Does voting for Trump make someone dumb or a bad person?

[Ferguson97]

Basically, does someone's values reflect their moral character?

[ChrisMcDanielWasRobbed]

No, but voting for biden does.

[DC Al Fine]

What an ersatz morality we've developed if we're summing up someone's value based on how they vote.

[Santander]

What an ersatz morality we've developed if we're summing up someone's value based on how they vote.

And we'd be right to, if they're voting for the likes of Jobbik, XA, or KKE. Or people who voted for people like David Duke in 2016 or Patrick Little.

My answer is, yes in 2020, with one narrow exception - if you hate America and vote for Trump because he is a traitor and is accelerating its demise, then technically that alone does not make you a bad person.

[Ferguson97]

What an ersatz morality we've developed if we're summing up someone's value based on how they vote.

You don't think someone's personal values and moral beliefs influence their moral character?

[Del Tachi]

No, and voting for Biden doesn't make someone a dumb or bad person either. 

However, this doesn't mean there won't be plenty of people who vote for Trump or Biden for bad or dumb reasons. 

[DC Al Fine]

What an ersatz morality we've developed if we're summing up someone's value based on how they vote.

You don't think someone's personal values and moral beliefs influence their moral character?

That's a very different question than what you asked in the headline of your OP...

But to answer your question, of course values and beliefs influence character, but how one votes is so tangential to that, it barely matters.

Political coalitions and the values behind them are so complicated, to say nothing of how non-political junkies relate to them, that using them to assess moral worth is of limited value. If I were evaluating a person's morals, I'd be far more interested in how they treat their family, and how they spend their time and money than the how and why they vote this November.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No (Normal)

[SWE]

What an ersatz morality we've developed if we're summing up someone's value based on how they vote.

Yeah really weird to base moral value on one's actions

[DC Al Fine]

What an ersatz morality we've developed if we're summing up someone's value based on how they vote.

Yeah really weird to base moral value on one's actions

Political coalitions and the values behind them are so complicated, to say nothing of how non-political junkies relate to them, that using them to assess moral worth is of limited value. If I were evaluating a person's morals, I'd be far more interested in how they treat their family, and how they spend their time and money than the how and why they vote this November.

Was it really that hard to read a few posts down from the one you were snarking on?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

What an ersatz morality we've developed if we're summing up someone's value based on how they vote.

You don't think someone's personal values and moral beliefs influence their moral character?

That's a very different question than what you asked in the headline of your OP...

But to answer your question, of course values and beliefs influence character, but how one votes is so tangential to that, it barely matters.

Political coalitions and the values behind them are so complicated, to say nothing of how non-political junkies relate to them, that using them to assess moral worth is of limited value. If I were evaluating a person's morals, I'd be far more interested in how they treat their family, and how they spend their time and money than the how and why they vote this November.

I think you have to judge morality based on net impact, and a vote for Trump actively hurts a lot of people in a way a vote for almost everyone else in any other election doesn't. So far as I'm concerned, a couple hundred voters in Florida are essentially responsible for the Iraq War and I hold that against their personal character far more intensely than if they blow half their paycheck at Hooters and are a d!ck to their family. Decisions have consequences, and the same principle applies here--so without significant personal mitigating factors, I'm inclined to say yes.

[DC Al Fine]

Those Florida Nader voters... truly history's worst monsters.

[DC Al Fine]

More seriously, Blairites overemphasis on outcome when judging morality, leads to this sort of bizarre calculus like Florida 2000 and the Iraq War, wherein one's morality is de facto a function one's foresight or lack thereof.

We have a real problem when people cant recognize that two well meaning people can look at the data and come to different conclusions, and even impute moral evil to those who see things differently.

[dead0man]

Can we get some sane reds in here?  We literally just had one say that people who abuse their families are better people than people who voted against Al Gore, one time, 20 years ago.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

More seriously, Blairites overemphasis on outcome when judging morality, leads to this sort of bizarre calculus like Florida 2000 and the Iraq War, wherein one's morality is de facto a function one's foresight or lack thereof.

We have a real problem when people cant recognize that two well meaning people can look at the data and come to different conclusions, and even impute moral evil to those who see things differently.

So intent is everything? Utilitarianism is absolutely a reasonable way of viewing morality. And at least in this very specific context, it doesn't require much foresight to realize that reelecting Donald Trump will result in the end of certain rights once guaranteed through supreme court rulings, kids in cages, thousands more dead from coronavirus, and unprecedented inside dealing. But I guess personal kindness is everything...

[It’s so Joever]

If it looks like an idiot, tweets like an idiot, and supports an idiot....

[DINGO Joe]

It's poorly phrased.  It's merely confirmation that they are either racist, a grifter, crazy or some combination thereof.  Trump merely stokes these qualities and brings them to the surface (if they were hidden to begin with). 

[Santander]

There is only one universalizable conclusion about those voters and that is that they preferred Trump to Clinton.

In 2016, sure. Not in 2020.

[RINO Tom]

No.  However, thinking so certainly means that somebody is - at best - somewhat "sick" with ideology.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Smart people make dumb choices and good people sometimes make mistakes. Even if you have determined that voting for Trump is objectively, inherently wrong on a cosmic level, it does not stand to reason that single action identifies the voter as stupid or evil.

[Benjamin Frank]

The only people who can support Trump are either stupid, evil or loony.

[Horus]

Neither of those things. Easily conned? Perhaps.

[TML]

Remember these words from Michael Moore back when he first predicted Trump's victory in July 2016:

...because of [...] the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote for Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy mad.

In other words, these people voted for Trump not because of his negative attributes, but in spite of them. Exit polls showed that Trump won anywhere from 1 in 8 to 1 in 5 voters who had various negative attributes about him (e.g. unqualified, dishonest/untrustworthy, temperamentally unsuited, etc.).

This group of voters are definitely not dumb or bad -  they simply wanted to send a message of disapproval toward the establishment. It was this sentiment which also enabled Jesse Ventura to be elected governor of Minnesota in 1998 despite him coming from a background mostly lacking in military and/or political experience. What Democrats need to do is to try to win back this group of voters - not by shaming them, but by offering them something substantive to attract them.

[Former President tack50]

No. Voting Trump just makes you someone with different politicak views.

But even if I did believe voting Trump is a symptom of being a bad person: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

[Benjamin Frank]

Remember these words from Michael Moore back when he first predicted Trump's victory in July 2016:

...because of [...] the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote for Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy mad.

In other words, these people voted for Trump not because of his negative attributes, but in spite of them. Exit polls showed that Trump won anywhere from 1 in 8 to 1 in 5 voters who had various negative attributes about him (e.g. unqualified, dishonest/untrustworthy, temperamentally unsuited, etc.).

This group of voters are definitely not dumb or bad -  they simply wanted to send a message of disapproval toward the establishment. It was this sentiment which also enabled Jesse Ventura to be elected governor of Minnesota in 1998 despite him coming from a background mostly lacking in military and/or political experience. What Democrats need to do is to try to win back this group of voters - not by shaming them, but by offering them something substantive to attract them.

Jesse Ventura was lacking in military experience?  Is that some kind of joke?

Prior to being elected Governor, Jesse Ventura had also been the mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, the sixth largest city in the state.

Jesse Ventura is not only vastly more qualified to be Governor of Minnesota than Donald Trump, he's also vastly more qualified to be President.