Not-A-Poll: two simple choices

I'd go with number 1 and hope the courts protect your RIGHTS
Click to expand...

Yet the next president will likely decide who makes up the courts that are supposed to protect our rights. Personally, I feel a lot more comfortable with choice number two's judgement regarding Supreme Court appointments.
 
The website is very straightforward about the process of determining a plot on the graph. Still, one would have to look at it to determine the process they use.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Carrier. I think you're missing my point. I'm not attacking you. I think you've provided explaination to your point and sources with good faith....

My point is the "scoring" and "values" are purely subjective, not objective. I think McCain's dot should be placed much further left...probably favoring the left side of the moderate section. Obama, being the absolute farthest left leaning Senator in current day should have his dot nearly touching the left edge. I think it gives a very rough idea where a candidate may stand. However, I don't think it really gives very useable data.
 
Candidate A leaves you with one battle to fight, Candidate B with many. Easy choice.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you consider your battles. Fighting the nanny state is a worthy battle.
 
CC said:
I don't consider myself a single issue voter, but I do consider the 2nd Amendment the one issue any politician has to pass before I even start looking at whatever else they believe in.
...

A politician's stance on civilian gun ownership tells me what he thinks of me in general.
...
If he's anti-gun, he probably thinks I'm an idiot.

Can't vote for that.
Click to expand...

Hi new guy, and welcome. You're only wrong about one thing: you're a single issue voter. They have to pass that one test before moving on. I agree it is the most revealing test on whether a candidate regards you as citizen or subject.
 
The "single issue is bad" mentality assumes that all issues are of equal consequence and on the same moral plane. I think we can all agree that is not the case.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to be a single issue voter. If the 2nd Amendment is the only thing which keeps the government from becoming a tyranny, then is it a bad thing to vote solely based on that issue?

If you were in Germany during the 1930s and hypothetically were able to vote for your government, would it be wrong to vote solely based on whether or not your candidate wanted to slaughter Jews?

Is it more important to protect the 2nd amendment (single issue), or to make sure that little johnny gets "free" education, "free" meals at school, and his carbon credits are paid for?
 
If the 2nd Amendment is the only thing which keeps the government from becoming a tyranny, then is it a bad thing to vote solely based on that issue?
Click to expand...

Of course not.

Now can you prove that this is the case?

Note that I only take exception with the "only" part of that.
 
JuanC,

It was only a hypothetical to pose a question. We can't wait for the last resort, we have to act now through voting the right people in and the wrong people out.

It was just a question.
 
realism on the internet

We are (sadly) offered only two viable choices; other choices are hell bent (See "The Hunger: Devil Thumbs a Ride").



Hey! I don't have all this long hair for no reason....
 
Personally I’m a two-issue voter, gun rights is by far number one for me, a distant second is illegal immigration.

I keep it simple.
 
They all suck, Obama is telling Americans to start learning Spanish and McCain is singing a song about bombing Iran.

This country is screwed...........
 
Assuming your candidate #1 = Obama, please do elaborate on the things he offers that you like. Seriously. Maybe because he's gonna change the way we see the ethics of change so that America can change, but with a change we can believe in.

Change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top