Donald Trump is now a convicted felon; what should you, a voter, think about this? Well, it depends on your reading of the case. If you believe the court convicted Trump based on just laws he broke, this verdict should count as a strong reason against voting for him. But if you think the court unjustly convicted Trump—maybe there was insufficient evidence he broke just laws, or perhaps he did break the laws in question, but the law or its legal consequences are unjust—things are different. Concerning your decision to vote, the decision should either count as moot or, more likely, all the more reason to vote for Trump. (We have to drain the swamp somehow!)
Hey Nick, I didn’t realize I subscribe to your writings, but I’m glad I do. As a former AP US History & Government teacher it’s hard for me not to love a debate. Hopefully I can help you think through your existential dilemma, for I don’t think you are at all alone. What happened in the Manhattan courthouse to Trump didn’t happen in a vacuum. It has been an obsession with the ideological left in this country for some time now to destroy their opposition by any means necessary. I mean if Trump really is more evil than “Hitler” wouldn’t it be justified to use extraordinary means to stop him? But the issue really isn’t about the former President. He just happens to be the biggest “orange man”with mean tweets in the way. Whether it be the systematic targeting of conservatives by the IRS, suppression of legitimate information by big tech under the guise of “misinformation,” (See Hunter Biden’s infamous lap top as an example), or now this latest tactic of the weaponization of the Biden justice system through “lawfare,” it’s uncharted territory we as a country have been forced to enter. No one really knows how this Pandora’s box of lawfare will turn out. If as a citizen in a free democratic republic one is not cognitively able to do one’s own independent research, think for yourself, or draw your own conclusions, then I’d concur with your sentiment that perhaps that individual shouldn’t cast an uniformed vote. However, as an intelligent young man, no matter how confusing this all may seem, truth is still worth pursuing! Don’t throw in the towel yet. Our votes are not intended to be taken lightly. And collectively they affect more than just the individual. Therefore, it’s worth the extra effort to not give up the quest for understanding. Now is the time to pay more attention, not less, while we still have a say in how we are to be governed. Someone will be elected President of the US in November, whether we choose to participate or not. I think it’s a fair assessment that whoever that person turns out to be, we will be stuck with them for 4 more years, warts and all. 😉
I didn't know you were a former teacher! Very cool.
In regard to your comment: I genuinely don't know how to verify a lot of the claims here. For example, you say political prosecutions have "been an obsession with the ideological left in the country for some time now to destroy their opposition by any means necessary." I think this is both possible and plausible, but the trouble is that a) lots of intelligent people dispute that description of things, and b) I hear the same thing about conservatives (e.g., apparently this is what they tried to do to Hillary in 2016). So, I'm just left very confused.
I am glad at least we agree in principle that if someone can't cast an informed vote, they should abstain. It looks like we just disagree about how difficult it is to cast an informed vote! Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I don't understand the argument here. Of course you should vote and your vote shouldn't have anything to do with Trump's trial or conviction. There's a close to 100 percent probability that either Trump or Biden will get in. Vote for the least worst candidate. The least-worst is the best we can do in all life's decisions because life is tough. What's the problem?
The problem is that Trump's conviction should affect how we vote, but because it's too difficult for us to verify whether he should've been convicted, it's another reason--along with many others stemming from our political ignorance--in favor of our not voting.
The general argument goes like this: if we vote, we better cast a well-informed vote. But politics is way too complicated for virtually anyone to be well-informed about it. So don't vote. (This would cast doubt on our ability to know who is the least worst candidate.)
Rationally, you shouldn't vote for the candidate but for the party, which represents an ideology and program. The country is run by the civil service and military, as it should be. The candidate, representing a party, is just a symbol of the ideology/program you're voting for, which the civil service and military will implement. I don't think Trump's conviction should make a difference. Or that if Biden were convicted of any criminal offense it should make a difference. Or that it should make any difference who was running. I vote for the ideology and the program. End of story.
Hey Nick, I didn’t realize I subscribe to your writings, but I’m glad I do. As a former AP US History & Government teacher it’s hard for me not to love a debate. Hopefully I can help you think through your existential dilemma, for I don’t think you are at all alone. What happened in the Manhattan courthouse to Trump didn’t happen in a vacuum. It has been an obsession with the ideological left in this country for some time now to destroy their opposition by any means necessary. I mean if Trump really is more evil than “Hitler” wouldn’t it be justified to use extraordinary means to stop him? But the issue really isn’t about the former President. He just happens to be the biggest “orange man”with mean tweets in the way. Whether it be the systematic targeting of conservatives by the IRS, suppression of legitimate information by big tech under the guise of “misinformation,” (See Hunter Biden’s infamous lap top as an example), or now this latest tactic of the weaponization of the Biden justice system through “lawfare,” it’s uncharted territory we as a country have been forced to enter. No one really knows how this Pandora’s box of lawfare will turn out. If as a citizen in a free democratic republic one is not cognitively able to do one’s own independent research, think for yourself, or draw your own conclusions, then I’d concur with your sentiment that perhaps that individual shouldn’t cast an uniformed vote. However, as an intelligent young man, no matter how confusing this all may seem, truth is still worth pursuing! Don’t throw in the towel yet. Our votes are not intended to be taken lightly. And collectively they affect more than just the individual. Therefore, it’s worth the extra effort to not give up the quest for understanding. Now is the time to pay more attention, not less, while we still have a say in how we are to be governed. Someone will be elected President of the US in November, whether we choose to participate or not. I think it’s a fair assessment that whoever that person turns out to be, we will be stuck with them for 4 more years, warts and all. 😉
I didn't know you were a former teacher! Very cool.
In regard to your comment: I genuinely don't know how to verify a lot of the claims here. For example, you say political prosecutions have "been an obsession with the ideological left in the country for some time now to destroy their opposition by any means necessary." I think this is both possible and plausible, but the trouble is that a) lots of intelligent people dispute that description of things, and b) I hear the same thing about conservatives (e.g., apparently this is what they tried to do to Hillary in 2016). So, I'm just left very confused.
I am glad at least we agree in principle that if someone can't cast an informed vote, they should abstain. It looks like we just disagree about how difficult it is to cast an informed vote! Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Also, I miss your son!
Krystal says this is her favorite post of yours thus far. I say you are my muse, my vice, my thorn in my side.
I don't understand the argument here. Of course you should vote and your vote shouldn't have anything to do with Trump's trial or conviction. There's a close to 100 percent probability that either Trump or Biden will get in. Vote for the least worst candidate. The least-worst is the best we can do in all life's decisions because life is tough. What's the problem?
The problem is that Trump's conviction should affect how we vote, but because it's too difficult for us to verify whether he should've been convicted, it's another reason--along with many others stemming from our political ignorance--in favor of our not voting.
The general argument goes like this: if we vote, we better cast a well-informed vote. But politics is way too complicated for virtually anyone to be well-informed about it. So don't vote. (This would cast doubt on our ability to know who is the least worst candidate.)
The argument was first popularized here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048400802587309
Rationally, you shouldn't vote for the candidate but for the party, which represents an ideology and program. The country is run by the civil service and military, as it should be. The candidate, representing a party, is just a symbol of the ideology/program you're voting for, which the civil service and military will implement. I don't think Trump's conviction should make a difference. Or that if Biden were convicted of any criminal offense it should make a difference. Or that it should make any difference who was running. I vote for the ideology and the program. End of story.