Election day approacheth, and I find that I have a dilemma. Of the two major candidates, I mostly agree with the platform of one. The problem is, based on his history, that I really can’t trust that candidate to do what he says. The other candidate, I disagree with most of his proposals, but at least he’s a known quantity. For whom ought I to vote?
I’ve deliberately refrained from saying which is which, so as to keep this on the question of trust, rather than the issues. Feel free to speculate, but I’ll neither confirm nor deny.
1: Says he will do A, B, and C – all of which you like.
2: Says he will do X, Y, and Z – none of which you like.
If 1 fails to do one or more of the things you like, does that make the situation worse than if 2 does the things you don’t like?
In other words, I think it’s safe to presume that 1 is not going to completely turn and do X, Y, and Z. At most, he’ll do nothing, leaving the status quo. So, is the status quo better than having X, Y, and Z done?
My opinion is that I would vote for 1. I would rather see nothing done than see something I am against done.
In the best case, your first candidate will do many things you want, and in the worst case will do some things you don’t. Meanwhile, in the best case your second candidate will probaby not do anything you want and in the worst case (which is also the most probable case) will do many things you don’t want.
I agree with David, this is a no-brainer. It’s only a hard question if you think that the worst-case result for candidate A is worse than the best-case result for candidate B; then you have to do a comparative risk analysis based on how likely you think candidate A is likely to hit his worst case as opposed to candidate B hitting his best case.
I think I used “case” way too many times in that paragraph.
I’d rather have a man that I didn’t agree with who I felt was honest.
I’ll use this board as an analogy. You can have a valid and enlightening argument with somebody you vehemently disagree with, as long as they argue honestly and sincerely. You can arrive at respect and mutual understanding and come away having learned something.
If the person is inherently dishonest, what you have is a troll. Nothing good can come of it.
I can work with somebody I disagree with if I trust them.
I’m terrified of the man that smiles, says he agrees with me, that he understands, but intends otherwise.
Looking for a friend, I agree. In a politician, I don’t.
For one thing, “honest politician” is pretty much an oxymoron these days. Instead, you may find the one that you think is the least dishonest.
Second, when it comes to running the country, I really cannot support somebody who I know will do things that I disagree with.
OK, let me clarify that.
I agree. But we’re not talking about a discussion. We’re talking about running the country. You’re not having a discussion in which your candidate will learn something; you’re electing somebody who is going to act however s/he sees fit. So if you vote for somebody with whom you disagree, that person isn’t going to sit down and say, “So, Scylla, I hear you disagree with me about abortion. Why is that?” They’re just going to go do what they plan to do, and you’ll be fucked.
I guess it comes down to the level of your paranoia. I could imagine what an honest President I disagree with might do in various circumstances, as well as others that haven’t yet become issues, and decide whether those known quantities were tolerable. If they were, than that’s how I’d vote.
With the dishonest man (or the more dishonest of the two,)you really can’t measure the quantities or their tolerability.
If you had to drive your car across town, and you had two cans of gasoline, and one can you knew would make your car run rough, but get you there, I would chose that can over one labelled “Super Magic Gas (distilled from oil of the tooth fairy and guaranteed to get 150 M.P.G.)”
I think that analogy fits the OP. You have to decide if the one you disagree with has any chance of getting you where you need to go.
Basically its fear of the unknown. If nothing worth noting happens(economic collapse,war,famine,blahblah) The first one probably would be better unless hes corrupt. However the 2nd one would probably do better if anything worth note happened. And would make normal life a little worse.
IMHO you should ignore all the issues and elect who is the better leader because when it comes down to it the president is much more a leader than a legislator.
I agree. If those known quantities were tolerable. Unfortunately, I see far too many cases nowadays when that isn’t so (IMO).
Sure you can, at least to some extent. Let’s take one of the most dishonest politicians in recent history – Bill Clinton. Did he lie to the American people? Yes. But did he manage to lead the country through a pretty decent 8 years? Yes. And one thing he didn’t do is anything directly counter to his stated “promises.” Now, did he hold to all of them? No. For example, he backed off on his original stance regarding gays in the military. But did he make it worse? No. At worst, it pretty much stayed the same. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about.
Which has nothing at all to do with this discussion.
No, I’m sorry, but it doesn’t. Just as we’re not talking about having a discussion, we’re not talking about magic gas either.
A more appropriate comparison, using your situation, would be one can of gas that will get you there, and might even make your car run better – if you believe all of its claims; and another can that will somehow send your car in the direction that you don’t want to go.
Asmodean said:
How do you know the second would be any better if anything worth note happened? It seems to me that would depend on his positions, not his promises.
A leader who appoints Supreme Court (and other) justices; a leader who can approve or veto laws (and may either have the whole Congress, none of Congress, or part of Congress in the same party as he is); etc. I’m sorry, but ignoring the issues is a pretty ridiculous way to elect somebody.
If I had your dilemna one candidate who I didnt trust and one I didnt agree with I would just not vote. If neither man earns your vote dont give it to them, wait til next time.
Vote party, I know that isn’t a popular idea around here because for some strange reason people seem to think you must vote for “THE MAN”. Well you really aren’t anyway not in the grand scheme of things. When you vote for a man, especially the president, you are voting for his party, his advisors, his campain folks etc. etc. ad nauseum…In this lovely two party system you really cannot count on something like trust. What the hell is that anyway? Trust them to what, make good their campain promises? What if they can’t for some reason? Haven’t you ever made a promise that you just couldn’t keep through no fault of your own? What must you trust them to do? Besides how much power do you think this guy actually has? It is limited isn’t it?
Vote for the “figurehead” that best represents the things you value. That’s all you can do.
Sorry I didn’t get back to this sooner… By the time I was done in GQ yesterday I didn’t feel like doing ANYTHING else on the board.
The problem is that the worst-case scenario for the candidate I don’t trust is, indeed, far worse than the best-case of the other candidate. The analogy isn’t fuel that migh not work vs. fuel that makes the car go backwards, it’s fuel that will send the car quickly in a completely random direction vs. slowly backwards (at least, so far as I can tell). Needs2know raises a good point, though, about party politics: Even if this candidate tries to fly completely off the handle, his party won’t let him go too far out of control. Wish me, and our country, luck… We’re gonna need it.
Vote third party and help give yourself more choices in the future. There are 3rd parties on both sides of the political spectrum, so there is likely a candidate that more closely matches your perfect scenario.
Don’t pay too much attention to the details in the proposals from each candidate - those things all have to go through Congress and the political-compromise process, and what you’ll finally get won’t much resemble what you see in a campaign platform. I do think you need to consider them as a broad outline of what they’ll try to get done in office. To that extent, you need to consider which party will control Congress (“Yeah, thanks” I hear you say), and what their recent behavior would suggest they’d do. Party alignment does seem to be more meaningful now than it used to, so I guess I agree with Needs2Know on that.
Don’t go by your feelings of trust or mistrust - that just reflects the relative acting skills of the candidates. Go by what their actions in office show about them (and be very skeptical about it).
But most of all, consider that the problems the next President will face are not going to be anything that’s now widely predicted. Look at how each has performed when confronted by crisis situations (or at least, which one has faced more of them with fewer major screwups).