Nihil Obstat Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 7 minutes ago, veritasluxmea said: I think Trump is so bad it justifies voting for Hilary. Assuming he gets the GOP vote, I'm seriously considering voting for her this November. Voting third party or not voting is basically voting for him. Voting is picking the lesser of two evils, and I think she's the lesser of two evils here. She is in no way the moral option, though. Ben Carson is also dropping out but not really dropping out: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ben-carson-to-tell-supporters-he-sees-no-path-forward-for-campaign/2016/03/02/d6bef352-d9b3-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html “I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening’s Super Tuesday primary results,” the Wednesday statement said. “However, this grassroots movement on behalf of ‘We the People’ will continue. Along with millions of patriots who have supported my campaign for President, I remain committed to Saving America for Future Generations.” Voting for Hillary Clinton would be actively supporting a moral evil. Like I said, I think a Trump nomination is more than enough reason to refuse to vote, but that does not change how radically unacceptable Hillary Clinton is. I do not think in this situation it makes much sense to talk about a lesser evil. Both are unacceptable, and our public actions should reflect that.
PhuturePriest Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 32 minutes ago, veritasluxmea said: I think Trump is so bad it justifies voting for Hilary. Assuming he gets the GOP vote, I'm seriously considering voting for her this November. Voting third party or not voting is basically voting for him. Voting is picking the lesser of two evils, and I think she's the lesser of two evils here. She is in no way the moral option, though. I completely disagree with you. A vote for the person you vote for is a vote for the person you vote for. This rhetoric of having to vote for one of the main parties is the reason we only have two parties. Vote for something, not against something. I am going to vote for someone I genuinely would like to be president. How likely that person is to become president is irrelevant and not the way the electoral process is supposed to work.
veritasluxmea Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 Doing nothing is also actively supporting evil. I think the best case you could make is to vote third party- but in a two party system that's also supporting Trump/Hilary in a passive way.
PhuturePriest Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 Just now, veritasluxmea said: Doing nothing is also actively supporting evil. I think the best case you could make is to vote third party- but in a two party system that's also supporting Trump/Hilary in a passive way. How is not voting actively supporting evil?
Nihil Obstat Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, veritasluxmea said: Doing nothing is also actively supporting evil. Philosophically speaking, that is an absurd thing to say. Edited March 3, 2016 by Nihil Obstat
veritasluxmea Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 Not fighting against Trump allowing him to win in the sense that we have a responsibility as citizens to fight against tyrants. How does that old quote go... evil succeeds because good men do nothing, or something similar. If people who disagree with him and his morals just look the other way and do nothing about him, he will win. I think we have a responsibility to do what we can to prevent Trump winning the presidency. If despite our best efforts he still wins, it won't be because of our failure, whereas if we do nothing and he wins, it is on us. 13 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said: Philosophically speaking, that is an absurd thing to say. Well, I'd rephrase it this way: doing nothing against Trump is supporting him.
Nihil Obstat Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 14 minutes ago, veritasluxmea said: Well, I'd rephrase it this way: doing nothing against Trump is supporting him. So? Both Trump and Clinton represent grave moral evils. Voting for either of them is material support for that evil. Remote, perhaps. Better than remote material support is no material support at all. Besides that, and in this case perhaps more importantly, there is no proportionate good to be gained by voting for Clinton who, again, supports a dizzying array of moral evils.
veritasluxmea Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 If she wins the GOP might be able to recover, which won't happen under Trump. I think it would be better to vote for a chance at recovery and a possible stronger push back in the future then be weakened off for good. There's probably not going to be any recovery, but a chance is better than nothing. Doing nothing against either of them isn't going to help anyone.
Guest Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 I don't like Cruz but he might be the best option that has a chance.
4588686 Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, PhuturePriest said: How is not voting actively supporting evil? idk. How did Germans pretending that they didn't know what was happening at those camps support the Nazi state?
Nihil Obstat Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 48 minutes ago, veritasluxmea said: If she wins the GOP might be able to recover, which won't happen under Trump. I think it would be better to vote for a chance at recovery and a possible stronger push back in the future then be weakened off for good. There's probably not going to be any recovery, but a chance is better than nothing. Doing nothing against either of them isn't going to help anyone. It is a bit disingenuous to claim that the Republicans have no possibility of recovering from a Trump presidency, but can recover from Clinton. There is really no way of knowing that, and it is certainly not a strong enough position from which to derive moral obligations.
Ark Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 On 2/28/2016, 11:21:59, Amppax said: Too bad he won't disavow the KKK's support for him. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists/ KKK supports Trump? You mean the David Duke "endorsement"? Here are some facts: #1 David Duke never endorsed Trump #2 Nor is David Duke in the KKK (hasn't been in 40 years) #3 Trump disavowed Duke numerous times. Didn't know this? You can thank your local liberal media station for promoting disinformation. Trump is self funding and therefore has not been bought out by any of the lobbyists or special interests and therefore is the most feared. Rubio is the biggest puppet of them all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TihORiLAvbo
Peace Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: Voting for Hillary Clinton would be actively supporting a moral evil. Like I said, I think a Trump nomination is more than enough reason to refuse to vote, but that does not change how radically unacceptable Hillary Clinton is. I do not think in this situation it makes much sense to talk about a lesser evil. Both are unacceptable, and our public actions should reflect that. Hmm. Then how would you deal with the trolley problem? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem Isn't not voting for the lesser of two evils ( whoever you think that is) the equivalent of not pulling the switch and allowing 5 people to die?
veritasluxmea Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) True, it's all speculation, but I think it's enough of a risk to consider. http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/24/ill-take-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump/ 2 hours ago, PhuturePriest said: How likely that person is to become president is irrelevant and not the way the electoral process is supposed to work. It does matter when people as evil and tyrannical as Trump and Hillary are up for the nomination. Taking away a vote from either the Democrat or Republican party simply weakens that party and the most weakened party loses. One political tactic used in elections is people from, say, the liberal side will give money to a third candidate on the Republican to keep them going long enough so that people will take their votes away from the Republican party nominee and go for the third guy. He has no chance of winning, but he does have a chance of weakening the party and giving the other party a stronger chance. Edited March 3, 2016 by veritasluxmea
Nihil Obstat Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 9 minutes ago, Peace said: Hmm. Then how would you deal with the trolley problem? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem Isn't not voting for the lesser of two evils ( whoever you think that is) the equivalent of not pulling the switch and allowing 5 people to die? Like I said, I do not think we can really establish a lesser evil between Trump and Clinton. So the trolley problem is not really a salient point. And even if it were, I am inclined to refer as well to the fat man blocking the tunnel scenario, or however you have seen it formulated.
PhuturePriest Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, veritasluxmea said: True, it's all speculation, but I think it's enough of a risk to consider. http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/24/ill-take-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump/ It does matter when people as evil and tyrannical as Trump and Hillary are up for the nomination. Taking away a vote from either the Democrat or Republican party simply weakens that party and the most weakened party loses. One political tactic used in elections is people from, say, the liberal side will give money to a third candidate on the Republican to keep them going long enough so that people will take their votes away from the Republican party nominee and go for the third guy. He has no chance of winning, but he does have a chance of weakening the party and giving the other party a stronger chance. This sounds nice on paper. But problems occur when both candidates are so terrible that you cannot justify in your conscience voting for either one. From what I have observed, both Drumpf and Hillary are equally morally reprehensible in their policies. Asking me which to vote for is like asking me if I'd rather vote for Hitler or Stalin. As there are no discernible differences in who is better, I would simply opt to do a write-in or not vote at all. And that's what I'm going to do if Drumpf is indeed the nominee. This Saturday I will do my best to stop Drumpf from being the nominee. I will vote for who I think is the best mainstream candidate, and hope for the best. But I will not vote for a candidate who espouses mostly evil policies, be they Democrat or Republican. A party affiliation doesn't somehow make you less reprehensible than the other reprehensible candidate simply because you have an (R) beside your name. Abortion is not the only issue on the planet, and even if it were, Drumpf is by no means a protectorate of the right to life. He doesn't care. He's simply saying he's pro-life so he can get votes. He will not do anything for the pro-life movement if given the opportunity. He's a con man seeking power, and I'm not going to help him on his way to power. I cannot justify it, and so I will not do it. Edited March 3, 2016 by PhuturePriest
PhuturePriest Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 Another issue: if we only vote for who we really want when there isn't a risk of someone who supports evil obtaining power, we'll never vote for who we really want. There's always a democratic nominee in every presidential election, and it's a given that they will support abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, assisted-suicide, etc. If we start voting for solidly good candidates rather than the lesser of two evils, we'll stop being put into the position of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. In this case, it just so happens that our regularized voting in of lesser evil has led us to the point where there really isn't a discernible difference between the two. It was bound to happen, and we need to learn from this mistake.
Guest Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) They're debating now on Fox. Trump just got done telling everyone he has a giant ****. Lol Little Marco lol Edited March 4, 2016 by Guest
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now