Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

[Pinkie]

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?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I would vote for the economic guys. The gay marriage thing is, at this point, pretty much going to be legal everywhere in the next 10-15 years anyway, given current momentum.

 

[Your Star]

I just wouldn't vote. I can't vote for someone who is fervent against SSM. Just don't have it in me.

 

[beerftw]

i would go with the economy,its best to fix major problems.now ssm and abortion are common issues used to divide people and distract them so they dont focus on the big issues so much.both of those issues have nearly a split base of support,no matter which side you support the other sides pissed off,but the fighting between the two sides keeps people from paying attention to core issues of politicians.

 

[tessaesque]

In this day and age, a president will not be successful in significantly blocking any further issuance of gay rights. The votes do not exist to amend the constitution in today's age of increasing tolerance for homosexual union. That said, I can, in good conscience, vote for a presidential candidate who opposes gay marriage because his ideology is essentially meaningless in the scheme of things.

In a perfect world I'd find a candidate who supports all of my views and doesn't make me compromise in order to vote for him....but this isn't a perfect world and I've got to pick my battles and look at what is most realistic.

 

[molten_dragon]

I tend to give greater weight to social issues than economic ones when considering candidates. Not sure why, but it's how I am.

 

[liblady]

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?

i would have to vote for the economy, benefits all americans. i could still work for gay rights at the same time, locally.

 

[tecoyah]

i would have to vote for the economy, benefits all americans. i could still work for gay rights at the same time, locally.

Thus, we have the independent voter. Imagine actually choosing your representative in Government based on Data.....woe is me.

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

It depends on the year... this year, I will vote for a candidate that wants to both cut spending and do away with the Bush-era tax cuts regardless of what the candidate feels about social policy. Right now, undoing the mess Reagan, GHWB and GWB caused is more important to this country continuing to be a sovereign nation than pushing thru any social agenda - conservative or liberal.

 

[X Factor]

I wouldn't vote for anyone who ran on the premise that they would bring about "economic justice".

 

[00timh]

It depends on the year... this year, I will vote for a candidate that wants to both cut spending and do away with the Bush-era tax cuts regardless of what the candidate feels about social policy. Right now, undoing the mess Reagan, GHWB and GWB caused is more important too this country continuing to be a sovereign nation than pushing thru any social agenda - conservative or liberal.

There is no such candidate out there, at least not in either of the major parties. Why is it though that liberals tend to make this argument about the messes or Reagan and Bush, yet we had strong economies with them, and horrible ones with most of the dem presidents. The way I see it is that its the GOP that cleans up the messes left by democrats. Now though they are both pooing on the carpet. Neither give a **** about anything anymore other than collecting endorsements and donations and then once in office its just policy by pay off. It leaves us all **** out of luck.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Money is pretty worthless if you think about it.
If everyone decided that the dollar has no use or money in general has no use it would be worthless.

 

[lizzie]

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?

It depends on the pragmatism of the issues. A failing economy can doom our country. Gays have rights already, except for the perceived right of marriage. The issue of whether or not gays can marry has much less impact on our economic future and stability than marriage rights. We must remain economically solvent to even exist as a country at all.

 

[LuckyDan]

I wouldn't vote for anyone who ran on the premise that they would bring about "economic justice".

I had a similar reply in mind. That is a dangerously loaded term, but I'm not sure the OP meant it the way you and I are taking it.

It's not a choice I have to make in this election, but if it were, and neither candidate shared any of my social views, I'd go for the more business-friendly candidate, and that is always going to be a Republican.

 

[beerftw]

There is no such candidate out there, at least not in either of the major parties. Why is it though that liberals tend to make this argument about the messes or Reagan and Bush, yet we had strong economies with them, and horrible ones with most of the dem presidents. The way I see it is that its the GOP that cleans up the messes left by democrats. Now though they are both pooing on the carpet. Neither give a **** about anything anymore other than collecting endorsements and donations and then once in office its just policy by pay off. It leaves us all **** out of luck.

they tend to make arguments against bush and reagan because they feel trickle down economics and deregulation caused our current recession.bush and clintons administration did have alot to do with the current crisis by deregulating the financial sector too much.trickle down economics only works when properly used,how it should have been used was to drop taxes on middle to upper income,then gradually return to normal tax rates as the economy rebounds.

clinton did nearly nothing under his economy since it was doing good then,and bush used a butchered hybrid of keynesian and trickle down supply side economics.reagans economy was a good solution for the time but arent viable for todays problems.

 

[tecoyah]

There is no such candidate out there, at least not in either of the major parties. Why is it though that liberals tend to make this argument about the messes or Reagan and Bush, yet we had strong economies with them, and horrible ones with most of the dem presidents. The way I see it is that its the GOP that cleans up the messes left by democrats. Now though they are both pooing on the carpet. Neither give a **** about anything anymore other than collecting endorsements and donations and then once in office its just policy by pay off. It leaves us all **** out of luck.

Actually, at least in my humble opinion, Clinton somehow managed to put things in some semblance of order after Bush kept the Reagan trickle down going. Then Bush Jr. completely screwed this country by ripping apart the very things put in place by Clinton to prevent what happened from happening, and topped it off by spending so much damn money we saw that the dollar weakened.

To state the GOP has been even remotely conservative in this mess is silly when faced with the data. To ignore these documented data points shows a complete lack of historical understanding.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Money is pretty worthless if you think about it.
If everyone decided that the dollar has no use or money in general has no use it would be worthless.

How will you bring it? Another communist revolution?

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

If I feel that the particular issue is more important than the economy, then no.
If I feel that the economy as a whole is better for the nation than the decision of that issue that favors my view, then I'll vote for that candidate

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

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.

 

[Uzidoesit]

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

 

[Tigger]

The value of my soul is priceless. I cannot and will not support any candidate who is in favor of SSM, regardless of anything else.

 

[Captain America]

I always stand on the side of liberty and freedom first. Money is important but I believe too much weight is given to the politician in regards to their influence of the overall economy. I no more put ALL the blame on President Bush for the current fiasco anymore than I blame Obama for his inability to make the repairs and restore the land back to milk and honey. I tend to look behind the curtain.

Money woes come and go regardless of the administrations. But a freedom granted is a monumental achievement for us as a people. Also, a freedom that is lost is hard to ever reclaim.

But, I think the near future elections will enable you to kill two birds with one stone.

If you vote for the candidate that suits your views towards liberty and justice for all, most likely he will not belong to the party that is hugely responsible for the economic mess we're in to begin with. And he will most likely be someone willing to help President Obama, (the next president) achieve the goals the voting public elected him to achieve. Your vote could help end the filibuster of government and clear the obstructions currently holding us hostage.

Vote your conscience. It will tell you who you are and what you should do.

 

[digsbe]

I would vote for someone against SSM if it meant a better economy. The economy will be the real issue in this election. I would have a hard time crippling the economy and causing everyone to suffer over one social issue.

 

[Helix]

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?

most of the anti-gay candidates push failed trickle down economic policy anyway, so i don't have to worry about making that choice.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The value of my soul is priceless. I cannot and will not support any candidate who is in favor of SSM, regardless of anything else.

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?

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?