• 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 have a "litmus test" for political candidates?

Do you have a 'litmus test'?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 64.3%

  • No, but I could under the right circumstances

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • No

    Votes: 3 21.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    14
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Do you have a "litmus test" for political candidates?

I don't, and have always prided myself on being able to at least try and look at the overall picture, but I have to admit that my time here is stirring up all my long-suppressed anger against civil asset forfeiture that I feel like I might have one sometime soon. Of course, pretty much every politician on both sides of the aisle are responsible for, and would favor, continued use of the practice as it allows them to continue the illusion of being "tough on crime", so except for Libertarians I'm not sure where I would go. Voting Libertarian would certainly not be the end of the world. I have done it before, and expect to this November in the Presidential election, but I do wish there would an actual realistic alternative.

If you do have a litmus test, please share it and explain your reason(s).

If you do not have a litmus test, please explains your reason(s) for not having one. Not everybody has one overriding issue that drives them, I understand that.
 
I have a few simple tests a candidate has to pass before I even look deeper at them.
if they are anti-gun... they are toast.
if they are disrespectful of the 1st amendment... they are toast.
if they prize , or engage in, identity politics based on sex, race ,color, creed, or sexuality... they are toast.

needless to say, those few tests weed a lot of candidates out right off the bat.
 
If they constantly say dumb **** and make fools of themselves on TV, then I dismiss them out of hand.
 
Thrilla said:
sooooo.. you're a nonvoter then huh? :lol:
Click to expand...

For the most part yeah. If I did I'd lean Obama anyway, and Maryland always goes blue so it's kinda pointless.

But I was more referring to the likes of extreme progressives who constantly say dumb ****, or folks like Palin and Cain who for whatever reason fail to do their homework.
 
I try to be a "big picture" kinda guy, but there are some stances I just consider unforgivable and I can't support a candidate who espouses them under any circumstances-- I mean, literally, if they are confirmed to be the Second Coming of the Messiah and they take one of those positions I will find a new god.

For instance, I'm opposed to just about every gun control ordinance passed ever, but it doesn't become a "litmus test" unless we're talking about firearm registration or banning handguns. That's unforgivable.

I am vehemently pro-choice, but I'm accustomed to politicians I trust on economic and security issues being wrong on abortion. On the other hand, there's a line between opposing the rape/incest exemption-- a principled position-- and opposing exemptions based on medical necessity.

I'd be a single-issue voter on NASA if there were anyone left I could count on to support it.
 
Yeah, I do. I look at the big picture, but there are certain stances that I just find so wrong that I won't support a candidate who holds them. I might support a candidate who is neutral if the rest of their platform/history is stellar. Maybe. But it has to be stellar.

I won't vote for anti-choice candidates,. I won't vote for candidates who support censorship. I won't vote for candidates who want to dismantle SS/Medicare. I won't vote for candidates who believe this is a "Christian nation" and want to legislate accordingly - anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-diversity, etc.
 
Last edited:
I cannot imagine any way I would vote for a candidate who was dedicated to funneling more money and power into the upper class. That is, I would never support a proponent of oligarchy.

SmokeAndMirrors said:
I won't vote for anti-choice candidates,. I won't vote for candidates who support censorship. I won't vote for candidates who want to dismantle SS/Medicare. I won't vote for candidates who believe this is a "Christian nation" and want to legislate accordingly - anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-diversity, etc.
Click to expand...

Also this stuff. Religion has no place in law.
 
Paschendale said:
I cannot imagine any way I would vote for a candidate who was dedicated to funneling more money and power into the upper class. That is, I would never support a proponent of oligarchy.



Also this stuff. Religion has no place in law.
Click to expand...

sooooo... you're a nonvoter too huh? :lol:
 
Unfortunately, for a long time it has not been about voting for someone, but voting against someone else.

So now it is a matter of picking the one that seems like they will do less damage. Even that is pretty close most often.
 
radcen said:
Do you have a "litmus test" for political candidates?

I don't, and have always prided myself on being able to at least try and look at the overall picture, but I have to admit that my time here is stirring up all my long-suppressed anger against civil asset forfeiture that I feel like I might have one sometime soon. Of course, pretty much every politician on both sides of the aisle are responsible for, and would favor, continued use of the practice as it allows them to continue the illusion of being "tough on crime", so except for Libertarians I'm not sure where I would go. Voting Libertarian would certainly not be the end of the world. I have done it before, and expect to this November in the Presidential election, but I do wish there would an actual realistic alternative.

If you do have a litmus test, please share it and explain your reason(s).

If you do not have a litmus test, please explains your reason(s) for not having one. Not everybody has one overriding issue that drives them, I understand that.
Click to expand...
I do have a litmus test for candidates.The way I look at that litmus test is part of the bigger picture. When people vote for candidates who contradicts their views they ensure that more candidates who do share their views are propped up. For example if I vote for Romney it ensures the GOP will slide further and further to the left.However if the republicans loose a few presidential elections for propping up liberal republicans then they will finally get the hint that they should run actual conservatives, not liberals like Romney who pretend to be conservative in order to try to be president. I do not want Obama as president but at the same time I am not going to vote for a republican who is somewhat less liberal than Obama.Voting for a liberal republican ensures that the republicans will prop up an Obama who has a R next to his name.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
If you do have a litmus test, please share it and explain your reason(s).
Click to expand...
I sure do, and it's pretty short:

__ Supports private ownership of personal firearms, to include pistols and everything banned under the Brady Bill.
__ Political/voting history demonstrates a trend of turning to the private sector as the solution to most problems, over government being the answer to everything (ie healthcare, etc)

​That's it. Everything else is relative and change depending on how one candidate compairs to another.

 
You BET I have a litmus test. I look at their records.

Forget about what their ads say. Many might say they are conservative and want smaller government, but in many cases, their records prove otherwise.

Very few prove to be true conservatives. My two favorites are Ron Paul and Rand Paul. Herman Cain doesn't have a political record, but I've listened to enough interviews and his comments to know he practices what he preaches.

On the flip side, Romney created Romneycare. This one thing alone proves that he is a socialist.

Obama is much worse. His entire culture and upbringing is anti-American. To him, America is the "Great Satan." Now look at his record. Every action he has done is one that a usurper would use to destroy America and its economy, and he's doing a darn good job at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom