deal breakers...... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

philosophy -> deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 5:09:47 PM)

In politics, what is your deal breaker? What is the policy you can never support?

i've been thinking about this a bit recently, as various posters on these fora state how they're not really satisfied with either Presidential candidate but X has done Y and thats awful..........while others say Z had done Y too, and thats even more awful.

So what is is about a candidate that is just an immediate 'i-can't-vote-for-you'?



Thadius -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 5:29:24 PM)

For me it would be anybody that has come up through the Chicago political machine.  Which means I could never vote for myself. [;)]

In all honesty, it depends on the office that is being sought and the individual.  I am not sure that there is an outright deal breaker right from the start for me.  I guess the closest would be actions like Jane Fonda took in '72, regarless of what her political positions were or her other policies were, I could not vote for her based on those actions.

Sorry if that sounds like a cop out, but it the most honest answer I can come up with.



bipolarber -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 5:39:13 PM)

Someone who runs on a platform that is patently unconstitutional.



pahunkboy -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 5:47:29 PM)

my wallet.

touch my wallet and look OUT



philosophy -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 5:50:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

For me it would be anybody that has come up through the Chicago political machine.  Which means I could never vote for myself. [;)]

In all honesty, it depends on the office that is being sought and the individual.  I am not sure that there is an outright deal breaker right from the start for me.  I guess the closest would be actions like Jane Fonda took in '72, regarless of what her political positions were or her other policies were, I could not vote for her based on those actions.

Sorry if that sounds like a cop out, but it the most honest answer I can come up with.


...not a cop out at all........i'm interested in this, because so many people have said what they're voting against.....far more than people have said what they are voting for.
Seems to me that we have allowed ourselves to slip into the twilight world of politics by opposition. X is opposed to anything that smells of socialism, Y wont vote for anyone 'soft' on abortion, Z wont vote for anyone from Chicago [:D]
i'm curious as to the nature of that opposition for people.......



kittinSol -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 5:52:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy.

So what is is about a candidate that is just an immediate 'i-can't-vote-for-you'?


There's more than one, but the very first thing that sprung to my mind was the death penalty. I could never support (nor fall in love with) somebody who advocated in its favour.



Thadius -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 5:53:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy.

So what is is about a candidate that is just an immediate 'i-can't-vote-for-you'?


There's more than one, but the very first thing that sprung to my mind was the death penalty. I could never support (nor fall in love with) somebody who advocated in its favour.


How are you supporting Obama then?  That is one position of his I actually agree with.



philosophy -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 5:55:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy.

So what is is about a candidate that is just an immediate 'i-can't-vote-for-you'?


There's more than one, but the very first thing that sprung to my mind was the death penalty. I could never support (nor fall in love with) somebody who advocated in its favour.


.....i figured human rights in one form or another would be a broad general category of things people vote on........whether death penalty, racism or abortion issues.



philosophy -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 5:56:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy.

So what is is about a candidate that is just an immediate 'i-can't-vote-for-you'?


There's more than one, but the very first thing that sprung to my mind was the death penalty. I could never support (nor fall in love with) somebody who advocated in its favour.


How are you supporting Obama then?  That is one position of his I actually agree with.


......my thesis of politics by opposition may come into play here......



Thadius -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 5:57:40 PM)

quote:


...not a cop out at all........i'm interested in this, because so many people have said what they're voting against.....far more than people have said what they are voting for.
Seems to me that we have allowed ourselves to slip into the twilight world of politics by opposition. X is opposed to anything that smells of socialism, Y wont vote for anyone 'soft' on abortion, Z wont vote for anyone from Chicago [:D]
i'm curious as to the nature of that opposition for people.......



Considering that many politicians are charismatic and probably likable on a personal level, it might be easier to find a reason to oppose them than to make them stand out in a positive light compared to the others.

Just a hunch.



philosophy -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 6:05:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


Considering that many politicians are charismatic and probably likable on a personal level, it might be easier to find a reason to oppose them than to make them stand out in a positive light compared to the others.

Just a hunch.


...not impossible, but i'm not inclined to go along with that thesis.

We've always had attack politics, some of our favourite insults come from this arena......ie, from UK politics, some time ago.........

"You, Mr. Wilkes, will die either of the pox or on the gallows."
–The Earl of Sandwich

"That depends, my lord, whether I embrace your mistress or your principles."
–John Wilkes's response to The Earl of Sandwich      ...of course this was all some time ago.....but my point is that something has happened recently. It's one of two things, either we have become more rabid, less inclined to listen in our political debates, preferring to attack our opponent......or we have become more aware of something that has always been there.

By asking what people's deal breakers, i hope to discover if there is a pattern to them. That pattern may point, loosely, to a culprit.



kittinSol -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 6:08:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

How are you supporting Obama then?  That is one position of his I actually agree with.



Fact: I can't vote, as you know, so my support is hypothetical - but I wish his view on the subject was different. Since you ask [>:].



Irishknight -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 6:15:59 PM)

I suppose my deal breakers are when anyone shows disdain for our servicemen.  Those, like Jane Fonda, who acted that way years ago will never get my vote. 
I am also more likely to vote against someone who is pro gun control as well.  I believe there are enough people in congress who would counter that person that I can vote for them if thier stance on other issues is consistant with mine.

Also, professional clowns ..... I could never vote for a man in big red floppy shoes and white make up.



Thadius -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 6:22:52 PM)

My two favorites come from the same man...

"There he goes again..." and  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPu1UIBkBc 

Indeed attack politics do work, and that feeds into my suggestion that it is easier for folks to believe a negative about somebody than it is to see the positives that may elevate them from the rest of the pack.

In '92 I acutally voted for Clinton, in '96 I voted against him.  The first time I liked what he proposed and how it would have affected me.  Just as an example.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 6:28:03 PM)

I can't really answer your question. But can list what I want in a candidate.

1. Pro-individual. (socialism, is anti-individual, civilian monitoring is anti-individual, high tax rate is anti-individual, our implementation of drug laws is anti-individual).
2. Anti-War. (War is a waste of money, when it can be avoided)
3. Pro-small business. (Why? small, because most small businesses cater locally enhancing the local communities economy. Also small businesses are more personally accountable)
4. US First, world second (By that I mean, we don't worry about fixing the world, and spreading democracy, as they like to say, while, our own house is falling apart in certain areas).

Anyway, it's very difficult for me to find a candidate to support they seem to always lack in one critical area or another.



TheHeretic -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 7:42:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
So what is is about a candidate that is just an immediate 'i-can't-vote-for-you'?



        Great question, Phil.  First off, it would have to be based on something they have actually done, rather than just a position they talk (though speaking words can qualify as 'doing something' as well.  This is a mighty gray area.).  It needs to be something I already knew or can personally verify, not a pop-up press release without the whole story, a la Palin and Librarian.  Then we have the question of whether not voting for them is a passive, vote third party protest, or actively seeking their defeat, by working for the other guy. 

         Let's take the last two D nominees for Pres.

        Al Gore never had a chance of getting my vote.  I'm a complete asshole about free speech, even the slimy kind, and I held the PMRC hearings against him.  I almost flushed my vote to Perot when Clinton took him as veep in '92.  In '00 I tossed a meaningless vote to the doomed Nader.

        John Kerry, after Vietnam was plenty for me, without the Swifties.  He betrayed the men he had served with.  That alone never would have been enough to make me vote for Bush, but add it to the general tone of hatred and spite that flowed through that campaign, and I did send my vote to him.  Purely a symbolic act, living in CA, but I've stayed to the right since (maybe another thread about rejecting an entire party?  Naa.  That would just get ugly.).

       Let's go with this.  The candidate would have to have violated the peculiar, possibly perverse, set of values I hold most dear, in a way that I can't rationalize.

       



BKSir -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 7:56:45 PM)

Overwhelming inconsistency and out and out lies.  Yeah, both sides are going to have some inconsistent things, all sides, everyone.  Can't help it, nature of the beast.  Wish it wasn't so, but, they do.  It's the ones that are blatantly obvious in it, over and over and over again.  If you're going to have the cajones to try and lie to me, at least put some damn effort into it.



daddysliloneds -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 7:57:31 PM)

anyone who tries to tell me what i can/can't do with my own body; it's bad enough that suicide is against the law.



caitlyn -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 8:03:52 PM)

I have no deal-breaker.
 
Democracy is about compromise. In my view, you sometimes have to accept what is unacceptable, if you think it's what it best for our nation. I'm very pro-life, as you might have guessed from other posts, but believe its irresponsable to vote against someone, because they don't agree with me on that issue. I was an ardent supporter and advocate for Senator Clinton. I even spent quite a bit of time campaigning for her. I don't agree with her on many, many issues, but felt she was the best choice for our country.
 
We ask a President to not have a litmus test for things like Supreme Court nominations. As voters, it is our patriotic duty to put the good of our nation ahead of any personal litmus test. We are also a world power. It is our duty to the world to protect non-Americans, who have no say in our election process, from irresponsible administrations wielding our overpowering military.



TheUtopian -> RE: deal breakers...... (9/24/2008 8:20:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

In politics, what is your deal breaker? What is the policy you can never support?

i've been thinking about this a bit recently, as various posters on these fora state how they're not really satisfied with either Presidential candidate but X has done Y and thats awful..........while others say Z had done Y too, and thats even more awful.

So what is is about a candidate that is just an immediate 'i-can't-vote-for-you'?


Three deal breakers for me are :

1}Military Adventurism in the form of any type of nation building and/or meddling with our intelligence apparatus/networks for purposes of encouraging revolutions and people-power coups as it pertains to other sovereign nation-states/governments.

2} Globalism / outsourcing /fake-free trade - I'm a statesman and a economic nationalist who believes in constrained forms capitalism defined only within the concept of nation-states - so as designed to protect our markets and keep labor and capital on a semi-equal footing.

Simply put, ''demand'' creates jobs, not capital. And I see the reverse of this as the weak link in all working-class Republican thinking.

3} Monetary policy and deficit spending - I'm not a proponent of deficit spending or privatized central banking. I'm also a ''states rights'' guy who does not believe in centralized power themes/schemes or neo-feudalistic tendencies, by way of infrastructure privatization..


I cannot and will not support a candidate or party that advocates or is a proponent of any of the above three.





- R



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875