The Ballot and the Moral Compass

Update: It’s been seven months since I wrote this piece, which, at the time, was directed at the pre-election environment — a warning shot, really, for anyone paying attention. I’ll be updating this with a historical background and detailed explanation of Donald’s reciprocal tariffs policy—because make no mistake, even back then, it was obvious he would push for them. And considering a lot (well, let’s be honest, all) of Donald’s supporters didn’t seem to understand what tariffs actually entail, I wrote it in the tone of someone pre-warning what was inevitably coming.

It’s Election year, and the final days are coming up in 7 days. When anyone reads this, the election could be just hours away from concluding or is over already.

I will get to the point. Nobody should tell anybody for whom to vote. Kids who just turned eighteen would vote for who their parents are voting for, and that’s not right. If you have no idea who to vote for, you should research the candidate thoroughly. Evaluate yourself on where you sit from a moral and social standpoint. The values your parents hold may not be as relevant to their children.

Even that is an oversimplification.

Fundamentally, I will give everyone a window into the thoughts, methods, and reasoning of “how I vote.” I’m going to attempt to write about what heuristics I do to assess candidates, situations, events, and timelines, and discern facts from falsehoods.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not here to tell anyone how to cast their vote. However, after having a read of this, you’ll likely twig that I also reckon those who’ve voted, or intend to vote, for the ‘other side’ are making a rather significant blunder. I know some have already made up their minds. They would rather make a mistake to serve their party, and frankly, serve a personal ego.

Using Heuristics

What are heuristics? Heuristics are simple rules that help people make decisions, solve problems, or quickly process complex information based on experience, intuition, or approximation rather than exhaustive analysis. Often seen as “rules of thumb,” they are methods we use to come to conclusions or judgments efficiently, especially under time constraints or when information is incomplete.

I am using heuristics because I am not voting based on ideology. After all, I lack one (which makes me an incredible asset in a national security career). My heuristics are based on five things relevant to the state of the current electoral atmosphere.

I will start with a “Good Economy”. I know this will be the part where the conservatives think they have the advantage;
I will then talk about crime and immigration;
Foreign Intervention and Conflicts;
Classified materials and things related to that;
mental health;
basic Human Rights;
and Learning from the past.

A Good Economy

I will vote for the candidate who didn’t ride from a Good Economy that the Obama administration worked hard fixing for eight years after the 2008 depression. Trump’s administration didn’t do much for the economy because the growth it experienced was largely a continuation of the foundational stability set by the Obama administration. When Trump took office, the economy was already in a stable recovery phase, with consistent job creation, falling unemployment, and steady GDP growth.¹ ²

The major policies introduced by Trump, such as corporate tax cuts and deregulation, provided a short-term boost to corporate profits and the stock market, but they didn’t fundamentally alter the long-term economic trends set in motion by his predecessor. Moreover, these policies increased the federal deficit without significantly improving wage growth or addressing structural issues. ³ ⁴ ⁵

If Trump had taken over an economy in crisis, like the one inherited by Obama from Bush in 2009, his strategies of tax cuts and deregulation would likely have failed to generate the necessary recovery. They were not designed to address deep recessions or financial instability.

Updated: Tariffs and the False Promise of Economic Protectionism

In the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Donald outlined a trade policy centered on imposing significant tariffs. He proposed a universal baseline tariff of 10% to 20% on all imports, with elevated rates targeting specific countries: 60% on China, 100% on Mexico, and 100% on all cars manufactured outside the United States. Trump’s campaign emphasized that these measures aimed to protect American industries and reduce trade deficits. He also suggested replacing the federal income tax with revenue generated from tariffs, a move that economists warned could lead to higher consumer prices and economic instability.⁶

Historical evidence and economic analyses consistently show that tariffs often fail to deliver their promised benefits. The Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, intended to protect American jobs during the Great Depression, instead triggered international retaliation, leading to a significant decline in global trade and exacerbating economic hardship. Similarly, Trump’s tariff policies during his first term led to increased costs for American consumers and businesses, with studies indicating that U.S. firms and consumers bore the majority of the tariff costs. While tariffs may offer short-term relief to certain industries, they often result in long-term economic drawbacks, including higher prices, strained international relations, and retaliatory measures from trade partners.

Tariffs may be politically expedient, projecting an image of economic nationalism and self-reliance. However, in practice, they function as hidden taxes on consumers, leading to higher prices, reduced purchasing power, and economic inefficiencies. The historical record and current data converge on a clear conclusion: tariffs, while appealing in rhetoric, often result in economic self-sabotage rather than protection.

Pandemic and Russia: Causes of Inflation

I would vote for the candidate who did not cause the US and global inflation we are now experiencing today. Trump’s initial handling of the pandemic destabilized U.S. supply and demand dynamics. Thereafter, Donald’s friend, Putin, started the invasion of Ukraine that disrupted global energy and food markets.

Under Trump, inconsistent pandemic policies disrupted labour and supply chains, leading to shortages that, along with major stimulus measures, primed the U.S. economy for inflation. ⁷ ⁸ ⁹

Putin’s 2022 invasion further fuelled inflation by driving up energy and commodity prices, particularly oil, which impacted transportation and production costs globally. These combined factors led to the inflationary surge we continue to experience today.

The cost of fuel is never to be blamed for any president, but if you want to, the cost of fuel under Obama was much lower than Donald’s or the Biden Administration’s. Then again, Obama had nothing to do with it because the cost of fuel is driven by a different factor. ¹⁰ ¹¹

The conservative party runs the idea that “if you want a good economy, vote red”, but seeing they were the ones who brought the bad economy, they laid the ground for the foundational cause of inflation, is ironic.

Crime and Illegal Immigration

I don’t like crime.

Since 2017, I always have had a meticulous planning matrix that combines the closest highest-rated schools, nearest hospitals, and a lot more of that “heuristics” stuff I talked about when we moved places. More importantly, we carefully assess the rate at which common crimes happen in a 5-mile radius area. We just moved to Massachusetts in June (will post about it), and the place we got has an astoundingly peaceful neighbourhood. The police are 4-6 minutes away.

You had this coming. I will vote for the candidate who is not a convicted felon. Ah, you probably thought the words that would follow were “…tough on crime“. Don’t worry, it’s perpetually synonymous. Claiming to be tough on crime but at the same time wanting to seat a convicted felon into the white house is not only hypocritical, it’s moronic. This isn’t just a conviction for shoplifting or 2nd-degree murder.

He has an outstanding conviction (hush money) on 34 felony counts. He is still facing multiple ongoing indictments and legal battles across various jurisdictions, including charges related to election interference, classified document handling, and other federal and state allegations. Well, I’ll be damned. If I had that kind of felony, I would lose my job! So why even qualify as a candidate—for the presidency?

Attempt to Overthrow the Government

Here’s the thing: When you commanded an estimated 2,000-2,500 people to commit insurrection and treason while you retreat and watch how it plays out, you need to pay for your crimes. If convicted (again), Treason would be a serious crime. Don’t compare it to “brave citizens fighting off the British oppressors” during the colonial era. These were bamboozled fools who were lied to. They were sacrificed in a foiled riot all for their leader’s ego and warped sense of reality. Their leader lied that he didn’t lose the election in 2020, but they believed it.

I will talk more about lying and the sense of reality in “Mental Health”. The criminality of Trump’s role is still evaluated in legal cases. Courts are addressing both the definition of his actions and the severity of the charges. The Supreme Court decided that he could do this without proper citation to the law. However, we should remember that 6 justices out of the 9 are conservatives with four of them having absolute loyalty to Donald Trump.

Pro-Crime?

Of course, the conservative party has always used “the pro-crime liberals” as their staple, stereotypical accusation against the other party. This is the party that had the bright idea to put an actual felon as their nominee for presidential candidacy. Is Donald their demigod as well? Checking on the facts, however, will have you realise that the liberals/democrats aren’t standing for lawlessness. They often tell their fellow scandalised politicians to step down and resign. These accusations were more of an exaggeration. Exaggeration works best when you know people are easily lied to and are jumped instantly with emotional triggers. This goes for both parties.

The Border Crisis

I will also vote for the candidate whose party had a solution on the table to fix the border crisis, who worked with a great number of people putting party lines aside and who crafted a solution that would put more funding for our Border agents. However, Donald had to call the Senate conservatives to block that bill. The specifics of Trump’s phone conversations haven’t been publicly detailed verbatim. However, his message was clear. He urged Senate conservatives to block the bill to avoid what he saw as an election-year win for President Biden.

Donald expressed that the bill would lead to leniency at the border. A claim refuted by proponents who argued it would actually tighten border controls. Donald’s true intention was to run on the immigration crisis, and a solution would lose a problem that he needs to use as a campaign booster.

We will talk more about immigrants in Lessons from the Past.

Foreign Intervention and Conflicts

This is simple. I would vote for the candidate who wants the democracy of any nation in this world to prevail. It is already certain that Ukraine will ultimately fall if Donald’s America demands Ukraine to surrender to Putin. That is his idea for ending this war, and that is not how a democracy prevails.

Arab Americans are sour towards the current Vice President for her stance (and basically, the administration-wide stance) toward Israel. In Michigan, they are the large group of “undecided” voters. If they don’t vote, it would give Donald the edge in winning the election. The big problem for Palestinian supporters is they think that the conservatives and Donald will care more about those people. Do they honestly believe that not voting for either will do these people good? By perpetually handing the election to Donald, they doom what they claim to protect.

The sad fact is just what I mentioned as plainly as possible. Neither candidate would have a solution for the Middle East conflicts, I reckon, 30-50 years from now, even. It’s a conflict deeply rooted in religion and bigotry towards each other where reason is not an option, but annihilation. Remember, actual Palestinians and the majority of Israelites do not want this conflict. However, Netanyahu’s Israel dismisses every request the US makes, and Hamas isn’t the reasonable type as well.

I was reluctant to mention Israel in this article. However, I will vote for someone who at least will try to de-escalate and be fair on both sides. Not the candidate – and party – who picks only one. ¹² ¹³ ¹⁴

National Security and Classified Materials

Being a Cleared individual and having obtained the highest clearance anyone can get; I consider this personal to me. I am employed in the private sector working on a federal contract. While I am not considered a “Federal Employee” in official terminology, I treat everyone in the Military and the federal space as my brothers and sisters. I train myself year-round, even every half a year, to learn about safety and protecting national security. I memorised the different levels of classifications in protecting sensitive government materials and how to handle them. Even the NATO ones. I do it to the best of my ability.

For an elected official or formerly elected official to violate any of these is disrespectful of what I stand for. This is a disrespect to what our FSOs have been teaching us and have been guiding us. This is a disrespect to any federal employee, especially in the defence sector. All the hard work they do in protecting the country just means nothing to this man.

Mishandling Classified Documents and no Jail time for it?

To any federal employee who would question my decisions — do you honestly believe that you or I should vote for someone who treats highly classified materials like groceries stockpiled in a corner of their mansion’s bathroom? Do you honestly believe that I would vote for someone who defied orders from the national archives to surrender them — repeatedly — and to top it all off, even planned on selling these documents to the highest bidder outside of our Country?

No.

Let’s all be a person of reason. You need to get behind a leader who actually knows at least a little of what you do. Follows procedures as well as or better than you, especially if what you do is a matter of National Security. To vote for someone who doesn’t know, let alone abide by these rules is not just hypocritical on your part. It’s an indication of your lack of dedication to your work. I’m telling you, if this was any one of us doing all the things above, we would be in prison the next day! (Worse, the death penalty).

Stable Mental Health

Psychologists and mental health specialists voiced serious concerns about Donald’s behaviour, citing traits often linked with narcissism, impulsivity, and paranoia. The APA’s “Goldwater Rule” cautioned against diagnosing public figures without direct assessment. However, unlike Barry Goldwater’s case, they argued that Trump’s extensive media presence provided ample material for observing concerning patterns. ¹⁵ ¹⁶ Specialists have a thorough and damning analysis, and they concluded that his behaviour and decision-making posed potential public risks, suggesting that ethical considerations might allow commentary on his fitness for leadership, given the unprecedented public access to his actions and words.

The Liar

Every time Donald is on the TV, it is almost always guaranteed that he is going to lie. I kid you not. I challenge anyone for us to find random videos of him speaking for at least an hour. I will guarantee there will be lies in there. If I get $1,000 for each one we find for every instance he lied since 2012, I would be able to pay my mortgage (I just got it in 2024, and it’s still huge). I’d probably pay every debt I have in existence (well I don’t have a lot). Plus, could have enough money to start a franchise with Dunkin’ Donuts.

Chronic lying can sometimes be a symptom of certain mental health conditions. Persistent lying, especially when it appears uncontrollable or serves no clear purpose, may be associated with specific disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), and borderline personality disorder (BPD). In these cases, lying often serves a function within the disorder, such as manipulating others or protecting one’s self-image.

Another form, known as pseudologia fantastica or “pathological lying”, involves compulsive lying with no obvious motivation or gain. It can sometimes be linked to specific personality disorders or trauma. Pathological lying isn’t recognized as a standalone diagnosis in the DSM-5 (the main diagnostic manual in psychology). It is often observed as a behavioural issue that can signal underlying psychological conditions.

Aside from the obvious mental issues, there have been known reports that he has poor comprehension. He cannot read, or at least, can’t read in long paragraphs. This is bad because educational prowess, knowledge and your ability to articulate are more important when being a public figure. Let alone a leader of a nation. This video where he tried to answer a simple question about childcare is a stunning reminder of how incredibly incapable he is of being coherent. To be fair, though, I too, fumble on speeches or presentations sometimes. If I did not have a script to run on, I would blank out. Reality check: there’s a reason why I’m not running for office. Plus, that was the worst, and I am not that bad.

This is an easy pick, and no arguments are required for this. I’m not asking for Einstein, but I will only vote for a candidate with at least an average sensibility and capable mind. This is not even an attempt to insult. It is what it is.

Basic Human Rights

The topic of women’s bodily autonomy should not have been something people have to fight for. Unless it’s the 13th century where even then, you will still lose if you attempt to fight on this topic. Possibly literally lose your life for it.

However, this isn’t the 13th Century.

“Abortion” – a horrifying word for the religious, is fundamentally about bodily autonomy. The right for individuals, especially women, to control their own bodies and life choices without government interference. Forced pregnancy infringes on personal freedom, poses physical and socioeconomic risks, and disproportionately harms marginalized communities, reinforcing cycles of poverty. Restricting abortion doesn’t prevent it but drives it underground, endangering public health and leading to unsafe procedures. Ultimately, access to safe abortion protects personal freedom, public health, and social equity, making it a right. If restricted, it would violate essential principles of human rights and bodily autonomy.

The slippery Slope

Semantics be damned; however, they say that they aren’t “restricting” the right to bodily autonomy but they’re “giving it back to individual states” to decide on. Yes, but doing such a move is a pretext that any federal law can be stripped and given away for states to decide such as voting rights, education, and even bringing back controversial racial laws like segregation. This is not a slippery slope. When we currently have a majority of judges in the Supreme Court who hold more value to their personal conservative opinions and appeal to party favours, than sensible laws and scientific facts—more rights can be stripped and regulations taken down. ¹⁷ ¹⁸

The entire argument on this issue may require 25,000 more words to be considered adequate and it cannot be justified in just a corner section of this article. Writing a rationale on the issue in two paragraphs barely scratches the surface. Nonetheless, I would prefer a candidate who is a staunch proponent of human rights, not letting states decide whether those rights are to be given or not.

Lessons from the Past

“Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.” We all know what happened to Germany in the 1930s when their people caved into the hate-filled tirade of a tiny angry man. Yes, he led a riot against his own government, lost, and had his followers arrested. He ran his campaign on a scapegoat, calling them “The enemy from within”, the Jews, the immigrants, who came to their Fatherland hundreds of years ago. He claimed these immigrants (Jews) have “bad genes”, and that they are “poisoning the blood” of Germany.

The wanna-be Führer

Today, Donald Trump, as eerie as this sounds, used the same words VERBATIM against every immigrant in the United States, though, unlike Adolf Hitler, he made additional bogus claims about immigrants eating pets from households in Ohio, all of which are false. It was repeatedly Haitians being called “illegals” but that too was also false, as they had valid and legal asylum status. It is also false that immigrants have committed more crimes in the U.S. than citizens, as supported by these reputable studies and reports:

Cato Institute Analysis: A 2018 report by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute found that both legal and undocumented immigrants have significantly lower crime rates than native-born Americans. It analysed data from Texas, showing that undocumented immigrants were far less likely to be convicted of crimes than native-born citizens.
American Immigration Council: The American Immigration Council, in multiple reports, has analysed federal and state-level crime data, finding that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, are less likely to commit crimes than native-born individuals. The Council notes that this pattern holds across various types of offences, including violent and property crimes.
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER): A 2017 study published by the NBER also concluded that immigrants do not increase crime rates, and, in some cases, their presence correlates with reductions in crime. This comprehensive study used crime and immigration data from 1970 to 2014 to support its findings.
Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice: Research in this academic journal has similarly shown that immigrant communities often have lower crime rates than native-born populations, with studies suggesting a “protective” effect that immigrants have on neighbourhood safety.

Move forward

Hate-filled tirades should not have an audience in these times. This is 2024, and we don’t have inquisitions, discrimination, segregation and fascism anymore (at least, we shouldn’t) because those were the wrong things that the previous generations did that, they sadly never figured out were wrong.

There shouldn’t be a contest about this, but I would vote for the candidate who does not tend to lean towards fascism and authoritarianism.

Wrapping up

Psychologically speaking, the less that our brain knows, the more confident it is that it knows all it needs to know. This makes us prone to thinking that we have all the crucial facts about a decision, leaping to confident conclusions and decisive judgments, even when we are missing necessary information.

Are you familiar with the Dunning-Krueger effect? It is a cognitive bias where people with low ability or knowledge in a particular area overestimate their competence, often without realizing it. Essentially, the less someone knows about a topic, the more likely they are to believe they are knowledgeable or skilled in it. This overconfidence stems from a lack of self-awareness, as individuals with limited understanding often lack the necessary skills to recognize their own deficiencies. On the other hand, highly skilled individuals sometimes underestimate their abilities, assuming tasks are as easy for others as they are for themselves. This phenomenon highlights the disparity between perceived competence and actual competence, revealing that true expertise often comes with greater awareness of one’s limitations, and most of us, are not aware of this when we go out there and put the fate of the country in our hands.

I hope you enjoyed this masterclass of “Not telling people who to vote for but at the same time, telling people that voting for Donald Trump, the wrong candidate, is a big mistake” (through a comprehensive analysis of the facts and deep critical thinking and not just throwing buzzwords and basing everything from emotion or hearsay).

Exercise your right to vote. Vote with a conscience, not with your bias. My goal was to teach you “how to think” and always consider the facts as your priority, and I hope you’re not following the people who are telling you “What to think”. This is the first time I have ever posted about Politics and policies. It could be the last, but hopefully not. After all, 1st Amendment rights.