orestian:transgenderer:orestian:transgenderer:i get what this is trying to communicate (the idea tha

orestian:transgenderer:orestian:transgenderer:i get what this is trying to communicate (the idea that voting for clinton probably will not result in less deaths, just different deaths (something i dont agree with but also Who Care, as if tumblr discourse is gonna turn an election)) but there actually is an interesting question being ignored here: what is the morality of helping people you like over people you dont in the case that there are equal deaths? i think its probably finel, and arguably trying to convince people to help your friends over people you dont know isnt unreasonable either. also the use of the phrase “people you conditionally care about” has so enough sleazy guilt-tripping to drown inI found it inaccurate in that the Trump pile should be about thrice as large as the Clinton pilewell it depends on how you think foreign policy would shake out. b/c like hypothetically, he might be too incompetent to even kill anybody outside the USHe’s stated that he won’t defend our NATO allies from Russia… :/ Incompetence in the leader of the world’s only superpower destabilizes the whole chessboardTrump doesn’t really have to be competent to get non-USians killed; I mean, look at Shrub(Bush II; as a Texan I am morally obligated to call him this. We still love you Molly! We’ll never forget you!!!).All a president has to do is order the military to do something. It’s the military whose competence regarding killing matters, and the US military is exceedingly competent at killing people. Even when saddled with grossly incompetent orders and strategy(again, the Shrub years, wherein the White House and Rumsfeld were constantly trying to micromanage everything the military did), the US mil still does an exceedingly proficient job of killing people. So, when considering the bald, mathematical, Utilitarian morality(who will get more people killed) in the election, the question isn’t “who is a more competent and effective strategic leader, Donald or Clinton?”; it is “who is more likely to order US military attacks and deployments, Donald or Clinton?” and the answer to that is unquestionable Donald Trump. The man responds to even the slightest challenge with insults and threats. He’s indirectly called for Clinton’s assassination twice in this election, that I know of. He’s threatening to “lock her up”, and her lawyers for doing their jobs by representing her in dealing with Congressional investigators, if he wins. He is, right now, ranting about how our allies, and biggest trading partners, and the international institutions we’ve built over the last 60 years, are all part of a vast Banking and Media(dog-whistle for Jewish) conspiracy to control the world. Same “New World Order” bullshit Bill Clinton had to deal with in the 90s. If that doesn’t sound like an unsteady person willing to deploy the US mil at the drop of a hat, even against our own allies, then I don’t know what would. There’s also a corollary to that question; “who is more likely to order ill-planned, ill-supported snap deployments to urban areas, gravely threatening civilian lives, Donald or Clinton?” The answer to that is also, unquestionable, Donald Trump. He rants about doing just that all the time: about the “sneak attacks” we should launch and all the blowing up and bombing of civilians we would be doing, if only we were “Tough”.Clinton is a hawk, and I’m definitely not pleased about that, but she is a responsible, sober-minded hawk. Ironically it is that very responsibility, her feeling that to sit back and do nothing when terrible things are happening in the world is to be morally culpable for those terrible things, that transformed her from the anti-war activist of the Vietnam years to the hawk of the Yugoslavian ones. She’s going to use force only where she thinks it is needed, and not just needed but morally justified; where and when she thinks it will save lives, serve US interests, and not precipitate an expanding, uncontrollable conflict.Trump is an irresponsible, hair-trigger, arrogant bully. He’s shown all of us that in two national debates, and their aftermaths. He threatens to order US navy vessels to fire upon patriotic Iranian fishermen for merely insulting said vessels in Iranian waters, for heaven’s sake. That is the man.This shit ain’t some abstraction.A vote against Clinton, a vote for Donald, is a vote for a bloodier, more chaotic world. It is a vote for more incompetent, Shrub-like wars, but this time stumbled into ass-backwards rather than pursued dishonestly and unnecessarily. It is a vote for more dead and mutilated US soldiers. For more grieving US families. And Yes, of no less importance, for more dead innocent people we don’t know and who aren’t our fellow citizens, who did nothing worse than live in a country Trump thought slighted him somehow. OP wants to talk about moral obligation to strangers, let them think about that. What would the man who petulantly threw Bill’s infidelities in Hillary’s face at that second debate, who stalked her across the stage all night trying to be intimidating, who threatened her to her face with imprisonment -not charges, not an investigation, not a trial, imprisonment full stop- what would that man do to other countries that dared to stand up for their own dignity, to insist on their own integrity, to defend their own interests against his insolent pride, with the full might of the US military at his beck and call? And what would having a person like THAT in charge of the US military do to the United States? -- source link

More pics about