Ethicists - Voting Your Heart is Immoral

[Shiranu]

The old and fallacious "Nader cost Gore the election."  Because, after all, the Nader votes actually belonged to Gore and those selfish Nader voters didn't give Gore his property.  This is the same Gore who couldn't carry his home state, but could carry his home state in a state-wide Senate race so don't say "oh but that is a red state."

Yes, selfish, but not to Gore but rather society as a whole. They wanted their cake, their candy, their gellato and to eat it too and cost everyone in the long run.

Rather than get something they agreed with 50-70%, but actually would succeed, by throwing their votes away because they "wanted" more (even though they would never even get it) in at least two states they got someone they agreed with maybe 10-20% and ended up costing the nation severely.

It's cutting your nose off to spite your own face, with the wonderful benefit of cutting everyone else's off because if you cant look good no one else can either. You don't get to contribute to a mess then walk away.

So if I, in California, vote third party, it will destabilize our government?

No, but selling this snake-oil to people in swing states can lead to that.

Third parties are almost all "revolutionary" parties, and those generally (nearly always) have the unfortunate side effect of never actually getting anything accomplished because they lack the experience and expertise to actually get their way.

[Shiranu]

Also, still waiting on what candidate with a realistic chance was better than Hillary. I have offered one, if any third partiers would like to add one.

[Baruch]

When people speak as if they knew in 2000 what 8 years of George W would be like ... is shooting babbel-fish in a barrel.  It isn't cricket!

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Let's trade facts rather than impressions...

I say that Trump is incompetent because the has no experience in international relations.  There is more to world leadership than making money deals.  Trump does yet show any understanding of that..

Yes, I agree with all of that.  But you are supposed to be telling me why you actually think Hillary is good, not just "less evil", since you actually think she is good and not merely less evil.

So, to add the stuff you left out.  Hillary does have experience in international relations, bad experience.  There is more to world leadership than dropping bombs.  Hilary doesn't yet show any understanding of that.

I say Trump is "vile" because he is a mysoginist, groper, who thinks nothing of running into the dressing rooms of teen women at beauty contests "because he can".  And because  he thinks he can grab women's genitals because they have to let him get away with it sometimes in fear of their careers.

Yes, I agree with all of that.  But you are supposed to be telling me why you actually think Hillary is good, not just "less evil", since you actually think she is good and not merely less evil.

So, to add the stuff you left out.  Hillary is married to someone of the exact same moral caliber, and supports him and defends him from all who would criticize him.  Both candidates believe that is the appropriate way for men to treat women.

I say he is psychotic because he has no sense of truth, changing it day-to day.  No unfactual statement bothers him in any degree.    I can give you a dozen unfactual statements he has made if you want to be bludgeoned by them.  And that wouldn't be the half of them.

Yes, I agree with all of that.  But you are supposed to be telling me why you actually think Hillary is good, not just "less evil", since you actually think she is good and not merely less evil.

So, to add the stuff you left out.  I say hillary is pathologic because she has no sense of truth, changing it day-to-day.  No unfactual statemtn bothers her either in any degree.  I can also give you dozens of unfactual statements she has made if you want to be bludgeoned by them.  And that woudln't be the half of them.

Mostly, I say he is psychotic because he believes the stuff he makes up as he goes are true BECAUSE HE SAYS THEM!

Yes, I agree with all of that.  But you are supposed to be telling me why you actually think Hillary is good, not just "less evil", since you actually think she is good and not merely less evil.

So, to add the stuff you left out.  I say she is psychopathic because she thinks we believe the stuff she makes up as she goes.  She thinks we are all gullible dupes.  I only know one person who thinks that she is honest, and when he is tasked to tell us why Hillary is good he writes a long post telling us why Trump is bad instead.

I say Trump is unethical because he lies about everything in his life.  He lied about giving money to the veterans.  He lies about giving money to charities (his foundation does with other people's money).  He even lies about giving money to his own campaign.  They are LOANS which he will either get back whole or take them off his taxes!  He wrote off OTHER PEOPLES losses on his own taxes!

Yes, I agree with all of that.  But you are supposed to be telling me why you actually think Hillary is good, not just "less evil", since you actually think she is good and not merely less evil.

So, to add the stuff you left out.  Goodness there is a goldmine here.  But if I mention how donations to the Clinton foundation have lead to expeditied meetings with the Secretary of State, you will insist that I show a signed contract between the Donor and Hillary saying "if you donate here you will get X in reward."

Now lets see about Clinton.  She used a private server for convenience.  That must be psychotic right?  Well, no, she was just doing what the Republicans before her did. 

How delusional must one be to say "you think using a private jet is psychotic"?

She has both domestic and international governmental experience.  She was in the White House asan active partner to a President, A Senator who worked across the aisle with Repub Senators to get a few bills passed.  Then was Secretary of State.  So it seems she has some experience.

I did cover her aggressive militaristic foreign policy.  She's as Hawkish and Aggressive as Dick Cheney.  You hated it in Dick Cheney, you live it in Hillary.  She has experience, but her experience leaves out any attempt to ever find a peaceful solution.

Ethics must be your problem, then.   She gave some speeches for money while out of office.  So did the Bushes.

And I mentioned this when?

Clinton showed her tax forms.  That MUST be some unethical trick for sure.

Yes.  Tax forms are the only form of financial shenanigans.  Donations to the Clinton Foundation in order to gain political access don't show up on tax forms.  But that doesn't bother you.

She met with someone who gave money to the Clinton Foundation who had been giving money to it for years before.  And it was someone the Secretary of State SHOULD meet with.

And others as well, who gave money and then got rushed appointment.  But you found one old long-time donor, so all the rest don't exist.

Those things don't even come close to similar.  So what is your REAL problem with her.  Let's hear the truth of what you think.  It is either going to be conspiratorial or laughable.

I gave you the similarities, but you don't want to see it.

You are so ashamed that you are knowingly voting for someone you know to be evil (even after you salved your conscience with "lesser of two evils" nonsense) that you are desperate to try to paint this unethical psychopath as somehow a saint.

Also, still waiting on what candidate with a realistic chance was better than Hillary. I have offered one, if any third partiers would like to add one.

Of course nobody has a better chance, because there are only two parties.  And if you live in a non-swing state you had better grow up and choose between the psychopath or the phsychotic.  If you don't, then the entire political structure will collapse.

[Shiranu]

Glad to see you admit your position is irrelevant then. Bu lets narrow it down... what non- contending candidate was better?

[SGOS]

When people speak as if they knew in 2000 what 8 years of George W would be like ... is shooting babbel-fish in a barrel.  It isn't cricket!

I voted for Gore, but when Bush won, I thought, "Give him a chance.  Lets see what he does."  He seemed like a deer caught in the headlights until 9-11, and then he got his feet on the ground.  I no longer had any confidence or hope for man.

I remember right after Bush was elected, I mentioned to my boss, an ardent Republican, "What do you think he will be like as a president?"  My boss without hesitation, replied, "Oh, I think he will be just another do nothing president," to which I uttered a sigh of relief.  As it turned out he did a lot, none of which I approved of. 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Cavebear, it is obvious what is going on here.  You want top vote for someone who is good.  Unfortunately this election is a lesser of two evils election, more so than those in the past and none of them were good either.  You want to vote for someone who is good so badly that you want to pretend that the one you support is good.

That's why you are so offended when someone says "Hillary is less evil" that you actually would think that person is a Trump supporter for not being enthusiastic enough about Hillary.

But she isn't good.  Not even close.  She is Dick Cheney, now in female version.

So your choices really are lesser of two evils.  Pick one that is less evil, and say "I am supporting the less evil candidate."  Pretending that there is any virtue in Hillary other than her not being Trump, that's just plain silly.



Shiranu, I don't admit my position is irrelevant, because as I pointed out to you before my vote won't change the short term outcome even a little.  And if, perchance as you put it, enough people were to buy my "snake oil", no, it wouldn't cause chaos.  What it would lead to is that rarest of things and the only thing that would make Cavebear happy - the chance to actually choose a good candidate.  It isn't impossible, just improbable, but the more people buy into the corrupt philosophy of "I don't live in a swing state but I must grow up and choose between the lesser of two evils" the more improbable it is.  People like you are the reason we have to choose between Hillary and Trump.  If people were to actually vote for someone good instead of strategically voting for the lesser evil "because it can win" we'd actually get good people.  Cavebear wouldn't even have to pretend that the candidate he supports is somehow good.

Those ethicists and those who agree with them are the reason we have lesser of two evils, the reason we have Trump and Clinton.  If you must choose between two evils, then something is wrong with the decisions that lead up to that choice.  Perhaps you ought to consider what corrupt ethics brought us to this place instead of bitching that there are a few people who reject that corrupt ethics.

[Shiranu]

If people were to actually vote for someone good instead of strategically voting for the lesser evil "because it can win" we'd actually get good people.

Still waiting on those names of good people in politics.

Spoiler alert; no, it wouldn't make good people win or even become an option because good people don't become politicians, and when they do they are corrupted by it's power. That's why the "good" politicians are names etched into history, while 99.99% of the "regular" rest have long gone forgotten.

So you can blame it on me all you want, but the fact of the matter is that politics has never been a game of "who is nicer" but rather, "Who can get shit done". You can either play by the rules and make sure that the most efficient also share some ideology with you, or you can stomp your foot and cry about how unfair it is. But the second isn't going to get you any further than it has since the beginning of organized civilization.

Those ethicists and those who agree with them are the reason we have lesser of two evils, the reason we have Trump and Clinton.  If you must choose between two evils, then something is wrong with the decisions that lead up to that choice.  Perhaps you ought to consider what corrupt ethics brought us to this place instead of bitching that there are a few people who reject that corrupt ethics.

Oh, I've considered it. I just don't buy your conclusion that the system is broke and third parties would fix it. I view the situation pragmatically and realise change comes from within rather than believe against all historical evidence that someone who can only pull in 2% of the vote not on his own merits but, "He isn't one of them!" (By the way, that is voting for the lesser of two evil... which means third parties get even less 'pure' votes) will magically make things better. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other big name Progressives in the Democratic party have made more change in the last few years than any third party, and unfortunately so has groups like the Tea Party in the Republican. They realised that the most efficient way to change a system is from within.

You are advocating that we vote for the lesser of evils and the cost of having any realistic means of making change. You are advocating that voting for "good people" will magically fix the system that corrupts good people. You are advocating that we do something that has proven to be irrelevant decade after decade of elections. That is snake oil. You might as well be peddling that Jesus will bring salvation to the state, #JesusforPrez 2020.

[Shiranu]

And don't get wrong, I entirely get where you are coming from and the appeal of it, I use to be right there with you on the attraction to third parties. It's just so non pragmatic that even i, provably one of the most hopeful and idealistic here, just can't buy into it anymore.

Add onto that that every third party candidate is worse than Hillary and worse than most Republicans...

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's not just 3rd parties.  If there were a good person running in a major party, I'd vote for that good person even though that good person is running in a major party.  I believe that one should vote for good without regard to party.

I'm willing to cross party lines if it means supporting someone who is good.

Yet strangely we see strategic voting taking place as early as the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary.  Something is wrong if we're voting strategically that early.

[Baruch]

Shiranu ... I used to be like you, young and idealistic, and thinking that the Republicans would pragmatically recover after Nixon, as the Democrats would pragmatically recover after Johnson.  Alas, it didn't happen.  Initially I voted for the individual, not the party (but that was divide and conquer against myself).

Jason ... I used to be like you.  But then the Republicans became Crusading Evangelicals.  Then I tried voting for the party.  But Bill Clinton turned out to be a pig in a poke.  So I stopped voting for several cycles.  But George W got elected.  So I came back and voted for the guy who saved us from Hillary Clinton ... Barak Obama.  By 2012 I was back to voting for the least worst candidate (sorry, no Rmoney for me).  In all of these elections, I never considered voting third party ... because that would be throwing my vote away.  I have learned a lot of bad lessons, but that is why I finally voted third party (even if my state isn't a swing state).

[PickelledEggs]

Clinton is ethical?  Oh boy.  Look, just because Trump is the epitome of everything that is wrong with culture in the US doesn't magically miraculously transform Hillary into anything better than the epitome of everything wrong with politics in the US.

This is why it's a choice of voting between Hillary and Trump.

I'm actually more frustrated with people voting third party than the people voting for Trump at this point. At least the people voting for Trump aren't lying to themselves, thinking they're going to be in anyway productive when they vote for a third party candidate

[Hydra009]

You are advocating that we vote for the lesser of evils and the cost of having any realistic means of making change. You are advocating that voting for "good people" will magically fix the system that corrupts good people. You are advocating that we do something that has proven to be irrelevant decade after decade of elections. That is snake oil. You might as well be peddling that Jesus will bring salvation to the state, #JesusforPrez 2020.

I had pretty much this same conversation with a friend of mine.

The way I look at it is you have candidates for a job opening.  You and a bunch of other managers have a pool of candidates to pick from, and it is steadily winnowed down, sometimes before you get your say.  You can pick whoever you want - even someone not on the list - but if you can't reach some sort of consensus with the other managers, it's not gonna happen.  You can try to find a perfect candidate, and it might feel good or right to make that pick (shouldn't a manager pick the best candidate possible?) but again, without a consensus, your pick is going nowhere.  Realistically, some sort of compromise is going to have to happen.  You're going to have to budge on some things to accomplish other things.  That's just how it works.  Politics is the art of compromise.  People who don't accept that are living in a fantasy land.

[Baruch]

Ah, but the folks who are pro X don't like compromise ... because none of them are actual pols, not even back-benchers.  Just monkeys in the peanut gallery ;-)

I have hired people.  It is a pure crap shoot, no matter how much due diligence you do beforehand.  It takes 6 months after you hire them, to see what they are really like.  And no, the analogy breaks down ... you and I are not plutocrats deciding on the short list of candidates ... pols and police are employed by the plutocracy, not by the public.  So why can't we tell how a candidate is going to work out?  Because we can't predict the future (but everyone here thinks they can).  Without knowing the future how can you know if candidate X is the better choice?

[widdershins]

How could you possibly know that?

Because "proof or your wrong" isn't just for theists any more.