pfife

This seems fair to me. I just think one persons 'marginally better' could easily be another persons major issue. Theres also the issue of the whole perception of a candidate and what they support being super subjective and the result of a cacophony of propaganda

If i voted for spouse killing policy candidate and then the spouse killing policy kills my spouse, would you guys defend me from the inevitable leapords eat faces burns?

Appreciate this response. Does the politician in this scenario have any responsibility to support policies more amenable to a person not ready to vote for them because of those policies?

But if you ate the brocolli you cant say you didnt eat the brocolli. Well i guess you could.. but it would be a lie. If one knowingly voted for a candidate that supports policies that would kill your spouse, you couldn't turn around and say you didnt vote for that. Now if the candidate was lying about the support for spuse killing policy thats a different story

Voting for a candidate that supports policies that would kill your spouse does mean that you voted for a candidate that supports policies tbat would kill your spouse though.

Candidates of both parties ran in part on their middle east policies (and foreign policy in general). Should a voter disregard the Candidates stated middle east policy positions that candidates are using presumably to garner more votes?

There are matters of degrees though. You infer this with the word 'might'. If i have agency over my vote and im weighing 2 policies that may kill my spouse, and one has a 90% chance of happening and the other is 10% chance of happening, those should be weighed equally in deciding the vote? Or should they not be weighed at all in the voting decision?

I was thinking similar to that as well.

In the hypothetical scenaio, the voter isnt looking for the perfect candidate. Theyre voting for the candidate that doesnt support killing their spouse. That there no room for a non spouse killing candidate in your reasoning is a fault in your reasoning.

I'm fine with you giving an answer. I just disagree with the one that you gave sorry your panties got in a bunch because someone had the audacity to disagree with YOUR reasoning for THEIR (not your) vote. Should folks just get their ballots mailed to you and MB? It seems like MY opinion on MY vote is very inconvenient for YOU and I'm a solutions oriented person. All voters' free agency with their vote is obviously secondary to your opinion and I hate that you are inconvenienced Proudly in the pro-not voting to kill spouse caucus. LOL at you not being so

cool dodge I'm beyond fine with not voting to kill my spouse in that situation. I'm also beyond fine with other people not voting to kill their spouses in that situation. No one should be compelled to do that because a dude on a message board poorly reasoned it while ordaining themselves as the decider of other peoples votes

But I didn't vote to kill my spouse. That you would seemingly conclude someone do that is really something And, your logic fails again because you again just waived your hand like a wizard and supplanted MY reasoning (not voting to kill my spouse) for MY vote with YOUR reasoning (keeping spouse alive) for MY vote. That was the second time. The first time you did it was when I said the reasoning for the vote was b/c the pol supported policies that hurt someone I care about, and you just ignored that and supplanted it with "what's best for the country" in response.

candidate a: has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years. candidate b: has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years, but country would be better. candidate c : has no chance to win, but explicitly does not support policy that voter things would result in death of spouse within 2 years. your reasoning: everyone owes their vote to candidate b. and if you had the audacity to NOT vote for candidate B, you, not everyone who voted for Candiate A, are responsible for everything candidate A does. Me: I'm not voting to kill my spouse.

So *you* get to proscibe the basis of others' votes too. If a politician supports policies that hurt people i care about, you and mbs opinions are irrelevant to my vote and your continued insistence otherwise is at minimum ridiculous

What if you dont want to vote for a politician because they will maintain policies you think make things worse for people you care about? Or is that trumped by some self appointed decider of others' votes decided differently?