Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

Pinkie said:

Let's say you are (as I am) a fervent supporter of gay rights. You study on the candidates and conclude that while Candidate A will frustrate your social justice goals, he or she will bring the economy back into balance.

Which way will you vote? Economic justice or social justice?

Click to expand...

I would vote for Ron Paul so I could have both civil rights and sound economic policy.

I don't vote against my Conscience for any reason.

I'm much too conscientious to vote against the economy for the sake of social issues.

For those of you who never vote against your conscience, have you ever voted for a candidate you agreed with 100%?

digsbe said:

For those of you who never vote against your conscience, have you ever voted for a candidate you agreed with 100%?

Click to expand...

No. Why do you ask?

Viktyr Korimir said:

The economy is an issue of conscience for me. Gay marriage is about the welfare of 3% of the population, while the economy is about the welfare of 100% of the population; my duty is to the nation as a whole, and thus my conscience demands that I vote to fix the economy.

I don't have a dog in either fight. I can't work and I don't own stock, so the state of the economy simply does not matter to me as long as the government doesn't collapse.

Click to expand...

I believe that without a reasonably stable economy, the government will collapse, especially given the state of our social obligations.

The state should have no social moral obligations. That's between a person, their church, their God or whatever. They need to get out of the business of dictating bedroom morals and stick with high finance.

What people don't seem to understand is that if you support civil freedom in EVERY aspect, the money will follow.

Captain America said:

The state should have no social moral obligations. That's between a person, their church, their God or whatever. They need to get out of the business of dictating bedroom morals and stick with high finance.

Click to expand...

And....there it is....

lizzie said:

I believe that without a reasonably stable economy, the government will collapse, especially given the state of our social obligations.

Click to expand...

Yep. Thing is... I'm okay with that. If the government collapses, I can do what I must to survive without their interference-- I only need government assistance because I'm incapable of functioning in a lawful society. I'm well suited to a kill-or-be-killed lifestyle, and if the old government collapses there's a good chance I'll end up on top of the new one.

I'm voting for a more responsible government, because that is what I am morally obligated to do, but I'm hoping it fails because that's what's going to work out better for me.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Yep. Thing is... I'm okay with that. If the government collapses, I can do what I must to survive without their interference-- I only need government assistance because I'm incapable of functioning in a lawful society. I'm well suited to a kill-or-be-killed lifestyle, and if the old government collapses there's a good chance I'll end up on top of the new one.

I'm voting for a more responsible government, because that is what I am morally obligated to do, but I'm hoping it fails because that's what's going to work out better for me.

Click to expand...

To the bolded: Same here, but we are definitely in the minority on the issue, lol.

I would vote for anyone if they had a feasible, logical, sensible economic plan - whether they were a child molester, cross-dresser, or Sean Penn.

Ethics and social issues mean zip to me. Your moral pedestal doesn't do much when it's next to a cardboard box.

The above would make this whole process much easier...if only. Then we get to that whole pesky reality thingy.

Pinkie said:

Let's say you are (as I am) a fervent supporter of gay rights. You study on the candidates and conclude that while Candidate A will frustrate your social justice goals, he or she will bring the economy back into balance.

Which way will you vote? Economic justice or social justice?

Click to expand...

In the end gay marriage will be decided in the courts just like inter-racial marriage was. As such I would vote for the economic guy.

Pinkie said:

Let's say you are (as I am) a fervent supporter of gay rights. You study on the candidates and conclude that while Candidate A will frustrate your social justice goals, he or she will bring the economy back into balance.

Which way will you vote? Economic justice or social justice?

Click to expand...

It depends. I'll look at which candidate will most improve my life and the lives of people I think deserve to succeed. If Candidate A is going to put me in conversion therapy or prison, I think I'll take my risks with a worse economy. If he is going to appoint anti-gay supreme court judges, I think a few years of a bad economy is better than forty years of bad social precedent.

Luckily, I don't think much of what the anti-gay folks propose economically has a chance of stimulating the economy, and I think the economy will probably improve over the next four years no matter who is in charge, so it never really comes down to balancing these two concerns anyway.

I would vote for the social issues first. If a candidate is pro-choice, I don't care if he'd make me a billionaire. Of course, if he's pro-choice he'd probably give me a 99% tax rate on my billions too lol.

There are some things that are deal-breakers for me personally. Gay rights is kind of a deal-breaker, since I could never vote for a president who actively campaigned that he/she would reinstate don't-ask-don't-tell in the military, would actively work to pass a federal law that overturned the rights of states to legalize gay marriage. I could never vote for a candidate that promised to work toward making abortion illegal again, citing a plan to place only anti-choice candidates in federal judgeships and on the Supreme Court. I could never vote for a candidate that promised to throw open the border, and declare this a sanctuary country for the entire world. I couldn't vote for a candidate that promised to gut SS, medicare and disability, while giving tax cuts to corporations and multi-millionaires.

That's just a handful of drop-dead issues for me. I know I'll never agree with any candidate 100%... I could throttle Bill Clinton for NAFTA, although I thought him an excellent president overall. However, yeah, there are issues for me that I cannot in good conscience overlook.

Social issues are a "biggie" with me and if I thought that their being voted in would hurt the things that matter to me? I could not vote for them. Sorry. I just could not do it when I know damn well there are people out here that could be elected that will do the the right thing on the budget and social issues. If that makes me a bitch that does not "really" care about the Economy? So Be It!

Uzidoesit said:

Marriage was invented by heteros for heteros. Gays don't get to make or change the rules of that institution.

Click to expand...

Yes they do! At the ballot box!

Gipper said:

I would vote for anyone if they had a feasible, logical, sensible economic plan - whether they were a child molester, cross-dresser, or Sean Penn.

Ethics and social issues mean zip to me. Your moral pedestal doesn't do much when it's next to a cardboard box.

Click to expand...

This is the most disgusting thing you have ever posted. You do not care about anybody and would vote for a pedo as long as it benefits YOU. That is so scummy selfish

Given the choice is between established parties which are not radical/extremist and which, despite all bickering, are not that far apart and thus "legitimate choices", I'd rather go with the party/candidates whose platform reflects my opinions on social issues, rather economic issues. Take, for example, the two large parties in Germany, conservative Christian Dems and center-left Social Dems -- both support a free market economy in general, despite all differences in the details.

I would not vote for a party whose social stances I agree with, when they are extremist on economic issues ... like a communist party or so, which wants to change the entire system. Likewise, I would not support a party I think has good economic ideas, but is totally authoritarian, maybe even anti-constitutional on social issues.

But back to the choice between two established, moderate parties, I go with the social issues. That's because I believe the government's power over a free market economy is very limited anyway. The free market economy will go up and down by itself, policies can delay or fasten this development only to some extent. Economic policy does matter, but the power of a government over markets is much lower in general, than over social issues. The effect of ending or enacting legal discrimination, for example, is much more direct than the effect of taxes or subsidies on the economy as a whole. The former are directly in effect, the latter can just slow or fasten a general economic trend.

Well, that depends. What are we talkin', here?

Are we talkin' someone whose record on social issues is simply not distinguished? Maybe. If their record leads me to believe they just aren't that passionate about it and I don't believe that they will take significant and definitive action against social justice, maybe. But even then, it would have to be a pretty awesome economic plan, which has legitimate hope of gaining bipartisan support.

Or are we talking about someone with a strong record of taking action, or wishing to, against what I consider social justice? If that's the case, no. My social positions are mostly based on personal freedom and self-ownership and equal treatment under the law. And no, I won't support a candidate who doesn't believe in those things. I already make enough concessions as it is, since a lot of the social issues I believe in probably won't be talked about in mainstream politics for decades to come. I'm not willing to move backwards.

I won't vote for someone who wants to curtain people's freedom or make them second class citizens.

What good does it do to have a great economy if you're living under oppression?

Viktyr Korimir said:

Leaving the morality of same sex marriage aside for a moment... what does it have to do with your soul? In what fashion are you corrupted merely by living in a society that tolerates what you consider wrong?

Click to expand...

There are crimes and sins of commission and ones of omission, Viktyr. We are as guilty of the things we know are wrong that we allow to go on around us as we are of those things that we do ourselves.

Viktyr Korimir said:

If it becomes legal, will you then only be allowed to vote for candidates that support repealing it? Or, if there are no candidates in favor of repealing it... what then? What are the consequences for your soul to living in a society which permits same sex marriage?

Click to expand...

If it becomes legal nationally, I will no longer be able to reside in the United States. It's that simple.

digsbe said:

For those of you who never vote against your conscience, have you ever voted for a candidate you agreed with 100%?

Click to expand...

When I walk into the voting booth I expect that there will be less than 10% of the offices on that ballot where I can actually cast a vote for EITHER candidate. In some cases I've only voted for a single office on the ballot and then walked out. 100% agreement is pretty much impossible. My goal is 85%+ overall and 100% on the important issues.

RabidAlpaca said:

What people don't seem to understand is that if you support civil freedom in EVERY aspect, the money will follow.

Click to expand...

I would rather live in a MORAL third-world nation than in an IMMORAL first-world nation.