US elects trans person

[Verum]

It's not dishonest at all. I never said that 45% were bigoted, only that maybe they were. It was an obviously absurd response to a similarly absurd statement. I would have thought that was obvious.

That said, if you support/vote for someone who is so clearly a bigot, you are essentially supporting such bigotry, even if it is the lesser of two evils in your mind. You don't get a bye on that just because you agree on transport policy or similar.

You said that maybe 45% voted on a single issue. Maybe the moon landing was faked too. That's how ridiculously low the odds are of this being the case. I know many Americans, and I can say that even among Republican leaning ones, they couldn't care less for the most part as to what you do in your own bedroom.

...

No, I said that maybe 45% were bigoted because they voted for a bigot and did so in what was clearly intended as an absurd retort. I didn't say that they voted on a single issue, or even a small set of issues, nor do I actually think that 45% are actual bigots. If some of his supporters voted for him because of his bigotry, that makes them bigots. I think we can agree on that. Now, I contend that if others ignored his bigotry, to vote for him because of other issues, that in doing so they are tacitly condoning his bigotry, even if they didn't intend to do so. It's like, and I'm clearly using an extreme/absurd example here, supporting Hitler because he has a fantastic transport policy, and ignoring his anti-Semitism. We cannot do that as voters. We can't, in all conscience, pick the candidate who ticks some of our boxes, and ignore the elephant in the room because it is convenient to do so. When we do so, we turn a blind eye to atrocities, to predators, etc. Now, I accept that sometimes the choice is between a rock and a hard place, between one candidate who is morally reprehensible and another who shares no views in common with oneself, but in that case, is it not better to abstain or even spoil one's vote?

[Dizzy1]

What does it matter what they're sex/race/orientation is? Is that why they were voted in? It would be nice if we could simply focus on moving away from this "I'm different" crap and simply focus on us, as a human species and the challenges we need to overcome to succeed as a society instead of always stumbling on these petty differences.

She/he is a political figure in a public office - their sexual orientation or identity has no relevance in anything that their duties require.

[Glacier]

Now, I accept that sometimes the choice is between a rock and a hard place, between one candidate who is morally reprehensible and another who shares no views in common with oneself, but in that case, is it not better to abstain or even spoil one's vote?

Maybe, but almost no one ever does this. I've posed the question on Facebook before. I created a poll asking, if you had the choice between a candidate you agree with politically who's morally reprehensible and a candidate who you disagree with politically whose a great guy, who do you chose?

Most people stated that they would vote for the Candidate they agree with because the great guy would cause more pain and misery to everyone because of bad polities. In other words, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

P.S. it's not bigoted to think transexuals/transracialists/trans-etc. are delusional or abnormal. There is no scientific basis to trans as far as I can tell. Now, it is bigoted to discriminated against someone who is trans. It's bigoted to discriminant against someone who's mentally ill or even to discriminate against someone whose mentally sane (the soft bigotry of low expectations). On that note, I would say that Obama didn't lose a single vote because of his race. Yes, he lost some votes because of racists who vote based upon skin colour, but he gained even more votes because people voted for him simply because of his race. Same goes for this trans person.

[Verum]

Now, I accept that sometimes the choice is between a rock and a hard place, between one candidate who is morally reprehensible and another who shares no views in common with oneself, but in that case, is it not better to abstain or even spoil one's vote?

Maybe, but almost no one ever does this. I've posed the question on Facebook before. I created a poll asking, if you had the choice between a candidate you agree with politically who's morally reprehensible and a candidate who you disagree with politically whose a great guy, who do you chose?

Most people stated that they would vote for the Candidate they agree with because the great guy would cause more pain and misery to everyone because of bad polities. In other words, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

P.S. it's not bigoted to think transexuals/transracialists/trans-etc. are delusional or abnormal. There is no scientific basis to trans as far as I can tell. Now, it is bigoted to discriminated against someone who is trans. It's bigoted to discriminant against someone who's mentally ill or even to discriminate against someone whose mentally sane (the soft bigotry of low expectations). On that note, I would say that Obama didn't lose a single vote because of his race. Yes, he lost some votes because of racists who vote based upon skin colour, but he gained even more votes because people voted for him simply because of his race. Same goes for this trans person.

Interestingly, Shapiro seems to at least somewhat agree with me on this:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23533/shapiro-national-review-praying-jeff-sessions-ben-shapiro
In fairness, as much as Marshall is morally reprehensible, he isn't quite in the same category as Moore and it is clear from the responses to Shapiro's post that his readers are even more partisan than he is.

Also your contention that Roem would have gained more votes than she lost because she is a transgendered woman is highly suspect and I would love to see any supporting evidence. Assuming that hardcore Republican and Democrat supporters voted in line with their parties, that leaves the middle ground. I strongly suspect that the middle ground almost certainly does not favour transgendered people over others, but again, I would love to see evidence to suggest that it does. For instance, it surprised me to find out that the religion which elicits the most positive opinion in the US is Judaism, so I guess it is possible: http://www.pewforum.org/2017/02/15/americans-express-increasingly-warm-feelings-toward-religious-groups/