What are your drop dead issues?

[basas]

I'll be honest, I don't support a single candidate that is currently in the running. None of them match up with me 100% on the issues I care about. As I said in an earlier post it will come down to the lesser of two evils for me during the presidential election unless something drastic happens before then.

Fair enough. It just seems some people won't vote for a republican who is against issues such as gay marriage but will turn around and ignore it when it's a democrat.

 

[KarenB]

The possibility of a draft and NCLB

 

[eclectics]

Fair enough. It just seems some people won't vote for a republican who is against issues such as gay marriage but will turn around and ignore it when it's a democrat.

It's not ignored. When it comes to the issues, it's the number of pro's outweighing the number of cons. Not a difficult concept. Would a person who firmly believes in the Republican platform vote for a Democrat just because the Republican candidate and themselves don't jive on one issue? Somehow, I doubt it very much.

 

[basas]

It's not ignored. When it comes to the issues, it's the number of pro's outweighing the number of cons. Not a difficult concept. Would a person who firmly believes in the Republican platform vote for a Democrat just because the Republican candidate and themselves don't jive on one issue? Somehow, I doubt it very much.

The people I quoted were ones who made it quite clear a candidate opposing certain issues (for example, gay marriage) would be absolutely out of the question. It’s not about simply agreeing and disagreeing with a candidate on the issues, but being unable to support a candidate due to their stance on a certain issue (whether it be abortion or whatever..hence the title of the thread, “drop dead issues”).

 

[shirleyb]

I'll be honest, I don't support a single candidate that is currently in the running. None of them match up with me 100% on the issues I care about. As I said in an earlier post it will come down to the lesser of two evils for me during the presidential election unless something drastic happens before then.

That's why I posted this thread.

What I was getting at is if you agree with a candidate on 95% of the issues, what is the one issue that if they disagreed with you, that you would not be able to vote for them.

 

[eclectics]

The people I quoted were ones who made it quite clear a candidate opposing certain issues (for example, gay marriage) would be absolutely out of the question. It’s not about simply agreeing and disagreeing with a candidate on the issues, but being unable to support a candidate due to their stance on a certain issue (whether it be abortion or whatever..hence the title of the thread, “drop dead issues”).

The statement I quoted and commented on was a blanket statement made by you. I was not responding to them, I was responding to the statement you made. However, in general, I might add Gay Rights and Gay Marriage occasionally are intertwined and used interchangeabley. They are two different issues. You yourself made that error in another thread.

 

[pepperw23]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";22511191]Dh said it was much harder to purchase during the Clinton era and during the bush era it has been a piece of cake.....

Bush is more spend spend spend...Clinton was more on save save save....however with that said as a Clinton supporter....during that time our military was cut way down and Bush(who I think is..well) had to spend to build it back up...[/QUOTE]


The only difference I see now as apposed to the Clinton era is the urgency of some purchases, but I have not seen a rise in the amount of orders I need to place.

Your DH is working directly with the military though, so his "world" is a little different than mine. We are doing repairs to US Navy ships. That always needs to be done no matter who is in charge.

 

[sewer]

Everyone is worried about gay rights, Iraq, abortion etc., these are just smoke screen issues! What about credit card companies raping people with high interest rates, the roads, and bridges falling apart, old cities falling apart, and high crime rates. I fail to see how things like gay rights, are going to fix these problems. Lets talk serious issues here not media hyped issues.

 

[JennyMominRI]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";22511191]Dh said it was much harder to purchase during the Clinton era and during the bush era it has been a piece of cake.....

Bush is more spend spend spend...Clinton was more on save save save....however with that said as a Clinton supporter....during that time our military was cut way down and Bush(who I think is..well) had to spend to build it back up...[/QUOTE]

Those cuts started under the first Bush and continued under Clinton... I worked for 1st Supply Battalion and everything was being downsized, bases were closing, people were not being allowed to reenlist etc. etc.. I got out in 1991.

 

[Pigeon]

Everyone is worried about gay rights, Iraq, abortion etc., these are just smoke screen issues! What about credit card companies raping people with high interest rates, the roads, and bridges falling apart, old cities falling apart, and high crime rates. I fail to see how things like gay rights, are going to fix these problems. Lets talk serious issues here not media hyped issues.

As a woman with two daughters, I most certainly think that reproductive choice is not a "smoke screen issue." As someone with gay friends who are denied civil rights, I hardly find gay marriage to be just a "media hyped issue."

We absolutely need investment in infrastructure--I agree with you there. Violent crime rates are considerably lower than they were say 20 years ago.

The major smoke screen issue that I think is largely media hype is immigration. One can always count on a healthy dose of xenophobia to distract the masses.

 

[basas]

The statement I quoted and commented on was a blanket statement made by you. I was not responding to them, I was responding to the statement you made. However, in general, I might add Gay Rights and Gay Marriage occasionally are intertwined and used interchangeabley. They are two different issues. You yourself made that error in another thread.

What i mean is this: A person will not vote for the evil Republican because they are opposed to gay marriage and this fictional person just can't understand how anyone could support a candidate willing to take away people's rights. Same person turns around and votes for John Edwards who opposes gay marriage. Sure John Edwards might be more in line with more of your political viewpoints, but don't turn around then and say any candidate opposing gay marriage is "out of the question".

 

[basas]

As a woman with two daughters, I most certainly think that reproductive choice is not a "smoke screen issue." As someone with gay friends who are denied civil rights, I hardly find gay marriage to be just a "media hyped issue."

We absolutely need investment in infrastructure--I agree with you there. Violent crime rates are considerably lower than they were say 20 years ago.

The major smoke screen issue that I think is largely media hype is immigration. One can always count on a healthy dose of xenophobia to distract the masses.

Illegal (you left that out of course) Immigration is a big issue not because of xenophobia, but rather because it is affecting people's lives through higher crime rates, lower qualities of education and health care, and the need for more taxpayer to pay for all of it.

 

[NHdisneylover]

So I guess you all are voting for Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich? You certainly can’t be supporting John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Kuccinich was my favourite candidate. ALL of the candidates you refer to are decent (but not great) on gay rights. NONE of them supports a consititional adment against gay marraige (which is what I said would prevent me from taking a look at the candidates other positions). I would vote for Edwards, Clinton or Obama in November. I don't care for most of the dems saying they favour Civil Unions (seprate is not equal--didn't we in USA cover this already???), BUT it is a major step in the right direction and MUCH better than trying to make the first amendment ever written to DENY rights to people.

 

[eclectics]

What i mean is this: A person will not vote for the evil Republican because they are opposed to gay marriage and this fictional person just can't understand how anyone could support a candidate willing to take away people's rights. Same person turns around and votes for John Edwards who opposes gay marriage. Sure John Edwards might be more in line with more of your political viewpoints, but don't turn around then and say any candidate opposing gay marriage is "out of the question".

First of all I didn't say it and second of all, it's possible the poster meant to say Gay Rights. As I said, some people interchange the two. There aren't any Democrat candidates opposed to that, however Gay Rights is not exactly at the forefront of the Republican platform by a long shot. Giuliani is the only one supporting it, as far as I know. Hopefully this explanation will end this little exchange. If you really want to know for sure I suggest you PM the posters in question and ask them.

 

[sewer]

Kuccinich was my favourite candidate. ALL of the candidates you refer to are decent (but not great) on gay rights. NONE of them supports a consititional adment against gay marraige (which is what I said would prevent me from taking a look at the candidates other positions). I would vote for Edwards, Clinton or Obama in November. I don't care for most of the dems saying they favour Civil Unions (seprate is not equal--didn't we in USA cover this already???), BUT it is a major step in the right direction and MUCH better than trying to make the first amendment ever written to DENY rights to people.

If you like Dennis Kucinich move to the Cleveland area, and see how much he's done here! Does the word nothing mean anything to you?

 

[sewer]

As a woman with two daughters, I most certainly think that reproductive choice is not a "smoke screen issue." As someone with gay friends who are denied civil rights, I hardly find gay marriage to be just a "media hyped issue."

We absolutely need investment in infrastructure--I agree with you there. Violent crime rates are considerably lower than they were say 20 years ago.

The major smoke screen issue that I think is largely media hype is immigration. One can always count on a healthy dose of xenophobia to distract the masses.

I'm not sure where you live but come on down to Cleveland, Ohio, and tell me if violent crime is down. A new record for murders was just set this year, check your facts!

 

[eclectics]

I'm not sure where you live but come on down to Cleveland, Ohio, and tell me if violent crime is down. A new record for murders was just set this year, check your facts!

Actually, as a whole, inner city murders have gone down according to a report just recently released. Only a handful of cities reported raises. Perhaps Cleveland was one of them.

 

[Pigeon]

I'm not sure where you live but come on down to Cleveland, Ohio, and tell me if violent crime is down. A new record for murders was just set this year, check your facts!

OK, here you go. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime

 

[LukenDC]

Everyone is worried about gay rights, Iraq, abortion etc., these are just smoke screen issues! What about credit card companies raping people with high interest rates, the roads, and bridges falling apart, old cities falling apart, and high crime rates. I fail to see how things like gay rights, are going to fix these problems. Lets talk serious issues here not media hyped issues.

Gay rights are important to gay people. I am gay, I pay my share of taxes, and I care about this country. I do not want to be subject to employment discrimination and made to feel like a second class citizen.

 

[basas]

Actually, as a whole, inner city murders have gone down according to a report just recently released. Only a handful of cities reported raises. Perhaps Cleveland was one of them.

While that is true (at least for the first half of 2007), I think you would agree with me that the violent crime rate is still far too high?