Single Issue Voter?

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by JohnT
I would likely vote for a candidate if they had a well-considered plan for the abolition of Social Security, even if their other views were mostly diametrically opposite of mine.

Wow. You're cool.

I actually have a plan, but it's simplistic, childish and ignorant, and it involves other policies concerning foreign aid and other social programs. I haven't thought it through yet or researched it well enough. So I guess I won't get your vote this time. Maybe next time around.

[Rex Little]

Pretty well says it for me too, David.

[- Groucho -]

Single issues will only make me vote in the negative (i.e. I won't vote for people if I find one of their planks to be totally asinine). Like Golisano in the NY elections - I can't vote in NY but that guy has this loopy "take back the lotto money" idea that would blow a massive hole in the state's budget. Politicians who make completely unrealistic promises always lose my vote. (which does leave me with a tough time choosing in most elections).

[JohnT]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor


Wow. You're cool.

I actually have a plan, but it's simplistic, childish and ignorant, and it involves other policies concerning foreign aid and other social programs. I haven't thought it through yet or researched it well enough. So I guess I won't get your vote this time. Maybe next time around.

Thanks for the compliment. Does that now mean you think I'm attractive?

DF and I got into a little spat about it in this thread, though I must warn you that I remained on-topic and talked about reforming Social Security and not abolishing it. If you feel like adding something to the conversation, please do - I'd like to hear your opinion.

[David Floyd]

DF and I got into a little spat about it in this thread, though I must warn you that I remained on-topic and talked about reforming Social Security and not abolishing it.

Actually I talked about reform too - my reform was total privitization

[Capt Dizle]

My primary issue is liberalism. It someone supports liberalism or the Democratic party I will not vote for them.

Of course Democratic liberals are wrong on the vast majority of issues and a higher percentage of them are bad people than any other group. So its kind of a one size fits all litmas test.

[Shi Huangdi]

"My aunt votes for ppl based only on their stance on one issue (generally abortion). I find this rather ignorant."

I don't see how you can say it is ignorant. If you belive that abortion is murder and that babies are being killed off in massive numbers every year(which I do), you are obviously going to place a pretty high importance on that issue. That being said, I do have other issues and if there isn't a significant real difference between beliefs and what the politicans are likely to do if elected, I will look at their other issues. But if there were a Socialist that had a legitimate chance of winning and would be able to treat abortion exactly like murder if elected, I would vote for him even though I am strongly against socialism.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
My primary issue is liberalism. It someone supports liberalism or the Democratic party I will not vote for them.

Of course Democratic liberals are wrong on the vast majority of issues and a higher percentage of them are bad people than any other group. So its kind of a one size fits all litmas test.

I'm always confused when Americans start talking about "liberals". What does that word mean down here?

In Canada, the Liberal Party is what you would get if you mixed the right of the US Democrats with the left of the US Republicans. Fiscal conservatives who support some minimum amount of social safety net. They haven't run a deficit in years, keep a pretty tight lid on social program spending, and just generally concentrate on doing whatever it takes to get re-elected.

What is a "liberal" here? I get the feeling that Nader and the Greens are considered "liberal" - is that right? Is the extreme left called "liberal"?

[Boris Godunov]

"Liberal" is used as a smear word now in American politics, as the conservatives make it synonymous with "permissive." The implication is that those who are "liberal" are soft on crime, pro-drugs and pro-massive welfare state. It's a bogeyman.

Oh, and Democrat liberals are no more corrupt and morally repugnant than Republican conservatives. Jimmytrick seems to have blinders on to the moral terpitude of the GOP. Folks like Gingrinch, Gramm, Barr, Livingston, Packwood, Helms, etc. aren't moral or "good people." And I'd be interested to know how he comes to the conclusion that most Democrats are "bad people," since I doubt he's met most Democrats.

[JohnT]

You're last two questions answer your questions. "Liberals", at least to those on the right who have no need to refine their terms, are anybody to the Left of, say, Jerry Falwell, just as "conservatives" are, to those on the left who have no need to refine their terms, anybody to the Right of Nader.

Both terms are pretty lazy characterizations that are supposed to bring to mind an evil hobgoblin for the other side.

[JohnT]

Boris showed a pretty good example of what I was saying even while I was typing it. Thanks, Boris!

[- Groucho -]

But ... I thought the Republicans were the party that championed individual rights over collective ones - i.e. small government, anti-gun control, low tax & low social spending etc.? Doesn't that make them the liberals in the straight forward sense of "people who want liberty"? Aren't they the ones that want "the government off their backs" so that they can be free to do what they want?

You would think they would characterise the pro-massive welfare state as the people who were against liberty. Political discourse is pretty good at twisting words into pretzels.

[JohnT]

Yup (he says while eating pretzels).

[Boris Godunov]

The GOP only champions individual rights when it is convenient and in line with their moral philosophy. They are anti-individual rights on drugs, gay rights, the flag burning ammendment, the war on terror, etc. It's not consistent.

[- Groucho -]

That would make sense if GOP stood for Grumpy Old People.