English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-10-27 08:18:58 · 16 answers · asked by hmm 6 in Politics & Government Elections

CJR
I like your answer,it is one to make people think.
but I wouldn't have voted for any of them with out a little more info. as it is the heart of a man that makes the man, not the mistakes that the man has made or a few achievements he has under his belt.
most of the time you will find that a strong man has made many mistakes but they weigh heavy in his heart on the other hand you have those that have plaques on their walls and have given money to the needy and many other good things,does that prove that he is a good man? or would it be what is in his heart?

2007-10-27 11:41:02 · update #1

16 answers

A candidate's personal values do matter to me because they illustrate how they will react in tough situations in my opinion. For example, a candidate with propensities to cheat on his spouse (and attempt to cover it up) indicates to me a propensity to mislead. (I'm talking about Giuliani here...not Clinton, though he did the same thing)

If you would lie to the person you promised to "love, honor and cherish" what responsibility will you feel to tell ME the truth...who you've never even met?

Also, I appreciate a candidate with backbone..one who appears to have thought out positions which he/she STICKS TO...than someone who gives the appearance of "sticking their thumb in the wind" of public opinion to pick their positions. I respect Kucinich, despite my disagreements with him politically, because I believe he says what he means and means what he says. Several of the top contenders this time out seem to be chameleons to me...saying what they think is politically expedient. (Romney's now "pro-life", Hilary's getting "tough" on Iraq all of a sudden)

I'm voting Ron Paul because I agree him with him on MOST of the issues I consider most important this time..and because he appears principled....his voting record is CONSISTENT. I pretty much know what he would do if voted in...

EDIT: To CJR..yes, I'd vote Hitler if that's ALL we knew. But I'm guessing a good debate would bring out his whole "Aryan race" nonsense (that's what good "operatives" will do on a campaign) so it would never get to that point. Assuming that that WAS known, I'd vote "None of the Above" as a protest. No one says you HAVE to vote Donkey or Elephant.

2007-10-28 10:09:45 · answer #1 · answered by Greg R (2015 still jammin') 7 · 1 1

Hypothetical question for you.
There is an election for ruler of a major country. There are three candidates running.
Candidate A drinks 9 martinis a day, has organized crime connections, is handicapped, and is known to have several mistresses.
Candidate B drinks a quart of gin a day, smokes like a chimney, and has been fired for incompetence from his last government job. He is also known to have had extramarital affairs.
Candidate C is a decorated war hero, has no extramarital affairs, is intensely patriotic, and is very interested in animal rights.

The first leader was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The second was Winston Churchill. The third was Adolf Hitler.

Who did you vote for?

The simple fact is, being a leader means you have to KNOW how to fight dirty, because others will do it to you if given the opportunity.
Also, if you want to live in a democracy, you HAVE to be willing to compromise. If everybody takes a black and white view on issues, there can be no discussion, there can be no progress, there can be no cohesion in the population. There will be a split between the have and have nots, and then there will be an oppressed minority.

Besides, most of the candidates running on "values" tend to have a very narrow view of who those values should apply to. We are For Freedom, as long as you're not gay. We are For Family Values, despite the fact that we never tell you precisely what those values are. We are For Free Speech, as long as you only say what we want you to. We are For the Country, as long as you only do what we want you to. We are For Law and Order, provided you're not rich or a celebrity, then you get a free pass. We are For Religious Expression, as long as you're only expressing Christian (and then mostly evangelical) beliefs. We are For Life, but once you're born, we'll forget about you. We are For Protecting Marriage, and have had two (or three or four) to prove how committed we are to it. We are For Self-Reliance, as long as you're not a corporation or major campaign contributor looking for a bailout or handout.

We are For Freedom, as long as you don't use them.

We are For America, despite the fact our policies are antithetical to the core beliefs of the country.

2007-10-27 16:49:44 · answer #2 · answered by CJR 2 · 0 1

I really do! I don't respect a person who does not have any family or moral vaues. Integrity in the White House is especially imperative. That's what this country is built on. And have for centuries...If, for example, a President lived in the White House and had orgies or sex in the kitchen, & in the Oval office, with his wife is sitting in another room, what kind of moral or family value is he representing? What is he saying to the American people? He had made a mockery of us all. Do you want to relive that again??? Then it would be like I didn't learn a valuable lesson. It would be as if I condone that kind of behavior in our White House, if I didn't vote on morals and values. Thanks for a good question!

2007-10-27 15:40:54 · answer #3 · answered by Liza 7 · 1 0

If your judgment about what constitutes morals is wholly confined to sex then you are a prude and an idiot. Morals are far broader and inclusive. Yes, personal behavior is important of course but sexual history is just one and not the most important aspect of morality-I voted for JFK and I'd do it again if I knew what we know now; I voted also for the highly moral and "decent" Nixon..once..that taught me a lesson-the worst mistake I ever made.

2014-11-13 01:53:04 · answer #4 · answered by Elliot Stamler 2 · 0 0

This one does.

It's why I could never vote for a Democrat. They are so obvious with their pandering for votes, they are disingenuous and do whatever they can to build their base.

Some 80% of Americans want the border shut down. The open border amnesty bill keeps being defeated because of voter outcry. Yet Kennedy and the Dems continue to bring this bill back in some form to try and get it passed. Its like they are trying to sneak it past us. Why are they so set on open borders and amnesty? The 20-50 million new Democratic voters it would bring is why.

They would hurt their nation and change its culture forever if it means they can maintain power. That, on its own, is immoral. And thats just one issue. They also suck up to every minority group and act as its saviour.

2007-10-27 15:50:27 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 2 1

Hopefully more than not. Personally, I think morals and values are key, which is why I only support candidates who have morals (personal fav. is Huckabee)
Many people, sadly, do not realize the effect 'stupid' things such as morals and values have on their lives.
It's up to the responsible citizens in America to vote for moral candidates (in the primaries - not just the lesser of two evils dilemma all over again)

Hawaiian Plumeria: Did Clinton hold orgies in the White House (gasp)? I would really loooove a source for that (fellow Clinton despiser)

2007-10-27 19:43:08 · answer #6 · answered by Daewen 3 · 1 2

I do and I am voting for the Republican ticket. Here is more information if you are interested.

I commend all Americans who are trying to learn more about the candidates before the 2008 election. In my opinion, an uniformed voter is down right dangerous. I am supporting the Republican Ticket for their stance on Foreign Policy. I do not believe that the ticket will lead with Rudy, Mitt or Ron Paul and this is why….

Strike Rudy - He is responsible for nixing the Line Item Veto, pro-abortion, he spends to much! Check his record!

Strike Mitt - He is trying to sell us on the fact that he is Ronald Reagan's Clone which is so not-true. Blames his MA record on him having to work in a Liberal State, He is a FRAUD and McCain called him on it in the 10/21/07 debate!

Strike Ron Paul - He is not really a Republican, has no clue on foreign policy and is likely a racist. See the web-site below.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1835179/posts


Hillary Supporters Please read this!
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AltCYoWQJyiRh9CwPYjMrdLsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071027105509AAcWJ0b or go right to the source @

http://www.gop.com/Blog/Default.aspx


http://www.ontheissues.org/2004_GOP_Platform.htm Republican – McCain, Huckabee, Thompson

http://gopplatform08.blogspot.com/2007/05/grassroots-conservative-republican.html?gclid=CMKKzLm9t48CFQ2aOAodAlZFdg


http://www.fff.org/freedom/0301f.asp Libertarian – Ron Paul

http://www.ontheissues.org/Dem_Platform_2004.htm - Democrat - Hillary, Obama

Good Question! Thanks for asking....

2007-11-02 23:40:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Republican Party has always stood for strong American morals and values.

The liberal Democrats tend to like the 'anything goes...' attitude about everything- regardless of morality or strong family and American values.

2007-10-28 00:47:04 · answer #8 · answered by kNOTaLIAwyR 7 · 2 0

I do, as long as they show leadership skills. If two were qualified and one was a Christian and one wasn't, I would vote for the Christian.

2007-10-27 15:22:41 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 2 1

If people voted for morals and values in this country, Rudy Giuliani would not be a front runner.. he'd be burning in hell, where he belongs..

2007-10-27 16:05:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers