Can a good person vote for Trump?

I remember arguing with Tjohn a few months back about this. I suggested that no ethical person could support Trump. Tjohn asserted that I just didn't understand the good hearted people who were backing this monster.

Say what you will about the campaign up to this point, after yesterday, it seems to me that the lines are drawn. You could not be a good person and be a Nazi. You can not be a good person and be a White Supremacist. You cannot be a good person and vote for a megalomaniac sexual predator who thinks the world is a playground that exists solely to service his sociopathic whims.

Well, that's what I think at least.....


I also cannot think of a person being reasonable if they refuse to vote for Clinton.

This is a binary election. Two choices, Clinton or Trump. If you refuse to vote for Clinton then you are helping to enable Trump's election.


I have been arguing, mostly pointlessly, with two Trump supporting Facebook friends. I'm not defriending them, but now think one of them is dumb as a stump. Used to think he was just dumb. The other one has a personality similar to Trump's; he was born the same year, and became sucessfull because of the old boy, white guy mentor culture of the 1960-80's. He idolizes Trump as the guy who will put white males back on the throne. It was a good gig for him.


As much as I can't stand Trump, I find it hard to morally condemn everyone who votes for him. A lot of people just have grown up in another Red-state type of mindset, and believe that the country needs to end gridlock and have a Republican controlled country that will adapt traditional Republican goals: Free enterprise, stronger rules against abortion, conservative Supreme Court, plus eliminate free trade job losses, etc. They vote that way more out of ignorance to other considerations, including Trump's personality and behavior, than because they are evil people. To morally condemn the majority of people living in Red States, close to half the country, as wicked and bad people, seems like stereotyping, and reflects a limitation in our ability (including my own) to empathize and understand where they are coming from. I am not talking about flagrantly and intentionally racist extremists.



BG9 said:

I also cannot think of a person being reasonable if they refuse to vote for Clinton.

This is a binary election. Two choices, Clinton or Trump. If you refuse to vote for Clinton then you are helping to enable Trump's election.

Nobody reading MOL is for Trump.



fairplay

Nobody reading MOL is for Trump.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

In NJ, it is probably safe to vote third party vs Clinton if you don't want Trump, so I would say that good people can do that, but if enough Bernie bros or others do that, we could be in for a Brexit-like surprise.


There are people who will vote for Trump because they believe that as a Republican he will be better than Hillary on taxes, regulation of business and/or Supreme Court appointments.

The election of Hillary Clinton as POTUS and her appointment of one or more Justices of the Supreme Court means the final defeat of any possibility of reversal of Roe v. Wade and, very likely the final defeat of "Right to Life" and an end to abortion as an issue. That will make me very happy but for millions of Americans it will be a terrible blow.

Not all Trump voters are "deplorables".



LOST said:

There are people who will vote for Trump because they believe that as a Republican he will be better than Hillary on taxes, regulation of business and/or Supreme Court appointments.

The election of Hillary Clinton as POTUS and her appointment of one or more Justices of the Supreme Court means the final defeat of any possibility of reversal of Roe v. Wade and, very likely the final defeat of "Right to Life" and an end to abortion as an issue. That will make me very happy but for millions of Americans it will be a terrible blow.

Not all Trump voters are "deplorables".

I agree with Lost about the consequences of this election for conservatives and why so many of them will still vote for Trump, despite how disgusting they find him.

But it isn't just that this election forecloses on the possibility of reversing Roe v. Wade, this election might foreclose on the possibility of any restrictions on abortion. Most readers here might oppose such restrictions in any case, but pro-lifers support things like mandatory waiting periods and parental notification for minors and such requirements may be declared invalid. It would be "abortion on demand."

"Closely Held" private companies, like in the Hobby Lobby case, would now be required to pay for forms of birth control that the owners consider abortion too.

I am less confident this could happen, but I've seen anti-Hyde Amendment claims like "a right without access isn't a right," so perhaps even the Hyde Amendment could be overturned.

And of course the issues aren't restricted to abortion either. A liberal Supreme Court majority would take absolutist interpretations of the Establishment Clause too. They would prohibit any public aid to sectarian schools and allow to stand (or require) restrictions on money going to sectarian institutions when they serve a public purpose. Religious institutions that refuse to recognize gay relationships would lose their tax exempt statuses (or be allowed to lose their tax statuses) and possibly even be prosecuted.

Hobby Lobby CEO David Green's editorial on why he was voting for Trump is worth reading in order to understand the other side.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/01/hobby-lobby-religious-freedom-liberty-obamacare-christian-david-green/89597214/



LOST said:

There are people who will vote for Trump because they believe that as a Republican he will be better than Hillary on taxes, regulation of business and/or Supreme Court appointments.

Hitler made the trains run on time. He was very popular with commuters.



Klinker said:



LOST said:

There are people who will vote for Trump because they believe that as a Republican he will be better than Hillary on taxes, regulation of business and/or Supreme Court appointments.

Hitler made the trains run on time. He was very popular with commuters.

That was said about Mussolini, not Hitler. Making trains run on time is very different from the issue of abortion or even economic issues of taxation and regulation.

Don't you know any people who think abortion is murder?

Don't you know any people who are in terrible financial Straits and believe Trump will make it netter and Hillary will make it worse ? I am not saying they are right, just that they are not evil.



LOST said:
Don't you know any people who are in terrible financial Straits and believe Trump will make it netter and Hillary will make it worse ? I am not saying they are right, just that they are not evil.

I know some people who were going to vote for Trump in June, largely on economic issues. They are now voting for Johnson as a protest vote. I don't know anyone who is currently voting for Trump. Perhaps I just hang our with better people than you do.



sac said:



fairplay

Nobody reading MOL is for Trump.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

In NJ, it is probably safe to vote third party vs Clinton if you don't want Trump, so I would say that good people can do that, but if enough Bernie bros or others do that, we could be in for a Brexit-like surprise.

Bernie bros will not vote for Trump.


The absurd thing about the abortion issue is that I haven't seen any evidence that Trump is pro life. Sure, he claims that he has had a late in life conversion to the pro life stance but his word is only as good as his junk bonds.


Trump is a political anomaly. He steam rolled over the Republican nominating process as if it were a walk in the

park. At that point one could reason he had some viability

Thank God for the media and the "leaks'. They have shown Hillary accepting a bouquet from a little girl in Bosnia after

she announced to the American public, with a little chuckle in her voice how she was forced to dodge mortar

and hostile fire at an airport arrival...................oh yeah she must have forgoten t the cameras were rolling

That simply shows how she is a liar.

But Trump by now has so repulsed his own party that many are calling for his with drawl

The man is reprehensible on so many levels..............I dont need to go on

I have been pushing the theme that the lesser of two evils is still evil

But somewhere you draw a line in the sand and say "no".............this is as unacceptable on every conceivable level

There is bad and there is just oh so bad.................and I can no longer fault any MOL'er who pulls the lever for her


I don't like the question. I try not to label anyone as a bad person. Acts and words and thoughts can be bad, but I don't think of deciding who is a bad person as a job I should have.

Except I do think Trump is a bad person. He doesn't seem to do anything that is good.

I don't think he could even make the trains run on time or do any equivalent thing.


I'm waiting to read that Putin has withdrawn his support of Trump, finding him despicable


Just announced that Senator John McCain has with drawn his support. His VP running mate has distanced him......

even his trophy wife has issued a statement expressing her displeasure

It is time he did the honorable thing..............but that is not in his nature.

He is Hubris personified . He is now dragging down the party simply to satisfy his enormous ego

My original prediction about a long night in November will not come true



Runner_Guy said:

But it isn't just that this election forecloses on the possibility of reversing Roe v. Wade, this election might foreclose on the possibility of any restrictions on abortion. Most readers here might oppose such restrictions in any case, but pro-lifers support things like mandatory waiting periods and parental notification for minors and such requirements may be declared invalid. It would be "abortion on demand."

There may be readers who oppose any restrictions in any case, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that even more find themselves able to object to parental notification and waiting periods without making a leap straight to "abortion on demand."

To the OP's question, I'll add a few: Can a good person rationalize or fool himself? Can a good person underestimate or overestimate? Can a good person do something you abhor for reasons you don't understand?



DaveSchmidt said:

To the OP's question, I'll add a few: Can a good person rationalize or fool himself? Can a good person underestimate or overestimate? Can a good person do something you abhor for reasons you don't understand?

Perhaps, but surely, even for the most ill informed voter, there comes a moment


I'm not sure about the degree of evil but Shakespeare may have explained the motivations of many.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/opinion/sunday/shakespeare-explains-the-2016-election.html

First, there are those who trust that everything will continue in a normal
way, that promises will be kept, alliances honored and core institutions
respected.

Second, there are those who cannot keep in focus that Richard is as bad as he
seems to be. They see perfectly well that he has done this or that
ghastly thing, but they have a strange penchant for forgetting, as if it
were hard work to remember just how awful he is. They are drawn
irresistibly to normalize what is not normal.

Third, there are those who feel frightened or impotent in the face of bullying
and the menace of violence. It helps that he is an immensely wealthy and privileged
man, accustomed to having his way, even when his way is in violation of
every moral norm.

Fourth, there are those who persuade themselves that they can take advantage of
Richard’s rise to power. They see perfectly well how destructive he is,
but they are confident that they will stay safely ahead of the tide of
evil or manage to seize some profit from it.
And to those of you think not voting for either is OK or good:
But the others assembled in the crowd, whether from indifference or from
fear or from the catastrophically mistaken belief that there is no real
difference between Richard and the alternatives, are silent, “like dumb
statues or breathing stones.”

Not speaking out — simply not voting — is enough to bring the monster to power.


BG9 said:

I'm not sure about the degree of evil but Shakespeare may have explained the motivations of many.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/opinion/sunday/shakespeare-explains-the-2016-election.html


First, there are those who trust that everything will continue in a normal
way, that promises will be kept, alliances honored and core institutions
respected.

Second, there are those who cannot keep in focus that Richard is as bad as he
seems to be. They see perfectly well that he has done this or that
ghastly thing, but they have a strange penchant for forgetting, as if it
were hard work to remember just how awful he is. They are drawn
irresistibly to normalize what is not normal.

Third, there are those who feel frightened or impotent in the face of bullying
and the menace of violence. It helps that he is an immensely wealthy and privileged
man, accustomed to having his way, even when his way is in violation of
every moral norm.

Fourth, there are those who persuade themselves that they can take advantage of
Richard’s rise to power. They see perfectly well how destructive he is,
but they are confident that they will stay safely ahead of the tide of
evil or manage to seize some profit from it.
And to those of you think not voting for either is OK or good:
But the others assembled in the crowd, whether from indifference or from
fear or from the catastrophically mistaken belief that there is no real
difference between Richard and the alternatives, are silent, “like dumb
statues or breathing stones.”

Not speaking out — simply not voting — is enough to bring the monster to power.

As a Bernicrat I can tell you, I understand that^^.




BG9 said:

I'm not sure about the degree of evil but Shakespeare may have explained the motivations of many.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/opinion/sunday/shakespeare-explains-the-2016-election.html

Richard was a punster. Everybody knows no one can resist a punster.



Klinker said:



LOST said:
Don't you know any people who are in terrible financial Straits and believe Trump will make it netter and Hillary will make it worse ? I am not saying they are right, just that they are not evil.

I know some people who were going to vote for Trump in June, largely on economic issues. They are now voting for Johnson as a protest vote. I don't know anyone who is currently voting for Trump. Perhaps I just hang our with better people than you do.

I doubt that. And it is a rather nasty comment.

For the record I am not sure anyone I know personally is voting for Trump. I have not met anyone who is voting for Johnson. I have one friend who has said he is voting for Jill Stein.

Trump began his campaign with a racist attack. He continued with religious bigotry. He advocated War Crimes and torture. Was anyone who planned to vote for him after that "a good person"? Have those of them who now say they've changed their minds because of vulgar statements he made 11 years ago suddenly become "good people"?


I sat near a very vocal Trump supporter at tonight's Richard Thompson show at SOPAC. She got all riled up during the introduction to his song Fergus Laing, about an un-named American real estate developer building golf courses in Scotland. She repeatedly shouted "Go, Trump" at the top of her lungs, then muttered to her escort "He's really pissing me off" while he tried to shush her. I wouldn't have expected a Trump supporter to be a fan of a British folk-rock guitar god. Maybe it was a blind date.


I think the mere support of Trump makes you not a "good" person - no matter a person's internal rationale for that support, the fact remains that they support a remarkably unqualified person for President. This is simply a bad thing to do. The person's support may be based on profound ignorance; a blindness to hypocrisy; economic frustration leading to a yearning for change, any change. These types of reasons make a person not "good" because they indicate decisions made by a flawed intellectual process.

Or, you can support Trump knowing how horrible he is, but believing that he would still be better than Hillary. This attitude is often based on believing 25 years of horsecrap about Hillary, or in thinking that a trivial incident like the Bosnia/sniper story is actually meaningful. This makes you a bit too suggestible to b.s.

Or you can support Trump simply because you think it's the best way to advance a conservative agenda. But even there you have to somehow convince yourself that this profoundly and probably pyschotic candidate would actually perform, in office, in a competent and acceptable manner. Except there's just about nothing in Trump's past that would even mildly suggest he is able to do this. So people who take this tack are being willfully blind to enormous amounts of evidence suggesting he would simply be a terrible, incompetent President.

No, doesn't matter how you slice it. At this point in the campaign especially, support for Trump makes you a bad person. Period. Whatever intellectual facade is used to justify that support is corrupt - kind of by definition, That's how uniquely bad Trump is.



drummerboy said:

I think the mere support of Trump makes you not a "good" person - no matter a person's internal rationale for that support, the fact remains that they support a remarkably unqualified person for President. This is simply a bad thing to do. The person's support may be based on profound ignorance; a blindness to hypocrisy; economic frustration leading to a yearning for change, any change. These types of reasons make a person not "good" because they indicate decisions made by a flawed intellectual process.

Or, you can support Trump knowing how horrible he is, but believing that he would still be better than Hillary. This attitude is often based on believing 25 years of horsecrap about Hillary, or in thinking that a trivial incident like the Bosnia/sniper story is actually meaningful. This makes you a bit too suggestible to b.s.

Or you can support Trump simply because you think it's the best way to advance a conservative agenda. But even there you have to somehow convince yourself that this profoundly and probably pyschotic candidate would actually perform, in office, in a competent and acceptable manner. Except there's just about nothing in Trump's past that would even mildly suggest he is able to do this. So people who take this tack are being willfully blind to enormous amounts of evidence suggesting he would simply be a terrible, incompetent President.

No, doesn't matter how you slice it. At this point in the campaign especially, support for Trump makes you a bad person. Period. Whatever intellectual facade is used to justify that support is corrupt - kind of by definition, That's how uniquely bad Trump is.

Bosnia/Sniper story actually meaningful?....................How would you like your lies.........buried in memos

and such..............or photographed for the whole world to see. You bet your sweet bippy that the incident

was meaningful and any objective person can draw a conclusion about her veracity and acting ability based on

what they see with their own eyes


I interviewed a woman last week who lives in Bucks County, PA. She asked was I going to watch the debates next week and I told her that I was; I asked was she? She said she was but she feels like the odd duck out in her area because she is for HRC and everyone surrounding her is for Trump. She said you can't walk a mile and not see Trump signs everywhere. She said a relative told her that the reason she has been out of work was because of "Obamacare." I mean, how can rationale people have a conversation with anyone who thinks this way?



kibbegirl said:

She said a relative told her that the reason she has been out of work was because of "Obamacare." I mean, how can rationale people have a conversation with anyone who thinks this way?

If you are trying to win an election you have to try to convert people to your point of view. You try to get her to explain why she thinks that way and counter her arguments with facts. If she won't listen to reason then you end the conversation.

Here on MOL I have conversations with people whose ideas seem ridiculous to me.

How do we define a "good person"? To me Trump is a dangerous racist. I've been avidly following politics almost all my life. Yet I find it difficult to categorize someone as a good or bad person based on whom they vote for.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Latest Jobs

Employment Wanted

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertisement

Advertise here!