Should you vote for your party’s candidate even if he is reprehensible?

[blastula]

I don’t like Roy Moore and I think he’ll be a terrible senator, but I don’t think the accusations against him are good reasons not to vote for him in the general election. Making sure an asshole doesn’t get elected pales in comparison to what policy they are going to enact. If you are against abortion and like theocracy, then it makes sense to vote for him.

It is the same with Scott DesJarlais who tried to pressure his mistress/patient into having an abortion and whose own wife had two abortions. Regardless of what he does in his personal life, he is still going to legislate as a pro-lifer so it is not hypocritical for pro-life voters to vote for him.

Let’s say that I got to be the sole person who got to decide whether Hillary or Trump would become President in 2016. Let’s also say that the “grab them by the pussy tape” never came out, but it did come out that Hillary finger banged children. I’d would still pick Hillary, because the damage of having Trump President is so much greater than having a child molester in office.

Am I wrong in this? Is there anyone here who voted for Hillary who would not pick Hillary under this scenario?

I wouldn't vote for Clinton in that case. I'd rather she be in jail. If this did happen, Dems should replace her as a candidate if enough time. If not enough time and she wins, she should resign. If she loses because of lost votes, too bad.

Is there no line too far for you?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I am basically advocating for doing what causes less harm.

As third party advocates have been pointing out for years, the lesser evil is still evil. It is sad when good is always considered an unrealistic choice.

The problem in the US is that minority party has very little power. If you always vote third party or sit out, you remain a tool of the dominant party. You allow them to maintain power.

Funny, that's how I feel about voting for a dominant party that doesn't offer what you believe in.

 

[Underseer]

Conservolibertarians certainly would. Just look at Roy Moore!

 

[Harry Bosch]

The problem in the US is that minority party has very little power. If you always vote third party or sit out, you remain a tool of the dominant party. You allow them to maintain power.

Funny, that's how I feel about voting for a dominant party that doesn't offer what you believe in.

The difference here is that you tend to be more republican than democratic. I'm not sure if you even know this about yourself?!! I don't think that you like Trump all that much. But you hate HRC far more than Trump.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Conservolibertarians certainly would. Just look at Roy Moore!

Your conservative endorsement of him won't convince libertarians to support him.

 

[sharon45]

Conservolibertarians certainly would. Just look at Roy Moore!

Moore ironically benefited from this great wave of #MeToo stories.

 

[Underseer]

So you don't think pedophilia is a good reason to not vote for a candidate?

Thanks for letting us all know that you support pedophilia.

1. fourteen year olds most certainly do not fall under the term "pedophilia"

Now you're splitting hairs over the definition of pedophilia? Good grief. Is a 14 year old a legal adult or not?

2. that is literally the opposite of what they just said.

Yes, and the KKK says that they are definitely not racist. That's irrelevant. If someone makes lame excuses for pedophilia or for electing a pedophile to the Senate, then what conclusion are we to draw?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Conservolibertarians certainly would. Just look at Roy Moore!

He got a conservative vote, he did not get any libertarian vote. You wish libertarians would vote for your conservative Republicans, but saying it doesn't make it so.

Quit telling people that libertarians are your allies. We don't like the corporatist theocrats you support.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The problem in the US is that minority party has very little power. If you always vote third party or sit out, you remain a tool of the dominant party. You allow them to maintain power.

Funny, that's how I feel about voting for a dominant party that doesn't offer what you believe in.

The difference here is that you tend to be more republican than democratic.

Except for the fact that I don't, that opinion must be true because you say so.

I'm not sure if you even know this about yourself?!!

It's hard to know something that's false, unless you are underseer trying to get libertarians to vote for his corporatist theocrat Republicans.

I don't think that you like Trump all that much. But you hate HRC far more than Trump.

Those are individuals. I also like Bernie more than Trump, which means I must tend to be more democratic than republican. I'm not sure you even understand the argument you are making.

 

[laughing dog]

He got a conservative vote, he did not get any libertarian vote.

On what factual basis do you make that claim that no libertarians voted for Roy Moore?

 

[poster]

I don’t like Roy Moore and I think he’ll be a terrible senator, but I don’t think the accusations against him are good reasons not to vote for him in the general election. Making sure an asshole doesn’t get elected pales in comparison to what policy they are going to enact. If you are against abortion and like theocracy, then it makes sense to vote for him.

It is the same with Scott DesJarlais who tried to pressure his mistress/patient into having an abortion and whose own wife had two abortions. Regardless of what he does in his personal life, he is still going to legislate as a pro-lifer so it is not hypocritical for pro-life voters to vote for him.

Let’s say that I got to be the sole person who got to decide whether Hillary or Trump would become President in 2016. Let’s also say that the “grab them by the pussy tape” never came out, but it did come out that Hillary finger banged children. I’d would still pick Hillary, because the damage of having Trump President is so much greater than having a child molester in office.

Am I wrong in this? Is there anyone here who voted for Hillary who would not pick Hillary under this scenario?

Policy is not the only thing one advocates with their vote, or emploment in general for that matter.

There is a certain amount of sophistication, respect, honesty, integrity and what have you as to whether or not an individual (or group) should have access to the rewards of the community such as success either monetarily or otherwise. There are plenty of other individuals who would advance whatever cause one might support who could qualify as I've outlined here.

If it is name recognition that you'd have in mind then all I can say is that if a pedophile, or bigot, or racist or misogynist is where name recognition comes in, then one needs to seriously re-examine their own state of mind and place within the community.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don’t like Roy Moore and I think he’ll be a terrible senator, but I don’t think the accusations against him are good reasons not to vote for him in the general election. Making sure an asshole doesn’t get elected pales in comparison to what policy they are going to enact. If you are against abortion and like theocracy, then it makes sense to vote for him.

It is the same with Scott DesJarlais who tried to pressure his mistress/patient into having an abortion and whose own wife had two abortions. Regardless of what he does in his personal life, he is still going to legislate as a pro-lifer so it is not hypocritical for pro-life voters to vote for him.

Let’s say that I got to be the sole person who got to decide whether Hillary or Trump would become President in 2016. Let’s also say that the “grab them by the pussy tape” never came out, but it did come out that Hillary finger banged children. I’d would still pick Hillary, because the damage of having Trump President is so much greater than having a child molester in office.

Am I wrong in this? Is there anyone here who voted for Hillary who would not pick Hillary under this scenario?

Policy is not the only thing one advocates with their vote, or emploment in general for that matter.

There is a certain amount of sophistication, respect, honesty, integrity and what have you as to whether or not an individual (or group) should have access to the rewards of the community such as success either monetarily or otherwise. There are plenty of other individuals who would advance whatever cause one might support who could qualify as I've outlined here.

If it is name recognition that you'd have in mind then all I can say is that if a pedophile, or bigot, or racist or misogynist is where name recognition comes in, then one needs to seriously re-examine their own state of mind and place within the community.

I don't think that it's simply name recognition. The Roy Moore election proved that there are just a lot of religious people who put the abortion issue above everything else.

 

[poster]

I don’t like Roy Moore and I think he’ll be a terrible senator, but I don’t think the accusations against him are good reasons not to vote for him in the general election. Making sure an asshole doesn’t get elected pales in comparison to what policy they are going to enact. If you are against abortion and like theocracy, then it makes sense to vote for him.

It is the same with Scott DesJarlais who tried to pressure his mistress/patient into having an abortion and whose own wife had two abortions. Regardless of what he does in his personal life, he is still going to legislate as a pro-lifer so it is not hypocritical for pro-life voters to vote for him.

Let’s say that I got to be the sole person who got to decide whether Hillary or Trump would become President in 2016. Let’s also say that the “grab them by the pussy tape” never came out, but it did come out that Hillary finger banged children. I’d would still pick Hillary, because the damage of having Trump President is so much greater than having a child molester in office.

Am I wrong in this? Is there anyone here who voted for Hillary who would not pick Hillary under this scenario?

Policy is not the only thing one advocates with their vote, or emploment in general for that matter.

There is a certain amount of sophistication, respect, honesty, integrity and what have you as to whether or not an individual (or group) should have access to the rewards of the community such as success either monetarily or otherwise. There are plenty of other individuals who would advance whatever cause one might support who could qualify as I've outlined here.

If it is name recognition that you'd have in mind then all I can say is that if a pedophile, or bigot, or racist or misogynist is where name recognition comes in, then one needs to seriously re-examine their own state of mind and place within the community.

I don't think that it's simply name recognition. The Roy Moore election proved that there are just a lot of religious people who put the abortion issue above everything else.

Again, there are more than enough other people willing and able to carry that cross. Roy Moore got the nod for being the ten commandment's judge. However, further examination of the good judges background revealed his disgusting habits, but he was encouraged to remain in the race due to his reputation as it was before the latter revelations.

Simply a piss poor reason to allow someone access to the rewards of success.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, if a candidate who espouses policies you approve of is known to keep domestic slaves, then it is ok to vote for them?

If the net harm they will do in office (potentially to billions of people) is greater than the harm they are doing to those few personal domestic slaves, then yes, it would be both the rational and moral thing to still vote for them.

Likewise, if Franken was likely to be replaced by a Republican, it would have been immoral for him to resign and for fellow Dems to pressure him to do so.

 

[ronburgundy]

I am basically advocating for doing what causes less harm.

As third party advocates have been pointing out for years, the lesser evil is still evil. It is sad when good is always considered an unrealistic choice.

If "good" can actually win, then great. If not, then not voting for the lesser evil means that you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't think that it's simply name recognition. The Roy Moore election proved that there are just a lot of religious people who put the abortion issue above everything else.

Again, there are more than enough other people willing and able to carry that cross. Roy Moore got the nod for being the ten commandment's judge. However, further examination of the good judges background revealed his disgusting habits, but he was encouraged to remain in the race due to his reputation as it was before the latter revelations.

Simply a piss poor reason to allow someone access to the rewards of success.

Deciding who should get "the rewards for success" is a piss poor basis for how one should vote. The impact of the election outcome on society should be the basis of one's vote. Whether a single person gets an unjust reward is rather meaningless by comparison.

The fact there are others in society willing to advance similar policies is also usually irrelevant during any election, because those other people are not on the ballot. Thus, not voting for the personally reprehensible candidate with your policies means putting someone in office that will work against those policies.

The OP is correct. "Character" should only come into consideration in determining what policies the candidate is likely to enact.

 

[poster]

I don't think that it's simply name recognition. The Roy Moore election proved that there are just a lot of religious people who put the abortion issue above everything else.

Again, there are more than enough other people willing and able to carry that cross. Roy Moore got the nod for being the ten commandment's judge. However, further examination of the good judges background revealed his disgusting habits, but he was encouraged to remain in the race due to his reputation as it was before the latter revelations.

Simply a piss poor reason to allow someone access to the rewards of success.

because those other people are not on the ballot.

So, put them on the ballot.

 

[ronburgundy]

because those other people are not on the ballot.

So, put them on the ballot.

Sure, as soon as I get magic wand, I will do that. In the meantime, I'll act rationally and morally and use the powers that I actually possess to impact what outcomes I can.

Not to mention, you often will have no idea if those other people have their own character issues until after they are in office or are your only choice on the ballot that won't harm the far more impactful policies.

 

[poster]

because those other people are not on the ballot.

So, put them on the ballot.

Sure, as soon as I get magic wand, I will do that. In the meantime, I'll act rationally and morally and use the powers that I actually possess to impact what outcomes I can.

IOW, you'll just dance to the music that's played. Good for you! Enjoy! At least you'll have plenty of company - which I expect it to be about anyway.

It's been fun!

 

[ronburgundy]

Sure, as soon as I get magic wand, I will do that. In the meantime, I'll act rationally and morally and use the powers that I actually possess to impact what outcomes I can.

IOW, you'll just dance to the music that's played. Good for you! Enjoy! At least you'll have plenty of company - which I expect it to be about anyway.

It's been fun!

No, I just won't act like moronic adolescent immersed in ignorant denial of reality, who winds up increasing the evil in the world by refusing to fight it in ways that are actually feasible (e.g., like every liberal who didn't vote for Hillary once the only viable option was her or Trump).