To any Republicans not supporting Trump in the primaries...

#277
#277
bamawriter said:
The lesser evil is still evil. I'd rather not choose evil.

I can't do anything about what the rest of the country will choose. But I can at least sleep at night knowing I went with my conscience.
Click to expand...

PKT_VOL said:
This is really the crux of the matter. People either see it this way or the lesser of two anticipated evils.

The former is individualistic thinking the latter is social thinking.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree... both are individualistic imo. Even if voting for the lesser of two evils, I think a person's vote should primarily be based on what is best for the country. So even though both may be "evil", generally speaking one of them should be viewed as better for the country than the other.

Voting to have a "clean conscience" is still voting based on what is best for "you" (the individual) versus what is best for the country. If our founding fathers had held to that standard (what is best for "me") they may never have ratified the constitution as we know it today.
 
#280
#280
ReaderVol said:
Those who see them as the same are just wrong. An Orange and a banana are both fruit but they aren't the same thing by any means.
Click to expand...

Gramps said:
They both grow on trees.
Click to expand...

Reader doesn't see the unsustainable big government fruit bearing trees. He just prefers oranges over bananas.

I prefer sustainable small government sushi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#282
#282
ReaderVol said:
Similarities in humans are easy to find if one looks. However to state HRC and Trump are similar is wrong. To say they're the same is just utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

Both will fund PP.

Both are for some type of socialized medicine.

That is two policy stances that are very similar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#283
#283
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I respectfully disagree... both are individualistic imo. Even if voting for the lesser of two evils, I think a person's vote should primarily be based on what is best for the country. So even though both may be "evil", generally speaking one of them should be viewed as better for the country than the other.

Voting to have a "clean conscience" is still voting based on what is best for "you" (the individual) versus what is best for the country. If our founding fathers had held to that standard (what is best for "me") they may never have ratified the constitution as we know it today.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. One is voting for the candidate that reflects your values regardless of others (individualistic thinking) while the other puts the anticipation of others' actions over one's own values (social thinking).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#284
#284
PKT_VOL said:
You missed the point. One is voting for the candidate that reflects your values regardless of others (individualistic thinking) while the other puts the anticipation of others' actions over one's own values (social thinking).
Click to expand...

No I didn't... and no it doesn't. In the OP's own words, the "other" option allows him to vote "with my conscience" and that is still voting based on the candidates values. Saying you can't do anything about how the rest of the country votes is irrelevant as that outcome applies with either situation.
 
#286
#286
IBlvNTmWrk said:
No I didn't... and no it doesn't. In the OP's own words, the "other" option allows him to vote "with my conscience" and that is still voting based on the candidates values. Saying you can't do anything about how the rest of the country votes is irrelevant as that outcome applies with either situation.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#288
#288
Carl Pickens said:
I can honestly say that Obama's policies have screwed my well being much more than W's.
Click to expand...

Quite possible. Big government tends to screw certain people via one policy while leaving others unharmed. Just depends on when a specific policy comes to bite you in the ass.

It's like a blindfolded guy shooting a gun on a merry-go-round. Sure, the first bullet or so might not hit you, but it doesn't take long to realize that eventually one is coming your way. I have no idea where that analogy came from but the imagery cracks me up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#294
#294
PKT_VOL said:
This makes no sense.
Click to expand...

And this seems to be your out whenever you can no longer put forth an argument. Again... I'm not sure how this can be confusing.

If someone votes based on "their conscience", that would be considered an individualistic approach.

The claim "I can't do anything about what the rest of the country will choose." should be irrelevant as the statement holds true regardless how one chooses to vote.

How is it you claim the second scenario is "social thinking" when the vote is based on the voter's individual conscious?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#297
#297
IBlvNTmWrk said:
And this seems to be your out whenever you can no longer put forth an argument. Again... I'm not sure how this can be confusing.

If someone votes based on "their conscience", that would be considered an individualistic approach.

The claim "I can't do anything about what the rest of the country will choose." should be irrelevant as the statement holds true regardless how one chooses to vote.

How is it you claim the second scenario is "social thinking" when the vote is based on the voter's individual conscious?
Click to expand...

You are taking "conscience" out of context:

bamawriter said:
The lesser evil is still evil. I'd rather not choose evil.

I can't do anything about what the rest of the country will choose. But I can at least sleep at night knowing I went with my conscience.
Click to expand...

It is about intellectual honesty with himself. He views both major party canidates as "evil". It is about not pretending to vote for good when voting for "evil". Sartre's Bad Faith. Otherwise known as self-deception and intellectual dishonesty.

If one views one of the major party canidates as being the best canidate on the ballot and worthy of a vote, there is no problem; no "voting of the lesser of the two evils".

Such, only comes into play if one believes a third party canidate is better but not viable OR none of the canidates are worthy of a vote. If such is the case, then and only then, does self-deception, intellectual dishonesty, and bad faith come into play; all of which affect the individual conscience (intentionally voting for an inferior canidate or one who isn't worthy by your own standards).

Thus, in such a situation, you are leaving or subverting your own individualistic conscience for social thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top