Are you a one issue voter?

[SproutMamaK]

Yes and no. Yes, I am a single-issue voter in some ways. I vote to save as many lives as possible. But no in that my "issue" works itself out in many branches of policy. War, abortion, nuclear weapons, the environment, refugees, health care, etc.

Edited October 11, 2016 by SproutMamaK

[eternalsummer]

All the people in this thread who are saying they have a dealbreaker issue are, to me, single issue voters. I mean, to me, what that means is that if you agree 90% with one candidate but disagree about the dealbreaker, you'll vote for the candidate that you only agree with maybe 50% on instead. I think that's the very definition of single issue voting.

 

I don't consider myself a single issue voter. This election is odd in that personality is playing such a huge role. I can't think of any issue that I wouldn't vote for someone - assuming that they held a position that was within the common range of positions (and not, say, a super extreme position that is not held by hardly any mainstream major party politicians) that I would actual vote against the person that I thought was either more competent or more in line with my views overall.

 

I wouldn't even say I'm a competence single issue voter... I've voted for third party candidates that I didn't think were the most qualified for the job just because I thought it was important to send a message. It really depends on the race and my views of it.

 

I do vote based on different issues more depending on the race. I feel it's pretty important to vote for a presidential candidate who agrees with at least some of my stance on foreign policy because the president has massive power over our foreign policy. It's less important to me that I vote for a president who agrees with me on, say, education policy or prisons or drug policy or abortion or a number of other things that the president, yes, has power over, but which the legislative and judicial branches have a lot more power over. On the other hand, if it's a local race, I might not care what the candidate thought of some national policy or other. I mean, if I agree with what they're planning to do with the schools or trash collection or something, that's more important than when they spouted their mouth off on some national or international issue I disagreed with them on.

 

 

I think the difference is that the person can agree with you on that issue and still not get your vote.

 

There are lots of pro-life candidates I won't vote for.  But there isn't a pro-choice candidate I will vote for.

 

However, if I were forced at gunpoint to vote for either a pro-life but in all other ways truly awful candidate or a pro-choice but in all other ways acceptable candidate, I'd probably choose the latter. 

 

I prefer to abstain if there is no candidate that merits my vote, though.

[Farrar]

I disagree. A single issue voter is one looking for the candidate who meets their opinion on one single issue, i.e. that there is ONE single issue that determines worthiness of vote for that voter.

 

Also, you're making the US-centric assumption that there are only two possible choices. Most other countries have a bit more variety of candidates to consider.

 

I am making a US-centric assumption, very true.

 

But if you refuse to vote for someone based on one issue, that's a single issue vote. It doesn't have to be an affirmative vote for it to be single issue voting. A number of people on this thread have basically said that the aren't single issue voters but that they'll never vote for someone who disagrees with them on one issue. In other words, they won't choose a candidate based on the issue, but they will refuse to choose a candidate based on the issue. I think that's still single issue voting. It means in effect you do always choose the candidate who either agrees with you or is neutral (something that happens in so few races).

[Lady Florida.]

No. I'm a party platform voter. Many people don't even know what's in the different party platforms - they just look at the individual candidates. They might have a general idea of what a party stands for but I'll bet many would be surprised to read the whole thing. And I'm not just talking about the two main parties.

[Farrar]

I think the difference is that the person can agree with you on that issue and still not get your vote.

 

There are lots of pro-life candidates I won't vote for.  But there isn't a pro-choice candidate I will vote for.

 

However, if I were forced at gunpoint to vote for either a pro-life but in all other ways truly awful candidate or a pro-choice but in all other ways acceptable candidate, I'd probably choose the latter. 

 

I prefer to abstain if there is no candidate that merits my vote, though.

 

Right. That's exactly what I'm saying though... you're willing to bend occasionally, but in general, I see that as a single issue voting stance. You're choosing among the candidates that agree with you on one issue. All the others are automatically ruled out from the start. If you end up in a position where neither candidate is acceptable you might reconsider, but even then you'd rather abstain.

 

It's interesting, by the way, that this thread has focused on pro-life/pro-choice as the single issue. I read that gun rights advocates are the most power single issue voting bloc. But perhaps this is a function of gender and women are more likely to care more about abortion? Or maybe it's just a function of this board and the fact that there are a large number of religious conservative here? Or maybe it's just not true and abortion is the single issue for most people.

 

I strongly favor abortion rights, but I could totally vote for someone who was pro-life under the right circumstances. My example above about local races for example... I'd definitely vote for someone pro-choice for school board if I agreed with their education policy.

[Bluegoat]

All the people in this thread who are saying they have a dealbreaker issue are, to me, single issue voters. I mean, to me, what that means is that if you agree 90% with one candidate but disagree about the dealbreaker, you'll vote for the candidate that you only agree with maybe 50% on instead. I think that's the very definition of single issue voting.

 

I don't consider myself a single issue voter. This election is odd in that personality is playing such a huge role. I can't think of any issue that I wouldn't vote for someone - assuming that they held a position that was within the common range of positions (and not, say, a super extreme position that is not held by hardly any mainstream major party politicians) that I would actual vote against the person that I thought was either more competent or more in line with my views overall.

 

I wouldn't even say I'm a competence single issue voter... I've voted for third party candidates that I didn't think were the most qualified for the job just because I thought it was important to send a message. It really depends on the race and my views of it.

 

I do vote based on different issues more depending on the race. I feel it's pretty important to vote for a presidential candidate who agrees with at least some of my stance on foreign policy because the president has massive power over our foreign policy. It's less important to me that I vote for a president who agrees with me on, say, education policy or prisons or drug policy or abortion or a number of other things that the president, yes, has power over, but which the legislative and judicial branches have a lot more power over. On the other hand, if it's a local race, I might not care what the candidate thought of some national policy or other. I mean, if I agree with what they're planning to do with the schools or trash collection or something, that's more important than when they spouted their mouth off on some national or international issue I disagreed with them on.

 

I don't see this as what people are saying.

 

I might not think of something like health care, or treatment of the disabled, as single issues were my candidate must agree with my views to get my vote.  But a candidate who wants to abolish universal health care, or allow euthanizing the disabled, will simply not get my vote, no matter what other issues we might agree on.  I would be very surprised to find out others do not have similar lines, whatever they might be, where a particular view is just too extreme or shows some vital disregard for a basic principle of what is good.

 

Also - saying that such an issue might lose my vote doesn't mean tat I am going to vote for any other candidate, those two things do not follow.  Even if there was only one other choice, there is nothing to say that I am forced to vote for that person.

[eternalsummer]

Right. That's exactly what I'm saying though... you're willing to bend occasionally, but in general, I see that as a single issue voting stance. You're choosing among the candidates that agree with you on one issue. All the others are automatically ruled out from the start. If you end up in a position where neither candidate is acceptable you might reconsider, but even then you'd rather abstain.

 

It's interesting, by the way, that this thread has focused on pro-life/pro-choice as the single issue. I read that gun rights advocates are the most power single issue voting bloc. But perhaps this is a function of gender and women are more likely to care more about abortion? Or maybe it's just a function of this board and the fact that there are a large number of religious conservative here? Or maybe it's just not true and abortion is the single issue for most people.

 

I strongly favor abortion rights, but I could totally vote for someone who was pro-life under the right circumstances. My example above about local races for example... I'd definitely vote for someone pro-choice for school board if I agreed with their education policy.

 

yes, it is this

[eternalsummer]

oh, I might vote for someone pro-choice for school board - I doubt I'd even know their position in that case?

 

If it were for a job that had no relevance to the issue at hand, I wouldn't assess the person based on that issue.

[happypamama]

I like someone else's term "weighted issue" voter. I'm not a single issue voter, but there are a few issues that are especially important to me. I will do my best to vote for the candidate who will best uphold those opinions, and if that's not possible, I will vote against the candidate whose position is very opposed to mine on those specific issues.

[Twolittleboys]

Not generally. Usually I would go with the person who agrees with me on more aspects even if there are some opinions I can't agree on (and this would more often line up with one party than another). In most cases the private life of the candidate would have little impact on who I vote for as long as I trusted his/her overall competence for the job.

 

However, I have now realized that I do weigh some aspects much more heavily than others. Basically, it comes down to how horrible the impact would be/how difficult it would be to fix four (or however many) years later. So foreign policy would be on the top for me (wars are much easier started than stopped), followed by major decisions for the country (at a minimum basic human rights should be upheld, preferably the constitution too). Everything else has to take a back seat.

 

Obviously, it depends a lot on what office is being voted for though.

[SparklyUnicorn]

No I'm not.  I tried to think of one thing that would be an absolute deal breaker, and I really can't think of anything.  I have some issues I feel strongly about, but if that was the one thing that was "wrong" with the candidate and everything else I agreed with then no I don't think it would be enough to make me not want to vote for them.  And then I thought well what about their overall integrity or how they treat x-group of people.  That is kind of a deal breaker, but no not really because usually if they are like that there are a whole host of things I do not agree with them on.

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Right. That's exactly what I'm saying though... you're willing to bend occasionally, but in general, I see that as a single issue voting stance. You're choosing among the candidates that agree with you on one issue. All the others are automatically ruled out from the start. If you end up in a position where neither candidate is acceptable you might reconsider, but even then you'd rather abstain.

 

It's interesting, by the way, that this thread has focused on pro-life/pro-choice as the single issue. I read that gun rights advocates are the most power single issue voting bloc. But perhaps this is a function of gender and women are more likely to care more about abortion? Or maybe it's just a function of this board and the fact that there are a large number of religious conservative here? Or maybe it's just not true and abortion is the single issue for most people.

 

I strongly favor abortion rights, but I could totally vote for someone who was pro-life under the right circumstances. My example above about local races for example... I'd definitely vote for someone pro-choice for school board if I agreed with their education policy.

 

How much control does a president have over abortion issues?  I get the impression not so much.  It's one of those issues they latch onto sometimes because it's an issue that is easily understood.  It's not about economics (tends to be complicated) or national security (also can be complicated).  It's pretty cut and dried as an issue with 2 sides.  I think it is the least interesting thing about a candidate though.  Who gives a frack. I don't think the well-being of the country hinges on it. 

[creekland]

How much control does a president have over abortion issues?  I get the impression not so much.  It's one of those issues they latch onto sometimes because it's an issue that is easily understood.  It's not about economics (tends to be complicated) or national security (also can be complicated).  It's pretty cut and dried as an issue with 2 sides.  I think it is the least interesting thing about a candidate though.  Who gives a frack. I don't think the well-being of the country hinges on it. 

 

I'm about as pro-life as one can get and I can't imagine voting over abortion TBH.  There is no way to legislate the end of abortion, esp now.  There were abortions before it was legal, there will be abortions if it becomes illegal.  Besides, if one is talking about this particular Pres election, I'd argue neither major candidate is pro-life but one might claim to be for votes.  It might be good to check his past...

 

But getting back on topic, to me, it's more pro-life to vote for a candidate who supports women and children "overall" with health care, job training options, child care, etc.  Telling someone they must have a baby (and I prefer this to abortion) without giving them the assistance they need (if they need it) leaves me shaking my head in awe.  More women opt to keep their babies when they can see a decent future for themselves.  And for those (with finances) who don't want their baby under any circumstances, making it illegal (now) is hardly going to stop them from ending it just as it didn't throughout history.

 

I prefer to vote "pro people" on that issue, but even then, economics, green issues, immigration support and more garner my attention.  I suppose when I think about it, I prefer to vote "pro people" and/or "pro planet" on all of my issues - for any election (keeping in mind who actually has power or not for some of these issues).  Some argue that my "pro planet" stance can hurt some industries/people.  That's probably true, but sometimes one has to look at the greater good for the majority of people, and having a decent planet to live on in the future is a greater good IMO.  

 

Where I have my difference is generally in the economic realm.  What I see actually working IRL is often different than what many politicians support.  Same with education issues.  Therefore, in each election I have to weigh what is more important for me to vote on.  It's not usually easy.  Even online tests will show it to be a close match (for me - just pending issues).

 

This election it's pretty darn easy at the top - since I've found I am a single issue person when competence and temperament are such a huge factor.  I'll still have my usual ponderings about other races.

 

This past week I've also found there's another issue that would be a dealbreaker for me.  I could never vote for someone who advocated assault on women (or anyone) even in jest.  I don't care at all what someone chooses for their private life as we all get to make our own choices, but pure assault?  Not a chance.  I wouldn't care which party they belonged to.  It is a dealbreaker.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm about as pro-life as one can get and I can't imagine voting over abortion TBH.  There is no way to legislate the end of abortion, esp now.  There were abortions before it was legal, there will be abortions if it becomes illegal.  Besides, if one is talking about this particular Pres election, I'd argue neither major candidate is pro-life but one might claim to be for votes.  It might be good to check his past...

 

But getting back on topic, to me, it's more pro-life to vote for a candidate who supports women and children "overall" with health care, job training options, child care, etc.  Telling someone they must have a baby (and I prefer this to abortion) without giving them the assistance they need (if they need it) leaves me shaking my head in awe.  More women opt to keep their babies when they can see a decent future for themselves.  And for those (with finances) who don't want their baby under any circumstances, making it illegal (now) is hardly going to stop them from ending it just as it didn't throughout history.

 

 

That makes you pretty pro choice in a way.  I think this is just unfortunate wording.  Some people think "pro choice" and equate that with "pro-abortion".  There are some people who are pro abortion, but most pro choice people are not pro abortion.  They favor similar things.  They'd rather see helpful efforts to lower abortion rates than to just flat out tell people they can't have an abortion, but we also won't support you once the kid is born.

[poppy]

How much control does a president have over abortion issues? I get the impression not so much. It's one of those issues they latch onto sometimes because it's an issue that is easily understood. It's not about economics (tends to be complicated) or national security (also can be complicated). It's pretty cut and dried as an issue with 2 sides. I think it is the least interesting thing about a candidate though. Who gives a frack. I don't think the well-being of the country hinges on it.

Their role is crucial because they appoint Supreme Court justices. Their candidate may not bring appointed but they will not bring up names aligned with the opposite side.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SparklyUnicorn]

Their role is crucial because they appoint Supreme Court justices. Their candidate may not bring appointed but they will not bring up names aligned with the opposite side.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I suppose, but as of yet it's not like anyone has come along and ended abortion rights.

[poppy]

I honestly do not think single issue voter ever refers to any issue but abortion.

 

There are other lynchpin issues but the 'I am a single issue voter' identity comes almost entirely from voters who want the right to an abortion eliminated. It is code and one most Americans understand . (Which is not wrong / evil, of course. )

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[creekland]

That makes you pretty pro choice in a way.  I think this is just unfortunate wording.  Some people think "pro choice" and equate that with "pro-abortion".  There are some people who are pro abortion, but most pro choice people are not pro abortion.  They favor similar things.  They'd rather see helpful efforts to lower abortion rates than to just flat out tell people they can't have an abortion, but we also won't support you once the kid is born.

 

No, there is no way I am pro-choice.  With very little exception (solely due to health of mama and/or baby) I'm anti-abortion.

[poppy]

I suppose, but as of yet it's not like anyone has come along and ended abortion rights.

The states all forbade abortion. A fairly left leaning court is what overturned those laws in Roe V Wade. Since then Roe has been challenged many time and there are a many , states that have made laws that skirt the edges of Roe V Wade. 2 retiring judges and 2 new appointments (which will very likely happen in the next 8 years) could change everything.

[FaithManor]

I'm about as pro-life as one can get and I can't imagine voting over abortion TBH.  There is no way to legislate the end of abortion, esp now.  There were abortions before it was legal, there will be abortions if it becomes illegal.  Besides, if one is talking about this particular Pres election, I'd argue neither major candidate is pro-life but one might claim to be for votes.  It might be good to check his past...

 

But getting back on topic, to me, it's more pro-life to vote for a candidate who supports women and children "overall" with health care, job training options, child care, etc.  Telling someone they must have a baby (and I prefer this to abortion) without giving them the assistance they need (if they need it) leaves me shaking my head in awe.  More women opt to keep their babies when they can see a decent future for themselves.  And for those (with finances) who don't want their baby under any circumstances, making it illegal (now) is hardly going to stop them from ending it just as it didn't throughout history.

 

I prefer to vote "pro people" on that issue, but even then, economics, green issues, immigration support and more garner my attention.  I suppose when I think about it, I prefer to vote "pro people" and/or "pro planet" on all of my issues - for any election (keeping in mind who actually has power or not for some of these issues).  Some argue that my "pro planet" stance can hurt some industries/people.  That's probably true, but sometimes one has to look at the greater good for the majority of people, and having a decent planet to live on in the future is a greater good IMO.  

 

Where I have my difference is generally in the economic realm.  What I see actually working IRL is often different than what many politicians support.  Same with education issues.  Therefore, in each election I have to weigh what is more important for me to vote on.  It's not usually easy.  Even online tests will show it to be a close match (for me - just pending issues).

 

This election it's pretty darn easy at the top - since I've found I am a single issue person when competence and temperament are such a huge factor.  I'll still have my usual ponderings about other races.

 

This past week I've also found there's another issue that would be a dealbreaker for me.  I could never vote for someone who advocated assault on women (or anyone) even in jest.  I don't care at all what someone chooses for their private life as we all get to make our own choices, but pure assault?  Not a chance.  I wouldn't care which party they belonged to.  It is a dealbreaker.

Are we twins separated at birth????

 

;)

 

Man we think alike.

[Greta]

I'm about as pro-life as one can get and I can't imagine voting over abortion TBH.  There is no way to legislate the end of abortion, esp now.  There were abortions before it was legal, there will be abortions if it becomes illegal.  Besides, if one is talking about this particular Pres election, I'd argue neither major candidate is pro-life but one might claim to be for votes.  It might be good to check his past...

 

But getting back on topic, to me, it's more pro-life to vote for a candidate who supports women and children "overall" with health care, job training options, child care, etc.  Telling someone they must have a baby (and I prefer this to abortion) without giving them the assistance they need (if they need it) leaves me shaking my head in awe.  More women opt to keep their babies when they can see a decent future for themselves.  And for those (with finances) who don't want their baby under any circumstances, making it illegal (now) is hardly going to stop them from ending it just as it didn't throughout history.

 

I prefer to vote "pro people" on that issue, but even then, economics, green issues, immigration support and more garner my attention.  I suppose when I think about it, I prefer to vote "pro people" and/or "pro planet" on all of my issues - for any election (keeping in mind who actually has power or not for some of these issues).  Some argue that my "pro planet" stance can hurt some industries/people.  That's probably true, but sometimes one has to look at the greater good for the majority of people, and having a decent planet to live on in the future is a greater good IMO.  

 

Where I have my difference is generally in the economic realm.  What I see actually working IRL is often different than what many politicians support.  Same with education issues.  Therefore, in each election I have to weigh what is more important for me to vote on.  It's not usually easy.  Even online tests will show it to be a close match (for me - just pending issues).

 

This election it's pretty darn easy at the top - since I've found I am a single issue person when competence and temperament are such a huge factor.  I'll still have my usual ponderings about other races.

 

This past week I've also found there's another issue that would be a dealbreaker for me.  I could never vote for someone who advocated assault on women (or anyone) even in jest.  I don't care at all what someone chooses for their private life as we all get to make our own choices, but pure assault?  Not a chance.  I wouldn't care which party they belonged to.  It is a dealbreaker.

 

 

I agree with everything you said here, only you said it so much better than I could have!  I really like your phrase "pro people".  Can I use that?   :001_smile:

[creekland]

I really like your phrase "pro people".  Can I use that?   :001_smile:

 

Feel free.  ;)

[MyLittleBears]

I guess I must be in the minority. The deal-breaker for me is open borders. The thought of it is terrifying. And I'm an immigrant!

[MaeFlowers]

I honestly do not think single issue voter ever refers to any issue but abortion.

 

There are other lynchpin issues but the 'I am a single issue voter' identity comes almost entirely from voters who want the right to an abortion eliminated. It is code and one most Americans understand . (Which is not wrong / evil, of course. )

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that isn't true. I said that I am a single issue voter and it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

[BlsdMama]

I voted yes but I almost had to second think it.  My one issue is pro-life - meaning that if I loved the candidate's stance on everything, but the candidate would choose supreme court justices that are pro-choice, I'd *not* vote for that candidate.   But I admit I almost had decided last week to vote for one candidate (not my party) over the other (my party) just to keep my party out of office.  
In the end, I've decided to toss my vote into the wind of uselessness, do a write in, and vote my conscience. 

Edited October 11, 2016 by BlsdMama

[Rebel Yell]

One issue is enough to *break* my vote, but it alone isn't enough to *make* my vote. I have a "litmus test" issue - if a candidate is against it, then that's enough to remove them from consideration for me. But among the candidates that are for it, then I look at other things to decide who to support. (In an ideal world, anyway. Candidates who pass my litmus test are thin on the ground right now - the idea of being able to choose between several seems like an unattainable luxury, and of the few who do, most have a host of other issues that collectively break them. I mostly just don't have a candidate because of it.)

"other."

Pretty much this.

[MyLittleBears]

I voted yes but I almost had to second think it.  My one issue is pro-life - meaning that if I loved the candidate's stance on everything, but the candidate would choose supreme court justices that are pro-choice, I'd *not* vote for that candidate.   But I admit I almost had decided last week to vote for one candidate (not my party) over the other (my party) just to keep my party out of office.  

In the end, I've decided to toss my vote into the wind of uselessness, do a write in, and vote my conscience. 

 

 

BlsdMama I get what you are saying but in the end, a third party vote does no good to the unborn. That's the part I don't get about people who choose to "toss their vote into the wind of uselessness KWIM? And especially now when this particular  issue will hing on supreme court justice appointments that will have the office for the remainder of their lives. It's just too important.

 

ETA- I consider third party or write-ins the same thing as tossing away a vote because they don't stand a chance

Edited October 11, 2016 by MyLittleBears

[Ann.without.an.e]

I voted yes but I almost had to second think it.  My one issue is pro-life - meaning that if I loved the candidate's stance on everything, but the candidate would choose supreme court justices that are pro-choice, I'd *not* vote for that candidate.   But I admit I almost had decided last week to vote for one candidate (not my party) over the other (my party) just to keep my party out of office.  

In the end, I've decided to toss my vote into the wind of uselessness, do a write in, and vote my conscience. 

 

 

or third party?  I don't know, it seems less useless to me than a write in  :lol:   Johnson at his core is pro-life but he doesn't think that abortion laws can be overturned.  Instead, he wants to limit government funding of abortion and put in place counsel prior to abortion.  Not pro-life per se, as in attempting to overturn laws, but not the more liberal candidate either.  I am not a Johnson supporter.  I actually have no idea who I will vote for.  I just found his stance interesting.

[poppy]

or third party?  I don't know, it seems less useless to me than a write in  :lol:   Johnson at his core is pro-life but he doesn't think that abortion laws can be overturned.  Instead, he wants to limit government funding of abortion and put in place counsel prior to abortion.  Not pro-life per se, as in attempting to overturn laws, but not the more liberal candidate either.  I am not a Johnson supporter.  I actually have no idea who I will vote for.  I just found his stance interesting.

 

Does he advocate mandated counseling before any other medical procedure?   That is a very, very weird position for a libertarian.

 

[poppy]

Except that isn't true. I said that I am a single issue voter and it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

 

Oh right. I forgot, the gun people.  Abortion or guns.

[Mimm]

No. Abortion is a big deal to me, but I disagree with many conservative politicians on abortion (I feel it should be allowed to save the mother's life, if something is so wrong with the child that they would live a short miserable painful life, and in cases of rape and incest.) And I disagree with Republicans on so many other issues. But also disagree with Democrats as well on some things. I haven't found anyone to vote for that I agree with on everything since I began to form my own opinions on politics but I can't just focus on one issue, it seems so simplistic. Vote for the pro-life guy who wants to ban gay marriage? Or who thinks we should be involved in half a dozen wars?

 

It must be nice for people who neatly align with one party or another. It's hard to talk politics because if you take a stand on one issue, people assume you must have a whole set of other beliefs to go with it. If you criticize one politician, the only reply you'll get is that the other guy did worse, so it doesn't really matter. That's not really a justification. That's not a valid argument. I'm capable of being outraged at the actions of two opposing sides at the same time.

 

People are so critical of people opting not to vote, calling them selfish and lazy and suggesting they should leave the country and so on. I totally support not voting. Give people someone worth voting for and they'll show up. You can't serve people a sh*t sandwich and then complain when they decide they aren't hungry after all.

 

Sorry, apparently I had a rant in me. :)

[La Condessa]

I guess I could almost be called a one-issue voter, since there is one issue I feel so strongly on that it is difficult to consider voting for a candidate opposite me on that issue.  In most elections I would not cross that.  However, I will take a person who I believe to be a moral human being that would try to act in what they believe to be the best interests of the country, even if I disagree with that candidate on their political views, over an immoral candidate who claims to align with my views.

[MyLittleBears]

But see I think in a way not voting is a vote. At least thats what it comes too statistically, regardless of how people feel about the choices.

Edited October 11, 2016 by MyLittleBears

[creekland]

I guess I must be in the minority. The deal-breaker for me is open borders. The thought of it is terrifying. And I'm an immigrant!

 

Interesting.  I think you are in the minority, but of course I only see a small section of our country.  I've worked with a fair number of immigrants and refugees both legal and illegal and have found the vast majority to be wonderful humans - pretty much equivalent to how the vast majority of native born citizens are also wonderful humans.

 

None would say they are for totally Open Immigration (eg openly letting in terrorists or criminals - the type they've fled from if it were that and not economics), but most think immigration laws as they are now could use tweaking to be more humanitarian - that "pro people" thing I get hung up on again.  I wish winning/losing the birth lottery for location didn't have as major of an impact as it does, but it does, and it sure helps many if the winners are more compassionate.

 

FWIW, I don't see Open Immigration having any chance of ever becoming policy no matter who wins anytime in the near future - well, short of an Apocalypse and complete failure of gov't - and I don't see that happening either.  

[MyLittleBears]

Interesting.  I think you are in the minority, but of course I only see a small section of our country.  I've worked with a fair number of immigrants and refugees both legal and illegal and have found the vast majority to be wonderful humans - pretty much equivalent to how the vast majority of native born citizens are also wonderful humans.

 

None would say they are for totally Open Immigration (eg openly letting in terrorists or criminals - the type they've fled from if it were that and not economics), but most think immigration laws as they are now could use tweaking to be more humanitarian - that "pro people" thing I get hung up on again.  I wish winning/losing the birth lottery for location didn't have as major of an impact as it does, but it does, and it sure helps many if the winners are more compassionate.

 

FWIW, I don't see Open Immigration having any chance of ever becoming policy no matter who wins anytime in the near future - well, short of an Apocalypse and complete failure of gov't - and I don't see that happening either.  

 

 

I'm not so sure though. There is one candidate that IS for open borders, even though they don't necessarily say it in public. I guess I'm just not willing to chance it, especially with the current trend of abuse of executive order.

Edited October 11, 2016 by MyLittleBears

[Crimson Wife]

How much control does a president have over abortion issues?  I get the impression not so much.  

 

The next president will likely appoint multiple justices to the Supreme Court. If there is ever a hope of overturning Roe v. Wade, that will have to happen by having the right people on the Supreme Court.

[Crimson Wife]

The states all forbade abortion. A fairly left leaning court is what overturned those laws in Roe V Wade. 

 

A number of states had legalized abortion prior to Roe v. Wade. There was a "women's health" exception that was very loosely interpreted so that all the woman had to say was that she felt mental anguish over the pregnancy. Any state on this map that was blue, green, or yellow had easy access to legal abortion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_abortion_laws_pre-1973.svg

 

[J-rap]

No, I'm not.  I do have a few issues that are very important to me.  Such as more gun control.  But I think it's even more important to have a president who is wise and responsible.  So if a president made very foolish decisions resulting in major international instability or economic disaster, then I imagine national gun control issues would become a less-urgent problem to address.

[Ann.without.an.e]

Does he advocate mandated counseling before any other medical procedure?   That is a very, very weird position for a libertarian.

 

 

Bad wording on my part.  I am not sure that he mandates counseling.  He just wants to make it an emphasis.  I don't really know.  I probably shouldn't have typed anything because I am not familiar enough with him.  I just read it on his page recently.

[frogger]

I am pro-life and that doesn't mean just people in the womb although it certainly includes people in the womb. It also includes people in foreign lands. I'm not a big fan of creating power vacuums because leaders aren't our puppets and arming murderers and things like that. Therefore I must vote third party. I really pray that this continual encouraging of war will stop and that my children won't ever be looking at a draft as we continue our ridiculous foreign policy that has been going on over a decade.

[MyLittleBears]

The next president will likely appoint multiple justices to the Supreme Court. If there is ever a hope of overturning Roe v. Wade, that will have to happen by having the right people on the Supreme Court.

 

 

 

 

This is exactly why I don't understand not voting, or voting third party or whatever, specifically by those who choose to be pro-life. It seems the supreme court justice thing is crucial.

Throw-away votes are still votes.

Edited October 11, 2016 by MyLittleBears

[madteaparty]

No, but I am a "single philosophy" voter and there's only one party that gets within the same realm... And I consistently vote against my economic self interest, narrowly defined.

Edited October 11, 2016 by madteaparty

[Mimm]

This is exactly why I don't understand not voting, or voting third party or whatever, specifically by those who choose to be pro-life. It seems the supreme court justice thing is crucial.

Throw-away votes are still votes.

 

There's always reasons and excuses for why we all need to conform to the status quo of the two party system, and it all boils down to fear that the other party will gain too much power. And this system which divides our country and makes sure that power stays with both those parties will NEVER go away so long as people believe that it'll be the End of the World if the other party wins. The best thing that could happen for our country is if everyone got sick to death of it and voted third party. Even if the third party was kinda weird.

[4kidlets4me]

A number of states had legalized abortion prior to Roe v. Wade. There was a "women's health" exception that was very loosely interpreted so that all the woman had to say was that she felt mental anguish over the pregnancy. Any state on this map that was blue, green, or yellow had easy access to legal abortion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_abortion_laws_pre-1973.svg

 

 

I just have to ask.

What do you think will happen if Roe v. Wade ever gets overturned? Abortion just magically disappears? 

[MaeFlowers]

Oh right. I forgot, the gun people. Abortion or guns.

It's not about guns either. I know a few one issue voters who would say these issues are secondary.

[MyLittleBears]

There's always reasons and excuses for why we all need to conform to the status quo of the two party system, and it all boils down to fear that the other party will gain too much power. And this system which divides our country and makes sure that power stays with both those parties will NEVER go away so long as people believe that it'll be the End of the World if the other party wins. The best thing that could happen for our country is if everyone got sick to death of it and voted third party. Even if the third party was kinda weird.

 

 

 

Ideally yes, but it will never happen. For me its about voting against something, especially when supreme court justices can alter the coarse of nation almost irreparably. In my mind it would be devastating.

Edited October 11, 2016 by MyLittleBears

[Crimson Wife]

I just have to ask.

What do you think will happen if Roe v. Wade ever gets overturned? Abortion just magically disappears? 

 

It'll be like Europe where some places have it legal and others don't. Women will travel if they live in a place where it's illegal and really want one. It may not reduce the number of abortions significantly but at least there will no longer be blanket government condoning of it.

[poppy]

I just have to ask.

What do you think will happen if Roe v. Wade ever gets overturned? Abortion just magically disappears? 

 

It goes underground  in states like Texas, meaning worse conditions, exploitation, illness, risk for women.   

Many women will face very intrusive medical questions that they never had to before.  Some of these questions will be written by men in suits in Washington without medical degrees.

It is a more dangerous world in many ways for poor women. 

Middle class and well off women will always have access, but it will be more difficult and expensive. 

Women in abusive situations will be more trapped than ever before.  

Are my first thoughts.

[Guest]

I honestly do not think single issue voter ever refers to any issue but abortion.

 

There are other lynchpin issues but the 'I am a single issue voter' identity comes almost entirely from voters who want the right to an abortion eliminated. It is code and one most Americans understand . (Which is not wrong / evil, of course. )

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not what I was referring to. Many of the 'single issue voters' I can think of aren't doing it based on that position.

[creekland]

This is exactly why I don't understand not voting, or voting third party or whatever, specifically by those who choose to be pro-life. It seems the supreme court justice thing is crucial.

Throw-away votes are still votes.

 

But I'm pro-life and don't see the Supreme Court thing as crucial.  As stated before, we can't legislate abortion away - esp in these modern times.  We could potentially make it illegal as it was before, but that won't really stop anyone from getting one.

 

These next questions are primarily directed at Christians (because it's many Christians who tend to believe this way in my IRL experience).

 

Where does Jesus or Paul or anyone in the NT advocate using gov't to set Christian standards for all?  When I read it, I see oodles of places where it's a voluntary change of the heart and a choice to live following God - and many specifics of that is between God and the individual.  There were all sorts of similar things going on back in the NT times (humans are humans), yet I see us being told not to judge the world - just to live our own life within it.  We can make more judgments within our church (money makers in the temple anyone?), but outside of it?  And protesting to Caesar (or any leader) to change anything for all?  I'm just not seeing it anywhere.

 

And if we were to do it anyway, how does that make us any better than some other countries that more or less mandate belief in their god, many of which countries get condemned by Christians.  I don't see God ever mandating that we force belief - or even that we can do that if we wanted to.

 

I'm all for protecting babies, both unborn and born, but I just can't see that happening in the real world merely by changing laws.  It's hearts and conditions that need to change to give babies better odds.  Even then, I never expect 100%.  It's simply the way the real world is - and has been pretty much forever.

 

Then too, I'm really curious what makes this so important of an issue that other aspects of our (collective) lives - the way people are treated, the way we care for God's world, the way we care for the alien (foreigner) living among us, the way we support widows and orphans - most of the "stuff" that is actually addressed more in the Bible I read, pales by comparison to that one issue (or two, because sex lives of others outside the church are often a biggie for some too - yet aren't addressed nearly as often as how we are to treat others).