• 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!

Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

How Would You Vote?

  • Without money, people have no hope.

    Votes: 18 54.5%
  • Without hope of social justice, money has no use.

    Votes: 13 39.4%
  • I have no idea but I think this is exactly what I'll have to decide.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • I don't vote.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
Ironic that you post this while living in the United States.

Only because my search for that Moralistic, Second or Third-World nation has not yet yielded sufficient results to allow me to relocate, Gipper. Nor have I been able to lay my hands upon a time machine in order to send myself back to the 12th or 13th Century where I would prefer to be.
 
I could suggest gaining morbid obesity to get on disability, and find a basement somewhere to live in while playing Dungeons and Dragons for most of every waking day. Escapists tend to do such things as this.
 
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?
first comes the understanding of social justice ,then economic justice follows it...
 
I won't vote for anyone who campaigns for "justice". I'll vote for someone who will work to fix the economy first and foremost, we need to have economic sanity restored to America. Gay marriage is pretty much a foregone conclusion anyhow.
 
Only because my search for that Moralistic, Second or Third-World nation has not yet yielded sufficient results to allow me to relocate, Gipper. Nor have I been able to lay my hands upon a time machine in order to send myself back to the 12th or 13th Century where I would prefer to be.

There are plenty of places on earth that resemble the 12th or 13th century. Bring a sword, you'll be needing it.
 
I could suggest gaining morbid obesity to get on disability, and find a basement somewhere to live in while playing Dungeons and Dragons for most of every waking day. Escapists tend to do such things as this.

Actually I've LOST about 50 lbs in the last 30 months and moved into my own place (away from the roommates) as of 11/1/11. Nice to have my own space for the first time in quite a while. There are considerably more interesting RPG's out there than D&D these days. White Wolf's "World of Darkness" settings, Shadowrun, and Twilight:2000 being among them. Though honestly my interests in medievel recreation and competitive pistol shooting tend to be my bigger hobbies these days along with my running and time at the gym. Of course this is all contingent on whatever schedule my girlfriend and I have for the week.


There are plenty of places on earth that resemble the 12th or 13th century. Bring a sword, you'll be needing it.

That's fine with me. I'm actually pretty handy with a sword, axe, and bow. If I can find one that fits my morals and values I'll be there quite quickly, thank you very much.
 
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?
Interesting question. I would vote for the economic justice. Economic justice benefits everybody. Social justice, while certainly noble, positively affects only a relative few. To me it's just a simple unemotional hierarchy.
 
Unfortunately I live in one, though thankfully in an area of the Communistwealth where it is not terribly prevailant. I do go out of my way to try and avoid places where morality and values are not strongly enforced; but in this area of the country it's not very easy.

I don't know if you really understand what you're saying you want, but it sounds an awful lot like a Sharia law -type place. If that's what you like, then it's no skin off my nose, but where morality and values are strongly enforced, you end up without freedom. To each his own.........

I personally prefer a set of laws designed to prevent encroachment on the rights of each other, and to let people live the way they see fit, as long as they aren't causing harm to others.
 
Last edited:
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.

IMO, right now we have a "screwed up" economy.

The money has left us to reside in Mexico, China, Germany, Japan, Arabia, even Canada, any place but our homeland - or so it seems..
We need to bring things back in balance; homosexual rights gets all the press, and at the same time, the poor suffer (they receive little press).
Anyway, I agree, we must work on the economy..
But how ?
Not by cutting education as the conservatives seem to champion, but by knowledge, then a public outcry for reform..
And the homosexuals are doing OK(financially), I think.....their struggle will continue for years and years, until the conservatives die off.
I am speaking of social conservatives, of course.
 
We are responsible for the world we live in, but we are only guilty of the things we could have changed.



I understand. I've drawn several of those lines myself. It just strikes me as remarkably petty and intolerant to draw such a line over an issue that does not prevent you from acting morally-- gay marriage doesn't interfere with your marriage and your family, so it seems that you should be perfectly capable of staying in the country and fighting (by lawful means) for the repeal of laws you consider immoral.



There's only six of them so far. I've got states I can't drive through, either; it isn't that hard if you take your moral values seriously enough.
The Tigger seems to be horribly over-re-acting to something so very few do. SSM does stretch my tolerance to the MAX, but I will survive and I will travel as I see fit...
 
I don't know if you really understand what you're saying you want, but it sounds an awful lot like a Sharia law -type place. If that's what you like, then it's no skin off my nose, but where morality and values are strongly enforced, you end up without freedom. To each his own.........

Yes, I understand exactly what I'm saying. It is not far off from Sharia Law. Freedom and Liberty are not things I believe should be Rights but rather Privileges, for those who have proven they can live within the proper restraints of society.

I personally prefer a set of laws designed to prevent encroachment on the rights of each other, and to let people live the way they see fit, as long as they aren't causing harm to others.

While that's a great idea, the problem is that the vast super-majority of human beings are too immoral and stupid to do the Right Thing without it being forced upon them.
 
When you continue to allow for the election of people who cannot or will not act and legislate in a moral manner, you are responsible for their actions and legislation. When you fail to call the cops every time you see a drug deal going down or other crime being committed, you become responsible for those actions. I could go on, but I won't waste either of our time.
Tigger, my boy...
The color does NOT rub off
The homosexual married or not is not a threat.
Fear and ignorance are.


Unfortunately I live in one, though thankfully in an area of the Communistwealth where it is not terribly prevailant. I do go out of my way to try and avoid places where morality and values are not strongly enforced; but in this area of the country it's not very easy.




Only true to a certain degree Viktyr. We're guilty of not changing a lot of things that we should, because doing so would not be easy, pretty, or polite.



Well, I can be a very petty and intolerant guy. When the State of New York imposed their Same Sex Marriage Right last year, I canceled a trip that would probably have put $500-600 in the pocket of their hotel and restaurant industry, nevermind the secondary markets. I actually sent a letter to the heads of their legislative bodies informing them of the reason I was canceling my stay. Instead I drove out for the one day I needed to be there and drove back that night (about an 18-20 hour day overall) instead of going out a couple days early and staying at least one day later.



I've got more than a few which I can't drive through for LEGAL reasons, nevermind the morals and values issues.
Tigger, my boy, the color does not rub off.
 
Yes, I understand exactly what I'm saying. It is not far off from Sharia Law. Freedom and Liberty are not things I believe should be Rights but rather Privileges, for those who have proven they can live within the proper restraints of society.



While that's a great idea, the problem is that the vast super-majority of human beings are too immoral and stupid to do the Right Thing without it being forced upon them.

Hrm... That's not "very conservative" as your official leaning suggests, that's fascism and totalitarianism, bro.
 
Tigger, my boy, the color does not rub off.

It's not a matter of the color rubbing off. It's a matter of the color existing in what is properly a Black & White world.


Hrm... That's not "very conservative" as your official leaning suggests, that's fascism and totalitarianism, bro.

Authoritarianism and Fascism are the Extreme ends of the Right Wing/Conservative spectrum, Alpaca.
 
Authoritarianism and Fascism are the Extreme ends of the Right Wing/Conservative spectrum, Alpaca.
Of course. However, I see a distinction between the terms Right Wing and conservative. But I guess there's no selection on DB for very very very right wing so I see your point.
 
Of course. However, I see a distinction between the terms Right Wing and conservative. But I guess there's no selection on DB for very very very right wing so I see your point.

Authoritarian would work, but it's not an option.
 
Hrm... That's not "very conservative" as your official leaning suggests, that's fascism and totalitarianism, bro.

Conservatism is more or less defined by the degree of social authoritarianism in a philosophy.
 
Conservatism is more or less defined by the degree of social authoritarianism in a philosophy.
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".

I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with authoritarianism.
 
The maintenance of traditional social institutions requires the initiation of force-- whether it is heavy-handed force like criminal law or soft-touch force like tax incentives.
 
The maintenance of traditional social institutions requires the initiation of force-- whether it is heavy-handed force like criminal law or soft-touch force like tax incentives.
That is subjective, at best. I would sooner turn to Newton's 1st law.

I believe that things will stay the same unless acted upon by an outside force.
 
Economic power is social/political power.

I think with just a focus on social equality it turns into an instance where those without political or economic power are dependent on those with the power to "give" them rights.

When more economic equality is reached everyone has power to petition and fight for their own rights.
 
Economic power is social/political power.

I think with just a focus on social equality it turns into an instance where those without political or economic power are dependent on those with the power to "give" them rights.

When more economic equality is reached everyone has power to petition and fight for their own rights.
Historically speaking, people having less rights means the goverment has more power, and I've yet to find a government that has voluntarily released power.
 
Historically speaking, people having less rights means the goverment has more power, and I've yet to find a government that has voluntarily released power.

I agree to an extent....but government is not some autonomous entity. It's controlled and it serves the interests of some group of people...which is why class or groups within a country DO matter. It's also why looking at government vs All People is false in my opinion.

The Monarchies of Europe were controlled by the Aristocracy. They gave additional "rights" to landowners while taking away rights of the peasants. So it wasn't some automous entity that just gobbled up power...it was government serving the interests of one group of people.

Also...the Civil Rights Act gave additional powers to the Federal Government...and that power was used to break down institutional racism in the south. So you could say the rights of White Males in the South were lost while rights to African Americans was gained.

I just think this idea of "government vs citizens" is a wrong view. Government is sometimes a means of serving the interests of one group but it's not like in the absence of government equality exists.
 
It is a shame that we do not have more viable choices, but the fact of the matter is that in this two party system, you only have two viable choices.

Being gay, it is a bitter pill for me to swallow many times. But I will always vote against ultra liberal candidates, because I believe they are ruining this country- sacrificing economic security and opportunity in the name of some bull****, nonsensical, illogical and unreasonable ideal of fairness.

It would have been most upsetting for me to have had to vote for Bachman or Perry, but I would have cast my vote in good conscience for whichever candidate runs against the current president.

Currently, it looks like there are only two choices for me: Romney, who I believe would allow Obamacare to run it's course (which would be a deal breaker for me if there were ANY other choices), or Santorum, who stated that he thinks libertarians believe in "no government," and who is as anti gay as any of the other candidates have been.

Obama isn't a choice, because he has the destruction of this country as his primary goal, IMO, calling this destruction "a fundamental transformation."

The primary in Georgia isn't until March. Between now and then, I'm trying to decide which of the GOP candidates is more likely to be able to beat Obama. Right now, I am leaning toward Santorum. I believe he would support the repeal of Obamacare (if it was placed on his desk, because I don't really think he has the leadership skills necessary to be a good president). The problem I have with Romney is that not only will the democrats make it a black vs. white election, but with Romney as the candidate, they will present the choice to stupid, mindless Americans that it is a poor vs. rich election. I have real concerns that that is a hurdle he may not overcome.

Maybe soon the libertarian party will put forward a candidate that is strong on defense, foreign policy, and border control. When they do, I support them all the way to the ballot box.
 
Back
Top Bottom