Is There Anybody You Wouldn't Vote For Just Because of What They Are

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Inspired by the Romney thread. Is there any group or faction or sect or religion or race who you wouldn't vote for just because of what they are?

[YaraMateo]

Scientologist. While most of the members seem nice enough, it's really a cult and one that wants a lot of money from its members. So, I would think they would make poor choices and should not be allowed near the state's/nation's money.

[beowulff]

Sure - Ralph Reed, David Duke, Mohammed Omar. Pretty much any religious politician.

[silenus]

Scientologist. Radical Islam. Republican.

[Lasciel]

I don't think I'd vote for a cannibal, regardless of what he/she had going for their platform.

Likewise a convicted child-molestor or rapist.

I can't think of anything else that someone could do or be that would make them automatically someone I wouldn't vote into office.

I would be highly unlikely to vote for a Scientologist, but I can't say that I would not vote for one based solely on that - if they could prove to satisfaction (past record) that it didn't impact their decisions, then I would consider them. I do imagine that anyone who is a Scientologist would end up not meeting my desires for an elected offical for any number of reasons other than their religion.

[raindog]

I wouldn't vote for gays, fundies, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Presbyterians, former Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, Democrats, Rotary members, red heads, fat people, really skinny people, people with bad teeth, John Birch members, NRA members, Sierra Club members, people with tortoise shell glasses, women who wear leggings over their pants, PETA members, SDMB Charter Members, Ed Zotti, people who support Sarah Palin, Tea Party members, anyone who knows what "beltway" means, Wiccans, people with facial piercings, anyone driving a Subaru, anyone who has ever used the terms, 'google-fu' or 'good on you', anyone taller than me, anyone who doesn't think Mensa members are amazingly self-absorbed, anyone who wears a helmet and spandex for bicycle riding, anyone smarmy, anyone who watches the Lawrence O'Donnell show, anyone with a tattoo, emo people, former emo people, future emo people, Republicans, most cat owners, anyone who thought Hangover 1 was funny, smokers, blacks, women, Asians, bad drivers, anyone shorter than me, men who dye their hair, anyone who goes to Iowa or New Hampshire to whore for votes, anyone too "ethnic", suicide bombers, Communists, Buddhists, and the clinically insane.

That's the short list. There may be more.

[beowulff]

I wouldn't vote for gays, fundies, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Presbyterians, former Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, Democrats, Rotary members, red heads, fat people, really skinny people, people with bad teeth, John Birch members, NRA members, Sierra Club members, people with tortoise shell glasses, women who wear leggings over their pants, PETA members, SDMB Charter Members, Ed Zotti, people who support Sarah Palin, Tea Party members, anyone who knows what "beltway" means, Wiccans, people with facial piercings, anyone driving a Subaru, anyone who has ever used the terms, 'google-fu' or 'good on you', anyone taller than me, anyone who doesn't think Mensa members are amazingly self-absorbed, anyone who wears a helmet and spandex for bicycle riding, anyone smarmy, anyone who watches the Lawrence O'Donnell show, anyone with a tattoo, emo people, former emo people, future emo people, Republicans, most cat owners, anyone who thought Hangover 1 was funny, smokers, blacks, women, Asians, bad drivers, anyone shorter than me, men who dye their hair, anyone who goes to Iowa or New Hampshire to whore for votes, anyone too "ethnic", suicide bombers, Communists, Buddhists, and the clinically insane.

That's the short list. There may be more.

I guess you're voting for me!

[raindog]

I guess you're voting for me!

How sure can we be about the whole sanity issue?

I mean, we've read your posts........;)

[cmyk]

I wouldn't vote for gays, fundies, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Presbyterians, former Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, Democrats, Rotary members, red heads, fat people, really skinny people, people with bad teeth, John Birch members, NRA members, Sierra Club members, people with tortoise shell glasses, women who wear leggings over their pants, PETA members, SDMB Charter Members, Ed Zotti, people who support Sarah Palin, Tea Party members, anyone who knows what "beltway" means, Wiccans, people with facial piercings, anyone driving a Subaru, anyone who has ever used the terms, 'google-fu' or 'good on you', anyone taller than me, anyone who doesn't think Mensa members are amazingly self-absorbed, anyone who wears a helmet and spandex for bicycle riding, anyone smarmy, anyone who watches the Lawrence O'Donnell show, anyone with a tattoo, emo people, former emo people, future emo people, Republicans, most cat owners, anyone who thought Hangover 1 was funny, smokers, blacks, women, Asians, bad drivers, anyone shorter than me, men who dye their hair, anyone who goes to Iowa or New Hampshire to whore for votes, anyone too "ethnic", suicide bombers, Communists, Buddhists, and the clinically insane.

That's the short list. There may be more.

HEY! :mad: I like The Hangover.

[The Man With The Golden Gun]

I would not vote for any member of the human race.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

All I care about is policy positions. Resolve to stand by them and defend them also helps. As to private belief systems - eh - I don't think you really want to look to deeply into anybody's head. Nothing good can ever come from that.

[kenobi 65]

Even if I agreed with her political views, I could not vote for a stupid bint who celebrates the fact that she's aggressively ignorant of the world around her, and, gosh darn it, she's just plain folks!

[Omniscient]

I won't vote for anyone who's devoutly religious. Regardless of religion, dogma has no place in politics.

[jz78817]

I wouldn't vote for either Kang or Kodos.

[NinetyWt]

A member of the KKK or any other hate group.

[cmyk]

Politicians. Alas, irony wins again.

[UncleRojelio]

I wouldn't vote for any politician that actually wants the job. Desiring to do, or actually doing, what it takes to be successful in politics should automatically disqualify any candidate for office.

[panache45]

I won't vote for anyone who's devoutly religious. Regardless of religion, dogma has no place in politics.

This. Anyone who is any kind of "fundamentalist," regardless of creed. I wouldn't expect them to be able to think outside the box when necessary.

[Omniscient]

This. Anyone who is any kind of "fundamentalist," regardless of creed. I wouldn't expect them to be able to think outside the box when necessary.

I would draw the line well short of fundamentalism. Even somewhat moderate religious folks seem to lack the ability to be pragmatic and tend to put the preaching of their "book" ahead of what's right for their constituency. In most cases an adulterer or a tax cheat is apt to govern more practically than a "true believer".

[irritant]

I wouldn't vote for either Kang or Kodos.

It's a two party system! You have to vote for one of them!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Procrustus]

I won't vote for anyone who's devoutly religious. Regardless of religion, dogma has no place in politics.

What if they're just pretending, like Obama?

[Der Trihs]

What if they're just pretending, like Obama?Then they aren't "devout", by definition.

[j666]

Yes. I will never vote for an evangelical christian for any political office.

[Khadaji]

I wouldn't vote for Donald Trump because he is a huge asshole. If nominated, I would vote fully against the party that nominated him (and I never vote a party ticket.)

[BigT]

I wouldn't vote for Donald Trump because he is a huge asshole. If nominated, I would vote fully against the party that nominated him (and I never vote a party ticket.)

So your group is assholes? I can stand behind that one!

[River Hippie]

Republicans.
Tea Party.

I've voted for Republicans in the past but it's unlikely I will again.

[Locrian]

Huckabee due to the fact that he's a former Baptist priest. He shouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone run for politics. I certainly will never trust anyone who prays for guidance in politics. If I'm supposed to feel better at the new budget plan because you prayed over it, then they should feel better when I don't pay taxes after "praying" over my decision. :D

[Harmonious Discord]

Fuck ya!

[monstro]

Anyone with 666 on their forehead.

[LouisB]

I would not vote for anyone from Texas.

I would not vote for anyone who claimed that God spoke directly to them.

I would not vote for anyone who attempted to interject religion into politics.

I would not vote for any Republican under any circumstances.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I won't vote for anyone who's devoutly religious. Regardless of religion, dogma has no place in politics.

This. Anyone who is any kind of "fundamentalist," regardless of creed. I wouldn't expect them to be able to think outside the box when necessary.

I would draw the line well short of fundamentalism. Even somewhat moderate religious folks seem to lack the ability to be pragmatic and tend to put the preaching of their "book" ahead of what's right for their constituency. In most cases an adulterer or a tax cheat is apt to govern more practically than a "true believer".

Yes. I will never vote for an evangelical christian for any political office.

Huckabee due to the fact that he's a former Baptist priest. He shouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone run for politics. I certainly will never trust anyone who prays for guidance in politics. If I'm supposed to feel better at the new budget plan because you prayed over it, then they should feel better when I don't pay taxes after "praying" over my decision. :D

I see I've seen quite a few bigots already on this thread. Not to mention some people are actually willing to deprive others of the vote just because of their views. That is bigotry. BTW it's minister not priest for Baptists.

And at any rate strongly religious politicians in the past have included William Gladstone (who proselytized to beggars and invited them over to dinner on 10 Downing Street), James K Polk, Jimmy Carter, William Jennings Bryan, William McKinley, Ronald Reagan, and quite a few others. Would the above people not vote for any of them either had they lived in the past?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I did live in the past and voted for Reagan. That turned out to be a huge mistake, but not because of his religion.

[ZPG Zealot]

I do not want to vote for anyone that would place their religious beliefs ahead of the U.S. Constitution. Sometimes one must choose the lesser of two evils however. On a more personal level I would never want to vote for anyone who as a adult tortured animals or was involved in animal fighting simply because I think that is the sign of a really sick, twisted individual that should never be in a position of power. Yes, I will admit, as a child I enjoyed headless chicken fighting, but 1.) we were kids 2.) the chickens had to be killed anyway for dinner.

[gatorslap]

I would have a hard time voting for someone who expressed a strong belief in astrology.

[Lanzy]

I would rather not vote than vote for a republican.

and If I find out someone continuously posts stupid questions, they are out as well.

[Mr Shine]

I wouldn't vote for gays, fundies, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Presbyterians, former Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, Democrats, Rotary members, red heads, fat people, really skinny people, people with bad teeth, John Birch members, NRA members, Sierra Club members, people with tortoise shell glasses, women who wear leggings over their pants, PETA members, SDMB Charter Members, Ed Zotti, people who support Sarah Palin, Tea Party members, anyone who knows what "beltway" means, Wiccans, people with facial piercings, anyone driving a Subaru, anyone who has ever used the terms, 'google-fu' or 'good on you', anyone taller than me, anyone who doesn't think Mensa members are amazingly self-absorbed, anyone who wears a helmet and spandex for bicycle riding, anyone smarmy, anyone who watches the Lawrence O'Donnell show, anyone with a tattoo, emo people, former emo people, future emo people, Republicans, most cat owners, anyone who thought Hangover 1 was funny, smokers, blacks, women, Asians, bad drivers, anyone shorter than me, men who dye their hair, anyone who goes to Iowa or New Hampshire to whore for votes, anyone too "ethnic", suicide bombers, Communists, Buddhists, and the clinically insane.

That's the short list. There may be more.

If you happen to be exactly 180cm tall, could I count on your vote?

[RetroVertigo]

I see I've seen quite a few bigots already on this thread. Not to mention some people are actually willing to deprive others of the vote just because of their views.


I guess I'm confused by this statement. This occurs in every election, I vote for the candidate whose views I agree with. I wouldn't vote for someone because of what I consider an irrational belief in the supernatural. How is that different then you not voting for someone because of what you view as an irrational belief in communism (or any other personal belief)? My father would rather not vote in a election then have to cast a ballot for a Liberal. Is he bigoted towards the left-leaning?

[Autolycus]

I wouldn't vote for that guy. Yeah, that one. You know the one I'm thinking of.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

I see I've seen quite a few bigots already on this thread. Not to mention some people are actually willing to deprive others of the vote just because of their views. That is bigotry. BTW it's minister not priest for Baptists.

And at any rate strongly religious politicians in the past have included William Gladstone (who proselytized to beggars and invited them over to dinner on 10 Downing Street), James K Polk, Jimmy Carter, William Jennings Bryan, William McKinley, Ronald Reagan, and quite a few others. Would the above people not vote for any of them either had they lived in the past?

Is it bigotry if a person won't vote for a politician because of their religious beliefs? Is it bigotry not to vote for a politician because of their lack of religious beliefs?

Also, most of the posters here seem to be using 'fundamentalist religious views that are publicly espoused' as a symptom or marker of 'irrational thinking'.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I guess I'm confused by this statement. This occurs in every election, I vote for the candidate whose views I agree with. I wouldn't vote for someone because of what I consider an irrational belief in the supernatural. How is that different then you not voting for someone because of what you view as an irrational belief in communism (or any other personal belief)? My father would rather not vote in a election then have to cast a ballot for a Liberal. Is he bigoted towards the left-leaning?

Is it bigotry if a person won't vote for a politician because of their religious beliefs? Is it bigotry not to vote for a politician because of their lack of religious beliefs?

Also, most of the posters here seem to be using 'fundamentalist religious views that are publicly espoused' as a symptom or marker of 'irrational thinking'.

If someone will vote against a candidate just because of their religion without even considering their political views, then yes, they're bigots.

[Acid Lamp]

If someone will vote against a candidate just because of their religion without even considering their political views, then yes, they're bigots.

You need to justify that position better, I don't think it washes. When you decide who to vote for you don't just make your decision in total isolation with only the state position on the issues to consider. You consider the candidate's background, record, and likelihood of adhering to their stated position. You in effect try to predict the future and vote accordingly. If I had a choice between two candidates that were otherwise comparable other than one subscribes to fundamental branch of the same religion, I'd vote for the moderate one. I'm not bigoted, I'm voting according to who is more likely to represent my wishes in keeping policy and religion separate. More importantly, in an election with multiple acceptable, if not ideal candidates, an adherence to a religious doctrine i find particularly odious is all I need to know. I have better options.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

If someone will vote against a candidate just because of their religion without even considering their political views, then yes, they're bigots.

I can see your arguement, but I'm not sure I buy it. Are religious voters bigots when they don't vote for atheists? There are very few fundamentalist Christians who are going to make funding the National Science Foundation and strengthening the wall between Church and State their top priorities, so until I hear them espousing these unusual views, it's reasonable to think that their priorities are different from mine.

The point I'm trying to make is this: It would be bigoted to say 'I'll never vote for a black'. It may be bigoted to say 'I'll never vote for a Catholic'. Is it bigoted to say 'I'll probably never vote for a Buddhist, because I think people who buy into Buddhism are too woowoo and open-minded to point of being totally indecisive"?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

You need to justify that position better, I don't think it washes. When you decide who to vote for you don't just make your decision in total isolation with only the state position on the issues to consider. You consider the candidate's background, record, and likelihood of adhering to their stated position. You in effect try to predict the future and vote accordingly. If I had a choice between two candidates that were otherwise comparable other than one subscribes to fundamental branch of the same religion, I'd vote for the moderate one. I'm not bigoted, I'm voting according to who is more likely to represent my wishes in keeping policy and religion separate. More importantly, in an election with multiple acceptable, if not ideal candidates, an adherence to a religious doctrine i find particularly odious is all I need to know. I have better options.

Why not the one with more experience? Why not the one with the strongest firmness of character? For example you would vote for a candidate who resembles in character that of John F Kennedy rather than William Gladstone if otherwise their political views are more or less the same?


I can see your arguement, but I'm not sure I buy it. Are religious voters bigots when they don't vote for atheists? There are very few fundamentalist Christians who are going to make funding the National Science Foundation and strengthening the wall between Church and State their top priorities, so until I hear them espousing these unusual views, it's reasonable to think that their priorities are different from mine.

That is considering the issues. Of course candidates with certain religious views are more or less likely to lean toward certain political viewpoints on certain issues, but in that case one must consider the issues not just what they believe.


The point I'm trying to make is this: It would be bigoted to say 'I'll never vote for a black'. It may be bigoted to say 'I'll never vote for a Catholic'. Is it bigoted to say 'I'll probably never vote for a Buddhist, because I think people who buy into Buddhism are too woowoo and open-minded to point of being totally indecisive"?

What if the candidate's record for instance proves that he isn't indecisive. Of course if the record bears out for instance that a Hindu candidate is a rigid believer in the caste system one would not be justified in voting for him due to his support of a class system.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

So at what point can I use factors beyond the candidates website, voting record and official statements to make decisions about the candidate? If I'm a gay atheist, and I examine 100 born again politicians and reject them for their voting records and stands on gay rights and separation of church and state, do I really have to investigate number 101?

When can I start generalizing that born-again politicians are not going to support my views?

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

For that matter, by your logic, Weiner sending weiner pictures shouldn't alter his constituents support for him, nor should John Edward's callous behavior change his support - they've nothing to do with how the politician is voting.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

If someone will vote against a candidate just because of their religion without even considering their political views, then yes, they're bigots.

Doesn't that cut both ways? Presume that, as a woman, a woman is going to understand your plight. If it's wrong to vote against someone for a certain reason, is it wrong to vote for someone for a certain reason?

Also, denying either one of those is pretty naive. That's reality. That's how people operate in society. You (a non-specific one) don't have to like it, but you do have to work within it, and work to shift those paradigms by promoting and working with/for skilled folks that can shift the consensus.

UncleRojelio: To me, you're guilty of the same. You're destined to be disillusioned and unhappy because it's simply not possible, again, unless you find a way to change almost quite literally everything.

[Peremensoe]

If someone will vote against a candidate just because of their religion without even considering their political views, then yes, they're bigots.

I think the point that most people are getting at here is that there is a set of people whose religious views are indistinguishable from their political views. Some of these people say outright that their political views are wholly determined by their religious views. If a voter clearly disagrees with the stated politico-religious views, it's absurd to ask or expect them to consider supporting that candidate.

Alternatively, people who claim to hold strong religious views truly separate from their political views strike me as some stripe of hypocrite or liar, and that's a fine reason to not support them, too.

I think it's fine to support, or not, a candidate based on any of their expressed beliefs or actions, regardless of whether these are strictly "political" or not. Religion is not like ethnicity or gender or sexuality.

[j666]

If someone will vote against a candidate just because of their religion without even considering their political views, then yes, they're bigots.

Not if the religious belief includes the conviction that the relgion, and only the religion, is true and moral and the right way for people to live.

I will not vote for evangelicans christian not because they are christian, but because the positions that my country is a christian nation, homosexuals should be denied common legal rights, and that personhood begins at the fertilization of an egg.

I probably wouldn't vote for persons of any religion that were agressively trying to take over my country.

[foolsguinea]

"..or faction"? Well, of course.

Generally speaking, nativists piss me off. And there are so many nativists Italian-Americans in US politics that I've become leery of Italian-Americans in politics.

[Acid Lamp]

Why not the one with more experience? Why not the one with the strongest firmness of character? For example you would vote for a candidate who resembles in character that of John F Kennedy rather than William Gladstone if otherwise their political views are more or less the same?



I'm not certain I can accurately contrast so disparate characters. Instead, let's just work with a simple hypothetical, it's easier to isolate the issue being discussed.

John A. is the first major candidate. He is an active member of a relatively conservative christian faith, let us say...southern baptist. His political views are what you would expect from such a man, but he is careful to keep a strong degree o separation between his private life and his policy making.

Bob B. is the next. Also a conservative christian and a southern baptist of an extreme branch, he allows his faith to shape his policy making far more than John.

Dan C. Is a member of a off shoot branch that encourages dominionist beliefs. Adhering strongly to his faith, he believes that it is only through a literal interpretation of biblical law that we can advance as a country.

They all have similar records, experience, etc...

Now assume that I was given a ballot with nothing more than a name and faith listed. I am assured though whatever means necessary to convince me that their other qualifications are comparable enough to be irrelevant.

Given nothing more than their faith to base my decision on, I would immediately exclude Dan as his faith is synonymous with his political strategy. Knowing that Dan will be naturally be at odds with all things I hold to be sane, rational, and good for society I could exclude him immediately. In Dan's case, his faith tells me everything I need to know about him in terms of voting. He might well be a lovely, rational person, but experience tells me that the likelihood of this is minute. The cognitive dissonance requires is beyond belief.

Bob would also likely get the ax from me, as my experiences in dealing with people from more extreme branches of protestantism have not been very positive.

John would win my vote here, though I wouldn't be very happy about it. He is likely not to share my views though his relatively mainstream faith would encourage me far more than the other two.

[gonzomax]

I would have a hard time voting for someone who expressed a strong belief in astrology.

Back to no Reagan again.

[raindog]

If you happen to be exactly 180cm tall, could I count on your vote?

Yes you can.

[LouisB]

I see I've seen quite a few bigots already on this thread. Not to mention some people are actually willing to deprive others of the vote just because of their views. That is bigotry. BTW it's minister not priest for Baptists.

And at any rate strongly religious politicians in the past have included William Gladstone (who proselytized to beggars and invited them over to dinner on 10 Downing Street), James K Polk, Jimmy Carter, William Jennings Bryan, William McKinley, Ronald Reagan, and quite a few others. Would the above people not vote for any of them either had they lived in the past? I lived in the past and didn't vote for Reagan because I judged him to be a hypocrite. I didn't vote for Carter because I judged me to be weak.

[LouisB]

Re post number 53, I did not vote for Carter because I judged him to be weak; I didn't judge me to be weak in spite of what I said.

And I need to add another couple to my list:

I would not vote for anyone who opposed a woman's right to have an abortion.

I would not vote for anyone who opposed public health care for the poor or elderly.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

For that matter, by your logic, Weiner sending weiner pictures shouldn't alter his constituents support for him, nor should John Edward's callous behavior change his support - they've nothing to do with how the politician is voting.

Depends on whether they're sorry or not.

Not if the religious belief includes the conviction that the relgion, and only the religion, is true and moral and the right way for people to live.

I will not vote for evangelicans christian not because they are christian, but because the positions that my country is a christian nation, homosexuals should be denied common legal rights, and that personhood begins at the fertilization of an egg.

I probably wouldn't vote for persons of any religion that were agressively trying to take over my country.

Most of the things you mentioned (ie rights for homosexuals) are political issues.

Re post number 53, I did not vote for Carter because I judged him to be weak; I didn't judge me to be weak in spite of what I said.

And I need to add another couple to my list:

I would not vote for anyone who opposed a woman's right to have an abortion.

I would not vote for anyone who opposed public health care for the poor or elderly.

Those are political issues.

[gatorslap]

Back to no Reagan again.

I'm too young to have voted back then, but I have no difficulty saying I certainly wouldn't have voted for Reagan.

[Argent Towers]

The phrasing "just because of what they are" in the OP is unclear and misleading. Mitt Romney is not a Mormon because "it's just what he is," as if he was created in a laboratory and permanently locked into one set of values and beliefs for the rest of his life. His religion is something he chooses to practice. This is true of anyone who follows a religion in this day and age. I don't think it applies to people born in the 1400s or something when their religion was the only religion they knew - but it is certainly true nowadays. You choose to be who you are.

When Qin Shi Huangdi says "what they are," it seems to me he is implying that your religion is something immutable and predetermined, like the color of your skin. This is not the case.

[kenobi 65]

Most of the things you mentioned (ie rights for homosexuals) are political issues.

True, but when you have a politician who takes his positions on those issues specifically from his religious beliefs, the two are not as easily or neatly separated as you seem to want them to be.

[rhubarbarin]

A Christian. I'm 25 and have yet to vote, haha.

[LouisB]

Quin:

When did political issues get banned as reasons not to vote for someone because of what they are?

This thread seems to me to contain a bunch of political issues.

I'm baffled.

[BobLibDem]

Because the lunatic fringe has completely taken over the Republican Party, I can no longer consider voting for any Republican. Because their philosophy is morally and intellectually bankrupt, I could never vote for any libertarian, either the small L or big L variety. Therefore I will likely vote a straight Democratic ticket for the remainder of my days, unless the Democrats nominate a whack job evangelical or racist or some such person, highly unlikely since evangelical racists are the Republican base.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Depends on whether they're sorry or not.



Okay, again, by your logic, I could vote for a born again Christian if they're really really truly sorry for it.

My goodness, this is getting silly.

[j666]

Most of the things you mentioned (ie rights for homosexuals) are political issues.

...

Those are political issues.

What does that mean? Anything can be a political issue. In my state, whether or not you can dry your clothes on a line outside is becoming a political issue. Calling something a political issues means nothing more than it exists.

Opposition to universal marriage rights and a woman's right to her own body are funded primarily by religious groups. I would never vote for anyone I knew to belong to a religious group that opposed these rights.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

What does that mean? Anything can be a political issue. In my state, whether or not you can dry your clothes on a line outside is becoming a political issue. Calling something a political issues means nothing more than it exists.

Opposition to universal marriage rights and a woman's right to her own body are funded primarily by religious groups. I would never vote for anyone I knew to belong to a religious group that opposed these rights.

What if he or she personally degrees-look at all the pro-choice and pro-gay marriage Roman Catholic politicians for instance.

[j666]

What if he or she personally degrees-look at all the pro-choice and pro-gay marriage Roman Catholic politicians for instance.

Most of the Catholic politicians with whom I am familiar to not claim to approve of or even support abortion or homosexuality; they espouse the position that they will not and should not make their religious beliefs law.

I am not concerned with individuals' religious beliefs; I am concerned about the imposition of those religious beliefs on others.

[Guinastasia]

I was devastated to learn that Joe Biden is a Flyers fan. If only I had known before I voted for Obama...*sob*

[Katriona]

women who wear leggings over their pants,

To be fair, I wouldn't vote for a man who did that, either. That's just stupid. Who does that?

[Ura-Maru]

You wouldn't vote for Superman?

--
He'd probably have to wear a jacket while campaigning. Need someplace to put the flag pin.

[njtt]

What other reason would there be to not vote for someone?

Even if the reason is simply that they are not as good (smart, in accord with my opinions, or whatever) as the alternative candidate, this is still a choice based on what they are.

If you are talking specifically about religion (as the mention of Romney suggests), then I would be unhappy voting for a Scientologist or similar cultist, or a Biblical Fundamentalist (or indeed, any sort of religious fundamentalist). However, I might vote for them if the alternative candidates all seemed significantly worse in some important respect. In general, so far as religion goes, as an atheist I would rather vote for another atheist, but that preference could easily be outweighed by other factors. I would, generally, much prefer a good liberal Christian or Moslem (so that is almost any American Democrat, or almost any British politician of any major party) to an atheistic libertarian, for instance.

[Voyager]

I was devastated to learn that Joe Biden is a Flyers fan. If only I had known before I voted for Obama...*sob*

What did you expect from someone who represented a suburb of Philadelphia? :D

[Voyager]

I consider who someone is their race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and early religious upbringing. None of these would make me not vote for someone, not being job related. I think I'd have to consider intelligence in this category also, but, since that is job related, I wouldn't vote for someone whose IQ is about the level of the temperature of Alaska in December. (Sorry. Sarah.)
What they choose to be - Fundamentalist, radical Islamist, Scientologist, Tea Party lover - is something else again. Either they belief that guff, and so are stupid, or they pretend to believe it for the votes, and so are liars. Good enough reason not to vote for them.

[etv78]

Scientologist. Radical Islam. Republican.

That sounds about right.

[Clothahump]

I'm getting to the point of writing people off who make a big deal about their religion.

[pullin]

All I care about is policy positions. Resolve to stand by them and defend them also helps. As to private belief systems - eh - I don't think you really want to look to deeply into anybody's head. Nothing good can ever come from that.

Somebody show me where "Revelations" is in the bible. Need to bone up on it, 'cause I'm agreeing with DIO.;)

Politicians are merely political whores whose main function upon entering office is to kneel and begin servicing their corporate johns. I could care less about their supposed beliefs or morals as they are simply actors playing a part. I see no meaningful difference between Bush, Obama, Reagan, or Carter. I'm not selecting a person for the job, I'm choosing whether I want policies defined by Halliburton/Exxon/Lockheed, or Trade-Unions/Goldman-Sachs/Time-Warner. I don't care what Obama (or even Weiner) do in their off-time, any more than I care what Charlie Sheen does offscreen. Honestly, I don't even listen to their speeches, I just try to find out who's backing them.