• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Which issues really decide your vote?

What are the issues that decide your vote and what is your stance on them?
Simply put:

Economy: Fix it, keep it running

Industry: Bring it back to the US

Military: Give the Service Members what they need, give the Veterans what they earned

The US Constitution: Uphold it or gtfo
 
I'm sorry I'm not going to stand for being treated like a second class citizen. :roll:

You were born a woman, Fate decided that for you a long time ago. ;-)
 
Hmm....it doesn't seem to take a thread any longer to turn into a "gays are oppressed" party around here than it does anywhere else....

Yep, no matter what the title, every thread these days devolves into arguments on only a few subjects.
 
You were born a woman, Fate decided that for you a long time ago. ;-)

I'm sorry, but automatically labeling a woman a second class citizen is incredibly ignorant.

I find it funny that people still carry that obsolete mindset.

With that said, my biggest deciding factor in this election is the economy, followed by the war. I don't think social issues such as abortion and gay rights should be a deciding factor for the president. There are much more important things at stake, IMO.
 
I'm sorry I'm not going to stand for being treated like a second class citizen. :roll:

I'm sure you don't, but then I don't see where you are (feel free to debate that all you want, in it's proper thread). Have you considered moving to Canada or someplace else that already has what you desire instead of trying to force your view upon everyone else?

Also, is it better to be a "second" class citizen in the US with a strong economy or a "first" class citizen in a third world ****hole or an economically depressed America (which under current management is heading towards third world ****hole status quickly anyways)?
 
I'm sorry, but automatically labeling a woman a second class citizen is incredibly ignorant. I find it funny that people still carry that obsolete mindset.

You're free to believe whatever you wish. As for me, I'm a Traditionalist and I always will be.

With that said, my biggest deciding factor in this election is the economy, followed by the war. I don't think social issues such as abortion and gay rights should be a deciding factor for the president. There are much more important things at stake, IMO.

I disagree. Promoting Conservative Social Agendas leads to a place where most of the Economic issues fix themselves. Anything else doesn't get us there in the end.
 
I'm sure you don't, but then I don't see where you are (feel free to debate that all you want, in it's proper thread). Have you considered moving to Canada or someplace else that already has what you desire instead of trying to force your view upon everyone else?

Also, is it better to be a "second" class citizen in the US with a strong economy or a "first" class citizen in a third world ****hole or an economically depressed America (which under current management is heading towards third world ****hole status quickly anyways)?

I like living in Georgia, Atlanta's a cool city, my family is here, and the weather is awesome. I'm not going anywhere. And I'm not trying to force my view upon anyone, I am not for forcing anyone to get a SSM, I just want to. That's it, not forcing, the side that's against SSM is the one forcing their view upon me, and that is ****ed up.

And with regards to the economy, and the two presidential candidates, the candidate that supports SSM, is also the candidate that I believe will improve our economy, so yeah there you go.
 
You're free to believe whatever you wish. As for me, I'm a Traditionalist and I always will be.

I respect your position. What I do not respect is publicly demoralizing an individual by calling them a second class citizen based on ones assumptions.

I disagree. Promoting Conservative Social Agendas leads to a place where most of the Economic issues fix themselves. Anything else doesn't get us there in the end.

So, if the gays and pro-choice individuals are happy, the economy will magically fix itself?

No, I don't believe it will. Unfortunately.
 
I respect your position. What I do not respect is publicly demoralizing an individual by calling them a second class citizen based on ones assumptions.

Star knows my position quite well by now. I'm not saying anything she isn't already aware of my feelings on.

So, if the gays and pro-choice individuals are happy, the economy will magically fix itself?

No, I don't believe it will. Unfortunately.

NO. The exact OPPOSITE. It is only once Traditional Morals and Values are returned to the vast majority of the population that the economy will be fixed. Not through magic either, but rather through the common sense, reason, and logic attached to those Traditional Morals and Values.
 
I'm sure you don't, but then I don't see where you are (feel free to debate that all you want, in it's proper thread). Have you considered moving to Canada or someplace else that already has what you desire instead of trying to force your view upon everyone else?

Also, is it better to be a "second" class citizen in the US with a strong economy or a "first" class citizen in a third world ****hole or an economically depressed America (which under current management is heading towards third world ****hole status quickly anyways)?

The problem with your premise is that it is you who wishes to force your view upon others. No one has ever suggested forcing you to marry someone of the same sex yet you somehow feel endowed to tell them what is permissible in their lives. It's funny that I've made the same argument about relocating to people of your orientation before. If you want a theocratic Christian state, I'm sure you can find one somewhere. Don't want to pay taxes? There are plenty of places you could live with much lower rates. Unfortunately, all of them pretty much fall into the ****hole category.
 
What's a "forward-leaning defense posture"?

And if I want to bring everybody home, close all foreign military bases, and open bases on the homeland so that we become truly defensive, and about 10,000 times less offensive, what would you call that?

That would be called stupid. Having a defense is being able to respond to an attack or threat. And Don't forget that the vast majority of defense is also the projection of power. I know that I feel better knowing that if any other country tries to get fancy, we're never more than 8 hours away.
 
Star knows my position quite well by now. I'm not saying anything she isn't already aware of my feelings on.

Fair enough. Although I still don't agree with this view, I'm sure you must have a good reason to feel that way about it. I can respect that.

NO. The exact OPPOSITE. It is only once Traditional Morals and Values are returned to the vast majority of the population that the economy will be fixed. Not through magic either, but rather through the common sense, reason, and logic attached to those Traditional Morals and Values.

Forgive me, I misread your post. I see you clearly stated Conservative Social Agendas.

And while I can't dispute your claims, I still believe that isn't enough to fix our economy.

Morals and values cannot be forced upon anyone; for them to be effective they need to come from inside each individual.

Again, while I don't think it's a bad idea, I believe our economy needs much more than that to fix itself.
 
I personally believe government exists to defend property and individual rights, minting, regulating weights and balances, etc. and little more. I support a flat tax rate applied equally to everyone regardless of income, marital status, race, etc. I don't oppose a small, temporary safety net but I stress small and temporary.

It's hard to find a mainstream candidate who feels that way so I typically just vote for the least intrusive candidate available. I'm not particularly partisan but at this point Democrats have become so extreme it would take a lot for me to vote Democrat and I assume I won't be doing that any time soon. I don't automatically support or defend Republicans though.

Abortion, gay marriage, etc. are pretty nominal issues for me.

I'm personally against abortion but I recognize I have little chance of swaying proponents beliefs. I think Republicans would be better served dropping the issue entirely. I believe a traditional family is best but I'm just for two people making a life long commitment to one another in general and I oppose all differences in rights based on marital status.
 
Last edited:
For this election, foreign policy is my #1 issue.


I am voting for Gary Johnson because of how disgusted I am with Obama on the War in Afghanistan... and Romney doesn't support pulling out either. Hell, he keeps pushing for a war with Iran on top of that.
 
For this election, foreign policy is my #1 issue.


I am voting for Gary Johnson because of how disgusted I am with Obama on the War in Afghanistan... and Romney doesn't support pulling out either. Hell, he keeps pushing for a war with Iran on top of that.

Taking out Iran would be good, should of been done a longtime ago.
 
The problem with your premise is that it is you who wishes to force your view upon others. No one has ever suggested forcing you to marry someone of the same sex yet you somehow feel endowed to tell them what is permissible in their lives. It's funny that I've made the same argument about relocating to people of your orientation before. If you want a theocratic Christian state, I'm sure you can find one somewhere. Don't want to pay taxes? There are plenty of places you could live with much lower rates. Unfortunately, all of them pretty much fall into the ****hole category.

First off, if you had read any of my previous post on the subject, then you would know that my religious believes have absolutely nothing to do with it. I would consider moving someplace else but there is no place that pursues the economic philosophy that I believe in and also supports the earned privileges we call rights at the level of the US.

Second, my point of view on Marriage is that marriage is centered around procreation and child care. You can disagree with that all you want, it doesn't change my opinion. The pursuit of SSM is to grant to them the same benefits and tax breaks enjoyed by married couples. Those benefits were created at a time when most households had a single wage earner and it better enabled couples to care for their children.

Third, my view on homosexuality is that is an aberration of the natural instinct for procreation. Because it is an aberration of an instinct, the cause of which is not currently known, homosexuality as a sexual preference is not a normal human behavior and I do not support attempts to normalize it. I do not however believe that homosexuals should be harassed, discriminated against or assaulted as a result of their condition. As a result of my view on marriage, I do not believe that not allowing SSM is discrimination, they are free to pursue normal marriage, the same as anyone else.

As you can see, disagree with me or not, my beliefs on this subject are not religiously motivated. As far as this thread goes, this is as far off the rail of the thread as I am willing to go here.
 
Good luck with that. Just realize that there are many people like ME out there who will not have our viewpoints changed by you or anyone else.

No one cares about your viewpoints and no one will force you to have an abortion. Just stop trying to force others to your views.
 
NO. The exact OPPOSITE. It is only once Traditional Morals and Values are returned to the vast majority of the population that the economy will be fixed. Not through magic either, but rather through the common sense, reason, and logic attached to those Traditional Morals and Values.

Those traditions, morals, and values lead to the first economic depression, prohibition, the flourish of organized crime, bureaucracy out the ass, and the roots of globalism.
 
Seeing as Obama is going for his second term, if I were to vote, I would vote in accordance to how he kept his promises from the first election. If the balance tips too much on the side of broken promises... or half-assed fulfilled promises, I wouldn't vote for him again but I would do a counter-vote... anyone but him.


On who I would pick from those against him... generally, whoever I like the most. I wouldn't vote for romney if there is another candidate because romney is full of ****.

-But, you'd be wastin' your vote man! and you will help Obama win!

No, I would be making a statement. If the third party candidate gets 1% votes... .or 5%... or 10 %, it's not the same thing. it matters how he loses (if he loses). Big number of people voting for him means he has credibility and public appeal. few... and there is no point in desiring and hoping for change... 2party system for life.
 
First off, if you had read any of my previous post on the subject, then you would know that my religious believes have absolutely nothing to do with it. I would consider moving someplace else but there is no place that pursues the economic philosophy that I believe in and also supports the earned privileges we call rights at the level of the US.

Second, my point of view on Marriage is that marriage is centered around procreation and child care. You can disagree with that all you want, it doesn't change my opinion. The pursuit of SSM is to grant to them the same benefits and tax breaks enjoyed by married couples. Those benefits were created at a time when most households had a single wage earner and it better enabled couples to care for their children.

Third, my view on homosexuality is that is an aberration of the natural instinct for procreation. Because it is an aberration of an instinct, the cause of which is not currently known, homosexuality as a sexual preference is not a normal human behavior and I do not support attempts to normalize it. I do not however believe that homosexuals should be harassed, discriminated against or assaulted as a result of their condition. As a result of my view on marriage, I do not believe that not allowing SSM is discrimination, they are free to pursue normal marriage, the same as anyone else.

As you can see, disagree with me or not, my beliefs on this subject are not religiously motivated. As far as this thread goes, this is as far off the rail of the thread as I am willing to go here.

Whether they are motivated by religion or by you seeing yourself as the protector of human procreation, it doesn't matter. You are still attempting to force your moral code upon other consenting adults against their will. Hitler saw Jews as an "aberration" of humanity and started by limiting their rights as opposed to "true Germans". We all know where that led. Last time I checked, the human race wasn't in any danger of dying off because of a plague of homosexuality. If the financial aspects and tax breaks are what truly bother you, then eliminate them for traditional married couples and get the government out of encouraging/ discouraging procreation period. It isn't the late 1800s, we don't need to colonize the vast frontier anymore.
 
you would vote for a candidate the screws up everything else. I have to hand it to you, at least your honest about it.

i've noticed that a candidate who is willing to deny basic civil rights to a large group of Americans is most likely in disagreement with me on other important issues as well.
 
What's a "forward-leaning defense posture"?

And if I want to bring everybody home, close all foreign military bases, and open bases on the homeland so that we become truly defensive, and about 10,000 times less offensive, what would you call that?

...I would have to waver between "suicidal" and just "dangerously naive".
 
...I would have to waver between "suicidal" and just "dangerously naive".

Why, because I don't live in fear of the rest of the world? Or the boogie-man?

A more independent, less intrusive, and isolationist USofA would most likely be a safer USofA as well as a more respected USofA.
 
Back
Top Bottom