5 Irrational Statements You Should Stop Making this Election

0
575
views

I’m voting for ___ because they are going to change Washington. 

hope-and-changeThis is like when your friend dates that abusive person and says, “I’m going to turn their life around.”  The president is one person in a vast ocean.  Even the youth and vigor of Barack Obama was no match for the sharks of Congress and lobbying firms.  The mantras of hope and change quickly transformed to “Meh, has it been 8 years yet?”  But at least he started off enthusiastically and gave it the old college try. And like in little league where everyone gets a participation trophy, he even won a Nobel Peace Prize just for his valiant efforts (which they letter admitted was a mistake).  If Obama couldn’t do it; what makes you think anyone else can?  The fact that the Republican leaders are paying lip service to a man who is threatening to blow up Washington should tell you that this is nothing more than politics as usual.  You may love the “I’m going to get stuff done” rhetoric, but keep in mind, we don’t have an autocratic form of government.  We balance powers specifically so no one person can get stuff done.

A vote for a third party is a vote for Trump or Hillary.

a1sr3kI get the thought behind this argument, but it violates the law of non-contradictions.  Let’s think about it logically for a minute using something less controversial like fruit.  Let’s say you’re choosing between a banana, orange, or kiwi.  Finally, after much thought, you vote to have the kiwi.  Does that then mean you voted for the banana or orange?  No, obviously you didn’t.  In the same way, a vote for a third party is a vote for that party.  And a vote for Trump or Clinton is in fact just that.  I think people just use this argument to help them sleep better at night, because deep down they’re convinced that…

A third party will never get elected.

First, history says you’re wrong. Abe Lincoln, for example, was a third party candidate running on the Republican ticket, which is now one of the two major parties.  In fact, considering Trump and Clinton’s 55%+ disapproval rating, if all the people who said that they didn’t like the main candidates voted for a 3rd party candidate, the 3rd party candidate would probably win.  What’s more illogical than thinking a third party will never get elected is thinking that your vote is actually going to be the deciding vote, especially in states where one candidate is leading by a landslide.  One thing’s for sure, if you’re irrationally looking for a president to change Washington, you’re definitely being irrational by expecting it when you continue the status quo of voting for one of the major parties.

I’m voting for Trump/Clinton to stop Clinton/Trump from being president.

EvolveAmerica-John-AdamsThe majority of endorsements and political ads in this election don’t talk about the virtues of the candidate, they simply leverage the negativity of the opposing candidate.  The best thing for Clinton is that Trump is running against her and vice versa.  If anyone of any caliber were running on one of the major party tickets, they’d win in a landslide.  So, while sacrificing your vote in the name of strategic blockage is not irrational per se, it reduces the ideals of democracy into simply voting for the lesser of two evils.  I doubt that’s what our founding fathers had in mind when they set up our country or died to secure its freedom.

A vote for Hillary or Trump is the moral thing to do.

This is probably the most ludicrous of all the statements I’ve heard this election.  Voting for someone on the border of fraud and negligence doesn’t seem moral.  Voting for someone who insults women and veterans, jokes about sleeping with his daughter, and threatens to commit war crimes also doesn’t seem moral. I get that we suffered through the Moral Majority movement of the 1980s, which taught us that there’s no higher calling than voting for a Republican President, but let’s just call that what it is – total b.s.  Morality, at least the morality that I’m familiar with, doesn’t say, “I chose to do cocaine because it was better than heroine.”  Nope, you’re just doing the lesser of two evils, and that’s never a moral argument.  If you want to vote for one person so the other person doesn’t win, then fine, but don’t bring morality into it.  Let your vote for whatever political reason be enough of a rationale.  You do not need to project your own personal morality onto a candidate that doesn’t own it.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here