5 ms·

How is it knee-jerk and shallow? If you voted for Trump you either directly support Trump's social policies or you don't think they were abhorrent enough to not

How is it knee-jerk and shallow? If you voted for Trump you either directly support Trump's social policies or you don't think they were abhorrent enough to not vote for him.

staticelf 9y ago
Or maybe that the democratic economical policies were abhorrent enough to vote for Trump, despite his social policies?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
peoplewindow 9y ago
And everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton supported starting a war with Russia, a nuclear power? No? But that was her policy - the "no fly zone" that could only be implemented by shooting down Russian jets, or perhaps people have forgotten. In contrast Trump wanted to make peace with Russia. So maybe I can assume anyone who didn't vote Trump has a racist hatred of Russians.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
lkbm 9y ago
I'm not pro-life, but I feel like if I thought abortion was actually murder of babies, I think I'd probably hold my nose and vote for whoever had the best chance of ending that practice. (Though, I also believe that would be Clinton--banning abortion is less viable than proving effective sex ed, and probably not hugely more effective.) Similarly, if I had spent much time in Libya, I might consider holding my nose and voting for the candidate who didn't work hard to create that situation. (Again, I will grant that situation was going wrong without our involvement, but we're good at making things worse.) I voted for Clinton because I agree with most of her policies, and think she's immensely qualified, but I keep hearing "if you voted for Trump, that means you didn't consider his statements disqualifying" But it doesn't--it could just mean you think the other candidate had stuff that was more disqualifying. It's not absurd to consider bombing people worse than saying sexist and racist shit. It seems like a lot of Trump voters thought Trump's worst aspects were "just talk". There wasn't an option for "Clinton without the interventionism" on the ballot. Similarly, there's no "Trump without the sexism/racism" option. I will grant that most of them didn't have "Clinton bombed Libya" as their justification for their Trump vote. Abortion, though, I think is a real reason for a lot of religious people. I don't think my vote for Clinton should be taken to mean I'm okay with the positions she pushed for in North Africa and the Middle East, and that means also not declaring Trump voters were necessarily okay with his crap either.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  > Similarly, if I had spent much time in Libya, I might consider holding my nose and voting for the candidate who didn't work hard to create that situation. I have a friend who grew up in a country that was the subject of a rather messy US intervention back when he lived there. He's socially liberal on almost every level, but voted without hesitation for Trump. His explicit reasoning was that he found Trump less likely to start lasting, Iraq/Libya style interventions, and believed the death toll of such an action would outweigh literally everything else. There wasn't really much to argue there. It's not as though he considered Trump's comments acceptable, it's not like he didn't understand the importance of protections for trans people, he just saw everything else as smaller than tens (or hundreds) of thousands dead and millions displaced. I couldn't really disagree; honestly I'm frightened by the indifference of much of the left to our trail of destruction abroad. The only question dividing our votes was what decisions we expected Trump and Clinton to make on foreign wars. It really was the biggest issue going for both of us.
- plandis 9y ago
  > But it doesn't--it could just mean you think the other candidate had stuff that was more disqualifying. That seems like a false dichotomy. There were third party candidates. Plus, you can always choose not to vote.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    There was no pro-life candidate on the ballot that wasn't Trump.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - ubertaco 9y ago
      Evan McMullin. I know this, because I voted for him.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
ythn 9y ago
I voted for Trump to raise the chances of getting a conservative supreme court justice assigned. They have more power than Trump anyway since they are in for life. Trump will be out in 3 years, but if we had voted Hillary we would have certainly gotten a liberal supreme court justice.

How is it knee-jerk and shallow? If you voted for Trump you either directly support Trump's social policies or you don't think they were abhorrent enough to not vote for him.

staticelf 9y ago

Or maybe that the democratic economical policies were abhorrent enough to vote for Trump, despite his social policies?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

peoplewindow 9y ago

And everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton supported starting a war with Russia, a nuclear power? No? But that was her policy - the "no fly zone" that could only be implemented by shooting down Russian jets, or perhaps people have forgotten. In contrast Trump wanted to make peace with Russia. So maybe I can assume anyone who didn't vote Trump has a racist hatred of Russians.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

lkbm 9y ago

I'm not pro-life, but I feel like if I thought abortion was actually murder of babies, I think I'd probably hold my nose and vote for whoever had the best chance of ending that practice. (Though, I also believe that would be Clinton--banning abortion is less viable than proving effective sex ed, and probably not hugely more effective.) Similarly, if I had spent much time in Libya, I might consider holding my nose and voting for the candidate who didn't work hard to create that situation. (Again, I will grant that situation was going wrong without our involvement, but we're good at making things worse.) I voted for Clinton because I agree with most of her policies, and think she's immensely qualified, but I keep hearing "if you voted for Trump, that means you didn't consider his statements disqualifying" But it doesn't--it could just mean you think the other candidate had stuff that was more disqualifying. It's not absurd to consider bombing people worse than saying sexist and racist shit. It seems like a lot of Trump voters thought Trump's worst aspects were "just talk". There wasn't an option for "Clinton without the interventionism" on the ballot. Similarly, there's no "Trump without the sexism/racism" option. I will grant that most of them didn't have "Clinton bombed Libya" as their justification for their Trump vote. Abortion, though, I think is a real reason for a lot of religious people. I don't think my vote for Clinton should be taken to mean I'm okay with the positions she pushed for in North Africa and the Middle East, and that means also not declaring Trump voters were necessarily okay with his crap either.

Bartweiss 9y ago
> Similarly, if I had spent much time in Libya, I might consider holding my nose and voting for the candidate who didn't work hard to create that situation. I have a friend who grew up in a country that was the subject of a rather messy US intervention back when he lived there. He's socially liberal on almost every level, but voted without hesitation for Trump. His explicit reasoning was that he found Trump less likely to start lasting, Iraq/Libya style interventions, and believed the death toll of such an action would outweigh literally everything else. There wasn't really much to argue there. It's not as though he considered Trump's comments acceptable, it's not like he didn't understand the importance of protections for trans people, he just saw everything else as smaller than tens (or hundreds) of thousands dead and millions displaced. I couldn't really disagree; honestly I'm frightened by the indifference of much of the left to our trail of destruction abroad. The only question dividing our votes was what decisions we expected Trump and Clinton to make on foreign wars. It really was the biggest issue going for both of us.
plandis 9y ago
> But it doesn't--it could just mean you think the other candidate had stuff that was more disqualifying. That seems like a false dichotomy. There were third party candidates. Plus, you can always choose not to vote.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  There was no pro-life candidate on the ballot that wasn't Trump.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ubertaco 9y ago
    Evan McMullin. I know this, because I voted for him.
    - humanrebar 9y ago

ythn 9y ago

I voted for Trump to raise the chances of getting a conservative supreme court justice assigned. They have more power than Trump anyway since they are in for life. Trump will be out in 3 years, but if we had voted Hillary we would have certainly gotten a liberal supreme court justice.