Posted on 07/25/2017 7:33:44 PM PDT by Bratch
I didn't evade anything. If you haven't known for years that some conservative voters will not vote for a candidate they disagree with on social issues, or some other issue critical to them, then you aren't very knowledgeable about a segment of conservative voters.
Some wouldn't vote for a pro-choice Republican.
Some wouldn't vote for a Mormon, or based on some other question of religious doctrine.
Some wouldn't vote for someone with a reputation for marital infidelity, or someone who's been divorced, or someone who appears to have no religious faith, or one who seems to have many bad habits, or poor morals.
Ever heard of one-issue voters? They do exist, voters who, if a candidate does not agree with them on their most important issue, they will not vote for the candidate no matter how many other issues they agree on.
Such conservatives would most likely skip voting for a particular office rather than to vote for a party's candidate with whom they have very few agreements.
You need to pull yourself out of your straight-jacketed thinking and realize that everyone does not think like you.
I am almost a one-issue voter on immigration law enforcement, but not quite. But I was never discussing what I would do, or you, or any individual, but how a particular segment of conservative voters can be one-issue voters.
I just don't understand why you or ANYONE would vote for a candidate who did not support what they support?
I would never do that. You said you'd never do that. So why would anyone else do that?
One issue? You mean like voters who want secured borders?
Not quite?
You mean you're open to supporting a pro illegal immigrant candidate if they happen to agree with you on other issues?
Because some voters do have one issue that is so important to them, they will not vote for anyone who disagrees with them on that issue. It's that critical a moral question to them.
Abortion is probably the best example, but there are others.
I think it is a pretty small percentage of conservatives, probably less than 5% on most critical issues, maybe a fair amount higher for abortion.
Not quite?
You mean you're open to supporting a pro illegal immigrant candidate if they happen to agree with you on other issues?
If the only other candidate was a pro illegal immigrant Democrat candidate such as Obama or Hillary. Your description is basically what anyone who voted for McCain voted for since he’d been one of the main amnesty pushers in 2006 and 2007, just before he ran for president in 2008.
The other candidate can be so bad that it prevents me from being a one-issue vote.
Not quite?
You mean you're open to supporting a pro illegal immigrant candidate if they happen to agree with you on other issues?
Btw, I'm not describing anything, or talking about a specific candidates.
I'm simply asking you a couple basic questions.
Would it be correct to say these issues are negotiable from your point of view as a voter?
Not quite?
Lets try this again. Here are the 2 questions:
Are you open to supporting a pro illegal immigrant candidate if they happen to agree with you on other issues?
Would it be correct to say these issues are negotiable from your point of view as a voter?
Ya know from some that alleged I was, “Straight-jacketed thinking” you sure seem to have difficulties answering simple legitimate questions which were based on your own statement, btw.
I answered you in #167 and that response can be applied to any of the questions you continue to repeat. If you don’t yet understand what a one-issue voter is, you probably never will.
I’m leaving it for a while. The system is extremely slow and it’s taking several minutes to post, or refresh, or do anything.
Keying this at 6:24:15 CDT
My last post took about seven minutes to go through Preview and to finally post. But it looks like the problem might have been between me and the FR servers as other sites also became very slow. Left a while, rebooted and all had cleared up.
I guess we were finished for today, anyway.
And another little incident was recalled just today in a thread.
Ballot box stuffing in Broward County - FR threads
There's a heck of lot to be investigated if the commission can get to the problem areas.
Not quite?
Here are the 2 questions:
1. Are you open to supporting a pro illegal immigrant candidate if they happen to agree with you on other issues?
2. Would it be correct to say these issues are negotiable from your point of view as a voter?
These are general questions not specifically about Hillary, Bush or anyone else specifically.
Instead of evading the questions, answer them.
Not quite?
Here are the 2 questions:
1. Are you open to supporting a pro illegal immigrant candidate if they happen to agree with you on other issues?
2. Would it be correct to say these issues are negotiable from your point of view as a voter?
These are general questions not specifically about Hillary, Bush or anyone else specifically.
Instead of evading the questions, answer them.
I don’t disagree with what your saying but Trump is not a political operative and we all knew this, his brashness really isn’t any worse than the lying, and greediness that has infected Washington, meaning his faults I would consider far less worse than the swamp we have to deal with in Washington. He’s just handling his disappointment like a parent who’s kids in the grocery store are running amok, with public humliation. I’m not sure if that is the right thing or not because we don’t know what Trump and Sessions talk about in private.
All your attempts at hairsplitting are silly. It's easily understood what a one-issue voter is and I am not one, mainly because the Dim candidates are all so objectionable on so many levels, and on most all issues, that they don't even get a consideration.
So, even though immigration law enforcement is my most important issue, the Dims are so objectionable, and they are practically 100% pro-illegal, they are never even a possibility for my vote in any statewide or national election.
And I don't vote for third party candidates with no hope of winning.
One additional comment. In Republican presidential primaries, until 2016, it was mostly a question of which candidate was actually being honest about their position on immigration enforcement and amnesty. Many talked out of both sides of their mouths and outright lied at times.
So the primaries until 2016 were always an exercise in who can I believe of those claiming to be for enforcement and against amnesty.
Not quite?
Here are the 2 questions you've evaded repeatedly:
1. Are you open to supporting pro illegal immigrant candidates if they happen to agree with you on other issues?
2. Would it be correct to say these issues are negotiable from your point of view as a voter?
I can easily and quickly answer them. Why can't you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.