• 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!

Do you Vote Based on Personal Lives?

PresidentRomney

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Say Romney won the nomination. Would you, in all honesty, not vote for him based on the fact that he may be a different religion than you? Would you not vote for Gingrich due to his wife's Tiffany's tab? Or do you vote based on what they are elected to do: Preserve America and continue on its amazing legacy?
 
I vote for whomever I think will do the best job for ALL of us. Regardless of their dirty laundry.

I loved Bill Clinton. Still do.
 
I vote primarily based on whether or not a candidate shares simlilar philosophies and values with me. I vote based on what I perceive as personal character, and not on personality. I don't care that Romney is a Mormom, and I would vote for an atheist if his behaviors indicated good character. Character isn't in what one has done wrong, but in what one has learned from his mistakes, and in the positive changes those mistakes have caused a person to make in their lives.
 
Last edited:
Depends. Personality is virtually meaningless. Character can be an indication of whether or not I can trust them to do what they say they will do. Not all candidates can be judged equally. It's a judgment call by me at the time.
 
Say Romney won the nomination. Would you, in all honesty, not vote for him based on the fact that he may be a different religion than you? Would you not vote for Gingrich due to his wife's Tiffany's tab? Or do you vote based on what they are elected to do: Preserve America and continue on its amazing legacy?

I do not care what someone's religion is.Romney is not getting my vote because he is a stinking liberal.If I wanted to vote for a Lib then I will vote for Obama.


If its proven that someone had an affair then I will not vote for that person.The way I look at is if that person can't be faithful to this his wife then he can not be trusted to be faithful to this country.I will not vote for a man who cheats on his wife.Gingrich is not getting my vote because he openly supports amnesty for illegals, co-sponsored the so-called fairness doctrine and ethics violations, not because of the allegations of a angry bitter ex-wife.If the allegations of his ex is true then it proves that a scumbag in his personal life will be a scumbag politician.
 
Last edited:
Say Romney won the nomination. Would you, in all honesty, not vote for him based on the fact that he may be a different religion than you?

That would be a really, really stupid reason for me to not vote for Romney, given that, as it happens, he is actually of the same region as I am.
 
Awkward, I thought the main reason why people didn't want to vote for Obama was because of his allegedly personal connections to Wright, Ayers and father? How funny that when the personal life of a politician we like is in question, all the sudden it's off limits. Romney's religion? Off limits. Gringich's affairs? Off limits. Obama's schooling? Clinton's affairs? Well those were different. Right? In the last 20 years, Republicans perfected the art of public assassination of a person's life through the guise of "character" questions. Now all of a sudden digging up angry exwifes, girlfriends, and anybody who has anything bad to say about you is no longer acceptable.

The best part is that there are so many people here who tried to use Obama's supposed links to "Islam" as a reason to attack him. Anybody remember when Obama was a secret Muslim and we on the left were too blind to see it? And if we did see it, how could we justify voting for a Mooslum? Now religion is off limits, affairs are off limits and your kids are off limits even if you use them as your own personal little cash cows and sympathy cards.
 
Last edited:
Say Romney won the nomination. Would you, in all honesty, not vote for him based on the fact that he may be a different religion than you? Would you not vote for Gingrich due to his wife's Tiffany's tab? Or do you vote based on what they are elected to do: Preserve America and continue on its amazing legacy?

This is one of those "shoe on the other foot" thing. In Romney's case I don't think it would matter because the guy from the most part is straight arrow, although I think I know where you are actually going with this. No I would never vote for Gingrich. The guy is a caricature of corruption. It is one thing for people to claim Obama is a Muslim or from Kenya you know, that in some circles can be debated. You CANNOT debate that Newt bought crazy jewelry from Tiffanys after saying he struggles too, and cheated on all of his wives, while saying he wants to preserve the sanctity of marriage. A man like that doesnt deserve to be President. Romney though? He would be another Obama with some things different I reckon.
 
Say Romney won the nomination. Would you, in all honesty, not vote for him based on the fact that he may be a different religion than you? Would you not vote for Gingrich due to his wife's Tiffany's tab? Or do you vote based on what they are elected to do: Preserve America and continue on its amazing legacy?


Maybe a Mormon can not be depended upon to "Preserve America and continue on its amazing legacy", maybe someone who cheats on two of his wives cannot "Preserve America and continue on its amazing legacy", maybe someone whose wife overspent at Tiffany's cannot be counted upon to "Preserve America and continue on its amazing legacy".

These things may not be independent to some people. Personal beliefs impact what a President will do to a large extend, as such all potential President should be vetted for their "personal life", it's no more onerous than a security clearance for a sensitive job, except that it's done for millions to see.
 
Last edited:
Awkward, I thought the main reason why people didn't want to vote for Obama was because of his allegedly personal connections to Wright, Ayers and father? How funny that when the personal life of a politician we like is in question, all the sudden it's off limits. Romney's religion? Off limits. Gringich's affairs? Off limits. Obama's schooling? Clinton's affairs? Well those were different. Right? In the last 20 years, Republicans perfected the art of public assassination of a person's life through the guise of "character" questions. Now all of a sudden digging up angry exwifes, girlfriends, and anybody who has anything bad to say about you is no longer acceptable.

The best part is that there are so many people here who tried to use Obama's supposed links to "Islam" as a reason to attack him. Anybody remember when Obama was a secret Muslim and we on the left were too blind to see it? And if we did see it, how could we justify voting for a Mooslum? Now religion is off limits, affairs are off limits and your kids are off limits even if you use them as your own personal little cash cows and sympathy cards.

Oh, whatever.

I didn't vote for Obama because he's on the wrong side of every issue that matters to me. Period. His connections to unrepentent domestic terrorists and radical black liberation theologists didn't help, but if you think that the main reason people didn't vote for him was because of his "allegedly personal connections," you're mistaken.
 
I vote primarily based on whether or not a candidate shares similar philosophies and values with me. I vote based on what I perceive as personal character, and not on personality. I don't care that Romney is a Mormon, and I would vote for an atheist if his behaviors indicated good character. Character isn't in what one has done wrong, but in what one has learned from his mistakes, and in the positive changes those mistakes have caused a person to make in their lives.
All true, but, IMO, personality( a good one) is vital for the President's success as a politician.
I am impressed that Mitt has a rather nasty one, he strikes me as believing that he is better than others....a type of royality...OK in England 500 years ago....not in our nation...not today.
The President is a servant of the people..
 
Hated Clinton....still do. Hate Gingrinch.

I don't vote for people I despise.
 
Religion in and of itself will not eliminate a candidate for me. What they do with regard to their beliefs certainly might. If, for example, somebody was of the muslim faith I would not at all discount them. If they asserted that their beliefs required that we base our system of law on extremist islamic belief I would immediately discount them.

Infidelity, again, would not immediately eliminate a candidate. People are not perfect. If their infidelity were hidden or handled by illegal means (i.e. the alleged actions of Edwards in regards to funneling campaign money to his mistress) I would not be able to vote for them.

Character is important; don't get me wrong. But character is multi-faceted. I have not been a model of "moral living" at some points in my life, but I feel that my actions towards others and my goals for this country trump my past decisions. I also believe that my behavior in a larger sense supports my intentions and goals. If I can say the same of a candidate then they will be capable of earning my vote.
 
Politicians, like everybody else...their opinions are a penny a million. Their intentions (promises) aren't worth a dime.

I judge people by their actions, not their intentions. Politicians personal lives are historical, almost living clues as to how they will engage in their actions...not their intentions.
 
Religion makes no difference to me. I judge a candidate on their words and actions in respect to the job they are running for.

There are two things that will definitely turn me off of a candidate:

1. If they are a liberal.

2. If they are a liar.
 
All true, but, IMO, personality( a good one) is vital for the President's success as a politician.
I am impressed that Mitt has a rather nasty one, he strikes me as believing that he is better than others....a type of royality...OK in England 500 years ago....not in our nation...not today.
The President is a servant of the people..

*Believing* he is better is just another belief, and just indicates personality. I look at a candidates past associations and actions, then I look at his present associations and actions. I don't care if someone else believes he is better than me or not. It's not his beliefs that I care about, but his actions and ability to make sound decisions that are constructive, not destructive to the country.
 
Religion makes no difference to me. I judge a candidate on their words and actions in respect to the job they are running for.

There are two things that will definitely turn me off of a candidate:

1. If they are a liberal.

2. If they are a liar.

You have a lot of contempt for a lot of people you don't know.

Oh, wait, we're talking about politicians....right? Glad to know that so-called Conservative "politicians" NEVER lie. Gezzzzzzz, what a relief that is. Mannnn-oh-live. You had me going there for a few seconds. What the hell was I thinking?
 
Yes, Personal Lives are one of the factors that I take into account. I find it very difficult to believe that a candidate can GOVERN morally if they cannot LIVE morally.
 
Yes, Personal Lives are one of the factors that I take into account. I find it very difficult to believe that a candidate can GOVERN morally if they cannot LIVE morally.

Depends on the definition of "morally"...and who defines it.

Isn't that really a problem?
 
I vote for the Democratic Party candidates. Not being the "family values" party allows me to vote for the Clinton, Gingrich, Cain type of personalities without remorse. But it still gets considered.

Being a Washington politician means that these people spend a lot of time away from their families. Much like Tiger Woods, there are plenty of political groupies to choose from. It's not a regular American life by any means. I can understand that the weak succumb to the temptations.

Now, getting thrown out of your position by your party for monetary wrong-doings will cost you my vote. That, and being Republican.
 
Depends on the definition of "morally"...and who defines it. Isn't that really a problem?

Nope. I know exactly what it means to me, and if they don't come pretty close to meeting that standard, then I'm not voting for them. Pretty simple, really.
 
You have a lot of contempt for a lot of people you don't know.

Oh, wait, we're talking about politicians....right? Glad to know that so-called Conservative "politicians" NEVER lie. Gezzzzzzz, what a relief that is. Mannnn-oh-live. You had me going there for a few seconds. What the hell was I thinking?

Dude, do you always get so excited when you misconstrue or misunderstand what you read?

I made no statement about having contempt for anybody and I made no statement about any politicians who never lie.


I suspect you exercise your heart quite often.
 
Dude, do you always get so excited when you misconstrue or misunderstand what you read?

I made no statement about having contempt for anybody and I made no statement about any politicians who never lie.


I suspect you exercise your heart quite often.


Hmmmm,

There are two things that will definitely turn me off of a candidate:

1. If they are a liberal.

2. If they are a liar.

Are you denying you posted the above?

A person who is liberal turns you off...that factor alone makes them "undesirable" or a "turn off" in your eyes. That is an automatic indictment of a person. There's nothing else about that person that has any redeeming value.

And I suspect that Liberal and Liar are one in the same to you...if the truth were known....Dude.

This country is actually in a state of cold war between the ideologies of liberalism and conservatism. People are starting to act like they did during the civil war. Meanwhile those who are dumping propaganda and brainwashing people...use those ideologies to distract and divide people from who and what our real problem are...which are nothing less than our self-will-run-riot political and government systems.
 
I would vote for a contemptible go-getter who can get the job done before I vote for an idiot everyman. I'm a results man - personality, character, and likeability are just inconsequential factors.

The sad part is that this is not a common belief in the American populace, and will prevent Ron Paul from ever gaining the presidency.
 
Back
Top Bottom