toldailytopic: What is the issue(s) that you must agree with in a political candidate

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Graphite

New member
Well, I like to think I have pretty high standards.

First of all, he has to have an (R) after his name.

Also, he has to be willing to kill at least a few less babies than his opponent.

He should be at least slightly less socialist than the other guy.

He can advocate homosexual marriage, as long as he only calls it "civil unions" and not "marriage."

He may say that he'll be willing to nominate or approve of pro-abortion judges, but hopefully he won't keep that campaign promise.


Ken Buck and Dan Maes in '10! Carrying on the legacy of such great Republicans as George Bush Sr. and Jr., McCain, Romney, et. al.
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Abortion and gay marriage. If the candidate belongs to a party that supports either, he doesn't have my vote. :idunno:
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Those that oppose abortion get my vote, those that see Gays don't have extra rights get my vote, those that believe in nullification get my vote. Oh and socialists don't get my vote either. Unfortunately Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats when it comes to that. Along with those that practice discrimination (affirmative action) dont get my vote

I would say my position differs so little, it would be a repeat of what you said.
 

WizardofOz

New member
Pro-life over pro-choice
Free market economical view over socialist or Keynesian
Libertarian over Dem and GOP big government
Non-interventionist over preemptive imperialist
Positive message over smear campaign against opponent
 

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for October 13th, 2010 01:26 PM


toldailytopic: What is the issue(s) that you must agree with in a political candidate if you are to cast your vote for them?

Personal integrity, personal responsibility and Constitutional governance.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, I like to think I have pretty high standards.

First of all, he has to have an (R) after his name.

Also, he has to be willing to kill at least a few less babies than his opponent.

He should be at least slightly less socialist than the other guy.

He can advocate homosexual marriage, as long as he only calls it "civil unions" and not "marriage."

He may say that he'll be willing to nominate or approve of pro-abortion judges, but hopefully he won't keep that campaign promise.


Ken Buck and Dan Maes in '10! Carrying on the legacy of such great Republicans as George Bush Sr. and Jr., McCain, Romney, et. al.

Sincerely,
chrysostom
Fixed it for you, TG.
 

The Horn

BANNED
Banned
I would never vote for an anti-choice politician. They aren't "pro-life". They're anti-choice,and anti-abortion.
If I and other people are pro-choice it's not because we like abortion and want abortions to happen. It's because making abortion illegal will only make a bad situation far worse.
I would never vote for a candidate who is stupid or naive enough to believe that making abortion illegal will ever stop women from seeking and obtaining abortions. Or stupid enough to believe that women will not go to back-alley abortions and risk their lives and health this way.
Or one stupid enough to believe that the poorest women will not try to abort themselves,with the inevitable disastrous results.
And even worse,many of these anti-choice are idiots who are not only opposed to abortion rights but actually want to make contraceptives illegal. What would this do? It would only create a black market in contraceptives and drive the abortion rate much higher.
When a country makes abortion illegal it invariably increases the number of abortions greatly as well as the number of women who die from botched illegal abortions.
Also,when a candidate is anti-choice,he or she almost always wants to greatly reduce or eliminate government help to poor pregnant women and the poor in general,which only keeps the abortion rate high.
If we are to do anything about the problem of abortion,we must make sure that the government proivides much more help to poor pregnant women,married or single,so that they will be much less likely to seek and obtain abortions.
Anti-choicers disingenuosly and self-servingly claim that there is already plenty of help for poor pregnant women available from the private sector for pregnant women in difficult situations.
This is a blatant lie. There isn't even remotely close to enough help to
see to it that poor pregnant women can provide decent food,shelter,clothing,education and medical care for their children,born or unborn. It this were the case as anti-choicers claim,there would be far fewer abortion sin America.
This is why the Catholic church,which blindly opposes abortion,contraception, medical research, and all that is the REAL culture of death. What they advocate for society would be catastrophic,because they are so out of touch with reality.
Also,I would never vote for a candidate who shows hostility toward homosexuals,even though I am heterosexual.
I'm also a Jew. Homophobia is no better than anti-semitism.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
US militaryism abroad
Support of the Federal Reserve
Ties to the banking elites/establishment/secret societies/good old boy network
Drug war

After that all other issues generally follow naturally.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I would never vote for an anti-choice politician. They aren't "pro-life". They're anti-choice,and anti-abortion.

Gotta just love the use of the word *choice*. So IF rape were to become legal, would you then begin calling all of those who would STILL speak out against it as *anti-choice*?

What a stupid stupid word that pro-aborts have stolen to soft coat the atrociousness of what abortion actually is: the intentional killing of an unborn, still developing baby.

If I and other people are pro-choice it's not because we like abortion and want abortions to happen. It's because making abortion illegal will only make a bad situation far worse.

How much worse can it get than massacring the most innocent of beings? Seriously ... you act as if the ONLY way to deal with an unplanned pregnancy is to kill the unborn baby.

How about not getting pregnant? How about adoption? How about taking responsibility and giving the child the love and protection that EVERY child, both born and pre-born, deserve?

I would never vote for a candidate who is stupid or naive enough to believe that making abortion illegal will ever stop women from seeking and obtaining abortions. Or stupid enough to believe that women will not go to back-alley abortions and risk their lives and health this way.

Who said anything about believing that abortion will stop ALL abortions? Criminalizing rape, murder and child molestation has never stopped those crimes either. So what's your point?

Or one stupid enough to believe that the poorest women will not try to abort themselves,with the inevitable disastrous results.

So you believe that poor people should be allowed to kill their children because ... they are poor?

And even worse,many of these anti-choice are idiots who are not only opposed to abortion rights but actually want to make contraceptives illegal. What would this do? It would only create a black market in contraceptives and drive the abortion rate much higher.

Well, I am not myself against contraception ... HOWEVER ... as you know, MANY teens and women are multiple aborters or don't use protection because abortion IS their contraception of choice.

When a country makes abortion illegal it invariably increases the number of abortions greatly as well as the number of women who die from botched illegal abortions.

So like should we make murder, rape, theft, etc. legal, do you suppose that less people would die because they wouldn't have to sneak around to do the deed?

Also,when a candidate is anti-choice,he or she almost always wants to greatly reduce or eliminate government help to poor pregnant women and the poor in general,which only keeps the abortion rate high. If we are to do anything about the problem of abortion,we must make sure that the government proivides much more help to poor pregnant women,married or single,so that they will be much less likely to seek and obtain abortions.

I have no problem whatsoever with government helping pregnant woman with medical costs for their pregnancy, aftercare and newborn care. However, like everything else in life, just because a circumstance makes life difficult or causes a hardship, there is still no reason to do harm to others to make our own life easier.

My life would have been MUCH easier if I could have robbed numerous banks and never worried about my childcare, rent, my children's school tuition, etc.

However, the easy way isn't always the moral way. Being a parent, like anything else, is a struggle and not easy. However, the rewards of bringing up and caring for another helpless human being who we are personally responsible for bringing into this world outweighs the struggle.

Anti-choicers disingenuosly and self-servingly claim that there is already plenty of help for poor pregnant women available from the private sector for pregnant women in difficult situations.
This is a blatant lie. There isn't even remotely close to enough help to see to it that poor pregnant women can provide decent food,shelter,clothing,education and medical care for their children,born or unborn. It this were the case as anti-choicers claim,there would be far fewer abortion sin America.

I AGREE and would love to see more help go towards aiding mother's and their unborn babies. However, why do you believe a hardship makes it okay to kill the unborn baby? The unborn baby did NOT ask to be brought into this world. There is no pregnancy fairy. The PARENTS, by their own actions, are responsible for the existence of the unborn baby.

This is why the Catholic church,which blindly opposes abortion,contraception, medical research, and all that is the REAL culture of death. What they advocate for society would be catastrophic,because they are so out of touch with reality.
Also,I would never vote for a candidate who shows hostility toward homosexuals,even though I am heterosexual.
I'm also a Jew. Homophobia is no better than anti-semitism.

Hey, I also wouldn't vote for a candidate who is infested with homophobia or anti-semitism ... however, that has nothing to do with being against abortion.
 

The Horn

BANNED
Banned
Comparing abortion to genuinely immoral things like murder and rape etc is ridiculous.Your whole premise is false. Abortion is a tragedy,not a crime,and is not done with malicious motives.
Saying that if abortion is legal,it's comparable to making murder and rape legal is ludicrous.
Of course murder and rape should not be legal.But abortion is an entirely different matter.
And laws against abortion are absolutely impossible to enforce,too.
You can enforce laws against murder and rape,but not abortion.
How do you stop women from having abortions anyway? Has any nation ever been able to do this? The answer is no.
Can you please tell me how the US government will enforce the law if abortion become illegal here again? I've yet to hear any one say how this can be done. Was the law enforced before 1973,when Roe W Wade was decided by the Supremem Court?
Almost never. Only an infinitessimal tiny fraction of those who performed abortions in America before this,and many were not doctorsand lacked the necessary medical training, were ever prosecuted and sent to jail.
And should women who have abortions be prosecuted for murder if they have abortions? Why should only the doctors or others who perform the abortions be prosecuted,as those who are opposed to abortion would like to see?
After all,it's the woman who decides to have the abortion,and the ones who perform the abortion,if you accept the utterly false premise that abortion is murder are in effect the hit men.
This makes about as much sense as prosecuting only the hit men who murder people for money,and not those who hire them to kill.
And how do we stop women from going to illegal abortionists? How will the government find all of these places which perform them?
And how will the government stop the poorest women from trying to abort themselves with coat hangers or other things,as was common before Roe V Wade?
Or stop women who can afford it from flying off to Europe and elsewhere for safe,legal abortions?
Can you tell me how this can be done? Will the government put up blockades at every border and airport and examine every woman of childbearing age for pregnancy? Or put up surveillance cameras in every home and elsewhere to make sure that no woman is trying to abort herself?
And will the government appoint a force of thousands and thousands of anti-abortion agents to scour every corener of the USA 24/7 to make sure that abortions are not happening?
Is this at all realistic? Conservatives are always calling for "freedom" and say they want the government "off our backs". But this sounds more like Orwell's 1984 than the "free" America conservatives claim to want.
And since conservatives don't want the government to waste money,how much would attempting to enforce laws against abortion cost? Billions and billions of dollars. And not only that,these billions would be wasted on something which was utterly futile and created a police state in America. Did prohibition stop Americans from drinking alcohol?
Some freedom. There has to be a better way. Remember-if abortion ever becomes illegal again in America ,it will be unsafe,illegal and COMMON. Be careful of what you ask for.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Comparing abortion to genuinely immoral things like murder and rape etc is ridiculous.Your whole premise is false. Abortion is a tragedy,not a crime,and is not done with malicious motives.

Abortion is the INTENTIONAL killing of an unborn baby. In what world do we label that as a "tragedy".

And yes, the motive may not be malicious, however, neither is the motives of a drunk driver or drug dealer.

The motive is SELFISH and complete and total disregard for the life of one's own child. That is not okay.

Saying that if abortion is legal,it's comparable to making murder and rape legal is ludicrous. Of course murder and rape should not be legal. But abortion is an entirely different matter.

WHY? Abortion is an act that intentionally HARMS another individual ... or are you going to argue that aborted babies are not killed by the act.

And laws against abortion are absolutely impossible to enforce,too.

No they are not. There are women who would obey the law and take MORE precautions to prevent pregnancy OR continue with the pregnancy if abortion were outlawed. As for the others who choose back-alley abortions and get caught ... let em rot in prison.

For those who have complications from back alley abortions, I would tell them the same thing I would as a robber who gets attacked by a dog while breaking into someone's home: it's your own fault.

You can enforce laws against murder and rape,but not abortion.

Sure you can.


How do you stop women from having abortions anyway? Has any nation ever been able to do this? The answer is no.
Can you please tell me how the US government will enforce the law if abortion become illegal here again? I've yet to hear any one say how this can be done. Was the law enforced before 1973,when Roe W Wade was decided by the Supremem Court? Almost never. Only an infinitessimal tiny fraction of those who performed abortions in America before this,and many were not doctorsand lacked the necessary medical training, were ever prosecuted and sent to jail.

Just because some women may slip through and be able to abort, does not mean that all would. For every woman that FEARS for her freedom should she abort, one life is saved.

And should women who have abortions be prosecuted for murder if they have abortions? Why should only the doctors or others who perform the abortions be prosecuted,as those who are opposed to abortion would like to see?

Everyone involved in abortion should be charged with the crime ... does that answer your question?

After all,it's the woman who decides to have the abortion,and the ones who perform the abortion,if you accept the utterly false premise that abortion is murder are in effect the hit men.
This makes about as much sense as prosecuting only the hit men who murder people for money,and not those who hire them to kill.

Who has argued that abortionists shouldn't be charged with performing abortions?

And how do we stop women from going to illegal abortionists? How will the government find all of these places which perform them?

Again, how will we stop rapists, murderers, child molesters, thieves, etc. from committing their crimes?

And how will the government stop the poorest women from trying to abort themselves with coat hangers or other things,as was common before Roe V Wade?

They can't ... however, what they can do is put the story on the 5 p.m. news with the headline as "Another Human Hamster Dies While Trying to Kill Her Child".

Or stop women who can afford it from flying off to Europe and elsewhere for safe,legal abortions?
Can you tell me how this can be done? Will the government put up blockades at every border and airport and examine every woman of childbearing age for pregnancy? Or put up surveillance cameras in every home and elsewhere to make sure that no woman is trying to abort herself?
And will the government appoint a force of thousands and thousands of anti-abortion agents to scour every corener of the USA 24/7 to make sure that abortions are not happening?
Is this at all realistic? Conservatives are always calling for "freedom" and say they want the government "off our backs". But this sounds more like Orwell's 1984 than the "free" America conservatives claim to want.
And since conservatives don't want the government to waste money,how much would attempting to enforce laws against abortion cost? Billions and billions of dollars. And not only that,these billions would be wasted on something which was utterly futile and created a police state in America. Did prohibition stop Americans from drinking alcohol?
Some freedom. There has to be a better way. Remember-if abortion ever becomes illegal again in America ,it will be unsafe,illegal and COMMON. Be careful of what you ask for.

Be careful what you advocate for, Horn. For some reason, you are using the excuse of "if you make abortion illegal, woman will die because they still try to abort".

The same thing could be said about any illegal activity. The goal is not to see women die or be harmed, but rather to allow the most innocent members of society to live and thrive.

A woman can have a life AFTER delivery. An unborn child cannot have a life after abortion. THAT is the difference.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
US militaryism abroad
Support of the Federal Reserve
Ties to the banking elites/establishment/secret societies/good old boy network
Drug war

After that all other issues generally follow naturally.

I assume you mean the candidate cannot support any of those things. :noid:


:chuckle:
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Abortion is the INTENTIONAL killing of an unborn baby. In what world do we label that as a "tragedy".

And yes, the motive may not be malicious, however, neither is the motives of a drunk driver or drug dealer.

The motive is SELFISH and complete and total disregard for the life of one's own child. That is not okay.



WHY? Abortion is an act that intentionally HARMS another individual ... or are you going to argue that aborted babies are not killed by the act.



No they are not. There are women who would obey the law and take MORE precautions to prevent pregnancy OR continue with the pregnancy if abortion were outlawed. As for the others who choose back-alley abortions and get caught ... let em rot in prison.

For those who have complications from back alley abortions, I would tell them the same thing I would as a robber who gets attacked by a dog while breaking into someone's home: it's your own fault.



Sure you can.




Just because some women may slip through and be able to abort, does not mean that all would. For every woman that FEARS for her freedom should she abort, one life is saved.



Everyone involved in abortion should be charged with the crime ... does that answer your question?



Who has argued that abortionists shouldn't be charged with performing abortions?



Again, how will we stop rapists, murderers, child molesters, thieves, etc. from committing their crimes?



They can't ... however, what they can do is put the story on the 5 p.m. news with the headline as "Another Human Hamster Dies While Trying to Kill Her Child".



Be careful what you advocate for, Horn. For some reason, you are using the excuse of "if you make abortion illegal, woman will die because they still try to abort".

The same thing could be said about any illegal activity. The goal is not to see women die or be harmed, but rather to allow the most innocent members of society to live and thrive.

A woman can have a life AFTER delivery. An unborn child cannot have a life after abortion. THAT is the difference.

:first:
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
I'm still curious what exactly people mean when they say "socialist" or "socialism".
 

The Graphite

New member
I'm still curious what exactly people mean when they say "socialist" or "socialism".

Taking money from people who earned it, and giving it to people who didn't earn it, in order to make things more "fair." :Commie:

That's a pretty simple-yet-accurate definition of socialist "economic justice."
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Abortion, gay rights, and socialism, are my single issues. Any one or combination of those is a deal-breaker for me.
Pretty much the same for me. Only possible difference is there might be some I would add to the list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top