If You Were a Single Issue Voter, What Would Your Single Issue Be?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm not a single-issue voter. I suspect most here aren't. But most of us do emphasize a few issues that we think are really important.

You can think of this single-issue question in positive or negative ways (or both).

Is there an issue where the candidate has to be right on it to get your vote?

Is there an issue where if the candidate is wrong on it he won't get your vote?

Clearly there can be issues where you'd like the candidate to be right but nobody is. If you are a dedicated no-nukes person for example, and if there was a candidate who was campaigning to get rid of all nukes, then you might make that your single issue. But there isn't, so what would be the point?

So, for example, I suspect abortion is a single issue for a lot of pro-lifers. Unless a candidate rejects abortion or at least wants very severe restrictions on abortion, that candidate will not get their vote. Whereas I suspect that abortion rises to single issue importance for very few pro-choicers. Sure they want abortions to be available, but they don't need people to be aggressive about it to vote for them.

For me, the issue that comes closest to making me a single-issue voter is climate change. If you don't acknowledge that climate change is real and serious enough to address it aggressively, you can't get my vote.

You also won't get my vote if you oppose the Iran deal. I don't feel nearly as strongly about this as I do about climate change. But opposing the Iran deal is so stupid that it's a disqualifier. Feel free to object to elements of the deal. Feel free to say you will work to improve things in the context of a completed deal. But don't say you'd vote against it and definitely don't say you'll pull out on day 1 - which is even stupider than rejecting it in the first place.

You probably won't get my vote if you say you support the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). I say "probably" because we still don't have all the details. But the parts that have been leaked are unacceptable. So the rest would have to be pretty amazingly good to make the whole package acceptable. And, to be clear, anyone who favors it after knowing only what we now know is disqualified.

I could list a few more. For example, we have the whole death of democracy problem - Citizens United and the acceptance of bribery, corporations are people, speech is money, and so on. But other than one minor candidate, no one is making a big enough deal about this, and there's so little chance that we'll ever fix it, that I won't put it on my list. I would like for it to become a major issue in the election, but it won't.

So . . . those are my top ones at the moment. What are yours?

 

[joelbc1]

THe #1 problem this nation faces is income disparity. Nothing can be corrected until this issue is addressed meaningfully. Corporations are not going to like it. The wealthy are not going to like it. Businesses are not going to like it.
"Free trade" and the demise of the trade unions and "tax reform" that allowed the wealthy to use a lesser tax rate on their income are to the leading causes for the decrease in the "middle class" as far as economic impact is concerned.

 

[KitingHigh]

THe #1 problem this nation faces is income disparity. Nothing can be corrected until this issue is addressed meaningfully. Corporations are not going to like it. The wealthy are not going to like it. Businesses are not going to like it.
"Free trade" and the demise of the trade unions and "tax reform" that allowed the wealthy to use a lesser tax rate on their income are to the leading causes for the decrease in the "middle class" as far as economic impact is concerned.

You could not possibly be any more wrong than you are.

 

[4girlsanddad]

THe #1 problem this nation faces is income disparity. Nothing can be corrected until this issue is addressed meaningfully. Corporations are not going to like it. The wealthy are not going to like it. Businesses are not going to like it.
"Free trade" and the demise of the trade unions and "tax reform" that allowed the wealthy to use a lesser tax rate on their income are to the leading causes for the decrease in the "middle class" as far as economic impact is concerned.

Get off your ass and go to work, you deadbeat. Quit waiting for your welfare check.

 

[The_Joker13]

Get off your ass and go to work, you deadbeat. Quit waiting for your welfare check.

His point is valid, You're deflecting.

 

[joelbc1]

Get off your ass and go to work, you deadbeat. Quit waiting for your welfare check.

That just begs the question. Think before you shoot next time.

My work time is done. I showed up on time and sober for over 40 years. Now it is your turn. However, understand, as a work force veteran, I know that a family of 4 buying a house and needing a car has one tough time making it on 50k annually ($24/hr., approx)......30 years ago, that was a GREAT wage, not so much today.

 

[joelbc1]

You could not possibly be any more wrong than you are.

And this is why you and I disagree on most things, kiting.

 

[pablow]

THe #1 problem this nation faces is income disparity. Nothing can be corrected until this issue is addressed meaningfully. Corporations are not going to like it. The wealthy are not going to like it. Businesses are not going to like it.
"Free trade" and the demise of the trade unions and "tax reform" that allowed the wealthy to use a lesser tax rate on their income are to the leading causes for the decrease in the "middle class" as far as economic impact is concerned.

I'm quite concerned about the lack of quality jobs in the US too. But, how do higher taxes on the the "rich" create better jobs for the middle class. Unless you're advocating government income redistrubution, I don't follow your logic.

BTW, one of the reasons Trump is running so hot is the perception that he'll create jobs and be more aggressive on foreign trade issues. Thump has also told the hedge funders and capital gains flunkies like Warren Buffet, that he'll raise their tax rate.

Also,the last definition of "rich" I heard from the Dems was $250,000. That figure is ridiculous, especially considering the cost of sending kids to college.

 

[joelbc1]

I'm quite concerned about the lack of quality jobs in the US too. But, how do higher taxes on the the "rich" create better jobs for the middle class. Unless you're advocating government income redistrubution, I don't follow your logic.

BTW, one of the reasons Trump is running so hot is the perception that he'll create jobs and be more aggressive on foreign trade issues. Thump has also told the hedge funders and capital gains flunkies like Warren Buffet, that he'll raise their tax rate.

Also,the last definition of "rich" I heard from the Dems was $250,000. That figure is ridiculous, especially considering the cost of sending kids to college.

Getting rid of the capital gains tax rate would be a good start. I think a millionaire and billionaire should be REQUIRED to pay the same tax rate (or higher) than I. My "net" tax rate runs about 10-11% annually. A millionaire/billionaire should logically pay a higher rate than that. A corporation that generates profits for share holders should pay more than I, too. I could give a rats ass about "tax rates"...after the BS is figured, I know I pay this rate. I am positive many richer and wealthier than I pay less.
Those who make less than I should pay a lower rate than I.

 

[pablow]

Getting rid of the capital gains tax rate would be a good start. I think a millionaire and billionaire should be REQUIRED to pay the same tax rate (or higher) than I. My "net" tax rate runs about 10-11% annually. A millionaire/billionaire should logically pay a higher rate than that. A corporation that generates profits for share holders should pay more than I, too. I could give a rats ass about "tax rates"...after the BS is figured, I know I pay this rate. I am positive many richer and wealthier than I pay less.
Those who make less than I should pay a lower rate than I.

I agree with all that. But how do greater tax revenues for the federal government create a better economic quality of life for the middle and lower classes, unless it's in the form of public works and income redistribution?

BTW, I do understand how obscene income inequality is a moral issue, but I'm more concerned with the nuts-and-bolts of actually helping people. What is acomplished by federal policies that both raises taxes on the rich and at the same time discourages private sector domestic job creation?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I am a single issue voter on the abortion issue because no matter what other things you believe in, your support of mass genocide overwrites all of that.

If it where not for that then my top issue would be healthcare and poverty.

 

[Besthawkfan]

I'm all for getting out of the middle east. That is why the Pauls will always get my vote.

 

[Pepperman]

Fiscal responsibility. To me, anybody who won't admit this is our biggest problem is the same in my mind as WWJD views "climate change deniers".

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You could not possibly be any more wrong than you are.

I like how you elaborated and defended your position.

Oh wait, you didn't.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Get off your ass and go to work, you deadbeat. Quit waiting for your welfare check.

Ah, another good American and, presumably, good Christian heard from.

What issue or issues matter to you? Or is it enough to know those in need aren't being helped and will be punished under our system?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

And this is why you and I disagree on most things, kiting.

That and the fact that he so rarely backs up or explains why he's so certain about the things he asserts.

I mean any 5-year old can say "you're wrong" without anything to back it up. In fact, that's pretty much a whole conversation when talking about 5-year-olds . . . or Kiting. "You're wrong." "No, you're wrong." "No, you're wrong." Ad infinitum.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I agree with all that. But how do greater tax revenues for the federal government create a better economic quality of life for the middle and lower classes, unless it's in the form of public works and income redistribution?

I think you just answered your question. Especially if you count education, health care, environmental protection, and such as versions of those.

 

[Run&Blade]

Government spending.

Gap between super rich and everybody else, no idea how to fix it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Fiscal responsibility. To me, anybody who won't admit this is our biggest problem is the same in my mind as WWJD views "climate change deniers".

I happen to agree. Which is just one more reason why no one should ever vote for Republicans. Given the choice between paying the bills or cutting taxes for the rich, they'll cut the taxes every time. Given the choice of paying for a war or carrying it off the books, they'll do the latter.

Not that the Dems are salutary in this regard, but the GOP is simply awful - all the while preaching fiscal responsibility.

 

[jscott78]

Making conservatism illegal in the first trimester. I'd also give strong consideration to making it illegal for conservatives to vote unless a black election monitor has personal knowledge that they are who they say they are.

I'm not a single-issue voter. I suspect most here aren't. But most of us do emphasize a few issues that we think are really important.

You can think of this single-issue question in positive or negative ways (or both).

Is there an issue where the candidate has to be right on it to get your vote?

Is there an issue where if the candidate is wrong on it he won't get your vote?

Clearly there can be issues where you'd like the candidate to be right but nobody is. If you are a dedicated no-nukes person for example, and if there was a candidate who was campaigning to get rid of all nukes, then you might make that your single issue. But there isn't, so what would be the point?

So, for example, I suspect abortion is a single issue for a lot of pro-lifers. Unless a candidate rejects abortion or at least wants very severe restrictions on abortion, that candidate will not get their vote. Whereas I suspect that abortion rises to single issue importance for very few pro-choicers. Sure they want abortions to be available, but they don't need people to be aggressive about it to vote for them.

For me, the issue that comes closest to making me a single-issue voter is climate change. If you don't acknowledge that climate change is real and serious enough to address it aggressively, you can't get my vote.

You also won't get my vote if you oppose the Iran deal. I don't feel nearly as strongly about this as I do about climate change. But opposing the Iran deal is so stupid that it's a disqualifier. Feel free to object to elements of the deal. Feel free to say you will work to improve things in the context of a completed deal. But don't say you'd vote against it and definitely don't say you'll pull out on day 1 - which is even stupider than rejecting it in the first place.

You probably won't get my vote if you say you support the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). I say "probably" because we still don't have all the details. But the parts that have been leaked are unacceptable. So the rest would have to be pretty amazingly good to make the whole package acceptable. And, to be clear, anyone who favors it after knowing only what we now know is disqualified.

I could list a few more. For example, we have the whole death of democracy problem - Citizens United and the acceptance of bribery, corporations are people, speech is money, and so on. But other than one minor candidate, no one is making a big enough deal about this, and there's so little chance that we'll ever fix it, that I won't put it on my list. I would like for it to become a major issue in the election, but it won't.

So . . . those are my top ones at the moment. What are yours?

 

[Wahawk56]

Whatever issue gets me the most money. Everything else can go eff itself.

 

[KitingHigh]

I like how you elaborated and defended your position.

Oh wait, you didn't.

He did not present a compelling argument to argue against. He didn't present an argument at all. Just a statement, with nothing to back it up. Why would I was my time rebutting a statement with no backing other than to simply say he is wrong.

I know his MO, and he has no interest in actually solving the underlying problems. He simply wants a Robin Hood steal from the rich give to the poor approach. Show me how that would solve anything and I'll argue it. The truth is that the rich get richer because they keep doing what got them rich, while the poor get poorer for the same reason. Taxing the rich and businesses more simply motivates them to take their money and shelter it from those taxes. Meanwhile, technology and society has turned many middle class jobs into lower class jobs. People are not encouraged to become mechanics or technicians. Kids are all encouraged to get multiple degrees and are taught that they would be better off in a business mailroom making 30k than they would as a mechanic making twice that. People are encouraged to spend money they don't have on items they don't need. Guess what? If you simply give them more money, that's not going to change. They will simply have nicer cars, bigger tv's and larger debt. Look at the housing crisis. That wasn't caused by a lack of redistribution. It was caused by forcing banks to give loans they shouldn't and encouraging people to buy houses they could not afford. This idea of redistributing wealth to create equality is ridiculous and has never worked. At its end game it typically results in a very small upper class and a large lower class with almost nothing in between. It's not a matter of spending money on education either. Just about every study shows little or no correlation between spending more money to getting better education results.

Additionally, regulations have made becoming a small business owner extremely hard. All advantages are given to large corporations. The liberals and republicans are both guilty of this, but it isn't a tax issue, it's a regulatory one. Thankfully it is one where technology is helping as well as a healthy rebel attitude in some cases such as Uber.

There are a number of factors that have gotten us to where we are, but not stealing enough money to turn around a give it away is not one of them.

 

[strummingram]

This idea of redistributing wealth to create equality is ridiculous and has never worked. At its end game it typically results in a very small upper class and a large lower class with almost nothing in between. It's not a matter of spending money on education either. Just about every study shows little or no correlation between spending more money to getting better education results.

Additionally, regulations have made becoming a small business owner extremely hard. All advantages are given to large corporations. The liberals and republicans are both guilty of this, but it isn't a tax issue, it's a regulatory one. Thankfully it is one where technology is helping as well as a healthy rebel attitude in some cases such as Uber.

There are a number of factors that have gotten us to where we are, but not stealing enough money to turn around a give it away is not one of them.

Well said!

 

[hawkeye54545]

Less government. Fix my roads, keep me safe from bad guys, provide basic services such as law enforcement and fireman and GTFO of my life.

 

[Huey Grey]

THe #1 problem this nation faces is income disparity. Nothing can be corrected until this issue is addressed meaningfully. Corporations are not going to like it. The wealthy are not going to like it. Businesses are not going to like it.
"Free trade" and the demise of the trade unions and "tax reform" that allowed the wealthy to use a lesser tax rate on their income are to the leading causes for the decrease in the "middle class" as far as economic impact is concerned.

This times a 1000

 

[strummingram]

Repealing the Federal Reserve Act

 

[Tom Paris]

I am a single issue voter on the abortion issue because no matter what other things you believe in, your support of mass genocide overwrites all of that.

If it where not for that then my top issue would be healthcare and poverty.

Still no foster children? Didn't think so. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on what to do about poverty, though.

 

[shank hawk]

Repealing the Federal Reserve Act

This X 10,000.000

Our money system is directly responsible for inflation (the most vile tax of them all), perpetual war, income disparity, welfare, both parents forced to work, etc.

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes it's laws"............spoken by someone who would know.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Still no foster children? Didn't think so. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on what to do about poverty, though.

Why would I want to sign up for something where I invest my time and energy into a child that the state can come and take away from me at any moment.

Some people can do that and that's great. . . I can't. If I'm going to raise a child I'd have to be able to dedicate my whole heart to it, not just try and do my best til the state decides the child should go to another foster home or back to mom or dad.

As far as poverty I would say my thoughts is that lower end wages for the working poor have to be increased via either tax policy eg putting extra taxes on companies that don't pay their employee's well or if that does not succeed then minimum wage increases with regular built in increases for inflation.

 

[Tom Paris]

Why would I want to sign up for something where I invest my time and energy into a child that the state can come and take away from me at any moment.

Some people can do that and that's great. . . I can't. If I'm going to raise a child I'd have to be able to dedicate my whole heart to it, not just try and do my best til the state decides the child should go to another foster home or back to mom or dad.

Pretty much what I thought. Thanks for being helpful to the kids that are already walking around. Last time I asked you couldn't afford it. All kinds of excuses as to why people don't help actual children in need. Just make sure they are all born, but then they are someone else's problem. Typical.

 

[Slenderson]

Slavery. I'm still against it.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Pretty much what I thought. Thanks for being helpful to the kids that are already walking around. Last time I asked you couldn't afford it. All kinds of excuses as to why people don't help actual children in need. Just make sure they are all born, but then they are someone else's problem. Typical.

No couldn't afford to adopt. Still can't. If it was affordable we probably would have done that a long time ago. Probably not right now because we have 2 kids and 1 on the way. Having your own kids is much cheaper then adopting them.

Foster children are a different issue all together. They arn't yours permanently.

 

[LuteHawk]

Take one major company like Caterpillar Inc. and ask
yourself why 50% of their workforce is in foreign countries.

Look at your clothing and ask why is it made in foreign
countries. Ultimately, our corporations and companies
have exported our jobs overseas to make more profit and
keep the stockholders happy.

Bottom Line: The American worker is the victim of job
exportation by too many companies.

 

[strummingram]

This X 10,000.000

Our money system is directly responsible for inflation (the most vile tax of them all), perpetual war, income disparity, welfare, both parents forced to work, etc.

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes it's laws"............spoken by someone who would know.

It's really amazing how much of an impact that has had, and would have if it were repealed.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

He did not present a compelling argument to argue against. He didn't present an argument at all. Just a statement, with nothing to back it up. Why would I was my time rebutting a statement with no backing other than to simply say he is wrong.

I know his MO, and he has no interest in actually solving the underlying problems. He simply wants a Robin Hood steal from the rich give to the poor approach. Show me how that would solve anything and I'll argue it. The truth is that the rich get richer because they keep doing what got them rich, while the poor get poorer for the same reason. Taxing the rich and businesses more simply motivates them to take their money and shelter it from those taxes. Meanwhile, technology and society has turned many middle class jobs into lower class jobs. People are not encouraged to become mechanics or technicians. Kids are all encouraged to get multiple degrees and are taught that they would be better off in a business mailroom making 30k than they would as a mechanic making twice that. People are encouraged to spend money they don't have on items they don't need. Guess what? If you simply give them more money, that's not going to change. They will simply have nicer cars, bigger tv's and larger debt. Look at the housing crisis. That wasn't caused by a lack of redistribution. It was caused by forcing banks to give loans they shouldn't and encouraging people to buy houses they could not afford. This idea of redistributing wealth to create equality is ridiculous and has never worked. At its end game it typically results in a very small upper class and a large lower class with almost nothing in between. It's not a matter of spending money on education either. Just about every study shows little or no correlation between spending more money to getting better education results.

Additionally, regulations have made becoming a small business owner extremely hard. All advantages are given to large corporations. The liberals and republicans are both guilty of this, but it isn't a tax issue, it's a regulatory one. Thankfully it is one where technology is helping as well as a healthy rebel attitude in some cases such as Uber.

There are a number of factors that have gotten us to where we are, but not stealing enough money to turn around a give it away is not one of them.

See . . . you CAN do it. That's what I have been thinking until recently.

 

[dgordo]

probably boobs, seems like an important issue.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I must be fairly happy, I can't come up with one. Maybe I just don't have that much respect for the actual power of the POTUS.

I'd like to see drug law reform. I'd like to see better healthcare reform. I'd like to see immigration reform.

I don't see either side doing any of this, and most certainly not in any way I would approve.

As everyone here points out, money and debt and the like is important............but what the f*** do you think YOUR president you choose is going to do about it?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I must be fairly happy, I can't come up with one. Maybe I just don't have that much respect for the actual power of the POTUS.

I'd like to see drug law reform. I'd like to see better healthcare reform. I'd like to see immigration reform.

I don't see either side doing any of this, and most certainly not in any way I would approve.

As everyone here points out, money and debt and the like is important............but what the f*** do you think YOUR president you choose is going to do about it?

Well . . . would you rather have a prez who believably says he wants to do something about those things or one who says he has no intention of doing anything about those things?

We have some in the GOP race who are basically saying "peace with Iran? Over my dead body!" Or "subsidized health care? Over my dead body." Maybe they can't undo what's already been done, but would you vote for someone with those values?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[theIowaHawk]

Well . . . would you rather have a prez who believably says he wants to do something about those things or one who says he has no intention of doing anything about those things?

We have some in the GOP race who are basically saying "peace with Iran? Over my dead body!" Or "subsidized health care? Over my dead body." Maybe they can't undo what's already been done, but would you vote for someone with those values?

I won't vote for Pres at all.

I'm not informed enough to have strong foreign policy concerns. Based on the things I'd "like" to get done, the whole GOP basically gets scratched off the list.

So far I've liked Kasich and Rubio. I'd prefer Kasich over Clinton.

I'm sort of torn on Bernie. I like some, quite a few, of his general ideas. I don't really think that he's set up to be an effective leader, especially with those ideas, and that's all a POTUS really is in my opinion.

You were basically quoting Cruz, he scares me.