What causes you to give support to a candidate?

[Anarchist420]

For me, it's adherence to principle and general honesty.

Even though I don't vote, I do endorse candidates. I like Dennis Kucinich and would endorse him over 99% of the Republicans who run against him. I want to like Barney Frank, but I suspect that he was a tool of the banks... if he wasn't then he was someone who didn't pay attention and I can still like him if that was the case.

On the other hand, I cannot support a rich Democrat running for office, especially a businessman or Hillary Clinton. I can't stand Democrats who can afford to be generous with their own money, but choose to be generous with money from others.

If all the rich Democrats got together and used their own money to help the poor, then the welfare state would serve no purpose.

 

[Craig234]

First my approach. It's nearly all about who can effectively advocate the right policies.

There's a high - not total correlation between that and personal character. Take John Edwards for example - but I'd vote for him today over people with bad policies.

For me, it's adherence to principle and general honesty.

That's vague. Just any principles? Can Nazis (for an extreme example, but to make the point of bad policies) be honest?

Those aren't nearly enough.

Even though I don't vote, I do endorse candidates.

Why don't you vote?

I like Dennis Kucinich and would endorse him over 99% of the Republicans who run against him.

I like him too - it's strange bedfellows that Libertarians seems to embrace him. He's not 'small government', to his credit.

I want to like Barney Frank, but I suspect that he was a tool of the banks... if he wasn't then he was someone who didn't pay attention and I can still like him if that was the case.

I haven't fully looked into this but by early impression is that Frank is not 'a tool of the banks' - rather, that is one of the attack lines the banks tried on him to discredit him.

On the other hand, I cannot support a rich Democrat running for office, especially a businessman or Hillary Clinton.

First, we need to talk about your definition of Rich. Sheldon Addelson could by what, thousands of Hillaries?

Second, that makes no sense. It's the *interests they represent* not their money.

Joe Kennedy was a guy who got rich from the stock market with all kinds of scamming that was legal. He's the last guy you'd pick to make the rules for stopping that.

But he was the guy picked, and he did a great job at it.

John Kennedy was an especially wealthy president - who fought the excesses of the rich for the interests of the poor.

When Robert Kennedy was running for President, rich medical students asked him, 'you want to all these things to help the poor, who is paying for it?' He answered "you are".

On the other hand there's nothing easier than finding 'poor' people to be politicians who will fight for the interests of their sponsors, the rich and be terrible for the poor.

That's a bad measure. Now, sometimes you get someone who IS rich and fights for the rich - Mitt Romney is a great example.

I can't stand Democrats who can afford to be generous with their own money, but choose to be generous with money from others.

That's a misguided standard that does not understand the whole concept of society and democracy.

We made that mistake on the first attempt at a country - the Articles of Confederation you love that failed, 'hey, chip in if you want, no hard feelings'. It doesn't work.

Pushing for the right level of taxes, programs, safety net, education etc. is the right way.

Charity has a nice secondary role that can never replace democratic government.

If all the rich Democrats got together and used their own money to help the poor, then the welfare state would serve no purpose.

That's not right and there's absolutely no reason to make the greediest people even richer by not having them pay a fair share.

 

[JEDIYoda]

First my approach. It's nearly about who can effectively advocate the right policies.

There's a high - not total correlation between that and personal character. Take John Edwards for example - but I'd vote for him today over people with bad policies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarchist420 View Post
For me, it's adherence to principle and general honesty.
That's vague. Just any principles? Can Nazis (for an extreme example, but to make the point of bad policies) be honest?

Those aren't nearly enough.

Quote:
Even though I don't vote, I do endorse candidates.
Why don't you vote?

Quote:
I like Dennis Kucinich and would endorse him over 99% of the Republicans who run against him.
I like him too - it's strange bedfellows that Libertarians seems to embrace him. He's not 'small government', to his credit.

Quote:
I want to like Barney Frank, but I suspect that he was a tool of the banks... if he wasn't then he was someone who didn't pay attention and I can still like him if that was the case.
I haven't fully looked into this but by early impression is that Frank is not 'a tool of the banks' - rather, that is one of the attack lines the banks tried on him to discredit him.


Quote:
On the other hand, I cannot support a rich Democrat running for office, especially a businessman or Hillary Clinton.
First, we need to talk about your definition of Rich. Sheldon Addelson could by what, thousands of Hillaries?

Second, that makes no sense. It's the *interests they represent* not their money.

Joe Kennedy was a guy who got rich from the stock market with all kinds of scamming that was legal. He's the last guy you'd pick to make the rules for stopping that.

But he was the guy picked, and he did a great job at it.

John Kennedy was an especially wealthy president - who fought the excesses of the rich for the interests of the poor.

When Robert Kennedy was running for President, rich medical students asked him, 'you want to all these things to help the poor, who is paying for it?' He answered "you are".

On the other hand there's nothing easier than finding 'poor' people to be politicians who will fight for the interests of their sponsors, the rich and be terrible for the poor.

That's a bad measure. Now, sometimes you get someone who IS rich and fights for the rich - Mitt Romney is a great example.

Quote:
I can't stand Democrats who can afford to be generous with their own money, but choose to be generous with money from others.
That's a misguided standard that does not understand the whole concept of society and democracy.

We made that mistake on the first attempt at a country - the Articles of Confederation you love that failed, 'hey, chip in if you want, no hard feelings'. It doesn't work.

Pushing for the right level of taxes, programs, safety net, education etc. is the right way.

Charity has a nice secondary role that can never replace democratic government.

Quote:
If all the rich Democrats got together and used their own money to help the poor, then the welfare state would serve no purpose.
That's not right and there's absolutely no reason to make the greediest people even richer by not having them pay a fair share.

I endorse this post!!!

 

[beachchica]

Someone who supports individual rights over fad causes and understands that the US doesn't have an unlimited supply of money.

 

[Black Octagon]

It's pretty well known that only very rich politicians have a true shot at ever making President in the US...so I doubt you'll have any poor Democrat candidates to ever vote for

 

[Craig234]

It's pretty well known that only very rich politicians have a true shot at ever making President in the US...so I doubt you'll have any poor Democrat candidates to ever vote for

No, it's not. It's not about their personal wealth as a requirement. Sheldon Addelson offering over $100 million takes care of that as do the Koch Brothers with $400 million.

The problem is the money raised on their behalf by special interests, with the obligations that creates against the public interest with 99% of the public don't give basically.

I forget if the 99% is a tiny amount or nothing, but either way.

It's not having a 'poor' candidate - check Buddy Roehmer - it's that they can't get elected without the big bucks campaigns and that needs these 'special interest donors'.

It comes down to, who are these people serving, donors or citizens?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's pretty well known that only very rich politicians have a true shot at ever making President in the US...so I doubt you'll have any poor Democrat candidates to ever vote for

How do you define "very rich"? Because I don't consider that to apply to our current president.

 

[Anarchist420]

That's vague. Just any principles? Can Nazis (for an extreme example, but to make the point of bad policies) be honest?

Not when principles are like that... that's a bit extreme. If we had a really principled Nazi running against Romney or Obama, then I wouldn't endorse any of them.

Most neo-Nazis aren't very principled anyway because the vast majority of people are corruptible. I'll admit that I'm at least somewhat corruptible, but I try my hardest to avoid things that would corrupt my principles.

I'll admit Obama is not as unprincipled as Romney, but the former is a professional politician IMO.

Why don't you vote?

Because I don't believe in the system and I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils.

Charity has a nice secondary role that can never replace democratic government.

Let's agree to disagree on that.🙂

 

[Craig234]

Not when principles are like that... that's a bit extreme. If we had a really principled Nazi running against Romney or Obama, then I wouldn't endorse any of them.

Most neo-Nazis aren't very principled anyway because the vast majority of people are corruptible. I'll admit that I'm at least somewhat corruptible, but I try my hardest to avoid things that would corrupt my principles.

I find the whole 'corruptible' fixation to be a bit misguided. Of course no one wants 'corrupt' but the correct policies have a lot larger role.

It's a bit more of a cultish or dogmatic fixation. You see it with all kinds of groups - the Ayn Rand types, right-wing, left-wing and moderate - this idea of some sort of 'purity'.

It's one of the ways the most corrupt political manipulators can most easily dupe voters, by attacking any incumbent opponent as 'corrupt' simply by holding office. But they have this really great stranger who will not be corrupt and will be pure and somehow magically be better after being elected - who really simply serves that promoter's interests.

Bush was portrayed as some sort of 'outsider', before he was elected and did the bidding of every Republicans corrupt special interest, systemizing the corruption.

It was the opposite of some sort of 'purity' as things like the K Street project and terrible cronyism were put in place, things like industries allowed to veto anyone they didn't want in charge of regulating them and invited to write their own laws for the administration to push through, but hey, he's a pure outsider.

I'll admit Obama is not as unprincipled as Romney, but the former is a professional politician IMO.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. It can mean someone who does well fighting for good causes, also. John Kennedy was a 'professional politician' as is Bernie Sanders.

These 'outsiders' can be some of the worst, not that skilled or informed pushing bad policies, often ones they're fed or at least fall for from misleading pitches.

Because I don't believe in the system and I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils.

Do you realize how anti-democracy that is? (Usually that's a rhetorical question, but for you an actual one). Do you think it'd be better if we just got rid of elections altogether?

Are you that seduced by some romantic plutocracy to take away the vote from people?

You should at least vote for someone if they have no chance IMO. Though of course I'd also suggest you don't seem to appreciate how much 'less bad' in your terms Democrats are.

Let's agree to disagree on that.🙂

OK, but it's pretty undeniable given the facts - from the principles (making the needy subject to the whims of a few wealthy people versus democratic fairness and the people deciding priorities) to the amounts simply being that the only way to raise enough funds is with government, not charity.

The desire to use charity instead of government as a practical matter is a desire simply to not meet the needs of people in the name of government opposition.

 

[Anarchist420]

Do you realize how anti-democracy that is? (Usually that's a rhetorical question, but for you an actual one). Do you think it'd be better if we just got rid of elections altogether?

Yes and yes.

Are you that seduced by some romantic plutocracy to take away the vote from people?

No.🙂