One-Issue Voters Make Me Sick

[Kuciwalker]

Re: One-Issue Voters Make Me Sick

Originally posted by Odin
People that you would think prefer Kerry around here will vote for Bush because of a single issue, like gay marrige, stem-cell research, or gun control. One person told me that he wants to vote for Kerry, but says he must vote for Bush or he will go to hell for voting for a pro-choice canidate.

So it's bad that I support Kerry because of only one issue? That is, not being Bush.

EDIT: beaten to it by a wide margin

[Patroklos]

"he isn't Bush" = not a conservative/Republican

[loinburger]

By that reasoning, you can turn anybody into a single-issue voter by applying a sufficiently broad/fuzzy label to their political opinions. If somebody's voting for Bush and is, let's say, opposed to affirmative action, in favor of emergency deficit spending, in favor of foreign inverventionism, opposed to the land-mine ban, and is pro-choice, then just say that they're anti-liberal. If that same person is voting for Kerry, then just say that they're anti-conservative. Voila, you've got yourself a single-issue voter.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's a good question, but the answer isn't really that difficult.

God will save those whom he will save.

God will save lumps of undifferentiated cells? Where will He put them?

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Patroklos
But it boils down to "he isn't Bush," most of the rationalizations given after the fact as you say are incidental to that.

But there's so very many issues to be anybody but Bush about

And you got to love my grandfather, he's been voting Republican for decades because Eisenhower was a Republican, but he's voting Kerry this time

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Odin


Point taken, but it seems that most one-issue voters tend to be socially conservative people.

Actually, not really. There are gay Republicans who accuse gay Democrats of being single-issue voters, by only voting for candidates who do not hate gays.



I mean, isn't it terrible that gays will not consider candidates based on other issues -- even if they HATE us??

But anyway, I'm not a single-issue voter. Equal rights is important to me, but I also deplore Bush's record as president with the war in Iraq and with failure to capture Osama Bin Laden -- more than THREE years after 9/11 for Christ's sake.

[Spiffor]

I don't see any problem with one-issue voters. It just means they take one issue very strongly at heart. It means they have very strong priorities.

[Gangerolf]

yeah, no-issue voters are much worse.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't see any problem with one-issue voters. It just means they take one issue very strongly at heart. It means they have very strong priorities.

Like I said in Japher's thread, I absolutely will not vote for anybody who advocates the murder and consumption of babies. If that makes me a one-issue voter, then so be it.

And in response to any question of the form "So if a good person who advocated the murder and consumption of babies were running against Hitler, would you vote for Hitler?", I have this to say: wrap around my ass.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fine. A really good person was running against me, and I advocated the death of all non-Russians. Meaning that, unfortunately, you would be purged for the good of the Russian race. But I'm againat abortion Who would you vote for?

Now we get to loinburger's point.

How can you be a 'good' person and vote in favour of abortion?

Obviously your opposition isn't that good of a candidate. What's his position on non-Russians?

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry Ben, I can't take the required leap of faith.

I try to be a 'good' person (whatever that is) but there is no god.

Okay. But you do know the door is open.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now we get to loinburger's point.

How can you be a 'good' person and vote in favour of abortion?

Obviously your opposition isn't that good of a candidate. What's his position on non-Russians?

Just answer the hypothetical question!

A person that is very good in your view except for the issue of abortion.

Or someone that is quite vile except that they are against abortion.

-Drachasor

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd vote for neither, since none of them are compelling.

A person that is very good in your view except for the issue of abortion.

Like I said, chances are if they are for abortion, there's a whole other laundry list of ideals that we would disagree upon.

He wouldn't be a 'good' candidate by any stretch of the word from my perspective.

Now, if you say the only 'prolife' candidate believes in slaughtering all those who are outside of his own nationality, then he's not a very good prolifer, is he?

Why is he deserving of my vote?

[Drachasor]

Let's say he doesn't believe in slaughtering others, and doesn't believe in killing at all (anti-death penalty too). However, he also believes that there must be a state religion taught in all public schools and that heresy should be punishable by law with jail time. Beyond that he has a horrid economic policy, wants to greatly limit most social freedoms (from a liberal perspective), and has a belligerant international politics stance.

On the other hand you have a candidate that is pro-choice, has a great economics and social policy plan that would make everyone much, much happier and produce dramatic growth throughout the nation. Wants a strict seperation betweeen church and state, but adamantly defends the right of religious expression otherwise.

Who then?

-Drachasor

[Q Classic]

personally, the few issues that ARE make or break for me, no candidate has ever really touched on.

'course, they also tend to be in the technology field, so...