The moral question of Trump

Now a year on, it's taken a bit for me to reconcile the ramifications of the election of Trump. On these boards I mostly post replies about his character and the values he promotes. Identifying myself as a Centrist, I've always found partisan politics the territory for petty squabbles and laying the blame game which is why I don't much care to engage in it.

There's a lot to be speculated about what has granted Trump supporters' motivation for his ascendancy to the presidency, but if there's one thing I can be assured of for every single one of them in light of Trump's vile character, it is that they have abdicated their values for political principle, that is if they had any of the former to begin with. That is a statement that I believe is inarguable, and I find it to be very troubling in its implications.

I'm frankly astonished, and taken aback, that so many outwardly decent people have sacrificed that fundamental decency and value in them in order to further their political predilections. If you disagree with his opponent and their stances, make a protest vote. Don't vote at all. But don't actively advocate for someone that will set such an abysmal example as a person for our nation, for our children, and for the world. For as much damage as I believe Trump has already done from his policies (and those to come), I don't consider them remotely as detrimental in the long run as the example and values this man finds prudent to set for the world to witness who will find acceptable to emulate. There will always exist the battle for ideas, but values degrade unless they're continually upheld and fought for. They are the underpinnings of everything else, and what we've seen with the election of Trump is a large defeat towards those values, and that's far more dangerous in the long run than any policy changes could ever hope to be.

People tell me to respect Trump supporters as everyone has their own political views and that I should respect that, but this is completely aside the point. The thing is, I do respect different views. What I don't respect, and what I will never respect, is anyone sacrificing their underlying values to be able to hold them. That's contemptible, you don't do it, and that's what every single Trump voter has done.

Do they not feel in any way ashamed for the vote they cast, not from a partisan standpoint but from a humanistic one?

I lean right. but i voted against trump. Though, many may criticize me, because i voted for the flawed Hilary clinton politcal machine. Maybe should have voted a protest vote, but Id rather have hillary than donald.

I want to say that this is something people should have discussed a year or more ago, but we totally did and it didn't matter. *shakes head* There were literally 16 other candidates to choose from in the republican field alone, and even though people generally claimed Trump was the worst one they still chose him.

It just makes me wonder at what line will people stand up for what is moral instead of what suits their own best interests. With Trump, that line's been blurred.

I wonder how anyone could vote for Hillary some one who is so dishonest and and crooked who only wanted to be president for her own gains and because she thought she was entitled to the job. She is a weak person weaker than Obama and the country would have suffered greatly under her leadership.

As far as I am concnered, a good chunk of those trump votes were due to Trump promising a populist agenda. as well as voting against "political correctness" (by voting for the biggest snowflake alive) and the establishment.

Not to mention, a vote against the almost equally morally reprehensible Hillary Clinton.

A little dramatic eh? In case you didn't notice not a lot of Trump's policies are gaining traction. Like him or not he hasn't caused what you would refer to as "damage".

There was a good article a while ago (forgot where, will try to find it) that basically went through all the actions Trump has taken, and compared their legality to the morality of it all. Unfortunately, while a lot of what he does is morally reprehensible to [imo any reasonable] people for the most part (subjective), thus far nothing he has done is illegal (objective).

With that said, I think it is important for the president to have high standards for himself and his country, and act as a unifying force instead of a dividing one; while the president has some role to play in government, I feel he is more of a figurehead for the most part. The latter part I am thankful for in Trump's case, because he is not going to change much except our general feelings about politics during his tenure.

You can make the same argument for Hillary since she is rotten to her core. I am conservative, but I did not vote for Trump, I voted for the Libertarian option.

Not everyone actually has any moral values and so his lack of propriety and social awareness doesn't mean anything to them. He's a bully and they are the guys in the background cheering him on. It's sad. I've always defended the US here when people pile on against it in these forums but I can't even do that anymore. Not after trump's election and especially not since some Americans still defend him.

I don't even think it's really a moral question. Sure, it proves that Trump supporters are at least unprincipled, but I think the bigger issue is a mass derangement. When you have such a large chunk of the population that sees Hillary as some far-left commie, I don't even know what to say. They've completely abandoned any objective standards by which we could come to any sort of understanding.

@DaBrainz: I disagree. The legislative failures don’t amount to much, but his sewing mistrust in otherwise reputable institutions and also the way he disastrously lowered peoples standards for elected officials may directly result in a child molester being elected to the senate and all sorts of shit-tier trash running in primaries and elections after that.

For as much as a snake Hillary may be, she doesn't take pride in being explicitly morally reprehensible in a leadership role as Trump does. She at least grants the appearance of propriety and decorum. Trump on the other hand shows no compunction in making it a point to be the lowest form of person in his conduct and loves the fact that everyone sees it; he embraces moral bankruptcy, disregarding how his behavior impacts the values he should be promoting on a much larger scale. Why does he do this? Because he desires sensationalism, the desire to satiate his narcissism, he sees this as the best way to attain it, and he doesn't care about abandoning what he should be defending to be able to do so.

Trump is essentially shitting on our collective values so he can act as he wishes without any regard to how it affects anything else. Someone who votes for such a person, someone who is to be out there setting an example on a world stage, full well witnessing their willingness to do such a thing for such a reason and finds that acceptable is more morally reprehensible in their vote than one who casts theirs for another who, while corrupt, at least by appearance looks to uphold our values for all to see and strive for no matter what they are scheming behind their back in private.

It's the appearance that matters as the presidency is a bigger job than any one person. They're not just speaking for their own values, they're speaking for everyone else's and part of their job as a leader is to instill admirable values we should strive to continually better. That's why a vote for Hillary, who would maintain that appearance despite her actions behind the scene, is less morally reprehensible than Trump.

She bragged about overthrowing a democratically elected government in favor of a corporate coup.

She bragged about her support of the carpet and then drone bombings of innocent people in 7 different countries.

As disgusting as Trump is and acted, he's got a while to go before he catches up with even the act of removing democratically elected governments. Let alone the bragging about it.

This is something ive always had to defend Trump on. The guys a complete scumbag, psychopath IMO and has next to zero redeemable qualities. But at least he can say his exploits where mostly in bullshit business deals and grabbing women by the pussy. Hillary is at least (if we minimize her role) partially responsible for the deaths of millions and that fucking **** brags about it every chance she gets.

#imwithHer

@kod: not home right now, but could you provide links please.

Her own books? She said in her books she consider Honduras a win for her career, something she did that was good for the world. To this day she defends her actions... her actions of overthrowing a democratically elected government in favor for corporate bank power, and then this launches the region into unprecedented violence. No one can suggest this **** has some higher moral standard than a corrupted businessman, even if in between corrupted dealings he spent his time raping women. Its still less disastrous to the world and less disgusting than the things we've seen Hillary do. Remember all those kids that were fleeing to the US that republicans demonized and said they couldnt be here (and then Obama deported most of them)? That was a result of Hillary's actions.... children who had to make that trip to America because their family had been butchered (often in front of them) and then who got sent back, only to be butchered themselves.

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/13/hear_hillary_clinton_defend_her_role

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/31/hillary-clinton-honduras-violence-manuel-zelaya-berta-caceres

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Hillary-Clintons-Foreign-Policy-Hypocrisy-in-Honduras-20151012-0016.html

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/telesuragenda/6-Years-After-Honduras-Coup-20150627-0016.html

Until her loss, this person was the most disgusting and biggest piece of shit active in politics. Its hard to find a human being who has acted as badly as she has.

@kod: Link that shit......all I get are search pages.

@LJS9502_basic

I bet.

This is a fine example of how gullible the average conservative is, willing to literally believe the dumbest, most unfounded bullshit. wow...

lol. Hillary responsible for the death of millions, and her "role" in a coup that had nothing to do with her, beyond the fact that she knew about it and supported the idea of elections after the coup. Wow. You fell for some really goofy bullshit if you really believe anything you wrote.

You contrast someone with a lifetime of political capital on moral grounds to someone who has only very recently entered the political arena and the damage is is capable of inflicting, yet demonstrates the lowest form of character that, due to nothing but virtue of time and opportunity, has not afforded him to be able to do so. What do you expect? Do you honestly expect me (or anyone else) to believe or grant the legitimacy of the implied argument that had Trump had the time and had dedicated his life to politics given his character that he would not be as bad, if not worse, than Hillary could ever dream to be?

I actually find it to be very easily suggestible that, yes, Hillary holds a higher moral standard than Trump could ever hope to retain, yet her questionable moral standing is only disproportionately accentuated by the history she has behind her in the political spectrum as opposed to Trump. Give him time, yet even in eight years would it be a reasonable expectation for him to be capable of doing as much damage as you claim Hillary has accomplished in decades of her chosen profession?

It is easy to ascertain who may have done the most damage, yet in terms of a statement on one's morality, it's one that is to be viewed in context of the time and position that it was allowed to be exercised. Forgive me if I fail to buy that Trump would be such a person to be seen as morally superior had that opportunity presented itself far earlier than it has. If I'm to place my lot with either of the two all things being equal in determination of who is morally superior, you know who that would be.

I contrast two people who have/had political ambitions, ran for the same position, and both made decisions in their lives to support and do the things they have done. I contrast a psychopath (Trump) with a sociopath (Hillary). im sure Trump would be just as bad as Hillary if he had a 30 year political career, but that's nothing more than my assumption, that's not the facts. Currently the facts are, he's a scumbag businessman who robs people and sexually assaults woman, this is not the suggestion that hes a good person or is some how less corrupted than Hillary. But we have to face facts here. One of them has continuously voted in favor and supported acts of war, one has not. One was the key figure in removing a democratically elected government and replacing it with bank favors, the other is not. Again, im not presuming Trump is above doing all of this, he simply has not. Even if we agree on the idea that Trump could be this bad, you absolutely have to recognize reality. And reality says he has not done all of this. Even as president so far, all he's really done is the same corrupted bullshit we see from typical republicans. The republican Hillary Clinton goes well above and beyond that.

With Trump you have to assume he would do these things, and again even if we agree he would, it does not remove the fact that he has not and it would be wrong of us to apply it to him in any kind of factual matter or evaluation. Hillary has done all of this and worse. So if you're going to present this as a real world philosophical conversation on which one has a higher standard for basic morality, no matter what we both feel like Trump could do, factually speaking he has not done any of this and factually speaking he's definitely at a higher moral standpoint than Hillary. You cant just apply whatever you want to him and then call it a day, if we are doing that than i can do the same thing with Hillary... lets add passing the TPP to her list of things cool? Giving corporations more power than governments, yah, thats not destroying nations is it? Thats not a cost of lives that's almost immeasurable is it? So lets go ahead and apply this to her as a fact since we know she loved it and called it the gold standard. If you're not trying to hear that, then don't do it to Trump.

If you're going with this morality thing than be honest and work in the real world. Ask real questions to yourself and give yourself real answers and then figure out which one of the two people, the corrupted scumbag psychopath businessman who's actions have never lead to the death of thousands, if not millions. Or the sociopath who is the most corrupted active (if she still is) politician who has voted for and supported war after war after war often to give arms manufacturers more profits, oil companies more profits or banks more profits or private prisons within our nation that have destroyed tens of millions if not over a hundred million of American lives over the past 30 years. In terms of morality, we don't even really need to dive deeper do we? Thats a pyramid that only the worst people in history could climb. One steals money, the other costs lives... how are you conflicted with the morality question here? And the one who's ideas support and corruption that has costed human life, never admits to a mistake, to wrongdoing or a bad decision. Every single thing she has ever done she holds to, to this day. Even when they knowingly bomb the wrong place this fucking bitch cannot admit to any kind of mistake any kind of wrong doing. And youre seriously attempting to suggest a man who steals money is morally on par or worse with this piece of shit?

This is all aside my original argument and we're getting off topic to what my initial post is about. Your initial reply to me launched off from a cherry picked sentence without seeming to have read the rest of my post, so I'll C & P:

"She at least grants the appearance of propriety and decorum. Trump on the other hand shows no compunction in making it a point to be the lowest form of person in his conduct and loves the fact that everyone sees it; he embraces moral bankruptcy, disregarding how his behavior impacts the values he should be promoting on a much larger scale."

I'm speaking on Trump's role in failing to set an example by demonstrating and pushing for values that we should all desire to follow. You harp on about Hillary's actions and the morality upon which they are predicated while seeming to be oblivious as to a man who is actively working to instill and excuse (in hundreds of millions of people and the world over) the very lack of values and morality that you so condemn in Hillary. Despite what she has done to make you believe her a worse person than Trump, she would not as president be acting in such a way as to show actions such as lying, bullying, threatening, disrespecting, intimidation, or corruptibility as proper and acceptable conduct. She would be at least granting the veneer of respectability and moral fortitude even if she hadn't been a practitioner of it herself for the majority of her life, as most politicians are not. This, again, is why a vote for Trump is more morally reprehensible than one for Hillary. Trump is planting the seeds of future Hillarys without any reservation.

Are you seriously attempting to suggest casting a vote for a person who does that is less dangerous and more morally justifiable than voting for a person like her who wouldn't, despite her past actions? It doesn't matter what Hillary has done contrasted to Trump, it matters what she represents on the surface to set an example for the future. We can exist in our naivete, those who wish to know the truth can find it, but don't make a point of promoting the abandonment of our values all over as a leader for everyone to see as if it's some badge of honor, as Trump continually does. That is going to contribute to a furtherment of moral decrepitude which is going to directly enable what you are so passionately against.

Pretty sure she does take pride in being a morally reprehensible prick.

Ignoring that, Hillary also outright denies any wrongdoing in places she has done wrongdoing. In regards to the mass incarceration she and her husband caused, she stated it was a necessity at the time. Rather than admitting that maybe it was a fucked up policy, that resulted in the US having more prisoners than the motherfreakin' USSR. She is callously telling people that it was the morally right thing to do to ruin lives and families just because someone wanted to tweak their consciousness a bit.

It's either really hard for you to link..........or more likely........you can't find anything that backs your stance. I read from one of your search pages and it said she supported....in words....what happened. Nowhere did it say she was responsible. You must work for Fox News.

This was just a shitty election. Trump is brash moron, Hillary is a crooked liar, and Berine Sanders is in la la land.

If we are attempting to judge someones moral character, how in the holy hell can we ignore their actions? And how are you doing this for Hillary and not Trump? Do you not see your obvious hypocrisy? This double standard? This shifting of the goal post? You want to change this to what they represent? As if we cannot get a good look at what they represent by looking at how they've acted politically in the past? Here's how Hillary acts: She does not give a shit about anyone but herself and is literally willing to sentence hundreds of thousands of people to death to further her own career. This has been done her entire political career, so wtf do you think she would represent as president?

Look dude. If you're going to say we need to take a look at these two people and gauge their moral characters, then we need to be able to put their records as human beings in front of us. Which include their professional lives, both of them, you cant just say we do this for Trump and excuse Hillary from this. Every charge you have against Trump, you can apply to Hillary, why are you not?

Try being honest about this for a minute.

Im not debating that in an alternative universe, Trump with 30 years political history would not be as disgusting as Hillary. But that's my point. You have to present an alternate reality and then you have to hold him to the standard of her and these are two points you cannot make in the real world. Yah, i know, it fuckin sucks defending Trump, but its about being honest with others and more importantly yourself.

Apparently we are not allowed to bring up her professional history.

He can with Trump, he can bring up Trump's history and then even make predictions on what he will or would do and then apply all of this to his moral character. But when it comes to Hillary, we cannot even look at the things we know for a fact she did and that she bragged about. This is the hypocrisy and self-dishonesty from neoliberals that drives me fucking crazy.

Oh you're being serious? I already linked pages, checked them twice, none go to search pages.

You are straw-manning. My intention with this topic was not to contrast the actions of Hillary and Trump to determine which is to be viewed as morally superior or inferior. This is a discussion about the values that Hillary would be promoting as president vs. Trump and how voting for Trump based on that foundation is a more morally bankrupt position than it would've been for Hillary. The only morality that is in question here is that of the voters who decided to place their backing behind a man who promotes the worst values imaginable in his conduct, the exact same values that lead you to hate Hillary. You wish to speak to me about hypocrisy? Then stop standing in defense of a man whom is enabling what you're condemning.

It was you who came out and shifted the discussion from my initial argument that a person's vote for Trump is more immoral than one for Hillary, to whether or not Hillary is as immoral as Trump in her actions. Are you incapable of understanding that very simple distinction? Read the bolded very carefully, and then re-read it again.

"Despite what she has done to make you believe her a worse person than Trump, she would not as president be acting in such a way as to show actions such as lying, bullying, threatening, disrespecting, intimidation, or corruptibility as proper and acceptable conduct. She would be at least granting the veneer of respectability and moral fortitude even if she hadn't been a practitioner of it herself for the majority of her life, as most politicians are not. This, again, is why a vote for Trump is more morally reprehensible than one for Hillary."

That has NOTHING to do with comparing Trump to Hillary on the moral question of their past conduct whatsoever, it only has to do with the values that they would both present for our nation to see and the morality of a vote predicated upon those values. Stop straw-manning my position to launch off on a tangent not pertinent to my original point. My thread title was a bit off admittedly, but my post should have made clear what I was getting at.

There is zero straw-manning going on if youre saying you want to morally judge these people and apply it to future actions, and then we say "okay, lets take a look at their actions of the past as this will give us the best idea of where they will go in the future".

Okay, so its still lets say....... 1/3rd of Trump voters who are utterly disgusting, racist human beings and... what percentage of Hillary voters knew she was a war hawk? Knew she helped expand the war on drugs and private prisons? Knew she supported the removal of the GS and screwing our bankruptcy laws? Neoliberals are always smarter right? They always know more about the person they are supporting and the situation right? So lets say 50%, 1/2. 50% of neoliberals are promoting the worst values imaginable in her conduct.

This is where we go back to him and her, you say that Trump is "a man who promotes the worst values imaginable in his conduct", i say, at least he is not responsible for the deaths of upward of millions, all in the name of corporate profits. I say that the worst values imaginable have been practiced by Hillary every year she has been a politician and that Trump, no matter what his rhetoric is or what he has attempted, is still light years away from being as horrible as she is. His values, are hippy Jesus Christ compared to her.

Except you cannot touch on the things you did without bringing up the things i did. You cant sit here and say that Trump promotes "the worst values imaginable", and then say that clarifying which person has more of a disgusting history, is some how off the table or not part of the conversation. In fact, its probably the most vital part of the topic and something that needs to be established before you even start your question.

Read your bolded part and then explain to me how evaluating these people is not needed in order to state what you just did. Every part of it requires us to look at these people from a moral lens and evaluate who they are. The end is especially begging for it. "This, again, is why a vote for Trump is more morally reprehensible than one for Hillary." Okay, i didnt vote for Trump, but i'd vote for a pussy grabbed thief over a war mongering piece of shit who has costed hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives due to her affinity for corporate money and guess what? Ill walk away with the moral high ground every day of the week. Even if my only reason for voting for Trump was to kick all the Mexicans out, i'd still have a higher moral ground because that's still better than the shit Hillary has done and the shit her voters supported.

I'm still trying to come to terms with the fact he, a man who reacts like a 4 year-old throwing a tantrum to social media posts, is the President of the most powerful nation in the world, and has access to nuclear weapons.

Assuming he or his policies on climate change do not destroy the planet, I do feel this is the last hurrah for the ultra-conservative Republicans/Christians though. Despite their attempts to brainwash the new generations, free thought will prevail.

@kod: instead of replying to you point by point, I'm just going to use a hypothetical.

Your child's in elementary school and that child had two teachers. You have one teacher that supervises first recess. From all appearances, that teacher breaks up fights, they teach respect to others and to respect differences, they are not phobic and fearful. The teacher at the very least looks to be attentive in reinforcing positive values in those children. The other teacher supervises second recess. Yet this one instead encourages fights and name calling as he views disrespect, discrimination, and vengeance as admirable qualities. He instructs the kids to be arrogant, self-centered, and that it's acceptable to threaten, demean, belittle and walk all over their peers to get what they want. He looks to have no reservation about any of this behavior and appears to get off on it.

Who would you pick to supervise/teach/set an example for your kid? For me it would be the first without a second's hesitation, and I don't give a single flying **** about their past as long as they don't promote disgusting values to my child, to millions, to billions, over years as Trump is seeing fit to do which is going to hold impact on the future. You don't believe what he is doing will help lead to the very type of people that you despise, such as Hillary, and the subsequent damage that those people would incur? Don't talk to me about hypocrisy when you sit there defending a man who actively promotes such shitty values to so many. Values define morality, and has Hillary's actions reflected her values in not the best light? Yes, I can concede that, but where do you believe her actions got their impetus? Precisely from gutter trash values individuals like Trump love to propagate.

If anyone chooses to vote for the second teacher above the first, then they have no right to bitch about the future Hillaries of the world, because they've stood up in favor of undermining the foundation that helps fight their creation at the grassroots level. Immoral actions are borne from immoral values, and Trump is unashamedly planting the latter's seeds sans compunction into a worldwide audience. An individual in a position of such influence who does so I'd argue is far more dangerous a threat than a single person who encapsulates them could ever possibly hope to be.

It is on the news every day. If you took you head out of the sand you might learn something.

Not on any credible news show.

What do you call credible?

@MirkoS77: Not all but a good percentage of the Trump voters do regret their votes privately I think. However to admit publicly they were wrong is difficult for anyone to do. Plus there's the effect of internal rationalization and subconscious self defense mechanism. The protest vote aspect of it comes from the fact that the general narrative during the election was how Hillary was the projected victor, and that a lot of Trump voters didn't believe their votes would do much to change that projection. I honestly believe that Trump wouldn't have won if the media were focused on reporting how close the election were.

That is IMO a fantastic point and generally the distinguishing separator for someone who is unfamiliar with political reality and those who lived through that reality and succeeded in spite of it. Clinton was more honest in that she ran a campaign on foundation of practical policies not good sounding but ultimately empty catchphrases and vague promises like "we can", "hope","make America great again","build a wall" etc. That's not saying that Trump is basically an alt right version of Obama because Trump lacked Obama's practical approach and ability to compromise behind the scene.

But that is the rub. The media was VERY who was leading at the polls. It just turns out that the media was monumentally wrong or extremely large swaths of voters lied regarding their vote.

I wouldn't say the polls were wrong. Comey's last minute reveal really swung the election in Trumps favor by reinforcing his narrative on Clinton and solidifying his voters.

Morality is incredibly subjective. The bigger issue with trump is a competency issue. Guy has no place in government.

1. Your hypothetical is shit and very dishonest about the comparisons.

2. Why do we need to do a hypothetical? We have the exact situation in front of us that you want to address, you're simply being faced with a reality you cant get around.... this is why we are directly addressing this topic and you have to run to this utterly absurd hypothetical where you paint one option as a devil, one as an angel. I cant even take this post seriously because of this.

There's no win for you on this topic. One person, at the very best is simply a warmonger who is responsible for an untold amount of death and suffering worldwide. The other is a piece of shit businessman who seems to be sexist and racist (although i think hes just a psychopath) who prior to his election, didnt do anything but steal some money. I dont care what subjective morality you have, youll be hard pressed to convince anyone that the latter is worse than the former and we can expand that to their supporters.

Yours is not an argument I even need to try to win, because it's not even my argument in the first place but is a strawman you've created (and yes, that's exactly what it is) and that you are attempting to dictate this debate by. I'm not playing ball. My hypothetical is perfectly apt, it's only "shit and dishonest" when viewed in context of your strawman. I've made this point twice now, of which you've conveniently ignored:

"If anyone chooses to vote for the second teacher above the first, then they have no right to bitch about the future Hillaries of the world, because they've stood up in favor of undermining the foundation that helps fight their creation at the grassroots level. Immoral actions are borne from immoral values, and Trump is unashamedly planting the latter's seeds sans compunction into a worldwide audience. An individual in a position of such influence who does so I'd argue is far more dangerous a threat than a single person who encapsulates them could ever possibly hope to be."

Can you respond to that point, or are you going to continue to be blinded, hide in your myopia and divert, comparing Hillary's past to Trump's without acknowledging that the bankrupt values Trump instills would help lead to the creation of such individuals and their actions, and that voting for someone who does that is more morally reprehensible? I'm speaking about the future, not the past, and the values that would be promoted in contrast between these two candidates. You will never, ever, EVERconvince me that one person who holds a more morally contemptible history is worse than one in such a position of influence who holds a less morally contemptible history (yet by your own admittance would be just as bad had he had the opportunity) yet sees fit to encourage the worst values that directly lead to the former.

Give me a break.

I would be lying if I said I do not question peoples moral and ethical fiber when they tell me they voted for trump. Which is why most trump supporters hide it, they are cowardice idiots.

Do you guys know what a straw man argument is and when to apply it?

This was purposely ignored because it does not say anything, it just tells me how you feel about the false premise you've put forward above that quote.

You understand im not saying Trump is a better person right?

You understand that i don't even take issue with you wanting to say "well if trump had a 30 year political career blah blah blah"... i agree.

Im just saying.... and im not sure if this will sound better..... your whole premise and argument is utter shit.... i had quite a bit more i was typing out and then i was reminded of this last part of your final paragraph and felt that me highlighting this, demonstrates the crux of your argument. ............

.......... I think your biggest problem here is that you're focused on a handful of things. Racism, sexism, thats probably about it. Not saying that these are not things we should not focus on, i think even you're aware i feel very strongly on these issues. But you really want to focus on these handful of things while not even mentioning say........ direct actions that have lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of children worldwide....... the support of the TPP an act that would give corporations more power than government... im sorry, but do you understand this enough to know what that means? We know for a fact that she was going to pass this, do you understand how dramatically that would shift the wealth in every country involved? And you want to start counting up the loss of human life for that one?

Now, im sorry if youre so naive that you think you can simply go off what people say and not what they do, but the rest of us are adults in the real world and know that they both apply and that the strongest indicator of what someone will do in the future, is their past. But even removing that, youre still ignoring what we know Hillary would do have done. One example, Trump has been mostly inactive on Syria, Hillary wanted to expand efforts like crazy and we know she would have done it, not only did she say it but her history says she will. A war over an oil pipeline that Hillary wanted control of, so do the Russians, and oddly enough Trump seems to be the one willing to actually ease off. So, whats the cost of life there? I know i keep going to cost of human life, but its easy to track and if we can demonstrate ulterior motives with a lack of concern for those lives it shows a lack in ethics, or one might say morality.

So... on to your main argument, the voters. You have no idea why people voted for Trump. We have fairly good ideas, we have tons of polls that vary and tons of reasons that vary. But lets just pretend, just for a second, (since this is a subjective, hypothetical, useless topic to begin with) that half of the people who voted for Trump are viewing thigns the same ive just laid out to you. Their main concern was cost of human lives.... i doubt this, i suspect this is not even remotely true, but we don't know. so im continuing down your path of pretending..... then what? Are you honestly going to say their voting was "morally' worse? We could bring intent into the conversation and be a bit more realistic. A wall on mexico, a stupid fucking idea. But why would people support it? Why would the vast majority of Trump voters who are not racists but are concerned with employment and some how, some way, along the road of life they were tricked into believing that immigrants are stealing their jobs (and if they are low wage workers, this is not a bad assessment. Its not accurate, but its not bad) and making it so their family, their friends, their state, their nation, is not able to feed itself correctly, or clothe itself correctly, or afford college for their kids. So where are their moral concerns? At a place, we'd expect any normal persons to be. Their information is incorrect, but their morality is right where it should be................now.................

............... last part, i promise.

I hope you actually read this and absorb what im about to say. I love discussions on morality, ethics, where it comes from, how it evolved, how we interpret these things, etc. And you cant have these conversations. You essentially want to have a philosophical conversation on the ethics of other people, but you're even closed off to the reality of something we'd need to consider... let alone the fact that you've demonstrated lumping all Trump voters (or large portions of them) into one moral group. People are weird, they're off, they will surprise you and just when you think you have someone figured out, they'll contradict everything you thought you knew about them. If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

@kod: I've said all I need to say, and no, I don't agree with you. Your myopia is incredible. Next time, if you wish to reply to my argument, do so because you actually have something worthwhile to contribute, not because you feel the need to go on a rant many days later just because you saw someone agree with my point, which just ground your little gears down, didn't it?

He has a specific view when it comes to Democrats and Clinton. He's a mad Bernie supporter.

Yea, no joke.

Actually it was Sonicare's post that did it. Made me want to go on a rant about how ignorant, irresponsible and closed minded it is of you to attempt to assume and then project someone else's morality onto them and you're not just doing it with one person, but to an entire group of people. As i said before, you're entirely ill-equipped to be having conversations on morality if this is how you treat it.