I'm not pro-life, but I feel like if I thought abortion was actually murder of babies, I think I'd probably hold my nose and vote for whoever had the best chance of ending that practice. (Though, I also believe that would be Clinton--banning abortion is less viable than proving effective sex ed, and probably not hugely more effective.)

Similarly, if I had spent much time in Libya, I might consider holding my nose and voting for the candidate who didn't work hard to create that situation. (Again, I will grant that situation was going wrong without our involvement, but we're good at making things worse.)

I voted for Clinton because I agree with most of her policies, and think she's immensely qualified, but I keep hearing "if you voted for Trump, that means you didn't consider his statements disqualifying" But it doesn't--it could just mean you think the other candidate had stuff that was more disqualifying.

It's not absurd to consider bombing people worse than saying sexist and racist shit. It seems like a lot of Trump voters thought Trump's worst aspects were "just talk".

There wasn't an option for "Clinton without the interventionism" on the ballot. Similarly, there's no "Trump without the sexism/racism" option.

I will grant that most of them didn't have "Clinton bombed Libya" as their justification for their Trump vote. Abortion, though, I think is a real reason for a lot of religious people.

I don't think my vote for Clinton should be taken to mean I'm okay with the positions she pushed for in North Africa and the Middle East, and that means also not declaring Trump voters were necessarily okay with his crap either.

> Similarly, if I had spent much time in Libya, I might consider holding my nose and voting for the candidate who didn't work hard to create that situation.

I have a friend who grew up in a country that was the subject of a rather messy US intervention back when he lived there. He's socially liberal on almost every level, but voted without hesitation for Trump. His explicit reasoning was that he found Trump less likely to start lasting, Iraq/Libya style interventions, and believed the death toll of such an action would outweigh literally everything else.

There wasn't really much to argue there. It's not as though he considered Trump's comments acceptable, it's not like he didn't understand the importance of protections for trans people, he just saw everything else as smaller than tens (or hundreds) of thousands dead and millions displaced. I couldn't really disagree; honestly I'm frightened by the indifference of much of the left to our trail of destruction abroad.

The only question dividing our votes was what decisions we expected Trump and Clinton to make on foreign wars. It really was the biggest issue going for both of us.

> ... I feel like if I thought abortion was actually murder of babies, I think I'd probably hold my nose and vote for whoever had the best chance of ending that practice.

I didn't vote for Trump, but I know a lot of people that did.

Abortion is actually a huge part of it. To the point that I'm wondering why Trump-voter-haters think the election was just about xenophobia or something.

There was also a non-trivial portion of the right who expected things like the Damore firing and voted for the person least likely to contribute to that future. They think that the Pope himself could easily become a persona non grata at Google or certain parts of the national bureaucracy.

> But it doesn't--it could just mean you think the other candidate had stuff that was more disqualifying.

That seems like a false dichotomy. There were third party candidates. Plus, you can always choose not to vote.

> That seems like a false dichotomy. There were third party candidates. Plus, you can always choose not to vote.

I've voted third-party a number of times, but that's because I've lived in unflippable states and I'm playing the long game. If you care about the short-term results that are this specific election and are in a state where it can change the results, voting third-party is the wrong choice. Not voting is an even more wrong choice--"both are bad and I'd like us to have better choices in the future" can best be achieved by voting third-party. "Both are bad, so I'll let other people decide" seems less likely to influence future elections, and it's obviously not the right way to effect this election. The one economic principle I always cite rings true here: Rational people think on the margin.

People who think abortion is infanticide saw an opportunity to fill the Supreme Court with justices who might ban abortion. Given their goals, not voting would have been a worse decision than voting for Trump was.

There was no pro-life candidate on the ballot that wasn't Trump.

Evan McMullin. I know this, because I voted for him.

He was only on the ballot in 11 states.

And everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton supported starting a war with Russia, a nuclear power?

No?

But that was her policy - the "no fly zone" that could only be implemented by shooting down Russian jets, or perhaps people have forgotten.

In contrast Trump wanted to make peace with Russia.

So maybe I can assume anyone who didn't vote Trump has a racist hatred of Russians.

Or maybe that the democratic economical policies were abhorrent enough to vote for Trump, despite his social policies?

I voted for Trump to raise the chances of getting a conservative supreme court justice assigned. They have more power than Trump anyway since they are in for life. Trump will be out in 3 years, but if we had voted Hillary we would have certainly gotten a liberal supreme court justice.