In a less than a week, all of the rationalizations used by the desperate, in denial “Never Hillary” and “Never Democrat” voters have crumbled under the crushing weight of Donald Trump’s epic unfitness to lead. In the comment threads on Ethics Alarms and elsewhere, these otherwise sane and rational individuals have insisted that they would either vote for Donald Trump, increasing the chances of him being able to do to the United States—and maybe the world— over four years what he has done to the Republican Party in less than a year, that is, wreck it, or vote for a third party, essentially abdicating responsibility to protect the nation from Trump in order to bleat “Don’t blame me!” when the inevitable awfulness of a Hillary Clinton administration is fouling the air.
This was always an unsupportable position, even as evidence of Clinton’s astounding dishonesty and corruption ( the Jumbo about the FBI verdict on her e-mails; hiring Debbie Wasserman Schultz) has continued to accumulate, and even as President Obama continues to flail (Assad crossed Obama’s “the red line” again to crickets from the White House; Obama secretly paid the equivalent of ransom for hostages). Trump had already proven beyond the shadow of any doubt that he is too unstable of temperament, diseased of character, deficient of intellect and devoid of judgment to be trusted with national leadership. He had proven this years ago, over his entire career of feuds, lawsuits, public exhibitionism, outrageous statements, crudeness and misogyny. His boorishness, lack of respect for others and incivility alone disqualify him as I explained, correctly, on September 15 of last year.
I keep linking to this article, I know. This has to be the fifth or sixth time. I don’t do this to say “I told you so” or to prove how much smarter I am than a lot of other commentators. I do it 1) because I believe its message is important, and that not enough people consider this aspect of Trump’s leadership to be as critical as it is, and 2) to demonstrate that nothing has changed, except that the excuses for those who have their fingers in their ears, their eyes closed and are humming have dwindled to the vanishing point. Here’s how the post began:
I have had this essay ready to go for at least a month; I honestly didn’t think it would be necessary to post it. Nonetheless, I kept in on the bench, just in case. I was confident that the point to be made was too obvious, and that even those bitter, angry, irresponsible, ignorant whateverthehelltheyares who are keeping Trump’s candidacy afloat—and thus making it more difficult to sort out the real candidates—would have figured it out by now. I was wrong.
There are lots of reasons why Donald Trump shouldn’t be anyone’s candidate to be President. He is a narcissist, for one thing, and that is a pathology. Narcissists are dangerous in positions of power. He has no experience in politics, which he appears to believe, based on his statements, consists primarily of bribing people, since that is what it largely means in his eternally corrupt businesses of construction and gambling, and pitching them things, which is not the same as persuasion. He seems to think leading a company and leading a nation are similar jobs: they are not, though they involve some common skills. Trump is largely ignorant of most issues facing us, and takes pride in winging it, simply saying the first thing that pops into his mind. What Presidents of the United States say have cascading impact: think about the horrible consequences of Obama’s infamous “red line” statement, which has led to the willingness of despots and terrorists to defy U.S. interests and warnings, confident that nothing would be done by a confrontation-averse President.
Earlier still, I posted this, about the smoking gun evidence of Trump’s deficits in a collection of 199 quotes from various interview and Trump-related publications. I wrote,
“I’m not looking for Samuel Butler here, or even Barack Obama, but for someone who is at least for the nonce a “serious” candidate for the highest office in the land, it would be reassuring to find some evidence of wit, perspective, reflection, or a vocabulary beyond that of a typical 8th grader, and it just isn’t there. Has Trump read any literature? Has he ever seen a play? Is he capable of a relevant famous quote or a cultural reference (saying that Bette Midler is “grotesque” doesn’t count, though “grotesque” may be the most sophisticated word that appears on the list)? If so, there is no hint of it.”
Just a week short of a year ago, I wrote a post,titled “Dear GOP: Throw Out Trump. It’s The Ethical Thing To Do.” Again, I believed then as now that the decision should have been obvious—it still amazes me that the Republican Party was so blind and foolish that they couldn’t see what I saw when I wrote…
It is the right thing to do. I would throw someone who acted like Trump out of my house. Any competent business would fire him. Any club—well, if there’s a club for assholes, maybe not that one— would expel him. If the Republican Party can’t demonstrate that there is some conduct so low that it will not tolerate it from its Presidential nominee, then the party has no standards, and deserves to lose—yes, even to <gag! ack!> Hillary Clinton.
You can imagine my reaction when reports started surfacing this week that Republican leadership is exploring the possibility of replacing Trump as the nominee. Idiots! Morons! Now, this occurs to you? Now? After the primaries? After the convention? After all of the ways Trump embarrassed the party, its members, and anyone who ever voted for a candidate with an (R) next to his or her name for more than a year, now you decide that maybe nominating this deluded fool is a mistake?
Forget about Trump: why would anyone in their right mind entrust the task of governing to a group of people this pathetic, cowardly and irresponsible?
But I digress.
Back to the Never Hillary bitter-enders…
Look: nobody appreciates how corrupt and untrustworthy Hillary Clinton is more than I do. Just click on the Hillary Clinton tag, the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal tag, or the The Hillary Clinton Presidential Candidacy Ethics Train Wreck tag if you don’t believe me. Similarly, I have no illusions about how incompetent and unethical the Democratic administration of Barack Obama has been and continues to be; you can track the ethics wreckage here, and (I have barely scratched the surface of the policy botches, because this is an ethics and leadership blog) and by accessing the flat learning curve tag, under which the majority of the entries, though not all, involve the President.
The choice we have in November, however is no choice at all. Every responsible citizen regardless of ideology and political affiliation has a duty, a patriotic duty and a duty as a world citizen, to do his or her part to ensure that Trump never gets into the White House except in a visitor’s tour. That demands, sorry, voting for Mrs. Clinton.
I have floated many analogies to explain this: pick one you like. It may be like the US allying itself with Stalin, a monster in his own right, to defeat the Nazis in WWII (voting for Gary Johnson is the equivalent of FDR choosing to ally the US with Tierra Del Fuego instead). My personal favorite is the analogy of having to choose between two airline pilots to fly a jumbo jet on which you and your family are passengers. There is Pilot A, who is untrustworthy, who is demonstrably a poor pilot, who only has the chance to fly the plane because her husband was a better pilot (though he let go of the controls in a storm to get a hummer from a flight attendant), who may take a bribe to land at a different destination than where you want to go, who will call anyone who criticizes her flying a bigot and sexist, who will provide a rough flight that might have you vomiting into the air sickness bag, and who might crash the plane, but probably just bang it up sufficiently to require major repairs until it can fly again, and Pilot B, an 8 year-old incorrigible boy with no flying experience but delusions of grandeur.
Or, if you like, a chimp.
It’s a horrible, scary choice, but it shouldn’t be a hard one. The choice is obvious, and pointing to someone else who can’t possibly get the controls and screaming, “I want him! HIM!” is futile grandstanding.
We should thank Donald Trump, I suppose, for eliminating any doubt about how dangerous he is so quickly, at least for those who hadn’t figured it out yet, why I don’t know. Immediately following an amateurish and ugly Republican convention that nonetheless had Trump even with Hillary Clinton in the polls or ahead of her, he proceeded to shoot himself in the foot, spleen, testicles and head in a foolish confrontation with a Gold Star father who attacked him in a speech during the Democratic convention.
Anyone with the political experience of a 7-11 clerk or the intelligence of a gopher could have advised Trump that engaging in a pissing match with Khizr Khan was not merely unnecessary and foolish but insane. I’m sure many of those “best people” Trump surround himself with did so advise him, since they appear to have the political experience 7-11 clerks and the intelligence of gophers. It was obvious to everyone—George W. Bush didn’t attack Cindy Sheehan; Hillary had the sense not to attack Pat Smith—except Donald Trump. He couldn’t help himself. He just couldn’t do it. He could not exercise the self-control expected of an adult, much less a President, and began a week-long assault on a man of no significance whatsoever, except that he dared to insult Donald Trump. So like the bully he is, Trump had to beat him up.
What resulted from Trump’s various unhinged attacks on Khan and his wife was wide-ranging and well-earned chaos. Several Republican office holders, fund-raisers, leaders, past elected officials and prominent conservatives announced that they would have to vote for Hillary Clinton, since Trump was obviously unhinged. His comments were also repudiated by Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich and John McCain, among others, whereupon Trump vowed vengeance on McCain and Ryan. Trump’s own VP, Gov. Pence, immediately defied Trump and endorsed Ryan. The news media, already openly campaigning for Clinton, pounced on Trump like a horde of zombies on a brainy quadriplegic. So did others: a former lawyer of Trump’s published an article explaining why his experience representing the man had made him a Hillary voter. (More on this later.)
Other disturbing stories emerged, like this one, in which MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Scarborough revealed that
“Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can’t we use them.”
Never mind, for now, about the issue of why it took Scarborough, a Republican, “several months” to reveal this information. Trump’s alleged questions seem entirely credible coming from a man who in the span of a few days also pledged to defend the Constitution’s “Article XII” and who immediately after being cleared for top security briefings, described to a rally in Daytona Beach the details from a video he said he had watched during that briefing.
This all occurred in a single week. A week! There was no foreign or domestic crisis Trump was responding to as President; there were no difficult or complex decisions that needed to be made. All Donald Trump needed to do was not to act like an 11-year old brat, and he would have had strong poll numbers and not have forces his supporters who are capable of shame to wear paper bags over their heads in public. Yet he couldn’t do it!
Donald Trump managed to turn a routine partisan convention speech that was critical of him into a multilateral disaster, while more evidence surfaced of his utter ignorance, recklessness, and lack of common sense, self-control, trustworthiness. Can you imagine the damage someone like this could, and would cause given four years—that’s 208 weeks—or in an international setting?
Can you imagine the lack of focus in a Trump White House, with the President engaged in constant feuds and vendettas against citizens, celebrities, journalists, broadcasters and bloggers who dared to displease him? It doesn’t matter if you think Hillary will appoint Noam Chomsky, Bill Clinton and Alec Baldwin to the Supreme Court, nationalize health care, give the Southwest back to Mexico, ban electricity to save the planet, only allow white prisoners to stay in prison, eliminate the Second Amendment, quadruple the deficit and make Swedish the national language. Hillary’s worst case scenario is a Care Bears movie compared to what Trump might bring, not just to the US, but the entire world.
So just snap out of it, Never Hillarys. I’m sympathetic, but you have no rational, patriotic option now but to do whatever you can to protect the nation and the world from Donald Trump. This isn’t scaremongering: the last week proved it, though it should have been obvious long before. I’m sympathetic, but you have to be a responsible adult, because Donald Trump is not.
Ethics Alarms 
Social insanity is now worldwide.
May this one-page summary of my 11:30 am presentation at the London GeoEthics Conference on Climate Change on September 8, 2016 finally end seventy years (1946-2016) of successful UN (United Nations) and UNAS (United National Academy of Sciences) deception about the Higher Power:
Click to access HigherPower.pdf
I will be happy to reply to questions.
With kind regards.
Oliver K. Manuel
1-573-647-1377
I’m not voting for Gary Johnson because of some desire to not support Hillary or Donald. I’m supporting Gary Johnson because I believe he is the best candidate that is most qualified for office that best represents the majority of my views. You really need to get off this “Never Gary” mission you’re on and quit wasting your vote and influence on a corrupt scandalous sociopath because you fear some far flung possibility that DT will be elected. I get it – you’re afraid and scared people do weird things. But this is a whole ‘nother level of dip****tery whereas you advocate that people shouldn’t vote for the best in order to vote for evil that is less evil than a different evil.
With all due respect, Tim, that’s insane. The plane analogy is apt. Why Johnson? I know about a five hundred people who would make better Presidents than him—he’s really not much of a libertarian, not that libertarian are responsible or realistic, and the other 99 weren’t nominated in a convention that included a fat middle aged man running around naked on stage. And every single one of those people have as much of a chance as Gary Johnson of being elected. They, like him, won’t be covered by the media. They, like him, won’t get to debate. They, like him, won’t win a single state.
So what do you think you accomplish by voting for a candidate like that? It is better than voting for Trump, but if the objective is stopping Trump, it is less effective than voting for Hillary—and stopping Trump has to be the objective, because you aren’t going to stop both Hillary and Trump.
In a real three-way election, sure, I’d vote for Johnson, even though the libertarian position on foreign wars is embarrassing, and the current heroin epidemic is a warning about ideology unhinged. But this isn’t one. Voting for Johnson has as much substantive value as whistling Dixie or kicking a dog.
Snap out of it.
My goal isn’t to stop Trump. It isn’t to stop Hillary. It’s to vote for who I think is the best option. In my mind, options are limited to those who are on the ballot in all 50 states. Jill Stein and everyone else is out. There are the same 3 choices on every single person’s ballot. It’s a fair 3 way race and some have more resources than others. We get the cards we are dealt. If Republicans want my vote in 2020, they’ll quit nominating social conservatives and buffoons and look at the type of person who brings in the independents and fence sitters. My voice is for Gary Johnson and I wish you’d join me – but as it is, your voice is to hurt Donald Trump.
Also – I’d vote for Trump before I voted for Clinton. If we’re gonna fuck this country up, let’s fuck it up right. No half measures. So be thankful I’m voting for Gary Johnson.
If we’re gonna fuck this country up, let’s fuck it up right. No half measures.
Now THAT’s a responsible statement. Christ.
Let’s face it, if Trump fucks it up we will know about it; if Clinton fucks it up the press will spin it in a way where it is “for our own good” and “the way of the future”. Those are some *very* uncomfortable echoes of 1984.
You’re right—if he starts a nuclear war, we’ll all know it.
Right up there with Cthulhu, why vote for the lesser evil?
“It’s to vote for who I think is the best option.”
That’s not what elections are for, Tim, and I’m sure you know that. The purpose is to choose occupants for office, not to seek personal satisfaction.
So – we shouldn’t choose the best option to be the occupants of an office? WTF are you actually saying?
Are you trolling, or what? We choose the best of the available choices among the candidates who have a chance to be elected. Otherwise, why not just have an open write-in ballot? That doesn’t work. The time to winnow down the field was months and months ago, and it failed, as it sometimes does, spectacularly, which it hasn’t before. Now we have the choices we have. Voting for Larry the Lobster is not responsible citizenship. Am I saying that voting for Johnson-Weld is indistinguishable from voting for Larry the Lobster? Yup. They have exactly the same chances of winning the election.
Your logic breaks down when you say the chances of Trump winning are a “far flung possibility.” What chance of existential disaster is acceptable for you? If it involved you family? Is 10% too risky? The chances of Trump winning are far more than that. 24%? 40%? If there’s a terror attack on US soil or a financial collapse, neither that remote, Trump could win. Will you vote Johnson-Weld then?
Every candidate has a chance of being elected if their name is on a sufficient number of ballots. Larry the Lobster who is only on the Maine ballot has no chance of being elected because even if he wins Maine, he can’t get 270 electoral votes.
Now, let’s look at Johnson. In any election, it could always be mathematically possible that the electoral college is tied at 269 without any 3rd party interference. In that scenario, the Republican controlled house decides who the next president is by casting 1 vote per state delegation among the top 3 vote getters in the election. That’s Clinton, Trump, Johnson (unless Stein really ups her game.) Now, Republicans which maybe have 55% of the seats actually have about 66% of the presidential votes because it’s by state delegation, not individuals. A very bleak outlook for Democrats. At that point, Democrats are ready to compromise if there’s any way to avert a Trump presidency. The GOP isn’t happy with Trump, but they can’t simply dump him without a notion that there’s at least another option that has some amount of meritorious support from the general population. Enter Johnson, the only other legally permissible option they can vote for because he was 3rd in vote count. What should the GOP controlled house do then with absolute control? Take your advice and kick Johnson to the curb?
It gets interesting when it then goes to the senate. In the senate, each member votes for a VP of the Top 2 candidates. Well, that narrows the VP search down to Kaine/Pence. So, you’re looking at a mixed ticket presidency at that point. If GOP retains control of Senate, It would be a Johnson/Pence White House.
So, with that in mind, the top 3 vote getters are always “viable choices” because I don’t want Jill Stein to be that 3rd option that the House of Reps gets to choose from.
I forgot about Larry’s limited candidacy, and stand corrected.
At a tie of 269-269 Johnson isn’t an option, the choice is between the top three electoral vote getters. There would only be two.
You’re right. Leave it to a “Faithless Elector” to change that…or perhaps he wins Utah.
Jack said, “We choose the best of the available choices among the candidates who have a chance to be elected.”
Elections are not about choosing to be on the winning side, they are about choosing who the winner should be. It seems more and more likely that you and I will never agree on that point.
There is something you’re not considering Jack; what if there are 200 million others out there just like Tim and the polls don’t take that into account because they’re asking the wrong questions. Political polls suck the bag, I wish they were banned; they’re nothing but statistics hokum and propaganda tools designed to push more people to jump on the bandwagon that’s in the front of the pack instead of pushing the people’s real choice to the front of the pack. There should only be one political poll taken, that’s the one taken in the voting booths on election day.
Typo correction for my comment above…
“It seems more and more likely that you and I will never agree on that point.”
It they are just about who the winner “should be,” then why not always write in the best candidate whether he or she is running or not? You’re avoiding the issue by defining election to fit your argument. This use to be called a Procrustean argument..
Once political parties are part of the process your only option is to vote strategically. That’s why George Washington was so against them.
George had many outstanding qualities and expertise, but government theory was not one of them. He was probably the last President who wasn’t a politician and never became one.
Jack,
You have earned a very high level of respect from me since December 2015, we’ve agreed and respectfully disagreed on topics; however, when it comes to this particular topic, you and I don’t just simply disagree, we are on different ends of the ethics spectrum. I’m honestly having a really hard time trying to understanding how you think what you’re doing is ethical.
Jack said, “You’re avoiding the issue by defining election to fit your argument.”
I’m actually not avoiding a thing; I’m only disagreeing with your definition of how I should cast my vote. Even though I’ve shared that I have serious ethical reasons why I don’t want to vote for either Trump or Clinton; it’s actually none of your business how I choose to ultimately cast my vote. In my opinion; defining election to fit your argument is exactly what you are doing. Come on Jack, you’re openly telling people that it’s nuts to vote for the candidate of their choice because it doesn’t fit your definition of an election. This is about individual choice not just going with the flow; sometimes an individual choice is not to follow the crowd of sheep heading off the cliff to the left or the cliff to the right but intentionally blazing your own trail that stays on the ridge.
You said, “We choose the best of the available choices among the candidates who have a chance to be elected”; you’re essentially telling Packer fans that they have to support the Broncos or the Seahawks because those two teams have a better chance of winning the Superbowl. I’m telling you that your statement is wrong. For me, your statement falls into the category of propaganda. You talked about a Procrustean argument; well Jack, you are literally emboldening uniformity without regard to individuality, in fact you are coming really close to “demonizing” individuality.
Are you listening to yourself on this topic, I mean really listening to what you’re saying? You’re implying or stating that it’s unpatriotic or insane to cast a vote for anyone but Hillary; seriously Jack, where’s the ethics in that behavior? Your openly justifying that which you know to be unethical because of the circumstances. I can’t believe I’m in this position but I am compelled to stand up and tell you respectfully that I believe that what you’re doing is unethical and wrong.
I don’t want Trump OR Hillary as the next President of the United States. You can choose Hillary for whatever reasons you see fit, but don’t you dare tell others that their choice not to vote for Hillary is unpatriotic or insane. You’re using political tactics that under different circumstances I’m sure you would find repugnant; the circumstances only “justify” the repugnant tactics, they don’t make the tactics less repugnant.
Side Note: I’m openly stating right now that I firmly believe that Trump is a too good to be true perfectly timed political storm for the Clinton political machine which has been covertly supported by the Democratic Party! I know what this sounds like; however, is all this just a mere coincidence? I know how this will make me look; however, I’m trending towards it is not a coincidence.
Lastly; I’m noticing a trend in myself today that I’m not necessarily happy with, so I think I’m going to reduce the amount of comments I post here for a little while.
Jack said, “You’re avoiding the issue by defining election to fit your argument.” I’m actually not avoiding a thing; I’m only disagreeing with your definition of how I should cast my vote. Even though I’ve shared that I have serious ethical reasons why I don’t want to vote for either Trump or Clinton; it’s actually none of your business how I choose to ultimately cast my vote.
Of course it’s my business, just as it’s your business how my cast mine. Your vote affects my life, my country, and the future of my family and friends.
“In my opinion; defining election to fit your argument is exactly what you are doing. Come on Jack, you’re openly telling people that it’s nuts to vote for the candidate of their choice because it doesn’t fit your definition of an election.”
No, I’m telling people that it’s irresponsible to allow Donald Trump to be President, and pointing out which conduct risks doing that, and which conduct does not. Voting for candidates who can’t win, shouting curses in the wind, and writing down excuses—and certainly voting for Trump, do risk that. Fact. You don’t like that fact. Neither do I. But we have to act rationally rather than emotionally. We have that duty as citizens.
“This is about individual choice not just going with the flow; sometimes an individual choice is not to follow the crowd of sheep heading off the cliff to the left or the cliff to the right but intentionally blazing your own trail that stays on the ridge.”
Fantasy! You’re in that crowd whether you admit it or not. You are responsible for who becomes President. You can’t pretend you aren’t. You conduct fails multiple ethical models.
You said, “We choose the best of the available choices among the candidates who have a chance to be elected”; you’re essentially telling Packer fans that they have to support the Broncos or the Seahawks because those two teams have a better chance of winning the Superbowl.
Because rooting for a football team is like deciding who is going to lead the nation? Come on. This weak an analogy shows how desperate you are to find a way out. Look: most of the time, it doesn’t matter sufficiently which candidate is elected to make throwing away your vote a big deal. I voted for Ross Perot in 1988, because 1) I felt a significant vote might create a viable third party 2) I felt he deserved my vote for being honest about the debt and deficit 3) I had decided that Bush was a weak and feckless President that didn’t deserve to be re-elected, and 4) Clinton had an untrustworthy character, but probably would be a better President than Bush on policy matters. None of the two major candidates, however, were existentially bad, like Trump. And by election time, Perot couldn’t win.
That’s not the situation today. Trump, unlike all previous candidates, is not within the range of even barely acceptable and responsible political leaders. Johnson is not going to win, and Libertarianism, like Socialism, is an unworkable governing theory (and Johnson, even more so Weld, are not truly libertarians). Ron Paul thinks we shouldn’t have fought WWII. Rand Paul thinks we should have allowed public schools and commodities to discriminate against blacks.
For me, your statement falls into the category of propaganda. You talked about a Procrustean argument; well Jack, you are literally emboldening uniformity without regard to individuality, in fact you are coming really close to “demonizing” individuality.
Nonsense. I’m doing my job: identifying what is unquestionably the ethical and responsible course, and it is. The steps are simple: This guy…
Has no business being President, cannot be trusted with great power, will embarrass the nmation,. debase the office, rot the culture, and maybe worse. That’s not propaganda. I can support it; I have supported it. Many, many others of objectivity and wisdom have as well. It isn’t in dispute. Is there a single candidate among the Federalists, Democrat-Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Know-Nothings, Republicans, Dixicrats or other major parties that have been on the Presidential ballot who would ever do THAT in public? No. Not one. Because this man is uniquely unfit, unstable and incompetent. Thus it follows that such a candidate requires unique public responsibility to keep him out of office. Propaganda is the distortion of truth. I’m telling the truth, objectively, and since I not only don’t support Hillary or Trump, I have no dog in the hunt, except my position as a citizen of a nation that is imperiled, along with the world, by having an unstable, incompetent leader.
You’re implying or stating that it’s unpatriotic or insane to cast a vote for anyone but Hillary; seriously Jack, where’s the ethics in that behavior? Your openly justifying that which you know to be unethical because of the circumstances.
This is jibberish, ZT. The ethical choice is the ethical choice. I’ve given relevant examples. If the choice is A and B, and A is risky, but B is much, much riskier, then the responsible–sane, patriotic– choice is A. Not C.
I can’t believe I’m in this position but I am compelled to stand up and tell you respectfully that I believe that what you’re doing is unethical and wrong.
I held on to a version of my post for a long, long time, because I knew a lot of otherwise reasonable people can’t handle reality in this matter. I understand. I do. Every other day, I read about some latest botch by the Obama Administration, or another attack on rights by Democrats, or more lies by Hillary,or spin by the news media, and I think…boy, do these peoples deserve to lose. And in many ways, if they do lose, I’ll be thinking, well, GOOD, you arrogant, totalitarian, corrupt assholes. You asked for this. Then I listen to Trump for about a minute, and reflect on the Presidency—I’ve read at least one major biography of every one, and all the major works on the office—I wrote my honors thesis on PRESIDENTIAL CHARACTER!—and I think: nope. We cannot allow this cataclysm to occur…even if it means Hillary.
I don’t want Trump OR Hillary as the next President of the United States.
Well too bad: that’s the goddamn choice. I don’t want either of them either. You are arguing that an ethicist pointing out what is the ethical choice in a two choice dilemma is propaganda and inappropriate. It is people thinking like you, deluding themselves into thinking there is a magic third choice that relieves the voter of responsibility that I DID post this, and felt that I was obligated to.
I’m sorry it upsets you, ZS. It is not that individualism doesn’t matter, but that there are some times that the nation and society and the public comes first, and have to come first.
In the end we all have to square our actions with our consciences. St. Thomas More got the chop because “he couldn’t put his hand on an old black book and tell an ordinary lie,” but that’s not how he saw it. If you vote for someone you vote for all that person stands for. Thankfully, at least for a little while, we still have freedom of conscience here. The Republican Party took what has turned out to be a very foolish gamble here. It gambled that Trump was a buffoon who wouldn’t last (the summer, the year, Super Tuesday, etc.). It didn’t grasp that the media and Trump’s own outlandishness would give him the staying power to outlast six effective governors and ten other candidates. It gambled that Trump would keep his promises. Uh huh. It gambled that it could control him. Wrong. Most importantly, I think, it took a gamble that Trump was a greater danger to their chances as a third party candidate, who would split the anti-Hillary vote and doom them, than he was as a potential loose cannon within the party who could hopefully be tied down.
I dunno what happened to Trump, but I think he’s a candidate for a trip to the ER right now – he can’t finish a sentence and he appears to not even hear any question asked of him. He sounds like a stroke victim. Maybe the campaigning is starting to wear on him, and maybe its just that he knows he can’t be removed now and is not even trying to moderate his rhetoric. I guess he would have dribbled off the court had he run third party by now, but seven months ago he looked like an unstoppable juggernaut of populism, to the point where Trump advocates were burning their party registration cards if another candidate, usually Cruz, used primary procedures to pick up delegates. The party leaders feared his defection too much to do anything about it, and now they’re between a rock and a hard place. I did speak out against Trump and against voting for him – I said he was a Franco or a Mussolini pandering to angry people who thought they were being ignored. The party turned to those who had lost the last two elections to scold those very people, not a winning strategy.
Now the party is coming apart at the seams as some try to insult or cajole those with reservations into line and a lot of others look for a way out. There are articles that say party heavyweights are going to “intervene” with Trump, but who wants to vote for a President who needs intervention before he is even president? If they do in fact intervene I think they should be saluted and not beaten on, but I have a growing sense of it being too little too late and fodder for a “well, it seemed like a good idea at the time…” rationalization.
I am disgusted with both political parties for having brought the country to this point. The choice should not be between a narcissistic bully and a lying proto-tyrant, both of whom are going to do IMMENSE damage to this country and all it stands for. I’ve been a strong patriot for many years, but I do not think after this I will ever be proud of this nation again.
Steve — Beth here (I’m using a new name online now). I think you’re on to something. While I think Trump is a disgusting human being, his attacks and stumbles lately might be indicative of something larger. This petty meaness — coupled with his inability to focus on questions — might be indicative of early dementia or some other illness. I believe it runs in his family as well.
Did you know that my grandmother was Spartan?
Cool. BTW — check your email. I sent you a note a couple days ago about non-Ethics Alarms stuff.
Unusual choice of names, but ok. I am not and never have been the man’s biggest supporter, I said my piece and it seems like no one was listening. Weakness in the White House is not a new thing – Wilson suffered a stroke that put his wife in charge, Grover Cleveland had half his jaw ripped out due to cancer, Franklin Pierce fell into the bottle from grief, JFK had Addison’s disease, crippling back pain, and quite possibly PTSD, Reagan was never the same after he took a bullet and may have had early onset dementia. Those are some of the guys who survived – Harrison, Taylor, Harding, and FDR all died in office from various maladies, and the last of these is particularly problematic, since FDR was physically a wreck when elected for the last time, and probably knew he wouldn’t survive his last term. Yet he kept on going AND kept Harry Truman in the dark about a few little details – like the Manhattan project.
If I were one of the GOP heavyweights I would tell him, Donald, this isn’t working. I supported you as a good party soldier, but I can’t march blindly off a cliff, and that’s where you’re leading us. So, here’s what I propose – you’re obviously having issues – you check yourself into a hospital suffering from “exhaustion” – the campaign was proving to be too much for you due to any number of health issues that go with being 70. At that point we’ll issue a press release praising you for giving your health for the party, but having the wisdom to step aside. Then the 168 folks who make the decision in these circumstances will get together and pick one of the 16 others who ran against you. If we can save this campaign, and I think we can if we do that – Hillary is still beatable if we don’t trip over our own feet, you will still have influence with the new administration. If you refuse, everyone is going to pull their endorsements, and you will be a candidate without a party, headed for the biggest defeat since Walter Mondale. But it will be your defeat and your defeat only – you will not take all of us down with you in this suicide pride ride.
And that would be a great tactic if Trump were a patriot. But he’s not. Since the only thing he cares about is his personal brand, he’d still rather lose the election as long as he gets to say that he was the Republican nominee.
And that he lost in the biggest collapse since 1984? I don’t see how that helps his brand. The man is 70 years old and obviously not in good health. If he loses this and loses big time, that’s all he’s going to be remembered for. Either he was a gross incompetent who turned everything he touched to shit, or he was the perfect patsy for Hillary. Neither is a high note to end on.
Why “Spartan”?
Do you share an affinity with a socialist system built on economic stratification, elitism, social immobility, slavery, inappropriate relationships between adults and children, and killing babies for the betterment of society?
Also, the plane analogy isn’t apt because you set it up to your liking. Here’s how I would frame it and it would be more “apt”.
The Pilot and Co-Pilot of your jumbo jet have taken off and now the Pilot (Who is experienced, Clinton) is drunk as a skunk, snorting all sorts of drugs, can’t see straight. The Co-Pilot, this is his first day on the job. Never flown before except in a simulator. (Trump.) Very nervous and saying and doing some crazy shit that makes you think this can’t end well. All of a sudden, someone stands up and asks if there’s a 3rd option. A man stands up and says he’s sober, sane and has 8 years of experience with planes. Maybe not a jumbo jet, but regular commercial airliner, yes.
Jack Marshall stands up and says: “Sit your ass down. We don’t need a 3rd choice. We need the drunk buffoon to do this job.”
That “Plane Analogy” is pretty apt.
No, it’s not at all. Clinton’s far from a buffoon, and is not cognitively impaired. Trump IS the equivalent of a child (and has never used a simulator. How could you include THAT?) And Johnson’s not getting into the cockpit, ever. A sky marshal, not a Jack Marshall, would shoot him.
Yours is such a losing position Tim. I honestly wish it wasn’t. But it is.
Jack, I actually liked Tim’s analogy. I know Clinton is far from a buffoon but she is far closer to con man than any other candidate. She makes her living appealing to base emotion, false equivalencies, and fomenting hatred. In short she is the white version of Al Sharpton or Charles Rangel.
I too am not convinced by Jack’s analogy. Much to kind to the pilot analog of Hillary.
I might leave the top spot blank, but I won’t vote for Hillary and own all the damage she is going to do. Property in Belize is looking really good.
“I won’t vote for Hillary and own all the damage she is going to do.”
You strike me as a pretty courageous guy, Steve. You can handle it.
I was brought up as a Democrat and continued in life as one, until I witnessed the unsustainable and shifting platform, through the 1980s. I have relatives that worked for Clinton…..too. Jack this is the first time I must fault your reasoning. All the gaping flaws that Trump exhibits, (and there are a boat load to be sure) are almost MINOR compared to having this Globalist Grandmother move us closer to Rocky’s dream land. Never. NEVER NEVER Hillary.
If you won’t pay attention, there’s no hope for you. You are talking policy, and policy isn’t the issue. There is a minimum level of competence, responsibility and character that any leader must have. Trump doesn’t even come close to that minimum. If the past week isn’t enough to convince you of that, you just don’t want to face reality. That’s tragic. But Trump will do far worse between now and November: maybe you’ll come to your senses, like Alec Guinness in “The Bridge Over The River Kwai.” Hopefully a bit sooner than Alex..
If competence were really an issue..the Reagan presidency would have fell off the end of the earth, Jack. And we would not even be ALIVE…after the installment of BHO….if you are talking competence.
Competence is always an issue, and Reagan’s administration was a model of competence compared to this one, especially after Howard Baker took over.
You just made my point for me. And I would like to point out….that I ;never said I believed in DT to begin with. I will assert that the alternative is evil beyond comprehension. Trump or no Trump, never Mrs Soprano. Sociopaths who lived as marital doormats….and are willing to totally submerge what is left of a sold soul for the candidacy…and live for the CFR….No. Ethics wise…this behavior should never be rewarded.
Myron — I hear you, I really do. I always vote policy over person too — UNLESS that person has access to nuclear weapons and can order troops around the world with or without the consent of Congress. You must vote Hillary. We all have to.
As one of the candidates said last night, the only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don’t believe in. If all the people who feel as you do, Jack, voted for the Libertarian ticket, they’d win! Won’t vote for either major candidate. Of course, it’s a little more comfortable for me as a vote in Maryland for a presidential candidate who is not a Democrat is essentially a wasted vote.
“As one of the candidates said last night, the only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don’t believe in.”
By that standard, most people wouldn’t vote at all. Sounds nice, makes no sense.
Makes sense to me, Jack, and that’s what is currently important to me. I know that DJT won’t get any electoral votes in Maryland. I can’t bring myself to vote for HRC. Therefore, I will leave the top spot blank or vote Libertarian. My conscience is clear. I haven’t voted for HRC. I haven’t helped elect DJT. I’ve voted for someone I can believe in (actually, William Weld more than Gary Johnson; but hey, you’ve made it clear that nothing’s perfect).
Actually, I am pretty familiar with multiple “ethics paradigms” and the only principle that gave me pause in reaching my conclusion is precisely the one to which you are pointing: weigh the consequences of your chosen action. In weighing the consequences of what I consider to be the ethical action for me, I quickly divined that the consequences would not adversely impact the general populace, as I live in Maryland and there’s zero probability that Trump will get any electoral college votes from Maryland. Therefore, as neither candidate is acceptable to me, I will vote for one that is — or for no Presidential candidate. Voila!
I, on the other hand, am in a battleground state that will be in play, unless Trump snaps entirely.
And I would, at the very least, like to see the Libertarian ticket included in the debates.
I really want an NOA on the ballot, I’m willing to tolerate another year of Obama to have a new election. It’s not a question in this election of voting for the best candidate, it is a question of voting for a marginally qualified candidate, and none-of-the-above meet that criteria. I’ve voted for candidates who were not my first (or hundred-and-first) choice before, and even held my nose and voted for a real stinker as the least bad choice, but never have I been presented with selecting a president for a collection consisting only of people who should not be president. Let me be clear, this has nothing to do with policy preferences or political calculation, it is only about having a president who has a chance of doing the job without flubbing it completely. Trump is a buffoon, Clinton makes our 2nd Quaker president look honest, Stein is a light-weight who will probably have a breakdown in her first year in office (which might not be too bad if done in private and her staff takes over, argh you see how cynical this election has made me?) and Johnson is a zealot who has lost his faith and might find it again in anything. I wouldn’t hire any of the lot to manage a 7-Eleven much less be president of the US (well Jill Stein might get the 7-Eleven gig if the applicant pool was bad). I hope a 3rd party candidate/GOP replacement keeps the terrible top two from winning 270 electoral votes so the election gets tossed to the House and they can select a qualified non-entity to be caretaker president until 2020, but I’m not confident enough in the wisdom of the House Of representatives to hope strongly for that – I’m really hoping for SMOD.
Has a presidential candidate ever been impeached? The GOP needs to withdraw Trump and run someone else.
I consider that our nation is facing an existential crisis and this has me reading about split votes and spoiler effect to be sure I am informed about possibility of a 3d party win. I have many friends saying they are considering Johnson. Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight site has Johnson with less than 4% chance to win one electoral college vote. On this point I am in full agreement with you – I have a moral/ethical imperative to cast a vote that has the best chance of ensuring Trump is not elected President of the US. I am breathing a little easier today as the odds are shifting farther and farther from his favor. I know this can change, and I am paying attention. I am sure I will be sharing some of your analysis in this essay with friends – linking and giving credit, of course. Thank you for this!
Thanks, T. I expected the screams of pain from the Never Hillary readers here, and I know, boy do I know, from whence the pain arises. I am grateful for your understanding.
In my opinion; the Republican Party should cut their losses and pull 100% of their support from Trump, and I do mean ALL of it, thus permanently severing all Republican affiliation with Donald Trump and stripping Trump of the Republican Party identifier. This would be step one in saving the Republican Party for future elections, as it stands now, the Republican Party is done. This election is lost for Republicans Party anyway, so they (Conservatives) might as well stand up for what’s right and do it right now.
Let Trump run as a member of a new party, it could be called
Dumb Ass Moronic Narcissists Flaunting Oblivious Obtuseness Leveraging Stupidity (DAMN FOOLS)
or how about
Dumb Ass Moronic Narcissists Illuminating Deceitful Intellect Obsessive Trump Syndrome (DAMN IDIOTS)
The more Trump opens his mouth the more likely I’ll be forced to flush my ethics down the toilet, figuratively cut off my arms and legs to save my life, and vote against Trump via Hillary because there is nothing worth voting for.
Here’s a photo representation of the 2016 Presidential election cycle:
Jack
This column is fast becoming political spin. Jack, if you want to promote one candidate over another be upfront about it and explain why your candidate’s platform is better. Stop trashing the competition and own your candidates behaviors.
Unless you are against all other candidates, any vote other than for Trump would be sufficient to keep him from becoming President. Logic dictates that any vote not for Trump would prevent him from gaining the presidency except in the case that an equal number or more chose not to vote for HRC. Even then, it could still mean that none achieve 270 Electoral College votes. To me that would be the best case scenario.
It appears to me that you are advocating for an outcome that will allow HRC to claim a mandate from the electorate to pursue her globalist/crony capitalist agenda.
I know you are fervently against Trump. I respect that. However, I am beginning to see selective spin taking place here.
Have to agree, Jack. If you are going to come out in favor of Hillary, then I think you have to do more than just bash Trump, and you also have to acknowledge a vote for her is a vote for all she’s done and will do. I suppose it does not matter in my case. NJ has not gone GOP since 1988, so my vote is unlikely to change things.
More important then for your vote to go third party, though not viable this go around, enough popular votes this go around would be a spark. And the next election may be a firestorm.
But the whole “can’t vote third party because they’ll never win” is all ethics surrender.
Glad some of history’s most stalwart losing battles that led to long term victory weren’t surrendered by that mode of thought.
You’ve made the Ethics Surrender comparison before, Tex, and it couldn’t be more wrong. You are wallowing in rationalizations. The “this may be useless and seemingly harmful now, but maybe in the future it will pay off” is Prospective and Speculative Consequentialism. And refusing to make a necessary binary choice by making an imaginary third choice to avoid responsibility is Ethics Abdication. It’s Sophie refusing to choose a child to die, and pointing to a third child who won’t be killed no matter what she says: “I choose him!” as if that accomplishes anything but imaginary avoidance of ethical duty. It’s the ethical equivilent of pacifism.
It’s not Ethics Surrender when there are only two options to suck it up and make the most responsible choice.
If Sophie was given today’s ballot and she had the only vote, then anyone listed on the ballot that received her one vote would win. Her ballot was binary because she was given only 2 choices. Our ballot is not binary and relevance of options is only dictated by level of support from the voting populace. Hence, campaigning.
Using your logic, why delay the election any longer? Why allow campaigning? People have an opinion today. Let’s vote.
We would all be better off if everyone voted their conscience instead of voting for the main 2 parties. The fact that everyone else votes for those 2 instead of voting for their preferred doesn’t make it right for me to do the same, even though that’s the only reason it appears to be a binary choice.
I would have previously asserted that the 2 major parties do a reasonable job filtering out terrible candidates, as a flaw in the initial assertion, but can no longer do so.
I really wish we could switch to approval voting, to limit the effect of strategic voting on our system and shift incentives.
Phlinn said, “The fact that everyone else votes for those 2 instead of voting for their preferred doesn’t make it right for me to do the same…”
But more importantly; it doesn’t make it unpatriotic, insane, or wrong for you not to follow the crowd.
It just makes you deluded and irresponsible.
Jack Marshall said, “It just makes you deluded and irresponsible.”
Deluded and irresponsible; yup, okay, go it.
It’s time for you to seriously reevaluate why you have this site.
We would all be better off if everyone voted their conscience instead of voting for the main 2 parties.
Of course. We would be better off if a majority of the public wasn’t dim, ignorant, guided by emotion and lazy. We would be better off if money grew on money bushes.
Ethics detached from reality isn’t ethical.
One of the many problems with the “airplane and pilots” analogy (and there are many) is you’re entire notion of the destination.
To be as fair as we can, within the very flawed analogy, the Hillarian Pilot would be flying the passengers to an inescapable gulag while the Trumpian Pilot doesn’t know where he wants to fly but would rather just do barrel rolls and other stunts (in a plane not designed to do such).
If that really were an analogy (which entirely ignores the fact that our system isn’t run by pilots, but an elected Legislature) and we really really were truly stuck with the option of knowing the absolutely-despotic-Hell-Hole-destination one candidate wants to lead us to and not knowing the destination that an unhinged-lunatic might lead us too….
Well, if those are our options, you insist we vote for the despot.
Yet YOU KNOW DEEP IN YOUR HEART that if *those* are our options, you, me, and Patrick Henry know the right course.
But those aren’t our only options. There still is a principled choice, that may not win this go around, but may be enough to spark the kind of self-realization the country needs, that in 2020 we can start getting back on track. But you and everyone else who crows the “don’t throw away your vote” option only ensures that the next go around, we’ll be stuck with another dose of crappy options, only so you can repeat the “don’t throw away your vote” mantra again.
Nope. Not gonna play the game any more. Gonna actually be part of the only sane option short of revolution part deux.
You are narrow-mindedly looking at this like it’s one election, when in reality it’s just one election before the next election, which is before the election after that….
You lack a long range vision because you’ve been hyped up on the notion that Trump WILL destroy this country in 4 years. He won’t. And if he will, then Hillary has the power and the vision to do so also.
Again, you engage in ethics surrender with all your arguments.
1. The legislature is the control tower. If a chimp is flying the plane, they can’t do much.
2. Your suddenly absurdly optimistic theory about what a 6% vote for a marginal, presence and charisma free candidate for a party whose philosophy would have allowed Hitler to over-run Europe and see blacks refused service, medicine, lodging etc. indefinitely while the % of addicts rises exponentially has the sheen of wilful delusion.
3. There really are two choice, because only one of two people will become President. One is a soulless, lying, venal technocrat who will do some things well, and is survivable. The other is an idiot who endangers democracy, not because he’ll take over, but because he’ll damage our faith, already sliding, that the system can work.
4. It’s so, so obvious that I can’t understand the resistance to accepting it. There is nothing that Trump offers, nothing. Not one single thing. He guarantees worldwide embarrassment for the nation, and a dysfunctional society. Hillary at least has this: She does not want to be a horrible President, like Obama (and you know she knows how bad he is.) She’ll try to do what’s in the best interests of the country, and has some skills to do it, unlike Trump. That’s something. We might get lucky with Hillary, like we did with Coolidge, Truman. It’s a longshot, but its a shot. There is no shot with Trump.
5. So voting for the irrelevant parties just abdicates participation in a crucial election to preserve the right to say “don’t blame me.”
Ok, I can see where Trump is reckless, make frequent idiotic comments, and is totally unqualified for the job of POTUS. However, in my opinion a voter could choose not to vote for Trump and at the same time vote for every Senatorial and House candidate who is Republican and doesn’t have a live girl mistress that they are caught in bed with. At least this way, Hillary would be handcuffed by the Senate and House if Republican’s retain control. I could never ever vote for Hillary as POTUS for obvious reasons.
I agree in spirit Jack. Still she is a contemptible person who does not need my vote. She will win by ten points or more at this rate, and in the unlikely event she loses, it won’t be because of NY.
The more salient question for embarrassed Republicans is: what exactly is the RNC going to do to make sure the debacle that was the 2016 primary does not happen again? We can’t have 17 candidates again. And we can’t let CNN and their ilk pick our nominee again.
Can’t vote for Trump; can’t vote for Hillary. Hillary will win my state; Mondale won my state; the last Republican to win my state was Nixon in ’72. I’m voting Johnson (probably).
-Jut
If I had been an unethical Democratic Party strategist, I would likely have thought of creating a Donald Trump virus to infect the Republican Party years ago; it really would be a perfect storm Democratic Party strategy to literally destroy party cohesion in the opposing political party and assure the accession and coronation of a Democratic Party puppet monarch. This kind of thinking wouldn’t have been outside my thinking in my youth, but I intentionally buried the unethical and deceptive thinking of my youth when I became a responsible adult.
Why do you suppose these unethical and deceptive kinds of thoughts are digging their way out of the grave I buried them in as a youth?
I wonder if any of Hillary’s 30,000 deleted emails may have been correspondence with her now straw man candidate, vis a vis her democratic primary strawman, Bernie?
May have been correspondence with Trump on how he’ll do everything he can to put her in the White House for all we know.
I was too vague. That’s what I was hinting at.
Ha – I’m a bit dense at times. Kudos.
In the presence of unpalatable reality, a retreat to conspiracy theories.
Between the Megalomaniacal Narcissist and the Pathological Liar, the conspiracy theory passes Occam’s Razor. I have never believed he was a conservative or that he wanted the job. I am waiting for the next shoe to drop.
Just wait….
-Jut
I just commented above that I’m openly stating right now that I firmly believe that Trump is a too good to be true perfectly timed political storm for the Clinton political machine which has been covertly supported by the Democratic Party! I know what this sounds like; however, is all this just a mere coincidence? I know how this will make me look; however, I’m trending towards it is not a coincidence.
Ugh. Then you are asserting that Trump is clinically insane, and acting against self-interest. This has cost him millions. It has damaged his brand. He will not benefit greatly, if at all, from Hillary’s Presidency.
Conspiracy theories are the mind’s way of dealing with facts that it doesn’t want to accept. This is classic.
Trump saw a brief run for the WH as a good branding stunt. That’s all. He was trapped, much as Obama was trapped, but he’s too much of an egotist and an exhibitionist to pull out when he has a chance of winning. There is nothing whatsoever to support your theory, and everything to discredit it. If this is part of your third party reasoning, it is self-discrediting.
Jack Marshall, “If this is part of your third party reasoning, it is self-discrediting.”
Nope it isn’t part of “my” third party reasoning, but I think you already knew that.
Tim,
I just got a message that you “liked” a comment I made; how the heck did you do that?
You can only do it when reviewing messages across the wordpress bar along the top. So, when I visit a wordpress site, there’s an orange notification in the top right corner. If I take actions reviewing the comments there – there’s an option to “like”. Interestingly – your comments are the only ones that come across to me with even more options. I can “trash” your comment or “Spam” it. I wonder what the heck those do since I have no affiliation or admin rights to EA. I can’t do the same to other commenters…just you…??? Maybe you’re on thin ice.
Also – the only ones I can “like” are ones that show up in that notification center – which are the ones that are direct replies to my comments.
Okay, I understand now.
Okay, I got it figured out now.
Thanks for the help.
Inquisition led me to reviewing comments on EA through the WP site directly and lo-&-behold: you can “like” any comment that way. However, I’m gonna need to change my email settings if I’m going to start receiving likes on comments. (I know…no one likes what I have to say anyway, so no worries there….) 😉
Okay, I just figured out how to do this through WordPress too. Thanks.
Tim LeVier said, “I’m going to start receiving likes on comments.” Agreed; certainly don’t need to add a bunch of those emails on top of the other ones.
I can add a like feature. If someone can offer a justification for them that overcomes my hatred of them, I can add it as a feature. But it better be good.
I think they come in handy once in a while to pass on a digital attaboy without adding additional comments to a thread; but overall, I really don’t much care if they are there or not.
Good.
Wait – you’re really really really worried about Trump winning?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now
And less than a week ago, Nate said Trump had the best chance to win. Come on. Lame.
You seem to be implying that Nate Silver is unreliable.
No. He just reflects an unstable situation.
He’s also unreliable.
What galls me about this is that under my own influence, I long ago decided I would not be voting for Hillary. I mistakenly assumed I could use the announcement of that decision to provoke discussion among acquaintances, smart enough to see Obama wasn’t exactly “working out” as expected, so presumably ripe for not wanting another token — yes, Virginia, that’s what happens when you grant almost unlimited power of speech and action to a token — in the White House. Naturally, they took it as quisling-like treachery. The worst (and most unfair) outcome was being banned from a “friendly” poker game (I was winning too often for their liking anyway) — where the discussion regularly descended into planning local events in Clinton support. I thought that was bad as it could get — I deeply regretted the loss of the extra ten bucks a week — until I came under the shadow of Ethics Alarms and turned coat back again in sheer desperation backed up by lots and lots of Jack-logic against all reason. So, what now? Instead of being able to take my righteous arguments back to the Hold ‘Em table, I am chastised for continuing to hold her guilty of her transgressions even though I am going to fill in the box by her name.
Trump’s greatest crime may be that Hillary has received a full pardon with all her sins forgiven … I am driven to mixing metaphors … she has attained Sainthood-By-Comparison. Life is unfair. I am going now to google up an online game.
A question: is this the highest stakes of any election? Is this higher than, say, 2004?
Impossible to say except in retrospect. Kerry (2004) was and is a fraud and an incompetent—I think defeating idiots is always high stakes.
1828, 1860, 1912, 1932, 1952, 1968, 1980, 2012 were all high stakes.
I bring up 2004 specifically because of something I learned recently. In protest of the administration, a senator wrote in “George H. W. Bush” for his vote in 2004, specifically underlining the H. to make sure it was understood he was voting for the then-current President’s father, not the President himself.
That senator was Rhode Island’s own Lincoln D. Chafee. That story basically cemented my intentions to write him in to the 2016 ballot in lieu of any other candidate.
I know he’s not going to win. But I’m tired of this game of “Slightly Less Crappy Than” or even “Shockingly Worse Than, But Still Entirely Unworthy.” You said it yourself when you said there’s not much difference in how they respect the Constitution, which is my main concern.
Obviously, I’d rather Clinton be president than Trump. But I resent all my friends telling me I have to vote for someone I cannot respect because the other guy is worse. (I’ve started posting fake Bernie-style “Chafee” posters with a variety of goofy slogans whenever anyone posts something that says you HAVE to vote for Hillary. It’s the only thing that’s kept me sane lately.)
Maybe if the voting system worked in a way that, if my vote actually counteracted a vote for Trump, I might vote for Clinton. Like, if all the votes were put in a giant pile, and my vote had the same weight in that pile as anyone else’s. But that’s not how it works.
I’m not deluded enough that I believe we can get someone other than one of these these two supervillains elected. I’ve pretty much made peace that either way, part of me will be happy and part of me will be unhappy. But in my heart, I cannot vote for Clinton, even if it saves us from Trump. I would prefer to spend time before the election trying patiently to convince people of Trump’s unfitness. That’s my way of countering someone’s vote for him… if it works.
It is not crucially important to me that I vote. But it is crucially important to me that, when I decide to vote, I vote for someone that I respect.
I’m sorry, Jack. I can’t snap out of it. There’s no snapping out of being a damn fool.
I know he’s not going to win. But I’m tired of this game of “Slightly Less Crappy Than” or even “Shockingly Worse Than, But Still Entirely Unworthy.” You said it yourself when you said there’s not much difference in how they respect the Constitution, which is my main concern.
How is that a game? Our duty is to choose the best President, not to make individual, grandstanding, invisible fake choices that avoid the problem. Nor can you responsibly isolate one aspect of the Presidency and say that’s all you’re paying attention to. Yes, the Constitution is a concern—that doesn’t mean that allowing the candidate that is likely to call the North Korean dictator a fuckhead and dare him to nuke us is irrelevant.
Obviously, I’d rather Clinton be president than Trump. But I resent all my friends telling me I have to vote for someone I cannot respect because the other guy is worse.
You resent friends telling you the obvious, then? You don’t have to be responsible or practical, of course. I never said you HAD to be. Vote for Donald Duck. If you want to do what’s in the obvious best interest of the nation and its future, you have to do your part to keep Trump out if power. If you don’t want that, then don’t.
But you should want that.
Ha – it’s funny because using all of your logic of how elections “Always” work – in that they are binary and there are only two choices – I’ve now deduced that your arguments can only be used when addressing the group “Third Party Voters” and not any one individual such as myself.
Because in all of history of the United States, no Presidential Election has been decided by any one individual voter. That’s how these things work and to deny that is deluded. So if I, as an individual, am not unethical casting my vote for my preferred third-party candidate because I, as an individual, cannot swing this election. My vote doesn’t matter and if it doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter who I support. What matters is that I lend my support to my preferred candidate.
I’m happy your preferred candidate is fluid, Jack. You don’t care who it is, as long as it’s the person with the best opportunity to beat Donald Trump. That’s your preference. My preference has nothing to do with Donald Trump. My preference is a candidate of unity and compromise. I’ll be outvoted to be sure, but that’s the purpose right? To be outvoted or to outvote someone else?
The no one vote matters, so its responsible to not vote or vote irresponsibly is a very old rationalization, Tim, and I’m surprised you would stoop to it.
Your definition of irresponsible is self-serving. Our system of presidential voting might not be prime, but I’m following the basic structure of how to cast my vote and how my candidate got ballot access. His party did everything the same as the other two parties to be in the discussion and you’re out here telling me that it’s unethical to vote for him because I believe AND YOU ADMIT he’s the most qualified candidate of the 3 viable options with the goal of making your preferred candidate stronger. You’re telling us it’s not our job as voters to make our voices heard about the kind of leadership we desire, it’s our job as voters to ENHANCE YOUR VOICE about who you have personally deemed is the only we can elect to avoid an entirely different candidate from being elected. You’ve got this “ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS” mentality with every single rationalization you’ve ever written on your list as supporting characters to your delusion that people who don’t vote for Hillary are “unethical”. Your entire posting on this matter is the biggest TROLLING EVENT in the history of the internet. Years of defining ethics and values, setting up alarms so we can identify rationalizations and when the site blows up like a fire station engulfed in a 5-alarm fire…well…that’s nothing. You know I have love for you and this won’t affect our friendship one iota, but please know that as a friend, I have to push back on you. It’s in the friendship contract we signed.
1. How is a candidate who cannot possibly be elected “viable?” At this point in 1992 did I say 88? Oops), Perot had a lead on the other two major parties. Johnson’s current support, which should be at its peak, is at less than 15%. That’s not going up; it’s almost certainly going down. Even so, in a close race like 2000, a small % can turn the results, but in entirely unpredictable directions. Thus voting for 3rd party candidates allows random chance to take over. If the random chance has the smallest opportunity to elect a candidate who is the most destructive and dangerous alternative, then it is irresponsible citizenship.
2. My assertions can not be fairly called “trolling.” This isn’t designed to upset anyone more than it upsets me. Clinton is awful and repugnant, the most corrupt and dishonest candidate since Aaron Burr. I’ve spent years documenting how and why, and accurately.
3. I have studied, passionately, Presidential character and leadership almost my whole life—since grade school, it has been my passion. I love the institution and the office; I feel like I know every man who has been in the office. I think I am qualified to know what the job requires, and who is unfit for it, AND the likely consequences of having an epically unfit President.
4. Sometimes, the ends do justify the means: that’s utilitarianism. I’m no absolutist: as I have written, there are theoretical candidates that would force me to vote for Trump.
5. In order to justify voting for a candidate who cannot prevail, as you say you want to, you have to believe that elections are some kind of individual expression of position and preference, and the election’s results are a tangential, random, unrelated result of the collected individual expressions. That’s not what the founders wrote about democracy, or what the theoreticians through the centuries have said about self-government. The objective is to elect the best, most competent government possible that best ensures the security, happiness, economic well-being and prosperity of the nation and the individuals in it. Any vote not aimed at that end is incompetent and irresponsible citizenship. Any vote that undermines that end, knowingly, is unethical.
6. I expected push-back on the post; I did not expect the sort of blind refusal to accept reality I have been reading. If I were equation-minded, I’m sure I could put this into one, but it is virtually mathematical.
1. The least acceptable and responsible result is electing Donald Trump.
2. The second least acceptable and responsible result is electing Hillary Clinton
3. The election on Hillary Clinton prevents the election of Donald Trump.
4. The act most certain to achieve that is to vote for Hillary Clinton.
5. No other candidate has any chance of defeating both Trump and Clinton.
6. A vote for any other candidate, including one superior and preferable to both Clinton and Trump, is a less than optimal act in pursuit of the primary objective, which is not to have Trump President.
Now, any of these propositions (except #3) are subject to being disproved. The first two I have looked for, invited, researched and examined. The arguments for Trump are, frankly, desperate and unserious. People are arguing that incompetence is better than competence, for example. Or that he will grow and change, for which these is no evidence whatsoever. (I once held this out as a thin reed to vote for Trump myself.) The arguments to disprove 5 are, essentially, “Well, you never know.” I consider that an outrageous foundation on which to risk the nations.
#6 is proven if none of the others are unproven.
With all the indignation and emotion, the decisions still comes down to cold hard facts. I am an idealist and an optimist, but ethics means nothing in theory, only in practice.
If you can’t rebut those six propositions, than your position is simply that you refuse to face reality, and in order to do that, are willing to risk the nation’s health, security and future. That is irrational.
The objective is to elect the best, most competent government possible that best ensures the security, happiness, economic well-being and prosperity of the nation and the individuals in it. Any vote not aimed at that end is incompetent and irresponsible citizenship. Any vote that undermines that end, knowingly, is unethical.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. My objective is aligned to that statement. The majority of Americans voting for “the Clump” are unethical. I refuse to rationalize a vote for CLUMP by saying “Everyone Does It”. If I have to be the lone voice of sanity, I will.
Donald Duck doesn’t have politics that I agree with. Lincoln Chafee does (for the most part).
There is a difference between voting for someone who has no realistic chance winning, but you think would be good in the job, and voting for a fictional character, who cannot take office even if they win. That’s the difference between “extremely difficult” and “impossible.” (God forbid, if Lincoln Chafee dies within the next few months before Election Day, I will rescind this criticism.)
Even if the result is the same, I stand by my decision. It is not worth it to me to vote for Clinton to try to stop Trump. I will not use be cajoled into using my vote for someone I can’t stand behind, and I will not be made to feel guilty for it just because this is the way it shook out and we got the most remarkably unelectable crop of candidates since who knows when?
If Clinton was someone else, like Chris Christie (in 2014? before we knew he was a poophead) or Ross Perot or Ralph Nader or someone else who doesn’t have a black mark on my record… even then, in the less dire circumstances, I don’t think I could do it.
I would much rather spend time trying to convince my pro-Trump friends not to vote for him and try to make him lose votes THAT way. If I convince even ONE person… then I’ve done what I could have done for Clinton by voting for her.
I’ve got a few months still. There is time… maybe.
Okay, I get the idea that this is just mitigation of damage, that it’s pragmatism, not endorsement of a particular candidate. I strongly suspect that the winner will attempt to cite the voting results as proof that the nation loves them, while conveniently ignoring the huge numbers of people who voted for them on the sole criterion that they weren’t the other candidate.
However, I think we’re asking the wrong question. The question we should be asking is this: Which one will do the least damage before we can impeach them?
I can’t even imagine a situation in which Clinton would be impeached. Or even brought down a peg by the MSM.
This is funny.
Radio show host and columnist Dennis Prager is writing the same thing, except directed towards #NeverTrump supporters.
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2016/08/02/did-nevertrumpers-hear-hillary-clintons-frightening-speech-n2200869
William A. Levinson (author of several books on management, blogger of several blogs including Omdurman.org, and a founding father of Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship) makes a similar argument, So did Christopher C. Morton (my longtime Usenet ally who greatly influenced my own political views) So did Thomas Sowell (author of several books on economics and society, and a columnist)