What Political Positions Make A Candidate Unvoteforable For You?

[steve dave]

Mine are anti-vax and climate change denial. When 100% of the smartest people in the world agree with one side of an issue and then you take the other side I don't trust you to make any important decisions that affect me. What are your positions?

[Rage Against the McKee]

I won't vote for Scott Walker because he won't say if he believes in evolution.

[Institutional Control]

I would never vote for someone who can't catch a football.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I won't vote for a church leader (reverend, preacher, etc.).

[Rage Against the McKee]

I won't vote for anyone who wants to waste money building a wall between the US and Mexico.

[CNS]

Religion in govt and schools, deniers of science, war here/there/everywhere, etc

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Yard Dog]

I wont vote for someone who supports the dismemberment and murder of unborn babies.

[puniraptor]

Obvious lack of critical thinking ability.

[Yard Dog]

Candidates who (verbally) attack private citizens.

[Mrs. Gooch]

I don't want to vote for anyone who wants to stomp on my or anyone else's liberty...which makes it hard because can't vote for republicans (cause abortion, marriage), can't vote for dems (guns).

Also, I will never vote for a racist, misogynist with an obvious hair piece.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Mine are anti-vax and climate change denial. When 100% of the smartest people in the world agree with one side of an issue and then you take the other side I don't trust you to make any important decisions that affect me. What are your positions?

If you really believe that "100% of the smartest people in the word" believe that manmade carbon emissions are causing significant "climate change" and "warming," you're a fool.

As for my litmus test, here are my disqualifications:
1. Abortion: People who are broadly pro-choice (not just minor exceptions for rape, incest, and "life of the mother" - I'm talking about the people who are generally Ok with slaughtering babies at pretty much any time before birth for any reason, which is evil)
2. Climate: Global warming "truthers" (such as SD and 42) who refuse to acknowledge the serious debate over mankind's role in "climate change."
3. Immigration: Anyone who advocates for open borders or broad amnesty (I will at least consider, but not favor, a candidate that would supposedly allow amnesty on strict conditions)
4. Fiscal Policy: Anyone who doesn't care about the national debt, or believes that we can meaningfully reduce our deficits with tax increases.
5. Foreign Policy: Anyone who thinks we can actually trust countries like Iran to honor agreements, or is naive enough to believe that we can actually monitor Iran's compliance under the current framework.
6. Healthcare: Anyone who advocates for single payer or heavier reliance on insurance and restricting consumer choice (like Obamacare).
7. Energy: Anyone who wants to increase subsidies for wildly impracticle and ineffecient "green energy" like wind and solar (I'll allow sucking up to Iowa corn growers because, otherwise, that would disqualify pretty much all the candidates).

[0.42]

Evolution and climate change deniers, anyone who wants to cut scientific research funding (same people), anti-vaxxers, anti-birth control & pro-abstinence education people, anyone who wants to go back to people not having health insurance, people who don't believe in separation of church and state, people who blindly defend the NSA and security state

[steve dave]

I would also probably say anyone who bases any of their political positions on a religion. Not practicing religion, but basing their positions on it like, "the flying spaghetti monster says people shouldn't use birth control so I'm anti birth control" or something like that.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I would also probably say anyone who bases any of their political positions on a religion. Not practicing religion, but basing their positions on it like, "the flying spaghetti monster says people shouldn't use birth control so I'm anti birth control" or something like that.

What if it's a secular religion, like the Church of Global Warming That Cannot Be Questioned?

[sonofdaxjones]

Vax for sure. 

When Warmist Propagandist Scientists and their lawyers are actually trying to get the World Court to make climate "denial" illegal . . . it's just a very scary deal.   I am just stunned that anyone of you, who are supposedly educated feel no need to question what is clearly an agenda of control.   It's amazing that so many of you side with censorship and a warmist propagandist community that now proactively seek to destroy and marginalize anyone who dare question their proclamations and findings.    Sad




 

[Rage Against the McKee]

I would also probably say anyone who bases any of their political positions on a religion. Not practicing religion, but basing their positions on it like, "the flying spaghetti monster says people shouldn't use birth control so I'm anti birth control" or something like that.

What if it's a secular religion, like the Church of Global Warming That Cannot Be Questioned?

So it's like some sort of religion based on scientific observations and theory?

[0.42]

but how will climate change affect KSU's Foundation numbers tho

[gatoveintisiet]

I would also probably say anyone who bases any of their political positions on a religion. Not practicing religion, but basing their positions on it like, "the flying spaghetti monster says people shouldn't use birth control so I'm anti birth control" or something like that.

What if it's a secular religion, like the Church of Global Warming That Cannot Be Questioned?

 

[sys]

it's all relative to who else is running - i'm not sure there's any one thing that would render someone unvotable.  but it is very hard to vote for people that espouse views that are clearly and obviously at odds with reality, regardless of other considerations.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I would also probably say anyone who bases any of their political positions on a religion. Not practicing religion, but basing their positions on it like, "the flying spaghetti monster says people shouldn't use birth control so I'm anti birth control" or something like that.

What if it's a secular religion, like the Church of Global Warming That Cannot Be Questioned?

So it's like some sort of religion based on scientific observations and theory?

Well that and faithful devotion, any evidence to the contrary not withstanding. "Science" requires critical inquiry and challenging assumptions - not ignoring/slandering evidence to the contrary.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I would also probably say anyone who bases any of their political positions on a religion. Not practicing religion, but basing their positions on it like, "the flying spaghetti monster says people shouldn't use birth control so I'm anti birth control" or something like that.

What if it's a secular religion, like the Church of Global Warming That Cannot Be Questioned?

So it's like some sort of religion based on scientific observations and theory?

Well that and faithful devotion, any evidence to the contrary not withstanding. "Science" requires critical inquiry and challenging assumptions - not ignoring/slandering evidence to the contrary.

What evidence to the contrary?

[steve dave]

hey low/mediums, stay on topic please. tia.

[star seed 7]

I won't vote for sharia law lite

[sonofdaxjones]

We have a thread for this, but the problem that the Warmist Propagandist have is that all roads lead to AGW.   Oh sure, they'll give lip service to the other facts, but at the end of the day every perceived climate ill on this planet is blamed on AGW.   There's ample evidence, actually beyond ample evidence to indicate our planet has had radical climate upheaval throughout the course of its existence.   But, that doesn't fit the narrative and certainly doesn't keep the flow of grant money going nor does it keep entire sections of our government relevant and funded.

Oh, like I've said before, for those that believe that Big Energy is going to get their due, realize that Big Energy is not run by dummies and they'll get there's coming and going, fossil fuels or no fossil fuels.    In fact, it could be argued they'll make even more money on the flip side.   

[star seed 7]