I think this sort of think collapses in on itself within the context of voting though, and the very fact that you've brought up both racism and sexism really illustrates why. There is more than one sociopolitical issue in the world and sometimes (see: effectively always) people will have to rank them in order of importance when choosing a candidate.
If one candidate is a sexist and one candidate is a racist, and you're forced to vote in what is either effectively or literally a two party system, are you sexist for voting for the sexist candidate and racist for voting for the racist one (ie. would every single voter be either racist or sexist?) If so then I think we've set a problematically low bar for sexism and racism to the point where we're going to lose important words to describe people and actions who are actually, you know, racist or sexist. And if not then I think you've accepted that people who aren't racist could have voted for Trump because they just ranked racism lower than some other issue or combination of issues.
People who rank racism lower than you do aren't necessarily racists any more than you're a bloodthirsty, warmongering murderer for supporting Clinton.
Look, I agree with you, and there is merit in the point you are making if the voters were presented with a choice between victimising one group within the community or another. If presented with such a choice, then yes it wouldn't be fair to label one group of voters as sexist and the other as racist.
But that isn't the case here. Only one of the two candidates has, during their campaign, openly sought to target segments of the population. Only one of the two candidates actually has a history of mistreating segments of the population. Only one of the two candidates has received approval from those who look to marginalise segments of the population. The worst Hilary has done in this regard is vote against Gay Marriage once upon a time (a position she no longer has) and call all Trump voters 'a basket of deplorables'. That pales in comparison to Trump.
And this is ultimately what bothers me so much. As I said, IMO Social issues > all else, and I am shocked that people are willing to overlook Trump's rhetoric and history for 'other issues or combination of issues'. I am very surprised that this decision was not an open and shut case to these people. The fact that they are willing to be complicit in the mistreatment of certain groups of the population
at all worries me. Because I cannot fathom any 'other issue or combination of issues' that would outweigh this. But hey, maybe that's just me.
This leads me to this:
That's fine if that's your position, but you must then be philosophically consistent with it, & that also makes you and I 'complicit' to poverty in Africa, simply because we could both (i'm sure I speak for you) be more selfless & give more of what we have away, to ensure slightly more equality in the world, & whilst still surviving.
As long as we're all guilty of some form of selfishness of putting ourselves & our families before others. In fact, why should people even put their fellow countrymen & women ahead of those people unlucky enough to be born in poorer countries?
Isn't that just a natural extension of the same argument, or do they get a pass on that?
What you'll generally find in life is that it's self & family first, country 2nd, & then others in the world in that order.
First off, you are confusing things.
The President of the United States has to be someone who looks out for and represents the entire population United States.
Thats it. Starving kids in Africa are not his concern because he is not the President of Africa. Those aren't the people he is looking over.
What this means is that, when voting for the president of the United States, I would expect people of good conscience to vote for a person who has everyone in the USA's best interests in heart.
So to stay philosophically consistent - If we were electing King of the World, then yes, I think its every bit as important to vote someone in who will look after the poor and starving in Africa, and if that means I lose some of my wealth and resources then be it. I am 100% behind that idea.
But that is not what is happening.
What is happening is that the majority of the populace in the USA have voted in a man who claims to have their interest in heart, and in the process have become complicit in the mistreatment of their countrymen. They have put themselves ahead of other people
within their community when it came to making a decision that affects all of them. I wouldn't expect them to be concerned with what their President means for the starving in Africa or the war in Middle East honestly; I'd expect them at the very least to care about what their votes means for their
fellow Americans. Which is also why this is so shocking to me - that the treatment of their fellow countrymen doesn't matter to them.
And ethics aside, when you try to defend their decision as 'putting themselves and their families before others', you remind me of this quote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
History is repeating itself here. No one benefits in the long run by being complicit in the mistreatment and marginalising of groups of people within their community. Be it the liberal elites downplaying the concerns of the working class, be it white america being complicit in systematic racism, or even be in men being A-okay with sexual offenders being in positions of power.
Ultimately this just all comes back to bite everyone in the ass.
Sorry if I'm coming off preachy and naive and unrealistic, but I really don't buy any of these justifications on voting for Trump after all he has said. I really am quite disturbed that so many people are okay with this. And frankly a bit concerned that so many members here are tolerant of it too.