Rudy Giuliani's platform for '08

BPSCG said:
Didn't realize "social issues" = "freedom"; I may have to amend my dictionary.
Click to expand...

You didn't realize gay marraige, abortion and many other things labeled "social issues" were issues that had to do with freedom?

My point is, if I think a candidate is weak on national defense or the economy, he will not get my vote, no matter where he stands on anything else or everything else. Even if his positions on abortion, gay marriage, charter schools, marijuana legalization, flag burning, and a dozen other issues mirror mine exactly.
Click to expand...

So you vote on national defense and the economy. How far would you take it? Would you vote for a theocrat simply because of his position on the economy and nat. def? What about a candidate that wanted to discriminate or throw atheists in jail. Would he have your support if he talked a good economic and national defense game?
 
steverino said:
How come? Just curious.:)
Click to expand...

The oversimplified reason is "Anybody but a Bush or a Clinton".

The long version is that I do not trust her. I don't find a shred of sincerity in her. Now, I don't find much sincerity in most career politicians...in her case, my dislike of her is so strong I just couldn't do it. She waffles on her positions and panders too much. If it came between her and a Romney or extreme right republican, I would find myself in the "Douche and Turd Sandwich" vacuum and wouldn't be able to support either.

I'm looking at Rudy and Obama seriously. I'll admit I haven't delved into their issues very seriously yet. I try to look only at the issues that a president can directly impact and save the others for the House. Right now I'm looking for someone who can straighten out our foreign policy mess.
 
Tony said:
You didn't realize gay marraige, abortion and many other things labeled "social issues" were issues that had to do with freedom?



So you vote on national defense and the economy. How far would you take it? Would you vote for a theocrat simply because of his position on the economy and nat. def? What about a candidate that wanted to discriminate or throw atheists in jail. Would he have your support if he talked a good economic and national defense game?
Click to expand...

Not my conversation, but given what I've just written it might enlighten the post. I vote for President on foreign and economic policy, but I do also pay attention to how they might load the Supreme Court. I find that a president is limited in what they can do. In my opinion, the House/Senate people we send up are critical because they pass federal legislation. In those cases I am much more nit-picky and libertarian in my voting.
 
Miss Anthrope said:
The oversimplified reason is "Anybody but a Bush or a Clinton".

The long version is that I do not trust her. I don't find a shred of sincerity in her. Now, I don't find much sincerity in most career politicians...in her case, my dislike of her is so strong I just couldn't do it. She waffles on her positions and panders too much. If it came between her and a Romney or extreme right republican, I would find myself in the "Douche and Turd Sandwich" vacuum and wouldn't be able to support either.

I'm looking at Rudy and Obama seriously. I'll admit I haven't delved into their issues very seriously yet. I try to look only at the issues that a president can directly impact and save the others for the House. Right now I'm looking for someone who can straighten out our foreign policy mess.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer.:) I can't wrap my mind around her husband being the "first-lady," and it seems like he would butt heads with whoever the VP would be, especially Obama. And this is extremely hypothetical, but let's say, gosh forbid, that President Hillary died in office. Wouldn't Bill sort of be in charge? Would a VP Obama or Edwards really be calling the shots? Just makes me wonder on a soap opera level.
 
Tony said:
You didn't realize gay marraige, abortion and many other things labeled "social issues" were issues that had to do with freedom?
Click to expand...
Don't move the goal posts. You wrote:
Why don't you care much about social issues (ie, your freedom)?
Click to expand...
That "ie" is an acronym for the Latin, id est (or id es - my Latin syntax is not all that hot), which means, "that is." So you were saying social issues equalled freedom. But now you're saying they simply "have to do with freedom." Not the same thing.

Anyway, without national security, all those other liberties go away.

So you vote on national defense and the economy. How far would you take it? Would you vote for a theocrat simply because of his position on the economy and nat. def? What about a candidate that wanted to discriminate or throw atheists in jail.
Click to expand...
False dichotomy. It's not an either/or. A candidate's views on social issues can be so repellent that he loses my vote regardless of his national security position. I wouldn't vote for a Klansman no matter what his positions were. But that doesn't mean I would vote for the guy who was weak on national security and the economy instead.

Wish there were an easy way to put a decision table in here for you, but there isn't, so I'll sum up:
  • Strong national defense/economy, strong social issues will get my vote (hopefully, I have multiple candidates in this category to choose from).
  • Strong national defense/economy, weak social issues may get my vote.
  • Weak national defense/economy, strong social issues will not get my vote.
  • Weak national defense/economy, weak social issues will not get my vote.
And if all the candidates fall into the last two categories, I stay home.

FWIW, my early impression of Giuliani is that he falls in the first category.
 
Last edited:
steverino said:
Thanks for the answer.:) I can't wrap my mind around her husband being the "first-lady," and it seems like he would butt heads with whoever the VP would be, especially Obama. And this is extremely hypothetical, but let's say, gosh forbid, that President Hillary died in office. Wouldn't Bill sort of be in charge? Would a VP Obama or Edwards really be calling the shots? Just makes me wonder on a soap opera level.
Click to expand...

Another problem (though not a deciding issue for me) with both Clintons is the soap opera factor in general. Too much drama.
 
BPSCG said:
Don't move the goal posts. You wrote: That "ie" is an acronym for the Latin, id est (or id es - my Latin syntax is not all that hot), which means, "that is." So you were saying social issues equalled freedom. But now you're saying they simply "have to do with freedom." Not the same thing.
Click to expand...

I'm not moving the goal posts. I see no distiction between "have to do with freedom." and equal freedom.

Anyway, without national security, all those other liberties go away.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

It's not an either/or.
Click to expand...

It is as I'm posing the question.

A candidate's views on social issues can be so repellent that he loses my vote regardless of his national security position. I wouldn't vote for a Klansman no matter what his positions were.
Click to expand...

Good answer. Thanks for answering.

But that doesn't mean I would vote for the guy who was weak on national security and the economy instead.
Click to expand...

Then who would you vote for?

Wish there were an easy way to put a decision table in here for you, but there isn't, so I'll sum up:
  • Strong national defense/economy, strong social issues will get my vote (hopefully, I have multiple candidates in this category to choose from).
  • Strong national defense/economy, weak social issues may get my vote.
  • Weak national defense/economy, strong social issues will not get my vote.
  • Weak national defense/economy, weak social issues will not get my vote.
And if all the candidates fall into the last two categories, I stay home.
Click to expand...

That sums it up pretty nicely. Thanks. One question. What do you mean by strong/weak on social issues?
 
steverino said:
"You moved my vagina?":confused:
Click to expand...
Moistened might have worked better there.

Also, there is a variation I used to see a while back, where some people used it as YMMV = You Make Me Vomit. Context often gives clues, however,

YMMV :D

DR
 
Miss Anthrope said:
Another problem (though not a deciding issue for me) with both Clintons is the soap opera factor in general. Too much drama.
Click to expand...

What if the drama isn't of their own making? You have to remember, many people get paid beau coup dollars to manufacture drama.

How much drama on the news lately is manufactured? What happens when the drama writers turn their pens on the other candidates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom