NationStates Jolt Archive

Last election I voted for the Pirate Party in my country, but I'm not so much a one issue voter as someone who is deeply disappointed with every major party and didn't see any alternative.

okay, I'm not, but I know people who claim to be, you would think if you were going to pick one issue, it better be pretty important.

So, if you were a one issue voter, what would your issue be? Vote in the poll and explain yourself.

I don't want to hear "oh, I can't just pick one!" I'm not asking you to really pick one, I am asking a hypothetical.

Also, what do you think of "one issue voters"? I think they are... interesting, if not annoying (unless some are hanging out on the forum, then I think you are interesting.)

Guns, because the Negro next door is getting uppity again.

okay, I'm not, but I know people who claim to be, you would think if you were going to pick one issue, it better be pretty important.

So, if you were a one issue voter, what would your issue be? Vote in the poll and explain yourself.

I don't want to hear "oh, I can't just pick one!" I'm not asking you to really pick one, I am asking a hypothetical.

Also, what do you think of "one issue voters"? I think they are... interesting, if not annoying (unless some are hanging out on the forum, then I think you are interesting.)
Picking only one means I have to go with civil rights. No question about it. Most important thing, really, because they trump everything else.

If I had to pick one, it'd have to be civil rights/equality (although I must say I count abortion under that umbrella).

What good is money in my pocket or a safe border if I face more danger from my own government than from outside it?

As for actual one-issue voters, I think they're dedicated, but tend to miss the forest for the trees.

If I had to go on just one, it's be national security/diplomacy/military stuffs. Those are all aspects of the same thing IMHO - diplomacy and the military are the twin tools of national security, and without that we haven't much chance of doing anything about the rest...

An excellent question, but difficult to answer.

I honestly don't know.

If I had to pick one, it'd have to be civil rights/equality (although I must say I count abortion under that umbrella).

What good is money in my pocket or a safe border if I face more danger from my own government than from outside it?

As for actual one-issue voters, I think they're dedicated, but tend to miss the forest for the trees.

Well said, and ditto.

If I had to pick one, it'd have to be civil rights/equality (although I must say I count abortion under that umbrella).

What good is money in my pocket or a safe border if I face more danger from my own government than from outside it?

As for actual one-issue voters, I think they're dedicated, but tend to miss the forest for the trees.

Indeed, the danger from within is just as great as that from without. Both are of equal importance really, which is why I picked mine based on what's more interesting to me.

Most 'one issue voters' you hear about in the UK are the small minded local type. No wind farms within 20 miles, ban all tourists, make Chipping Sodbury village hall a national heritage site kind of people. That said, I'd go for Civil Rights, most things can follow of'f that.

Interesting you didn't even put the envrionment on that list. If I had to nominate one issue, that would be it.

Interesting you didn't even put the envrionment on that list. If I had to nominate one issue, that would be it.

Seconded.

If I was a single issues voter, I would vote on who'd boost the economy the most and who'd lower our taxes and spending. So I'd be the economy/ taxes issues voter.

I'd go for environment all the way

I'd say civil rights/equality, though I tend to include abortion under that umbrella.

I'm also surprised there's no environment option, though when I think about it, I'd probably still go with civil rights. Just barely.

Smoking.

I would vote for party that allows smoking in most public places (currently there is this stupid restrictions on smoking in bars...)

In my country the economy/taxes. In many other countries the obvious choice would be civil rights

i'm not a SINGLE-issue voter. mine are a suite of inter-related issues.

environment, transportation (meaning workable alternatives to coercing everyone into indenturing themselves to a personal motor vehicule), energy (meaning policies favoring an intigrative approach usuing multiple non-combustion based tecnologies), population (reduction in an unbiased and nondraconian, though not neccessarilly entirely voluntary manor), insistence on policies both forign and domestic which support, WITHOUT threats or bullying, all of these, rather then oppose any of them.

environment is really the bottem line of survival, for all of us on this planet. to put the chauvanism of any one idiology, belief, or economic theory ahead of that makes no sense to me, what so ever at all.

i favor what i see as real freedom, which to me means NOT denying popular access to nature's bounty and environment. i see so called "economic freedom" as absolute self contradictory doubletalk. at least the way i usually hear that phrase being used.

conditions, not idioeconomic mumbojumbo, are where people live. every arbitraryness of policy contributes to deterioration and undesirablity of conditions, and every idiology contributes to arbitrariness of policy.

=^^=
.../\...

Congratulations Americans, our corporate bourgeois masters have given you a great array of ludicrously inane non-issues which your politics will now revolve around completely. This is so you will be distracted from the economic craphole you are in. The choice is yours!!!111

the economy, if i had to pick one. largely as it encompasses many of the issues i find important

The environment. If that goes then we're fucked on everything else no matter what your position on the other issues is.

And I can't believe it wasn't in the poll.

Environment isn't on the list, but it's right up there with Foreign Policy for me (which I guess would be diplomacy).

can I have an environment please?

that's the immediate issue I'd say though I could be swayed by offers such as the crazy sex party

...I want to change my vote to social programmes now :(

Smoking.

I would vote for party that allows smoking in most public places (currently there is this stupid restrictions on smoking in bars...)

Smoking.

I would vote for any party that bans smoking entirely ;) Currently there is a stupid rule that people can smoke up pretty much everywhere. More interesting would actually be to ban the consumption of poisons. As nicotine is a poison (pesticide) it would come under that ban, while not banning it from its intended use (to kill pests). Then again, I suppose some smokers come under the heading "pests" :p

In all fairness, I'm torn between civil rights/equality, social programs and the environment. I think I'll pick other, so that I can ping-pong between them.

I would vote for any party that bans smoking entirely ;) Currently there is a stupid rule that people can smoke up pretty much everywhere.

Well, that "stupid rule" by some is called "personal freedoms". Which is not a bad thing...

Well, that "stupid rule" by some is called "personal freedoms". Which is not a bad thing...So breathing smoke is a personal freedom while not smoking is not?

If I had to vote with one issue, I would go with civil rights and more specifically the legalization of gay marriage in the United States. Of course, that's political suicide right now.

I'd vote for the guy who realizes that "party" should not be lumped with "faith/race/gender". >_>

Animal Rights! not yet? damn... Global Warming... Damn it Gore why didn't you run?

okay, so environment is not on the poll.....but there is a big category for "other"

I was sleepy. I wouldn't be surprised if I misspelled the poll.

I'd vote for the guy who realizes that "party" should not be lumped with "faith/race/gender". >_>
I felt that was the category for random unimportant stuff.

I vote for whoever the voices tell me to vote for.

Animal Rights! not yet? damn... Global Warming... Damn it Gore why didn't you run?

are human rights slightly more important than animal rights?

Sure, but humans never had to go through This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys) or This (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/600-restraint-tube4.jpg)
there are countless examples.

Well my post hasn't been accepted yet so I am just gonna say it... People ARE animals, so we may be smarter than they are... but I don't see how that is a license to abuse them.

Meat is Murder and animal testing is unethical

what if the animal consents?

Its still a crime, there was a case I remember from awhile back. A woman ASKED a man to keep her hostage for days and torture her... and then kill her. He was still charged Murder.

Well my post hasn't been accepted yet so I am just gonna say it... People ARE animals, so we may be smarter than they are... but I don't see how that is a license to abuse them.

Meat is Murder and animal testing is unethical

Then murder is delicious.

Meat is Murder

what if the animal consents?

Meat is Murder and animal testing is unethicalHave fun trying every carnivore in existence...

Well my post hasn't been accepted yet so I am just gonna say it... People ARE animals, so we may be smarter than they are... but I don't see how that is a license to abuse them.

Meat is Murder and animal testing is unethical

animal testing can be unethical, but I don't think it always is, however, if you think it always is......I guess you have the right to that opinion. I hope you don't ever need any sort of medical care though.

Its still a crime, there was a case I remember from awhile back. A woman ASKED a man to keep her hostage for days and torture her... and then kill her. He was still charged Murder.



Probably because no one bought that she asked him to and he couldnt prove it...

okay, I'm not, but I know people who claim to be, you would think if you were going to pick one issue, it better be pretty important.

So, if you were a one issue voter, what would your issue be? Vote in the poll and explain yourself.

I don't want to hear "oh, I can't just pick one!" I'm not asking you to really pick one, I am asking a hypothetical.

Also, what do you think of "one issue voters"? I think they are... interesting, if not annoying (unless some are hanging out on the forum, then I think you are interesting.)

I don't really know, if put on the spot as to what issue was most important, I'd probably go with civil rights/equality.

Probably because no one bought that she asked him to and he couldnt prove it...I was thinking about that, since technically that wouldn't even be considered manslaughter over here, but killing on demand. However, if it's cruel enough, it can be considered murder, and seeing as torture isn't particularly nice...

Isn't national security similar to military stuff?
I imagine in reality economy is always the most important.

Personally i'd go with diplomacy, because then you get trade, happier people, less chance for war.
But when the poll says diplomacy does it mean, peaceful, or warlike, or isolationist, because you can get different types of diplomacy.
My option was on the basis that diplomacy meant talking to other nations and getting deals done with them.

I was thinking about that, since technically that wouldn't even be considered manslaughter over here, but killing on demand. However, if it's cruel enough, it can be considered murder, and seeing as torture isn't particularly nice...



Maybe he waterboarded her? That isnt torture:rolleyes::headbang:

THE CONSTITUTION!!!

If a candidate acts outside the bounds of the Constitution of the United States, s/he's lost my vote.

"Civil rights" are granted by government. We don't need that crap. We have inherent, inalienable rights that are above the power of the government. Should the government transgress those God-given rights, the government has violated its own authority and has become a usurping tyrant.

"Civil rights" are granted by government. We don't need that crap.



Fail.

Civil rights and equality, because from these all else follows. They are more than a single issue - they are the heart of liberal democracy.

Rights ensure people are free and the government is not overbearing. It ensures a free economy and a functioning democracy. It ensures people are free to live their lives and make themselves happy. It ensures individuals, not state departments, assess how best to their allocate resources for optimal gain.

Together with equality, a commitment to rights also commits the government to internationalism and the defence of human rights worldwide. It also commits the government to defending democracy worldwide, opposing tyrants by any means neccessary.

Equality ensures individuals can rise or fall on their merits and that all get a fair start in life and reach their potential. This also ensures a strong economy, as no potential skill will go unfulfilled and the best will lead, not the best connected. It ensures a cohesive society, where people are not disadvantaged by the accident of birth and where status is fluid.

If I had to pick one, it would be "other," meaning the right to privacy. No wire taps, no keystroke counting, no monitoring what I check out of the library, no Big Brother. Without the right to privacy, all the others are pretty much toast.

If I had to pick one, it would be "other," meaning the right to privacy. No wire taps, no keystroke counting, no monitoring what I check out of the library, no Big Brother. Without the right to privacy, all the others are pretty much toast.

Those are civil rights;)

THE CONSTITUTION!!!

If a candidate acts outside the bounds of the Constitution of the United States, s/he's lost my vote.

"Civil rights" are granted by government. We don't need that crap. We have inherent, inalienable rights that are above the power of the government. Should the government transgress those God-given rights, the government has violated its own authority and has become a usurping tyrant.

Thanks... you know I have never head of this "constitution" before. And its Unalienable rights XD

one issue voting makes no rational sense whatsoever. but i would go for (pro-)immigration or decentralisation. in fact decentralisation is one of the main reasons i managed to bring myself to vote for a nationalist party in the very confusing latest elections in scotland. to compensate i also voted for greens and socialists for other seats, though i'm not sure where they're supposed to be sitting.

okay, I'm not, but I know people who claim to be, you would think if you were going to pick one issue, it better be pretty important.

So, if you were a one issue voter, what would your issue be? Vote in the poll and explain yourself.

I don't want to hear "oh, I can't just pick one!" I'm not asking you to really pick one, I am asking a hypothetical.

Also, what do you think of "one issue voters"? I think they are... interesting, if not annoying (unless some are hanging out on the forum, then I think you are interesting.)

Debt is by far the most important issue to me. And none of the major candidates will get my vote until they show they have at least a passing interest in fixing it. The first one that does show this interest--McCain, Hillary, Obama, hell, even Huckabee--will acquire my support.

animal testing can be unethical, but I don't think it always is, however, if you think it always is......I guess you have the right to that opinion. I hope you don't ever need any sort of medical care though.

How can you expect the results to be accurate? The only animal with the same physiology of man is man... I am for testing on humans (with consent of course).

I think every thing in this planet is equal. I am no better than you, you are no better than the slaughtered cows you feed on.

Note: I understand there is a Food Chain, and I understand Man is at the top of it but having seen first hand how cows and pigs are slaughtered there is NO WAY I could ever accept it.

Meat is Murder

*sinks teeth into steak, tears off a big chunk, starts lapping up blood for good measure*

Debt is by far the most important issue to me. And none of the major candidates will get my vote until they show they have at least a passing interest in fixing it. The first one that does show this interest--McCain, Hillary, Obama, hell, even Huckabee--will acquire my support.

In other words, you won't be voting.

*sinks teeth into steak, tears off a big chunk, starts lapping up blood for good measure*

Have fun with that... your the one thats going to die of an unhealthy diet.

civil rights/equality

for me meaning immigrant rights (i.e. total amnesty for "illegal aliens"), and the rights of people in other countries not to have american bombs falling on their houses or american bullets in their brothers. gay rights are also on the table.

I'm not voting, though, because no candidate which actually respects these things is actually running. social change happens at a grassroots level, not from the top down. trying to encourage equality by having the governmental hierarchy force it down someone's throat is ridiculous and self-contradictory...it reinforces the very problems it tries to address.

How can you expect the results to be accurate? The only animal with the same physiology of man is man... I am for testing on humans (with consent of course).

when you figure out a reliable and ethical way to grow mass amounts humans from embryo to maturity within 3-4 weeks, then we can experiment on them (with consent of course).

If I had to vote with one issue, I would go with civil rights and more specifically the legalization of gay marriage in the United States. Of course, that's political suicide right now.

But there are certainly gradations from "OK they can have all the rights, just not the m-word" to "It would be like marrying your dog". Where on that spectrum a candidate stands does pretty much settle how I'll vote, too: but not so much that I regard that single issue as more important than all others, rather it is a fairly useful proxy (people whose views I find repugnant on that issue tend to piss me off on other issues as well).

when you figure out a reliable and ethical way to grow mass amounts humans from embryo to maturity within 3-4 weeks, then we can experiment on them (with consent of course).

I am against the murder and abuse of animals in science... their use in science is inevitable... however look up the Silver Spring Monkeys... I would love to find that bastard and cap him. Doing that has NO medical use whatsoever.

How about Covance... great group there.

And the countless other cases.

Its ridiculous

*sinks teeth into steak, tears off a big chunk, starts lapping up blood for good measure*

enjoy your drastically higher rates of colorectal cancer, ischemic heart disease, and prostate cancer. (vegs are lower by 47%, 37%, and 35% respectively (http://www.adajournal.org/article/PIIS0002822303002943/fulltext) - those differences when projected only global deaths from these conditions represent 3 million deaths annually).

I also hope you have a way to justify the 33% higher use of fossil fuels that it took to produce your steak when compared to my potatos, and the fact that it took 8g of edible vegetables to produce every 1g of beef. in this process 5 tons of hot steamy shit are produced for each american citizen each year. (or 1.4 billion tons total, if you prefer).

Have fun with that... your the one thats going to die of an unhealthy diet.

humans are omnivores. 'nuff said.

humans are omnivores. 'nuff said.omnivores die more often from obesity related complications and diet-related cancers, and irresponsibly use 8-10 times more resources in an overpopulated world.

'nuff said.

if you want to argue, I'm going to have to ask you to cite each fact you claim - I'll do the same. (assuming I don't get bored...probably will)

in fact, I know I'll lose interest (there's a 99% chance I've heard every lame argument for meat eating before, most of it comes down to "I don't want to be vegetarian so I will make fun of you", honestly)

so here's 131 sources cited in an environmental health journal explaining unsustainable agriculture and the problems with factory farmed meat (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p445-456horrigan/horrigan-full.html) (which is nearly all of it)

and here's the official position of the neutral, non-vegetarian, American Dietetics Association on the health benefits of vegetarianism, which cites 256 sources. (http://www.adajournal.org/article/PIIS0002822303002943/fulltext#section)

I have never once had someone present a valid, scientific refutation of these claims. if you genuinely care about being right and having scientific backing for your position - read them (the ADA mentions a few health risks some vegetarians and vegans have, though their overall position is that it's healthy and offers some advantages) - but I suspect anyone arguing for meat eating is only being defensive and enjoys making fun of people with different lifestyles. I'll admit we're kind of an annoying demographic - always pointing out that you're all being fantastically cruel and will probably die of complications related to what is generally a much less healthy diet than ours...

incidentally, I also vote based on environmental welfare and animal-rights. (there, I'm not completely OT!!)
(and the tractor argument is fucking stupid - please don't try it. at best it's an ad hominem tu quoque (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html) - it absolutely does not address the arguments for vegetarianism...the fact that 95% of the soy crop and 70% of all grains get fed to ,meat animals (who turn ~7/8 of it into inedible waste) mean that more people could be fed and fewer wild animals would die in turbines if we cut out meat - vegs don't say they cause no suffering, they say they cause LESS. there is not a vegetarian alive who hasn't heard the stupid tractor argument - it's not a valid point.)

I'd also like to point out that this is a response - I didn't initiate this...but if people are going to make unfounded claims, I'll argue.

humans are omnivores. 'nuff said.

I don't want to take your right to eat meat away... just stating the facts. Eating meat will kill you a whole lot faster than nuts, berries, and vegetables.

Meat is Murder
You know what's murder? Tractors.

Healthcare and social issues would be tied at the top with the economy and close second.

As for actual one-issue voters, I think they're dedicated, but tend to miss the forest for the trees.

Has anyone ever really deconstructed that phrase? It certainly doesn't work if you are skiing. Pay attention to the individual trees, especially those in front of you, and IGNORE THE FOREST.

I'd love to have an argument with any Carnivore that would care to have one with me... but if I feel like you are going to bring up the tractor argument, I'm out.

Interesting you didn't even put the envrionment on that list. If I had to nominate one issue, that would be it.

And no Iraq War! Although, I suppose that could fall under military stuff.

And no Iraq War! Although, I suppose that could fall under military stuff.

Could?

And no Iraq War! Although, I suppose that would fall under military stuff.

Fixed

And no Iraq War! Although, I suppose that could fall under military stuff.

Well i thought that was obvious XD.

Could?
Fixed
I took "military stuff" to mean defense spending, weapons research, etc. I only suggested the war could be a separate issue because plenty of people support spending, say, 30% of the federal income on defense but still do not support the war.

civil rights/equality

for me meaning immigrant rights (i.e. total amnesty for "illegal aliens"), and the rights of people in other countries not to have american bombs falling on their houses or american bullets in their brothers. .

Cause ya know, those people in other countries should be using THEIR OWN damn bombs to do it.

Africans are so poor they can't even buy good bombs, so they have to do their genocides with machetes. But when third world people kill each other, that's ok. It's their right! Don't wanna step on anyone's rights.

But how does this square with the illegal alien amnesty thing? If they have the right to be here, don't we have an equal right to be there? What if Bush announced there were no US troops in Iraq, just 130,000 undocumented English speaking migrants? Or does every nation BUT the US get to control its borders?

I voted the economy/taxes because most civil rights that I care about(right to own property, right to free trade) are economic in nature. Plus, I don't believe that everyone is created equal so I don't think everyone should be treated equally.

I note with some confusion that Diplomacy outscores National Security.

Diplomacy is normally an element of, and not a substitute for...

I can only assume that there are a few people out there who think the finest thing a nation can do when threatened is surrender with grace, dignity, and proper protocol.

It's a funky kind of poll in a way. Things reorder themselves when reality intrudes. Nothing exists in a vaccuum, or can be considered in one.*

Normally, no one comes back from a cruise vacation commenting on the quality of the ship's lifeboats.

*Okay, dustbunnies, pet hair, and loose change exist in a vaccuum, but you KNOW that's not what I mean.

I note with some confusion that Diplomacy outscores National Security.

Diplomacy is normally an element of, and not a substitute for...

I can only assume that there are a few people out there who think the finest thing a nation can do when threatened is surrender with grace, dignity, and proper protocol.

It's a funky kind of poll in a way. Things reorder themselves when reality intrudes. Nothing exists in a vaccuum, or can be considered in one.*

Normally, no one comes back from a cruise vacation commenting on the quality of the ship's lifeboats.

*Okay, dustbunnies, pet hair, and loose change exist in a vaccuum, but you KNOW that's not what I mean.

You are completely right, none of the things on this list are possible without national security.

In other words, you won't be voting.

Sure I will, just third-party.

Sure I will, just third-party.

I meant you won't be voting for one of the candidates you listed earlier. Sorry, should have been more specific.