Voting your moral values.

[MoreCoffee]

Accepting the unproven propaganda put out by the pre-election Republican/Donald-trump campaign isn't exactly unbiased.

 

[tango]

In the USA 71% of Evangelical Christians - a group usually associated with "moral values" in their voting - voted for Donald Trump. A man divorced and remarried several times, alleged to have made unwelcome and improper sexual advances to numerous women, who concealed his tax status both prior to the election and after it, and who is alleged to have had ties to foreign powers (specifically Russia) in the foreign powers' efforts to influence the USA presidential and congressional elections in November 2016. I am guessing the desire for a voice in the corridors of power in the USA trumped moral values for those voters. Which is odd when one considers that the moral values are allegedly Christian values which form a fundamental part of religious identity for Evangelical Christians in the USA.

I think there were two key factors at play.

The so-called "religious right", who sometimes seem to be named because they are always religious and always right (at least in their own minds) have a tendency to vote Republican without necessarily thinking much about it. The kind of people who, if faced with a choice between Jesus Christ (D) and Satan (R) would still vote for Satan because in their minds voting Republican is the Christian thing to do.

Another factor is probably a sense that the Christian faith is under attack from those within government. Without a doubt some of this perception is fanciful and some of it is little more than a generic ruling that an employer cannot impose their beliefs upon their staff (to give an example, when Christian business owners were afraid that the ACA meant they would have to fund insurance policies that funded abortions nobody seemed to consider the implications of an exemption if, for instance, you needed a blood transfusion but couldn't have one because your boss was a Jehovah's witness and objected to that sort of thing). On the other hand matters like the issue of whether a Christian baker should be legally mandated to make a cake for a gay wedding are very polarising and, gay issue aside, look like a situation where the government will step in to protect one group who could easily go elsewhere, at the expense of another group.

Finally, there's little point pretending Hillary Clinton was a saint. When even Democrat voters who bothered to turn out and vote for her still said they felt contaminated after doing so, and/or that they only did so to try and keep Trump out of office, it's not as if the country elected Trump in preference to other fine, upstanding candidates. It's clear Trump is no choirboy but the way the stench of corruption seems to cling to Hillary Clinton whatever she does, and large parts of her own party didn't want her as their candidate, it's not really surprising she didn't do very well.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think there were two key factors at play.

The so-called "religious right", who sometimes seem to be named because they are always religious and always right (at least in their own minds) have a tendency to vote Republican without necessarily thinking much about it. The kind of people who, if faced with a choice between Jesus Christ (D) and Satan (R) would still vote for Satan because in their minds voting Republican is the Christian thing to do.

Another factor is probably a sense that the Christian faith is under attack from those within government. Without a doubt some of this perception is fanciful and some of it is little more than a generic ruling that an employer cannot impose their beliefs upon their staff (to give an example, when Christian business owners were afraid that the ACA meant they would have to fund insurance policies that funded abortions nobody seemed to consider the implications of an exemption if, for instance, you needed a blood transfusion but couldn't have one because your boss was a Jehovah's witness and objected to that sort of thing). On the other hand matters like the issue of whether a Christian baker should be legally mandated to make a cake for a gay wedding are very polarising and, gay issue aside, look like a situation where the government will step in to protect one group who could easily go elsewhere, at the expense of another group.

Finally, there's little point pretending Hillary Clinton was a saint. When even Democrat voters who bothered to turn out and vote for her still said they felt contaminated after doing so, and/or that they only did so to try and keep Trump out of office, it's not as if the country elected Trump in preference to other fine, upstanding candidates. It's clear Trump is no choirboy but the way the stench of corruption seems to cling to Hillary Clinton whatever she does, and large parts of her own party didn't want her as their candidate, it's not really surprising she didn't do very well.

Hillary Clinton was not the only Candidate on the ballot besides Donald.

 

[Josiah]

Two bad candidates from two parties but what about the Greens, independents, Libertarians, and whoever else ran? Surely at least one was better from a "moral values" point of view.

You seem wholly ignorant about the election process in the USA. It's okay, you aren't a citizen here and none of this is of any concern of yours, but you do seem entirely unaware.

To the topic: I cannot be someone different in the voting booth than I am in the pew (such would be a radical hypocrite). And of course, I didn't vote for ANYONE in the last presidental election of the USA. But on the other hand, functionally, if one IS going to vote, it's between the top two candidates and IS very often a case of "the lesser of the two evils." Perhaps rarely has that been more than case than in 2016. BTW, MoreCoffee, you have no reason whatsoever to know this or give a rip about this, but the other candidates running (Green, Peace, etc.) were no saints or obvious choices either - and everyone (including them) knew that a vote for them was a "throw away" vote, even in maybe the worse case of "two BAD choices" none of them got a single electorial vote - not one. You MAY perhaps not like how things work in the USA but then my advise would be don't move here (work instead to address the problems in YOUR chosen country?).


My half cent


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

You seem wholly ignorant about the election process in the USA....

Nope. You got that wrong.

 

[Imalive]

A guy from church once went to America a few years and he said in the States I learned that you can best vote for a big party, otherwise you throw away your vote. So we were dumb to vote for our tiny perfect christian party that stands for everything you believe, no we had to vote for the big 'christian' party and not throw away our vote. Then we were really dumb cause we listened to him and those jerks made a mess of it, I was like: why on earth did I throw away my vote and give it to this party? Never again. But here they reign together, it's different. I'm afraid I'd have voted for Trump too just to get Hillary out. Glad I didnt have to vote there.

 

[MennoSota]

In the US we vote for someone who will represent our values and beliefs. This is done at all levels from President down to school boards.
In the case of our executive office of President there are multiple people to choose from. If the US had a proportional system of winner there would be many viable candidates. However, the US has a winner-takes-all system, with a unique electoral college system thrown in to muddy it up.
In a winner-takes-all format you end up with two viable parties and the rest become irrelevant.
In the last election cycle the two elite parties provided me with no candidate that represented my values and beliefs. Therefore my conscience would not allow me to vote for either candidate. I knew my vote would be of no consequence to the outcome, but my conscience is clear. Our President does not represent my moral views or ideology. The rest of the people made their choice. I simply pray for the peace of the city.

 

[MoreCoffee]

A guy from church once went to America a few years and he said in the States I learned that you can best vote for a big party, otherwise you throw away your vote. So we were dumb to vote for our tiny perfect christian party that stands for everything you believe, no we had to vote for the big 'christian' party and not throw away our vote. Then we were really dumb cause we listened to him and those jerks made a mess of it, I was like: why on earth did I throw away my vote and give it to this party? Never again. But here they reign together, it's different. I'm afraid I'd have voted for Trump too just to get Hillary out. Glad I didnt have to vote there.

I would not have voted for Donald. I might have voted for Hillary but probably wouldn't have. Most likely I would have voted for somebody not from the Democrats or the Republicans.

 

[Stravinsk]

In the USA 71% of Evangelical Christians - a group usually associated with "moral values" in their voting - voted for Donald Trump. A man divorced and remarried several times, alleged to have made unwelcome and improper sexual advances to numerous women, who concealed his tax status both prior to the election and after it, and who is alleged to have had ties to foreign powers (specifically Russia) in the foreign powers' efforts to influence the USA presidential and congressional elections in November 2016. I am guessing the desire for a voice in the corridors of power in the USA trumped moral values for those voters. Which is odd when one considers that the moral values are allegedly Christian values which form a fundamental part of religious identity for Evangelical Christians in the USA.

Most US citizens I've heard from didn't think much of either major candidate from a moral perspective. I didn't.

A note on your quote. Alleged does not equal "guilty of", nor does it carry any kind of weight in my mind. People allege things all the time, and this is national politics.

Even if I lived in the USA (I'm a US citizen) I would not bother to vote. It's been a horse and pony show for a very long time. The shots (the important ones) are mostly called by big financial players. Presidents are there to give the people the illusion of power and choice.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

You seem wholly ignorant about the election process in the USA. It's okay, you aren't a citizen here and none of this is of any concern of yours, but you do seem entirely unaware.

To the topic: I cannot be someone different in the voting booth than I am in the pew (such would be a radical hypocrite). And of course, I didn't vote for ANYONE in the last presidental election of the USA. But on the other hand, functionally, if one IS going to vote, it's between the top two candidates and IS very often a case of "the lesser of the two evils." Perhaps rarely has that been more than case than in 2016. BTW, MoreCoffee, you have no reason whatsoever to know this or give a rip about this, but the other candidates running (Green, Peace, etc.) were no saints or obvious choices either - and everyone (including them) knew that a vote for them was a "throw away" vote, even in maybe the worse case of "two BAD choices" none of them got a single electorial vote - not one. You MAY perhaps not like how things work in the USA but then my advise would be don't move here (work instead to address the problems in YOUR chosen country?).


My half cent


- Josiah

I have to agree with that. At the same time, I have to point out that this country was meant to be inclusive of all kinds of people from all walks of life. Of course I'll vote for a pro- life candidate, but I'll equally favor somebody who wants to make positive steps in cleaning up our environment. National Security and people following immigration laws that a host country sets up are important things and should be respected. Did I vote for Trump? Yes, yes I did. I know, shame on me, but at least Hillary didn't get in. The Butcher of Benghazi ( Clinton) was an unacceptable alternative. I didn't think much of Trump either ( but at least he wasn't Jill Stein) then and I think even less of him now. In point of fact, I think the Electoral College saved us because in point of fact, most of the American population does live in large coastal cities that are Democratic by tradition.

Clinton would have wiped the floor with Trump if the populist vote actually determined who gets elected in the United States. Trump and Clinton both were fairly insulting about the other's teams base voting population. As I get to pray in Church and follow my own Confessional Lutheranism, I'd be hard put not to stand up for the right of the other fellow to pray ( or not) as he or she saw fit ( in all bounds of legality, of course). There is a serious racial divide in the US and while the Obama administration did expose that ( and political opportunists made it worse), the Trump administration is simply riding it, not trying to ease tensions ( that would actually be part of the administration's mandate, I'd think, to ease racial tensions in one's country) and that is one reason for my disgust for the regime now.

 

[NewCreation435]

You seem wholly ignorant about the election process in the USA. It's okay, you aren't a citizen here and none of this is of any concern of yours, but you do seem entirely unaware.

To the topic: I cannot be someone different in the voting booth than I am in the pew (such would be a radical hypocrite). And of course, I didn't vote for ANYONE in the last presidental election of the USA. But on the other hand, functionally, if one IS going to vote, it's between the top two candidates and IS very often a case of "the lesser of the two evils." Perhaps rarely has that been more than case than in 2016. BTW, MoreCoffee, you have no reason whatsoever to know this or give a rip about this, but the other candidates running (Green, Peace, etc.) were no saints or obvious choices either - and everyone (including them) knew that a vote for them was a "throw away" vote, even in maybe the worse case of "two BAD choices" none of them got a single electorial vote - not one. You MAY perhaps not like how things work in the USA but then my advise would be don't move here (work instead to address the problems in YOUR chosen country?).


My half cent


- Josiah

I guess I threw away my vote then because I didn't think Hilary or Trump earned or deserved my vote nor had the moral integrity needed to be President.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I would not have voted for Donald. I might have voted for Hillary but probably wouldn't have. Most likely I would have voted for somebody not from the Democrats or the Republicans.

In the vein of "throwing one's vote away", I would have sat out the presidential race last time around, and merely cast my vote for congressional, state, and local matters. Sitting out the vote (imo) is voting one's conscience. If I was a Democrat, by that reasoning, I would have "thrown away" a vote and given it to Donald. If I was a "Republican", I would have "thrown away" a vote and given it to Hillary. You see how little sense the argument makes. Essentially, I would have benefited both.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In the vein of "throwing one's vote away", I would have sat out the presidential race last time around, and merely cast my vote for congressional, state, and local matters. Sitting out the vote (imo) is voting one's conscience. If I was a Democrat, by that reasoning, I would have "thrown away" a vote and given it to Donald. If I was a "Republican", I would have "thrown away" a vote and given it to Hillary. You see how little sense the argument makes. Essentially, I would have benefited both.

You are right, the expression "throw away your vote" means "did not vote for my candidate" whoever says it. The expression is used as a means of mustering as many votes for one's favoured candidate as possible.

 

[Josiah]

You are right, the expression "throw away your vote" means "did not vote for my candidate" whoever says it. The expression is used as a means of mustering as many votes for one's favoured candidate as possible.

I know you are unaware of the election process in the USA (it's OK, you are not a citizen or resident of the USA so it doesn't matter at all that you are ignorant). We elect our president BY STATE. Generally, the winner of each STATE gets the electors of that STATE. You may not like that, but it matters not a bit since you are not a citizen or resident of the USA (and your country doesn't elect its Queen or PM by general vote of the people - by state or otherwise).

EVEN if there was a candidate who perfectly reflected all the views, ethics and philosophies of a voter (and it would be profoundly rare for that to be the case), such a candidate must WIN many states in order to be a viable choice. Even getting a plurality of the popular vote nationally doesn't not make for a viable candidate since we don't elect our president by national plurality of vote (just as Australia doesn't choose its Queen or PM that way). If he can't WIN enough states, he doesn't win. True, Mickey Mouse gets quite a few votes in every presidental election... but voting for him IS 'throwing away your vote' since he's not going to win, there is simply no path to victory (and I'm sure Mickey knows that).

Yes, of course, one might vote for Jesus (it's permitted to write in a name) perhaps just to protest the choices that exist.... and/or to make a statement about one's values.... and that's allowed and a few do that ... but it IS meaningless to the process. There will still be a winner in the state (unlikely to be Mickey or Jesus or you) and that one will likely get all the electoral votes of that state. Again, you - as an Australian - may not "like" this arrangement but it matters not at all, not a bit, because you don't live here (worry about your own country's inability to choose your Queen and PM by popular vote of all).

I DO think in 2016, Republicans could have steered all this toward a more acceptable candidate than Trump (I was rooting for Rubio) but that didn't happen, we ended up with Trump. And the Dems chose Clinton. It's how it works here. Again, you may not like how things work in this matter in the USA but it matters not a bit, not at all, because you aren't a citizen of the USA (focus on the reality that Australians cannot choose their Queen or PM by national popular vote), we ended up with Trump and Clinton. ONE of those would win (and that is what happened - no "third party" candidate won even one electoral vote). Again, you may not like this but that doesn't matter (you have your own Country to focus on).



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

I know about the electoral college and the various state votes for college representatives and the habit of most states to do an all or nothing selection of college members and how utterly stupid the whole system is :smirk:

 

[Josiah]

how utterly stupid the whole system is

Well, frankly, my friend, the opinion of an Australian in this matter is irrelevant. I find Australia's system of choosing their Queen to be utterly stupid - but that's irrelevant since I'm not Australian. Frankly, I'm puzzled why you care SO very, very, very much about how the USA has chosen our President for over 200 years (so upset that it's not by popular plurality vote of all USA citizens) but entirely unconcerned about how Australians choose their Queen (or even PM) which of course is also not by popular plurality vote of all the citizens of that country; I sense of a bit of Jesus' "log/speck" point in your constant rant about this.



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It is a very stupid system.

:smirk:

 

[Albion]

Josiah, some people make posts in order to 'yank the chain' of other people and to see if it provokes them rather than to add something to the discussion.

 

[Stravinsk]

Yank ing chains? Yanking Yank chains? Oh dear.

Cheesy patriot song, save us all!

 

[MoreCoffee]

I get a chuckle out of Albion protecting Josiah from dangerous old me

:smirk: