Conflicting beliefs

[West Coast Sheriff]

I had trouble naming this thread and my next question.

If you believe in one party's beliefs for the most part, but a candidate from another party seems more promising, would you cross party lines for the best candidate.

Let's say you are pro-life but Bernie can change the economy, would you vote for him. Or you are pro same-sex marriage and an LGBTQAI activist, but Trump is going to make America great again. Maybe you have your own conflicting belief with a candidate you support.

Basically, Would you vote for someone who threatens something you strongly believe in but overall seems like the best candidate?

[Judean Zealot]

I had trouble naming this thread and my next question.

If you believe in one party's beliefs for the most part, but a candidate from another party seems more promising, would you cross party lines for the best candidate.

Let's say you are pro-life but Bernie can change the economy, would you vote for him. Or you are pro same-sex marriage and an LGBTQAI activist, but Trump is going to make America great again. Maybe you have your own conflicting belief with a candidate you support.

Basically, Would you vote for someone who threatens something you strongly believe in but overall seems like the best candidate?

With politicians it's generally choosing the lesser of two evils. You always have to weigh your priorities, and choose accordingly. You will rarely, if ever, have a politician you agree with 100%, but you have to prioritise and choose based on that.

[DriveAlive]

I find it difficult to find politicians that I like. I am a social liberal, fiscal moderate, and foreign policy conservative. I look for candidates that do not seriously offend me on any of these fronts or wow me enough on one that I am willing to overlook another. That is why I am probably going to vote for either Hillary or Trump. Both fit pretty closely to my views.

[lliam]

I think basically we tend to elect that politician, we think that he/she causes less damage. At least if we're kinda sane.

But in reality those politician always wins the election, who lied best.

[Vlerchan]

I'm more or less a cost-minimising actor.

When I weigh up candidates I think what's the least worst outcome. That means I'll elect competence ahead of principals if it's required.

This also involves reference to a number of weighted positions: economics - healthcare - urban-rural divide - europeanism - in that order.

[phuckphace]

I'm generally distrustful of the rich but going to make an exception for Trump mainly because his enemies are the right ones and, much like a planetary alignment that only comes once in 10,000 years, he appears to be the only one of his class who isn't wholly and thoroughly Soros-corrupt. I'll take a bombastic real-estate mogul who cares about his country over a guac-bowl-hawking dynasty son, or a crypto-Cuban anchor baby, or a wheedling commie who believes free women's studies degrees are the way to fix the country.

[Microcosm]

The people don't have a huge say in who gets to be president anyways.

I'd say it's okay to vote for someone of an opposing political party if you want to. You have the right to choose who you vote for. No body can effectively pressure you into voting one way or another lest they put a gun to your head at the voting booth.

Sanders supporter here, btw. :thumbsup:

[Uniquemind]

The people don't have a huge say in who gets to be president anyways.

I'd say it's okay to vote for someone of an opposing political party if you want to. You have the right to choose who you vote for. No body can effectively pressure you into voting one way or another lest they put a gun to your head at the voting booth.

Sanders supporter here, btw. :thumbsup:

Actually the people have a huge say. It's just only the emotional people stay loyal to the concept of actually turning out to vote because their emotional anger overtakes any sense of apathy, that the rest give into.

Therefore stronger polarization of party position.

Because if you don't vote, the party doesn't care about you anymore.

[Judean Zealot]

Actually the people have a huge say. It's just only the emotional people stay loyal to the concept of actually turning out to vote because their emotional anger overtakes any sense of apathy, that the rest give into.

Therefore stronger polarization of party position.

Because if you don't vote, the party doesn't care about you anymore.

Nah, the electoral college is shit. The US is nothing close to how a republic ought to look; it's a bunch of oligarchs keeping order through bread and circuses.

[Microcosm]

Actually the people have a huge say. It's just only the emotional people stay loyal to the concept of actually turning out to vote because their emotional anger overtakes any sense of apathy, that the rest give into.

Therefore stronger polarization of party position.

Because if you don't vote, the party doesn't care about you anymore.

In agreement with Judean Zealot, I'd say the electoral college is now run by parties and money. In Alabama, for instance, there is a law that says if the Republican party(not any specific republican) gets the most votes, then every elector from Alabama will be Republican and they have to actually take an oath to vote for the Republican candidate. If they don't, they'll be removed and replaced with someone who will comply.

It's messed up.

I know all this bc my class at school talked to an Alabama elector who explained those intricacies to us.

[warbit]

#kanyeforpresident :) jk jk

[DoodleSnap]

I guess it comes down to deciding which of your beliefs outways the other. In my case, I rank issues like Human Rights, Civil Liberties, Privacy very highly, but the legalisation of marijuana low. If I were in the US, I would rate LGBT+ rights high up my list, but thankully, in the UK, everyone can agree that we shouldn't vilify certain people because of the opinions of people from thousands of years ago, so all reasonable parties are pro-LGBT rights.