda said he doesn't have the greatest body of work in things he has accomplished (which he still has done alot of, just not enough of the mass getting things done a president has to).

[PickelledEggs]

Yeah. As of now, unfortunately. Politicians need to compromise their own morals a lot. One of the reasons the currrent senate and house will love both hillary cliton and donald duck.

[SGOS]

This whole thread is a plea for others to vote the way some posters think they should vote.  I basically thought the same thing about the link from that Georgetown guy, although he was somewhat less preachy than what I'm hearing here.  I think those of us who don't agree with the issue being pushed, understand the points being made.  We understand the concerns, recognize the fears, and believe in the sincerity of those pushing for Hillary.  I wouldn't question those things for a minute.  But feel free to stop this morality bullshit anytime.  I think there are better arguments for supporting Hillary. 

Shit like this goes on during virtually every election.  In each election, it's always about why the current election is so especially important because so much is at stake.  There's the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, ideologies that are at stake that will be reversed or torn apart, the eminent doom of liberal values, and a Republican opponent who is the ultimate twit.  People get emotional about this stuff.  But sometimes the Republicans win the election no matter how much is at stake.  And we survive, and some good things still happen anyway.

Having said all that, I may vote for Hillary, but not because someone accuses me of being immoral in the voting booth.  There's lots of time left before then.  The nominations have only just been made, and hopefully we can hear some additional information from the candidates.  Although to be honest, I'm not expecting anything new and stunning that will change things much.  It's mostly just bullshit anyway.

[Shiranu]

Like I posted, she was ranked from 16th to 6-8th most liberal senator in her time... that seems a rather good reason to vote for her.

[Hydra009]

Sanders has plenty of experience, and just as importantly is honest and committed to the good of ordinary Americans. Imo he would've made a great president. An added bonus to a Sanders nomination would've been this: We wouldn't be having a worried conversation about the real possibility of a Trump presidency. All of the polls showed that he was a far stronger candidate vs Trump than Hillary is- partly because he's an outsider too, and partly because he isn't hated by half the country.

Would've, could've, should've. But isn't. Its Hillary against Trump, and although I agree that she's appalling, she isn't dangerous in the way that Trump is. And by dangerous, I mean a possible existential threat to American democracy and civil liberties.

Which is why I'm voting for Hillary, mostly out of desperation.  It's a real shame that it's come to this.

[Baruch]

If we are going to quote Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

...I'm sorry, but Hillary Clinton's body of work for helping Americans is far and beyond anything Bernie has done.

If by Americans, you mean members of the Clinton coterie.  But I agree that while Bernie was a sweetheart candidate, he wasn't the cutest girl at the dance.  Trump is like the HS quarterback you love to hate ... bragging brawny idiot.

[Baruch]

Which is why I'm voting for Hillary, mostly out of desperation.  It's a real shame that it's come to this.

It was supposed to be Hillary against JEB, with the Republithugs fixing the vote in Florida and Ohio.  But something went Wong ... y'all are discounting foreign influence in our elections, particularly the Saudis and the Chinese.  I think the Chinese can get behind Trump but not Hillary and not JEB.  George W wanted originally to go to war against China ... but the CIA intervened with their favored patsy.  The Saudis love Hillary and hate Trump.  Expect to see another Sirhan Sirhan if Trump gets plugged.

[widdershins]

So basically, your tl;dr is that because it's not obligatory and instead a right, it also means you have the right to be lazy and selfish.

And you're right, you do have the right to be selfish. But just know that is what you are being.

Let me point out that I have never liked the "throwing your vote away" nonsense which has kept us locked in a broken two terrible party system for decades and, to me, this is just more of the same.  So accordingly, I do no think it "selfish" to exercise my right to vote for whomever the hell I choose, even if they don't have a chance in hell of winning.  As I said, the winning of an election is not the end-all, only result of the election.  Bernie just lost an "election" for candidate for the real election, but he still had an impact and every vote he got even when it was obvious he was not going to win added to the power of the message which was being delivered.  Simply running was enough to change the way people think.  Of course that's not entirely the same is it was an "election" between only two people and for most either was "acceptable".

But to call me selfish for voting for a candidate in whom I believe even though that candidate has little chance of winning, that's just ridiculous.  To say it is "immoral" for me to vote for the candidate I really want in office, that's just fucking retarded.  It's the whole "throwing your vote away" bullshit I first heard in the '90s and it's thinking like that which all but ensures we have decades yet to come of the devil or his brother in most major offices.

So let me give you an example that might help you see my point a little better.  Let's say something totally fucked up happens before November's election.  Let's say Trump somehow loses the nomination and Cruz becomes the Republican nominee.  Butthurt, Trump now decides to run as a third party candidate.  Cruz has the hard right, Trump has some of the right and much of the middle and Hillary has the hard left and some of the middle.  But then the unthinkable happens.  It's the day before the election and the polls are in.  Hillary only a week ago did something so incredibly stupid that it's unforgivable.  She ate a hot dog in New York from the wrong street vendor, something really, really bad, and the public is outraged.  She is down in all the polls by double digits.  It is obvious she has no chance.  The difference between Trump and Cruz is razor thin.  So, do you vote for Trump or Cruz?  If you believe you are morally obligated in these circumstances to vote for either of those assholes, I'm sorry, but that's stupid.

[widdershins]

No third party has a chance of winning the election.

Well, not with that attitude!