Voting One's Conscience

[malthaussen]

(I post this here instead of GDP because it is about the GE and only tangentially related to the primaries)

I've seen a lot of comments, here and there about the Web, ringing changes on the theme that "conscience" will not permit an individual to vote for this or that person in the GE, if the preferred candidate fails to win the primary. With deliberate intent to keep personalities out of the question, I am puzzled by one thing.

Mr Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee for the GE. (Obviously not a done deal, but for the purposes of this post, let's consider that he will, in fact, represent the GOP in the GE) He has already promised to persecute Muslims and Mexicans, suggesting registration and special insignae for the former, and shipping the latter to the border in cattle cars for expulsion. He has openly advocated the assault and battery of those who oppose him; his encouragement of supporters to inflict violence upon protesters is a matter of public record.

If one's conscience will not permit a vote for a Democratic nominee who does not embody the principles one holds dear, my question is this: how does that same conscience allow one to not vote against the principles embodied by the GOP candidate?

-- Mal

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. A vote for anyone other than Trump is a vote against Trump.

My conscience is in good shape, thanks.

[peacebird]

2. +100

[malthaussen]

4. The rationale applies only if one does vote in the GE.

Staying home, presumably, is not an option in this case.

-- Mal

[orpupilofnature57]

8. + 1000000000000 !!!!!!!!!!!

More " Perception Management " still no plans, issues or honesty .

[MH1]

18. That would only be true in the following cases:

1) if the US presidential election used a ranked-choice voting system such as instant run-off or actual run-off. It doesn't.

2) if there was a viable third party candidate that realistically had a chance of beating BOTH major party candidates, or NOT beating the Democratic candidate, in the first and only round of our "winner take all, no majority required" system. There won't be.

Referring back to option 1: in the US, the GE effectively IS the "run-off" election. If your preferred candidate doesn't make it to the run-off, then you have the choice to sit it out, but in that case you aren't voting against the republican candidate, you're just not voting. If you vote for, say, Jill Stein (even though Bernie has asked his supporters to support Hillary, as I expect he will), you're just documenting your preference for someone who will never ever win a presidential election in this country - which might be great for your conscience but will have ZERO influence on the outcome of the election - so therefore is not a vote that counts as to who leads this country and who picks the next Supreme Court justice. You could have influenced those things, but chose not to. If your conscience is okay with that, then you're right, it's in good shape, and won't trouble YOU at all.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

40. You can come back and whine at me if Trump wins Ohio by one vote in the GE.

Otherwise, you just get a shrug.

[hfojvt]

78. In the year 2000

Gore won Iowa by only 4,144 votes.

Bush almost won Iowa.

I am proud to say that I did everything in my power to keep that dire happening from happening. I did not just vote, I also wrote a letter to the editor in the Mason City Globe Gazette, encouraging my fellow River Citiziens to also vote for Gore and do their part to keep Bush out of the White House. The Globe Gazette is the major paper for Northern Iowa. Check out this map of Iowa and look at the counties that Gore took in the north.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

The victory margins in Cerro Gordo, Floyd, Mitchell, and Hancock counties was 4,155 votes.

It is possible that I, myself, won Iowa for Gore. If there had been a person like me in New Hampshire, then our country and our world might have avoided 8 years of excrement.

Of course, it is unlikely that I really made that difference. Cerro Gordo and Floyd almost always go D. But at the end of the day, I tried. I did my best, and the thing I was trying for - it came to pass. It has been said that one person can make a difference, and every person should try.

[marew]

60. To support Hillary and her sellouts to corporations-

Is incomprehensible for many lifelong Democrats not only because of the her list of questionable ethics and the corruption of Wasserman Schultz, but because this would send a message affirming of the acceptance of the above.
Let us also mention the role of super delegates. This very concept denies the idea of anything related to the wishes of the electorate. Super delegates are in no way obligated to be representative of the will of the voters in their state. I am sure you are aware of what happened in NH.
If I take a stand and vote for a write-in candidate, whether that individual becomes president or not, I have had my say- small as it may be.
I look for the day when the oligarchy implodes. It may not be in my lifetime but at least I have not cowered and succumbed to the control of the rich and powerful.
The lesser of two very flawed candidates is no choice at all.

"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and injustice." Robert F. Kennedy

[Adrahil]

33. That is technically true, but practically false.

For good or ill, we live in a two-party system where the Democrat or Republican will win the election.

If you do not support the one, you are effectively
Supporting the other.

Welcome to reality.

[Igel]

75. That is "if you're not for us, you're against us" redux.

Try that with other things.

If you're not in favor of US victory in Vietnam, you're in favor of the N. Vietnamese re-education camps and totalitariasm.

If you're not in favor of US policy against ISIL, you're in favor of Yazidi genocide.

If you're against US intervention in Iraq in 2003, you're in favor of Saddam Hussein's repressive regime.

Moreover, it's not just a practical thing. It becomes a matter of conscience, with the claim that either you're an active fan and advocate of reeducation camps/genocide/repression or an avid advocate of US policy. The universe of choices and beliefs and values is reduced to two small, starkly opposed sets.

Many here have a problem with some of the Ukrainian nationalists. They see there are two options, the same two as in 1942. They can side with Stalin and the Red Army or they can side with Hitler and fascism. That was reality, those were the practical choices. Many made their choice. Now, those who sided against Stalin are condemned for their choice--forgotten is that when the Wehrmacht was in control of the Ukraine many of them fought the Germans, and that those "fascists" also took a pledge not to fight any Allied troops. Some fascists--racist, anti-Soviet, but "fascist" is a tough judgment to make. At the same time, the majority, those "good men" who took no side, stood by while "evil triumphed."

The problem is "reality" and "conscience" are different things, post-hoc judgment is different from judgments reached at the time, and, really, what we're arguing about is support now for something that a person does disagree with versus what might happen in the future. We always have the out that we didn't believe X.

After all, Obama promised a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but within seconds of being inaugurated decided that a permanent deficit was a good thing. He promised to close Gitmo in his first term, and found that he made a promise he was in no position to keep--and we'll assume he was ignorant and didn't know he couldn't keep it, not that he knew he couldn't keep it and pandered. (There is, in reality, no third choice.)


I like freedom of conscience. However, I believe in freedom of speech and the freedom not to speak in non-free contexts. I'm not free to speak my mind at work; I work in public schools. I'm not free to speak my mind here, at DU, because we have an end-user agreement of sorts. Moreover, in the interest of peace, and in keeping with longstanding Igel-family tradition, nobody ever says who they vote for. Or against.

[tk2kewl]

39. QED

[daleanime]

81. Amen....

[Buzz cook]

105. Arithmatic says otherwise.

Only a vote that will keep Trump out of office is a vote against Trump. Any other vote is effectively a vote for trump.

[Laf.La.Dem.]

3. Agree - 100%

[orpupilofnature57]

5. Third Way gives in to fear, and I'm afraid SHE means to blur the difference.

[malthaussen]

12. Not clear how this answers my question.

Mr Trump is on record advocating certain positions. They aren't bogeymen. While we may be reasonably skeptical that Mr Trump would perform anything he promises, is it a risk one wants to take? And if so, why?

-- Mal

[orpupilofnature57]

59. That risk runs both ways and though I trust her more than him, being Scared in to a vote is how we

avoided melt downs in our whole economy and those weapons of mass destruction, both she scared us in to paying and dying for, I don't know if that's an answer, but it's what I Know to be the truth .

[malthaussen]

61. My question, however, is concerned not with fear, but conscience.

"Fear" would be applicable, if Mr Trump were not already on record advocating certain positions.

-- Mal

[orpupilofnature57]

91. Calling people for Bernie since July is a vote for my Conscience, Not supporting Hillary is

an act of conscience , what You characterize as a lack of conscience is your opinion, not my conscience. How do you get around the variances of what she says as opposed to what she's done, and who made her, the same people she'll DEAL with . Donald isn't sneaky about his neurosis, he's an arrogant fascist who has had people kissing his ass all his life, and that's one reason Morons love him, Hillary's ambiguous persona coupled with the side of history she is always on until it comes to light is my mistrust of her, and that's the best I can do for an answer .

[malthaussen]

92. Except I haven't characterized anything as a lack of conscience.

I have asked how something is reconciled, which is a question of information and not a judgement.

-- Mal

[orpupilofnature57]

94. That I understand and appreciate the question, You prefaced your question " Assuming " so

I would say at this point it's a subjective one, in 5 months it could be a comprehensive one .

[Shadowflash]

6. I always vote. For somebody.

If Donald Trump wins the presidency over Hillary Clinton, it's not the fault of people like me who won't vote for Republicans. It's the fault of the Democratic Party for nominating a Republican.

[fleur-de-lisa]

90. Bravo!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I won't vote for Trump or Hillary.

Neither are fit to hold public office.

[malthaussen]

15. Stipulated, but it doesn't answer the question. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. It does.

If one's conscience will not permit a vote for a Democratic nominee who does not embody the principles one holds dear, my question is this: how does that same conscience allow one to not vote against the principles embodied by the GOP candidate?

I'm voting against Trump...as I said.

[malthaussen]

22. Actually, you didn't.

But let's not quibble. (Saying "I won't vote for Trump or Hillary" does not imply that you will cast any vote at all) Your assessment then is in line with the person upthread who will vote, presumably by writing-in his candidate of choice.

-- Mal

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Will that not be a vote against Trump?

I always vote. In this election I'm voting my conscience by voting for someone other than Trump or Hillary.

How can you decipher that as otherwise?

[malthaussen]

28. You might abstain from voting altogether.

"I won't drink Scotch" does not logically imply "I will drink Bourbon," or that you will, in fact, drink anything. Hence the misunderstanding.

-- Mal

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. What misundersting?

You asked how a person who wouldn't vote for Hillary because of their conscience, not vote for Trump because of their conscience.

I replied that I'm not voting for either because of my conscience.

[malthaussen]

47. No, I asked...

... how one who will not vote for a candidate because of conscience, will not vote against Mr Trump from the same conscience.

-- Mal

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. I have a conscience and I'm voting against Trump because of it.

And, because it's the same conscience that will cause me to vote against Hillary.

You are asking about conscience, aren't you?

[malthaussen]

54. Certainly.

And you have answered the question abundantly. The "misunderstanding" I referred to was mine, in not parsing "I will not vote for Trump or Clinton" as an assertion that you would, in fact, vote.

-- Mal

[abelenkpe]

32. It does answer the question

Look at this election. Both parties have offered flawed candidates. You cannot expect people to vote for someone they perceive will only hurt them a little vs hurt them a lot. Not as bad as the other guy doesn't draw voters it causes them to freeze in apathy or indecision.

[malthaussen]

38. No, it doesn't, actually.

Because, in the first place, "I won't do x" does not imply "I will do y," unless we are speaking of a system in which there are only choices "x" and "y," and selecting one of them is compulsory.

-- Mal

[TM99]

49. And that is where you are very wrong.

Our choices between the two major parties are NOT compulsory.

If they were, there would not be any other choices. We could not register as any other party or as unaffiliateds. We could not vote for any other parties except for D or R.

But we can. I have the legal right to decide which of several parties I want to join or to not join one at all. I have the legal right to vote for any candidate from any party even if I am not a member of said party (of course with the caveat of closed primaries and even then I can change my registration to do so and immediately change it back after I vote.) I even have the legal right to not cast a vote at all.

So no, there is nothing compulsory in our system about voting. If I do not vote for Clinton or Trump, I am simply not voting for x or y. I can choose to vote for z. I can write in w.

And you are acting like this is a compulsory system. If I won't choose Clinton, then I must be choosing Trump. That is just not logical or factual.

So please take your god damned fucking loyalty oath bullshit away.

[malthaussen]

52. I pray you keep civil.

And I would also ask that you not make the mistake of assuming your interpretation is necessarily the only valid one.

It is precisely because the system is neither compulsory, nor binary, that "I won't vote for Trump or Clinton" does not imply that one will vote against Mr Trump. Which is the question being addressed in this particular subthread.

As for the OP, you again make an incorrect interpretation. The question is quite simple and plain: how if conscience dictates one course, it does not dictate another. Anything else, you read into it, and we can discuss that at pleasure, but it doesn't address the question.

-- Mal

[TM99]

58. You make the gross assumption

that the two are connected.

Conscience is a personal choice and a singular choice. I will not vote Clinton. I will, however, vote for someone else, whether as a write-in or as a third party candidate. That is ZERO to do with Trump. At best, I am indirectly saying with my vote for another person that I do not choose Trump but as to conscience, you want it to be so but it is not.

You say it is not binary and then set up the binary - how if conscience dictates one course, it does not dictate another. That is binary thinking and is the flaw in your premise. And my original reply still holds true. It is not compulsory. It is not binary. You are using a logically flawed premise to setup yet another tired fucking loyalty oath. This is not about my interpretation. It just is.

[malthaussen]

62. No, actually I make no such assumption.

Again, you read into it something that is only there because you put it there. If conscience dictates one thing, I ask, why does it not dictate another? I do not assert that it does dictate another course, I ask why it does not. Asking why something does not occur is not asserting that it must necessarily occur.

Think of it this way: if conscience dictates one course, why does it not dictate courses b or c? Already, we have left the realm of binary choice, because the dictates of conscience can be multiplied indefinitely. It is specifically to discover why conscience might dictate b, c, or d to infinity that I ask the question. If you want to assert, for example, that there is no linkage because the choices are discrete, then that is a basis on which to proceed. The answer implies that the policies Mr Trump advocates do not concern your conscience, which is another thing we might discuss. In any event, the purpose is to explore rationale, not to advocate for one position or another.

-- Mal

[abelenkpe]

57. No your question was answered

You just don't want to accept that voters may not agree that it's necessary to vote against Trump. That some believe they and their family are harmed either way.

[malthaussen]

64. On the contrary, I am perfectly willing to accept it.

But in this subthread, that is the first time it has been said. Another poster upthread assesses the situation similarly. My answer to that assessment, once we finally reached the point where it was understood? "Then the question does not apply."

If it is the individual's assessment that the policies for which Mr Trump advocates are not a greater wrong than those for which another candidate advocates, then clearly the question of conscience does not apply. Or, we may say, the question of conscience does apply in that the individual's conscience tells him to vote against the candidate in question under all circumstances, that in fact Mr Trump is the lesser evil. That does skirt the ToS, though, so one may be excused for not saying so outright.

-- Mal

[marew]

30. +1! n/t

[Katashi_itto]

9. Ahh the lesser of two evils argument again! I am not moved.

[malthaussen]

13. Argument? It was a question.

Like all questions, you are under no compulsion to provide an answer.

-- Mal

[Katashi_itto]

14. Its a just another veiled attempt

[malthaussen]

16. I had no idea you were the Shadow.

That you, who have never met me nor conversed with me prior to this moment, can already divine my intent better than I, is an amazing talent indeed.

-- Mal

[Katashi_itto]

19. If you say so. Either way I am not voting Hillary.

[malthaussen]

23. Which still doesn't answer the question.

I don't care whom you vote for, and I wouldn't ask. My question is one of principle, and how if conscience dictates one course, it ignores another. I really don't see how I can make it plainer.

-- Mal

[Katashi_itto]

27. My view is which can do more damage. A corporate operative with the intent of

putting the country on a fire sale and destroying the middle class, or a loose cannon madman.

[malthaussen]

34. So your assessment is that Mr Trump is not, in fact, the candidate most to be feared?

In which case, the question as put would not apply.

-- Mal

[Katashi_itto]

51. Ok

[WhiteTara]

29. then the greater evil will pervail

just like last time and we all know how that goes, only this will be worse because it is a greater evil.

[Katashi_itto]

31. Guess you should have run something other than a corporate operative to win.

[WhiteTara]

41. "I" didn't run anyone

these are the people who have chosen to run and Trump is pure evil.

[Katashi_itto]

53. No, Trump is a buffoon in search of self aggrandizement. Clinton is after power for powers sake.

She doesn't give a damn who gets destroyed in her pursuits or implementation of her agendas.

[WhiteTara]

67. Time will tell.

[Katashi_itto]

89. Pretty much

[Katashi_itto]

10. Awful. Guess you should have run someone other than a corporate operative.

[vi5]

11. I won't sit home...

..But I'm also not going to cast a vote for the further sinking of my political party of 35 years down a dark hole of neoliberal ideas and third way hair splitting. If that's the direction the party wants to continue going down they can do it without me. For the last 10 years more often than not I've gone along with a "wait and see" approach, and cast ballot after ballot for candidates who betrayed many of the ideas I've held dear, and the ideas that were part of the party platform for the first 20 or so years I was an active member. But the time to stop "wait and see" is now.

Again, the party and it's machine have every right to take things in this direction. But if they do it, then they've left me not the other way around.

I'll be casting my vote against Donald Trump, but not necessarily for the Democrat (if it's Hillary).

[KentuckyWoman]

20. I'll cross the GE bridge when I get there.

Unlike some here I will vote Hillary if I need to but at the moment I'm hoping I won't need to.

[malthaussen]

26. Then the question does not apply.

But thank you for your answer.

-- Mal

[KentuckyWoman]

36. I MIGHT vote Hillary if she wins. It isn't guaranteed.

I support Democrats generally because a good many Democratic candidates hold the same ideals I do. Hillary doesn't.

If Hillary takes the Democratic ticket spot but a truly viable 3rd party candidate with progressive democratic ideals ends up on the ticket, I'd choose that. Yes, it's unlikely but that's where I'm at.

This is why I said I'd wait till the GE to decide. I'll choose based on what my choices are then. I won't make a commitment now.

[malthaussen]

43. The question is not about whom you will vote for.

If you retain the option to cast no vote at all, because conscience makes both candidates repulsive to you, then the question would apply.

If, however, your intent were to retain the option to cast a third-party vote, or write in someone else, the question would not apply.

-- Mal

[Dustlawyer]

21. You see the box they put us in each time, vote for a corporate sell out, or really get screwed

with whatever Republican nut job wins their mud wrestling contest. This is intentional. They pick who we get to vote for (or against)! It's corrupt, tragic, unethical, and undemocratic!

I don't want to hear about America is exceptional, how can it be when these are the people we elect from? Our government is run by the corporations and billionaires who legally bribe our (former) Representatives. They use their media (and our public airwaves), and the courts, to ensure that their plan works.

I don't like to be forced to vote for the least harmful candidate, but that is what has happened in our corrupt election system. Obama would have never had a chance at the WH without Wall Street's help. He definetely repaid their favor, Hillary will do the same, but somehow that is still better than Trump! Sad!

[malthaussen]

25. Which still doesn't answer the question.

Is resentment of the process, then, sufficient cause to withdraw from it? Especially in the face of a clear and present danger?

-- Mal

[Dustlawyer]

55. Some will vote their conscience, others will fall in line.

There are strong feelings this time, unlike in Obama's elections, where many Progressives have had enough. We believed Obama when he said he would reign in Wall Street so we backed him like crazy. Now the bitter pill has become too big to swallow for many. Others will hold their nose and vote Clinton, but they are not going to stay silent anymore. There will be a lot of push back against President Hillary Clinton and her pro-corporate policies, and it won't just be from Republicans!

How this would break down in numbers, who's to say. There will be protests and marches much bigger than OWS when she goes back on some of her big campaign promises like TPP. We are in for a very rough ride no matter who is elected.

[malthaussen]

56. Still doesn't answer the question.

(Not of course, that you are under any obligation to do so)

As put, "Some will vote their conscience, others will fall in line" is freighted with judgement. Is it intended as a binary and exclusive statement? That would imply that those who "fall in line" are betraying their consciences. Or is it intended to cover two possibilities: some will vote in a given manner because it accords with their consciences, while others will cast the same vote out of a desire to conform or cooperate, or because they are realists, or for any of innumerable reasons not related to conscience at all? In the latter case, it doesn't speak to the question; in the former, it implies that conscience can dictate only one choice. But still does not speak to the question of why, if conscience dictates one path, it does not dictate another.

-- Mal

[tazkcmo]

35. Voting for something

Versus voting against something. What's a person to do when voting against Trump means you're voting for a Third Way Democrat? Either way, we all lose.

[malthaussen]

44. Stipulated, but it doesn't answer the question.

What, indeed, is a person to do? That is the question. And if conscience dictates one course, why does it not dictate the other?

-- Mal

[tazkcmo]

45. No, it doesn't.

Still wrestling with the answer. Good post, though.

[mountain grammy]

42. I think it goes beyond conscience,

which is an oversimplification. When previously uncommitted and apolitical people become enthusiastic over a candidate's positions, and are suddenly swept into America's politics, they are idealistic. I remember how I felt about JFK, and then RFK, and I feel that way about Bernie. Some people feel that way about Trump.. gag.
Politicians married to the corporations are the reality that turns the idealistic into the apathetic. I don't think it's as much not voting out of conscience but out of complete and utter disgust and impotence in the face of a corrupt system.
I'm an old warhorse, and, if necessary, will, once again, swallow my dreams and vote for the nominee if it's not Bernie. The alternative is a nightmare, but it's hard to convince those who, once again, will say it just doesn't matter.

Of course, it does matter. I feel we are where we are today because liberals decided it was easier to give in than fight.

[malthaussen]

46. Then the question does not apply...

...or, the reason presented for the hypothetical is incomplete/incorrect. (Happens I agree with you, and think your assessment quite on point. But many of those who make the argument I am questioning, do use "conscience" as their rationale)

-- Mal

[mountain grammy]

72. The conscience thing bothers me too..

How can any thinking person in good conscience not do everything they can to stop Republicans.

[malthaussen]

76. The answer can only be that they assess the situation differently.

How and why they make that assessment, is a question of singular importance. Which is why, you see, I have ventured to ask it.

-- Mal

[BlueMTexpat]

48. This ...

I feel we are where we are today because liberals decided it was easier to give in than fight.

Whatever happens in this election cycle, the success that Bernie has had SHOULD encourage some of these timorous ones to stand for what is in their hearts. In that sense, he will have won.

btw, I am a Hillary supporter. I love the positive enthusiasm of Bernie's supporters. I dislike the constant smearing of Hillary by some.

[mountain grammy]

66. It is an amazing thing..

25 people at my caucus.. 10 for Bernie, 2 uncommitted, 13 for Hillary, in a town of 400 with few Democrats. A split caucus. A few of my fellow Bernie supporters said they couldn't vote for Hillary. I said, good, that's why they're here voting for Bernie and this is our grass roots moment, Win or lose, we've won, and will continue to win by keeping Republicans out of office, and we do that by showing up and voting!
Eyes on the prize, people! Keep Republicans out of office!

[BlueMTexpat]

93. You've got your priorities

absolutely right!

[Orrex]

63. "Conscience" in this context is a euphemism for narcissism

Over the years I've seen many dozens of people lament that such-and-such a candidate doesn't represent their own interests, and this excuse is invariably offered up as if it were anything more than petulance. It's not a principled stance; it's simple hipster contrarianism.

By that logic, I should never have cast a vote in any election, since in the millennia-long history of elections, no candidate has represented my interests. Similarly, no candidate in electoral history has "earned my vote except by being the best (or least worst) option available at a given time.


If a particular voter declines to vote or wishes to vote for a write-in candidate, that's obviously their choice and they are obviously free to do so. But I can do without their petty moralizing while they do it. Typically there are bigger issues at play than an individual voter's list of grievances, and if that voter truly can't choose the best option among far-from-perfect candidates, then that's the voter's failure.

[malthaussen]

65. Oddly enough, that may not be true in all cases.

Mendacity and confusion aside, one interesting thing that has emerged from this thread is that some voters are of the opinion that Mr Trump is not the greatest evil, that there may be a candidate who opposes him who is assessed as worse. That position is not viable under the ToS, however, which may be why it is so infrequently seen here at DU, at least cast in those explicit terms. We may argue about the legitimacy of that assessment at pleasure (although I doubt we would have much argument), but it does suggest that confusion of conscience with narcissism is not the only explanation for the position.

-- Mal

[Orrex]

68. That's a fair distinction

Rather than a simple either/or between conscience & narcissism, it might be a triangle spanning conscience, narcissism and ignorance (willful or otherwise).

[malthaussen]

70. I'd have to know more...

... before I credited "ignorance," although given the strictures of the ToS, it's not a topic liable to be aired openly here. While one might think it is appallingly ignorant (willful or otherwise) to assess Mr Trump as a lesser evil, it is necessary to know the rationale for that assessment before passing judgement. One can see why Trump might be considered the lesser of two evils compared to, say, Mr Cruz (as Mr Carter has judged). One could accept that rationale compared to others who are running or have run for the GOP nomination. While I personally cannot see a rationale to assess Mr Trump as the lesser evil compared to any of the Democratic nominees, I'm open to the possibility that others might do the arithmetic differently, and would be intrigued to know why they added it up that way. (Speaking specifically of those for whom obvious reasons such as racism do not apply)

-- Mal

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Mal I will answer this in another way

Yes Trump has been referred as Hitler by not just me, but abroad. There are several things at play here. So let me try to unpack them.

Like Hitler, there are a series of reasons people are in denial. They range from com'on he cannot mean that. And in fact, many Germans voted for the Nazis thinking that. Incidentally, just like with Trump, this includes his target list. Those who believe minorities, and a growing concern is conservative, will not vote for trump, I got a soggy bridge for sale. Humans cannot truly believe somebody can mean it.

There are folks living in states that are not at play. There is no way Trump is going to lose Kansas in a general election. So if you live in Kansas and you vote for Jill Stein, have at it. Some of the info-rumors I have seen in the recent past about NY State and perhaps California, they tend to track each other, never mind how different they are, could mean a vote for Jill Stein might be a suicide pact. So my post telling you that voting your conscience in at least two solid blue states might not be entirely accurate. I will continue to watch that.

The last one is that people are still under estimating Trump. Even here.

Does that mean I expect less ills from the other side? Nope I don't. I just expect them to be different. Will we have people wearing half moons while outside in the streets? I don't think so. Can I expect more war and destruction? Sadly yes, and it has to do with the neocon train following her to the WH. So it is becoming in some ways a prisoners dilemma.

Before some folks get their knickers in a bunch, this is exactly what happens when empires start to collapse and political systems become rather unstable. Congrats, we are likely in both. An Chinese curses. And not one, but both parties are in trouble, ironically for similar reasons, and the base is punishing them.

I think this is far more than you expected.

[malthaussen]

74. Rather than "more than expected,"

... and a bit beyond the scope of the question. Which is okay by me.

As to the specific point, however, the assertion would then be "It is okay to vote your conscience where there is no tactical reason to do otherwise." Which would then necessitate the question be even more specific: how could a conscience that cannot vote for one candidate nevertheless not vote against Mr Trump when it arguably matters. A fair distinction, and a good one, I think, for those who are really interested in that question.

You're probably aware of the irony that the officer who recommended Mr Hitler for a decoration was a Jew. There were groups of Jewish veterans who supported Mr Hitler. It is true, and part of the answer of "how could they let it happen to them," that many of those the Nazi party set out to eliminate had no concept that they were about to be destroyed, that this good society could possibly enable such a heinous sequence of actions. Mutato mutandis, I'm sure that feeling is present in the US. I am not sanguine that, if Mr Trump has his way, Americans will not be wearing half-moons, and at the risk of being seemingly hyperbolic, I am not sure that we could never see extermination camps. OTOH, I don't consider these things probable, but IMO Americans are not singularly virtuous, so I can't rule them out altogether. It would take an unlikely concatenation of circumstances, but it might be possible, and is more likely to be possible if Mr Trump is elected President. I freely admit, I find him impenetrable aside from the obvious surface narcissism and vitriol. Which of his many rants he believes, and which are just playing to the marks, I do not feel competent to judge (and I wonder if he knows himself). Which policies he would try to enact, what plans, if any, he has or is willing to entertain, remain opaque to me. Therefore, I have to assess him on what he has said, which is bad enough to concern me greatly about what the future will hold if he is elected.

I expect I am clear on the nuance here: I'm talking about highly improbable things. That they may be more probable with Trump in the WH makes them no less improbable, but instead poses a question of arithmetic that each must answer for himself: is the threat, however improbable, posed by Mr Trump greater than the indignity of being compelled to vote for a candidate with whom one has no sympathy? (Or is that threat greater than the threats, different as they are, posed by another candidate) Unlike arithmetic, of course, it is a question with no certain or absolute answer. But when one uses "conscience" in partial or complete defense of their answer, then I wonder what conscience is saying about the various candidates, and how its influence may differ among them.

-- Mal

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. I am

As to camps, they were a late development. Genocide is not the first thing that happens.

But that is where we are. As to genocide being possible in the US, we are far from exceptional, and have practiced it in the past. But that is well beyond this discussion

[aikoaiko]

71. There are a couple of reasons someone might.

1. Not many people believe Trump will do the things he says. He is, to use a HRC phrase, pragmatic.

2. Which leads to number 2. I expect Trump, if the nominee will start moving to the center even fast than HRC if nominated, because he is pragmatic.

3. Punishing the DNC may have long term benefits that outweigh short-term costs.

Please note, that I am not advocated for not voting for the Democratic nominee but you asked for reasons.

[malthaussen]

82. Sure.

Yes, I'm realizing now that this question unintentionally skirts the edge of the ToS, depending on one's answer. Which is unfortunate.

Essentially, though, that assessment is that Mr Trump is not the threat his bombast and vitriol show, and that the question as posed won't apply, because his programs will not take a form that offends conscience more than some other candidate, and therefore do not elicit a vote against, if it also constitutes a vote for some other program which does offend conscience.

And that spanking the DNC for choosing the wrong candidate may be a useful reality-check.

Fruit for much discussion, there, well beyond the scope of this question.

-- Mal

[hfojvt]

73. Why should Muslims and Mexicans be MY top concern?

In general, I do NOT approve of illegal immigrants. Nor do I think we should extend an open invitation to our country.

Maybe partly because I hate big cities and tend to think the country is already too crowded. Plus we would appear to already have a shortage of good jobs. In the sense that I have never really been able to find one.

[malthaussen]

83. Well, I make no suggestion that they should be your top concern.

Nor, if it comes to that, any concern at all. Then the answer would be that the question does not apply, because your conscience is not affected by the proposals in question.

-- Mal

[hfojvt]

84. you seemed to feel that it should be a concern

for a lot of potential voters.

That a whole bunch of us should be fighting like hell to make sure that illegal immigrants don't have to leave.

I am kinda curious why anybody would be so motivated to that cause.

And Muslims? Last time I checked (about ten seconds ago) 99% of the US population was NOT Muslim.

So now we want the government to represent the 1% and not the 99%?

[malthaussen]

87. I'll suggest that prejudicial behavior...

... institutions, and policies are principles going far beyond the question of whether this group or that is victimized, but if your opinion differs, then again, the question does not apply to you. And it is an issue beyond the scope of the question, although that doesn't mean it is therefore unworthy of discussion.

-- Mal

[PatrickforO]

79. If the Democratic party no longer represents the economic interests and social interests

of me, my family and the American people, then I'll vote for whomever I damned well please. Because the Green party is MUCH closer to my values than Clinton is. She is establishment all the way, a foreign policy hawk and promoter of the interests of Wall Street and big corporations.

I want single payer, and the Medicare for all Americans idea is a good one because the infrastructure already exists.
I want us to use OUR tax dollars to fund free state college for our children and grandchildren.
I want stronger Social Security.
I want to end the 'forever' wars.
I want us to aggressively lead in mitigating climate change, because that is an EXISTENTIAL threat.
I want corporations to have to pay income tax on the trillions they've hidden untaxed offshore. That's bullshit.
I want Wall Street seriously reined in, and I want some of these shyster bankers on trial for ruining the economy and millions of lives.
I want serious reform in the 'justice system,' including body cams and big changes in federal leadership
I want civilian oversight of police misconduct.
I want to end private prisons.

THOSE are the things that are in MY best interest, and don't DARE tell me, "Oh, Clinton has a plan for this, or that," because she doesn't. You know as well as I do that once she sews up the nomination, she will pivot right faster than you can say 'Third Way.'

That's why I'm supporting Sanders and will vote for Sanders. Yeah, if he loses the nomination I will wait to see what he says, and then I MIGHT do that, or I might STILL vote my conscience. Because I'm so fucking sick of voting for mediocre pro-corporate candidates because they are just a little socially liberal and suck 'less' than the Republican, that I could puke. That's fucked up and I'm about done playing that game.

[malthaussen]

85. I should hope you would always vote for whom you please.

The question, then, would be why one candidate pleases you more than another, and is not the question I'm asking.

It is a very specific question, and not expected to be applicable to all who will be voting. If your conscience is offended by one candidate, and if another candidate is even more offensive to your conscience, then how can your conscience support not voting against the latter, if that is the choice confronting you? Note the "ifs." If these premises do not apply, than nor does the question. But further, there is no implication that these are, in fact, the only choices: there are many ways in which conscience might be satisfied by some alternative, which is precisely what the question is posed to find out. Frankly, I don't care for whom you will vote, nor would I ask. What animates me is understanding why you intend to vote, and how you might reconcile what I see to be logical problems in a position -- a position which, it should be needless to say, may not even be applicable to you.

-- Mal

[Kuroneko]

80. Risk assessment

Trump says everything and it’s opposite. He’s a loose cannon and an unknown quantity.

On the opposite, the democratic candidates are well known. And one of them has a serious baggage, from a progressive point of view, particularly in the domains of war, trade and finance.

Then it can be seen as a choice between a democrat who will pursue probably with success a politic that one opposes and a republican who will be at worst a lame duck because both parties hate him.
The down side is that if Trump is serious with his rhetoric the situation could become really ugly. The risk is very small, but it does exist.

Another point is that even if one votes only to oppose a candidate, the beneficiary of the vote always takes it as a mandate. Then casting a vote for a politic that one disagree should only be done with caution as it become by fact an active support.

By the way, as a foreigner I can’t and I’m only a neutral observer.

[malthaussen]

88. That's one of the things I am trying to get at.

As you can see, the simplest and most general of questions will be taken in a spirit other than intended, but I'm a deconstructionalist, so I expect that.

How an individual assesses risk of the various candidates is an intriguing question. But many couch their views in high terms of principle and conscience, and of them I wonder why these high principles apply in one direction, but not in another. Which, of course, carries with it no implication that they should so apply, but is also bound to be taken that way sometimes.

The point about the mandate is well-taken. Should Mrs Clinton win the nomination, will that not simply justify her supporters, and lead to the conclusion "see? we were right!" One thing can be counted on from pragmatists, and that is the principle that one can't argue with success.

-- Mal

[Agnosticsherbet]

86. If you put a Republican to my head and threaten to pull the trigger if I don't vote your way, do it.

People who claim "conscience" or "stand on principal" and allow Republicans to get total control of the reins for government again are not liberal, progressive, socialist or any other left side ideology.

[orpupilofnature57]

95. And that's why Bernie would beat Donald, it's Wasserman, MSM and $$$$$ who have NO conscience who

are republicans by definition.

[Agnosticsherbet]

96. No, the threat not to vote is intimidation. "They will tear everything down if Democrats don't

their choice."

If people want to do that, fine.
They should never pretend to be progressive, liberal, or even socialist.

[bhikkhu]

97. History repeating itself

(and Godwin's law be damned for how it trivializes real discussion)

I have often wondered what a reasonable, caring individual in 1930's Germany would have done. If one had a basic human compassion for other humans and saw the train wreck coming, what should they have done? I think history shows what they did do, generally, which was to fade into silence. Some heroic individuals put themselves on the firing line, long after it was too late to turn the tide, but for the most part they disengaged, tuned out.

I've seen plenty of preaching here advocating that - if not Sanders, if not "perfection" right now, then "let come what will come, we're out".

[malthaussen]

99. The point is relevant for those who saw it coming.

One advantage we in 2016 have over the Germans of the '30s is hindsight: we have already seen how a fascist government can rise and cast the world into turmoil, destroying itself and millions in the process. Though one can argue that there were (and are) plenty of examples prior to the '30s from which one could learn, they were not so fresh (nor so well-publicized) as the Nazis are in the present day. A poster above suggested that "ignorance" might account for someone honestly thinking Mr Trump is the lesser of evils compared to another candidate. Surely the same ignorance played a role in the reactions of some to Mr Hitler's rise. It was, shall we say, inconceivable that things would turn out as they did. But the parallels between how some belittle and sell Mr Trump short, and how some did the same with Mr Hitler, are plain. Arguably, we now have less excuse than they then, exactly because of the story of Mr Hitler.

-- Mal

[joshcryer]

98. You shouldn't worry about purity voters.

They are insignificant on the scheme of things.

[malthaussen]

100. In statistical terms, probably.

But I'm interested in human questions.

-- Mal

[cantbeserious]

101. This Revolt Has Been Building For Years - The DWS, DNC, DLC, Third-Way Has Only Themselves To Blame

eom

[malthaussen]

102. I'm not interested in assessing blame.

I am interested in understanding reasons.

-- Mal

[cantbeserious]

103. This Revolt Has Been Building For Years - The DWS, DNC, DLC, Third-Way Has Only Themselves To Blame

The Fact That Those Organizations Made Choices Antithetical To The 99% Are Your Reasons.

[malthaussen]

104. Say rather that they are your reasons.

I prefer to speak only for myself; but I also prefer to speak for myself.

-- Mal

[cantbeserious]

106. You Asked For Reasons - You Got Reasons - Yours Or Otherwise

eom

[840high]

107. Amen.