Voting for a candidate

[Frostwulf]

I was speaking with someone and told them about a situation which I tended to find vile, the person responded to me that they couldn't believe that this was done in this country, it didn't seem real to him(he also thought the situation very disturbing to say the least). I then proceeded to tell him that this particular situation was supported by the candidate he was planning on voting for; his response was that he didn't find this situation to warrant a change of his mind. I asked another fellow of this same situation, which he considered the situation to be murder, yet he also was unwilling to change his mind of this candidate.

So my question is this, is there any one subject/reason that would in your mind simply disqualify someone from your vote? If there is just one thing, what is it?

Here is an example of what I'm looking for: If there was one issue in which would quash my voting of a particular candidate it would be if he was pro-slavery.

[Gandalfus]

It's mainly that people are stubborn, but will eventually renounce their political beliefs if the people they vote for make some pretty bad decisions. It is usually quite hard to try and win someone away from their chosen leader.

[Condottiere 40K]

Besides, he likes dogs.

[DimeBagHo]

Not a current event. Moved from the Mudpit to the Academy.

[Col. Tartleton]

It would be useful if we actually knew what you were talking about.

[Akar]

I was speaking with someone and told them about a situation which I tended to find vile, the person responded to me that they couldn't believe that this was done in this country, it didn't seem real to him(he also thought the situation very disturbing to say the least). I then proceeded to tell him that this particular situation was supported by the candidate he was planning on voting for; his response was that he didn't find this situation to warrant a change of his mind. I asked another fellow of this same situation, which he considered the situation to be murder, yet he also was unwilling to change his mind of this candidate.

So my question is this, is there any one subject/reason that would in your mind simply disqualify someone from your vote? If there is just one thing, what is it?

It would be useful if we actually knew what you were talking about.

Abortion?

[Frostwulf]

Sorry I wasn't very clear, my question was simply asking if there is one issue which would be so abhorrent to you that you could not support a candidate for that one single issue.
Say that there was a candidate that seemed to view political/social/economic issues nearly identical to your beliefs, but he believed in slavery, would you vote for this candidate? My question is for you to replace slavery with one issue that no matter what you could not vote for that person.

[Condottiere 40K]

I thought it was Adenoid Hynkel.

[TheDarkKnight]

Slavery is a bit of an extreme issue to use. I wouldn't vote for that man or woman because there would be so many people voting against him or her that it would be pointless to even try.

[xcorps]

Treason, Murder, Larceny, Embezzelment...But I get the feeling that's not what you are looking for.

I would prefer a candidate who adheres to the epistemic virtues, but that person does not exist in politics. My ideal candidate would be politically conservative but socially moderate. I would not vote for a radical. By radical I mean anything that places an importance on agenda over governance. For instance, a member of PETA, the KKK, the Moral Majority, or a cleric of any denomination. I would not vote for a Scientologist under any circumstances, and I would not vote for someone who supported violence as a means to an end.

[AqD]

So my question is this, is there any one subject/reason that would in your mind simply disqualify someone from your vote? If there is just one thing, what is it?

Anyone who's not actively supporting death penalty is disqualified.

[Dragus]

This likely varies from individual to individual. My own personal ideologies cause me to place a strong importance on issues of social equality such as non-heterosexual marriage rights, seperation of church and state, and universal healthcare. One could say that those are my three "hot-button" issues, and the candidate who has the most of those on his or her platform receives my support in most cases.

But if I had to make an observation of society as whole, I would say that in the United States that certain social issues individually are now holding less sway over voters' decision-making. In short, for the most part I'm of the view that voters look at 3 or 4 issues now as opposed to 1 or 2.

As for locations outside of the United States, I unfortunately have little experience and knowledge in the matter.

[Fernandez_1492]

Il be specific. Section 1021 of the NDAA is unconsitutional. Obama signed it into law. That for me disqaulifies him as a candidate. and should disqualify him from even being president. imo at least.

Mitt was asked during during gop debate if he have signed ndaa as written. He said yes.
Now idk if he was or is aware of section 1021. I disqualify him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbCJ...e_gdata_player

[xcorps]

Il be specific. Section 1021 of the NDAA is unconsitutional. Obama signed it into law. That for me disqaulifies him as a candidate. and should disqualify him from even being president. imo at least.

Mitt was asked during during gop debate if he have signed ndaa as written. He said yes.
Now idk if he was or is aware of section 1021. I disqualify him.

What about all the Congressmen who drafted the bill? What about all the Congressmen who voted to make the bill a law?

[Fernandez_1492]

What about all the Congressmen who drafted the bill? What about all the Congressmen who voted to make the bill a law?

Yeah they will be replqced next month. But obama didnt do his job in vetoing the bill or at least demand that 1021 be removed.
Its ultimatley the presidents responsibilty, as a constitutionalist you'd think he'd defend the constitution. But thats what we get for electing a man that thinks the const is a fundamentally flawed document.

That one female judge had placed an indefinate block on sec 1021. What does O admin do immediately, appeal the judges decision. O admin is fighting to make sure 1021 remains an option for obama and follwing presients. didnt obama say something about "rule of law"? what a hipo.

[Col. Tartleton]

It probably won't get through the USSC.

If they don't stop it there will be a popular storm. We're going to see another nullification crisis.

[Frostwulf]

Slavery is a bit of an extreme issue to use. I wouldn't vote for that man or woman because there would be so many people voting against him or her that it would be pointless to even try.

While I do agree with you, I still had someone try to rationalize it. Basic statement was that he could vote for the person as long as he knew the person would not be able to pass slavery into law(being voted down by senate/congress). I have asked over 20 people and all but that one said no.

Treason, Murder, Larceny, Embezzelment...But I get the feeling that's not what you are looking for.

This is exactly what I'm looking for, I think. If you mean if by your candidate committed Larceny you wouldn't vote for him, that is what I'm looking for. If you mean a list of things, then no.

But if I had to make an observation of society as whole, I would say that in the United States that certain social issues individually are now holding less sway over voters' decision-making. In short, for the most part I'm of the view that voters look at 3 or 4 issues now as opposed to 1 or 2.

I agree with this statement, but for you there is no single issue that would eliminate a candidate for you?

Anyone who's not actively supporting death penalty is disqualified.

This is the kind of answer I'm looking for. I'm curious, would you mind explaining why.

What does O admin do immediately, appeal the judges decision. O admin is fighting to make sure 1021 remains an option for obama and follwing presients. didnt obama say something about "rule of law"? what a hipo.

I have seen some pretty ugly things of late(hence the reason of this thread).

It probably won't get through the USSC

I never thought that the eminent domain passed by the USSC would ever be to that level, so I'm not so sure(I hope you are right).

[AqD]

This is the kind of answer I'm looking for. I'm curious, would you mind explaining why.

Because to tolerate the existence of gangsters, murderers and other violent criminals is to recognize these crimes as acceptable actions in our world, and to admit violence, fear and threat as part of our everyday life.

I don't care if people call it genocide or state-murdering or whatever. They're not my kind, not my people, not even humans in my eyes and I'd happily exterminate every of them if I can.

[Gromovnik]

I would never vote for a candidate who supports the genocide of my people.

[Condottiere 40K]

Karak Eight Peaks, never forget.