Backing a Candidate: Uncompromisable Positions

[hensatri]

What, if any, issues are so important to you that you will absolutely not support an otherwise ideal candidate who disagrees with you on said issue?


The idea that a given politician is going to be a perfectly issue-for-issue match to you, or I, or any particular citizen, is silly. We accept that fact that when we are electing a candidate we are electing one who best represents our values and who has the good judgment to implement values that may be contrary to our own in the most just and reasonable way possible.


But for many there are certain issues that are so big that a candidate who is otherwise a perfect match, will lose our support on over this single issue. For example: I would not vote for an otherwise ideal candidate who supported any form of further integration of Church and State.


But is this good? Is it good that we may be willing to dismiss otherwise ideal candidates over singular issues. What should be a reasonable cut off point? Obviously I'd be a fool for turn away from an otherwise ideal leader who didn't agree with my particular view on interstate dairy tax, but I do feel justified turning away from a candidate who would further integrate Church and State.


In watching this election closely I have been forced to ask, is there a significant danger in becoming overly obsessed with single issues, and when does a single issue become big enough to be worth decrying a candidacy over?

[lsbskins1]

For me, it is a general position that turns me off and pretty much puts me in a single political camp: The idea that government itself is the root of our problems. If you put forth the notion that "big government" serves no useful purpose, I think that one of two things is true about you: you are either ignorant or you think it is fine for the powerful to exploit the weak. If either of those things is true about you, I won't vote for you. That is my "single issue".

[LetThereBe]

I suppose for me it would be unnecessary encroachment of civil liberties.

For example, I could never support a candidate that supported the NDAA for 2012 (or a candidate that signed it into law).

I'll likely not be voting again this year.

[Yarn]

There is a guy whose job is to lug around the nuclear "football". It is a device containing the launch codes for our nuclear arsenal. He follows the president everywhere. So basically, the president of the US can launch a nuclear holocaust whenever he wants to.

Candidate A runs on the platform: if elected president I will, without provocation, blow up the planet. No matter how perfect he is on other issues, who would vote for him? No one.

Everyone has their limits.

[LetThereBe]

Candidate A runs on the platform: if elected president I will, without provocation, blow up the planet. No matter how perfect he is on other issues, who would vote for him? No one.

Haha. I'd be tempted.

[Yarn]

If you read much into the NDAA episode, it would be clear to you that the Republicans were the driving force behind it, and the Democrats crippled it. If the detention provision hadn't been part of a larger bill that was considered of greater importance, the vote on the amendment to repeal it (45-55) suggests that it would've been fillibustered. Even to get it passed when it was piggybacked on something popular, the Republicans were forced to add wording that stated "this provision will not be interpreted as in anyway changing existing law". 80% of Democrats voted for it be stricken from NDAA, 90% of Republicans voted for it to stay part of it. Given such ratios, it would never have passed in 2009 or 2010 .(8X6=48, 1X4=4, 48 + 4 = 52) So essentially, the Democrats are clearly better on this issue than the Republicans. The NDAA was a clear negative consequence of the 2010 elections.

[LetThereBe]

If you read much into the NDAA episode, it would be clear to you that the Republicans were the driving force behind it, and the Democrats crippled it. If the detention provision hadn't been part of a larger bill that was considered of greater importance, the vote on the amendment to repeal it (45-55) suggests that it would've been fillibustered. Even to get it passed when it was piggybacked on something popular, the Republicans were forced to add wording that stated "this provision will not be interpreted as in anyway changing existing law". 80% of Democrats voted for it be stricken from NDAA, 90% of Republicans voted for it to stay part of it. Given such ratios, it would never have passed the in 2009 or 2010. So essentially, the Democrats are clearly better on this issue than the Republicans. The NDAA was a clear negative consequence of the 2010 elections.

Maybe, but Obama still signed it into law. Everything else that was riding on the bill was more important to him than due process of law. If he values due process so little, then I cannot support him as a candidate. This kind of situation is exactly what a veto is for.

[Yarn]

Maybe, but Obama still signed it into law. Everything else that was riding on the bill was more important to him than due process of law. If he values due process so little, then I cannot support him as a candidate. This kind of situation is exactly what a veto is for.

80% of 60 is 48. 10% of 40 is 4. 48 + 4 = 52. After Kennedy died and was replaced by Scott Brown, it would have been 50-50, meaning Biden would have struck it down. So at any time in those 2 years, this would never even have passed the senate. Elections matter, and if you sit them out you hurt the very causes you claim to hold dear.

[LetThereBe]

80% of 60 is 48. 10% of 40 is 4. 48 + 4 = 52. This would never even have passed the senate. Elections matter, and if you sit them out you hurt the very causes you claim to hold dear.

I am talking about individuals. I cannot support Obama because of his low value of due process. Nothing you have said contests my reasoning.
You are instead just saying I should have been sure to vote for other people in a completely different election for a completely different office.

[Yarn]

I am saying that if voters had voted in 2010 the same as they had in 2008, the detention provision would clearly not have been passed, and that as a result by skipping elections rather than voting for democrats you make it more likely that things like that will be passed.

The democrats don't have a perfect record, but they have a better one. If you care only about results, then it is more rational to vote for them than to vote for no one and thereby make Republicans more likely to win.

If you thought marijuana should ne legalized, and that is all you cared about, then since both parties are identical in that respect, voting would be pointless. But both parties are not, as I manifested, the same in regards to civil liberties.

[LetThereBe]

I am saying that if voters had voted in 2010 the same as they had in 2008, the detention provision would clearly not have been passed, and that as a result by skipping elections rather than voting for democrats you make it more likely that things like that will be passed.

The democrats don't have a perfect record, but they have a better one. If you care only about results, then it is more rational to vote for them than to vote for no one and thereby make Republicans more likely to win.

If you thought marijuana should ne legalized, and that is all you cared about, then since both parties are identical in that respect, voting would be pointless. But both parties are not, as I manifested, the same in regards to civil liberties.

I vote for people, not parties. I don't care what your colors are, if your voting record shows a lack of support for civil liberties I will not vote for you.
Obama has shown an egregious lack of respect for due process, as well as other failings that I care about. As such I can never support him.

[Yarn]

I vote for people, not parties. I don't care what your colors are, if your voting record shows a lack of support for civil liberties I will not vote for you.
Obama has shown an egregious lack of respect for due process, as well as other failings that I care about. As such I can never support him.

IE you insist on thinking of this in binary terms inspite of the evidence.