• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Personal History that would keep you from voting for someone

Donnie Darko

Forgotten Pre-New 52 Hero
Joined
Mar 21, 2003
Messages
14,111
Reaction score
3
Points
33
I was listening to the radio the other night, and someone started talking about finding out what kinds of grades Obama and Romney got in high school. While I don't think that is relevant to how they would run the country (as obviously neither one was a high school drop-out or anything), it did get me thinking...

Could there be anything from a candidate's personal history that, if you found out about it, would keep you from voting for him or her? Sex/marital scandals? Education/employment history? Military service/lack thereof? It is important for me to say that this is NOT a place to argue policies and platform, so don't come in here with "I would never vote for someone if they did/did not support abortion, tax cuts, etc." Do not use this as a place to attack certain candidates or parties. Just discuss.

For me, I think it would be if a candidate had personally declared bankruptcy at any point in his or her adult life. As someone who sometimes struggles financially and has made some dumb choices with money, I don't think I could trust someone who is really bad with their own finances to run our nation's.
 
I wouldn't trust someone who declared bankruptcy either. I don't mind if there is no military service, but a dishonorable discharge is going to be a no go for me.
 
I was listening to the radio the other night, and someone started talking about finding out what kinds of grades Obama and Romney got in high school. While I don't think that is relevant to how they would run the country (as obviously neither one was a high school drop-out or anything), it did get me thinking...

Could there be anything from a candidate's personal history that, if you found out about it, would keep you from voting for him or her? Sex/marital scandals? Education/employment history? Military service/lack thereof? It is important for me to say that this is NOT a place to argue policies and platform, so don't come in here with "I would never vote for someone if they did/did not support abortion, tax cuts, etc." Do not use this as a place to attack certain candidates or parties. Just discuss.

For me, I think it would be if a candidate had personally declared bankruptcy at any point in his or her adult life. As someone who sometimes struggles financially and has made some dumb choices with money, I don't think I could trust someone who is really bad with their own finances to run our nation's.

I think it depends on the person. If it is someone like Donald Trump declaring bankruptcy after basically raiding his own company, propping himself up through debt and then screwing over his investors by declaring bankruptcy, yeah...I can see the flaw. But what if it is someone from the lower to middle class who has no choice but to use debt to climb out of the gutter? Credit cards, college loans, etc...these are becoming necessary tools to rise above your initial place in life and they can quickly become overwhelming. This is something Mitt Romney and the likes could never understand. Not everyone has everything given to them. In fact, I think I'd be more likely to vote for someone if they declared bankruptcy because they amassed such credit card debt or whatever while trying to improve their life. Unfair practices from the credit industry, banks, etc are the problem. They often make it the only choice. I feel like someone who did that (and then overcame it) has a better understanding of the struggle of the middle and lower class than a Mitt Romney.

As for the question at hand....dishonorable discharge would be a no-go for me. Lack of education (not just bad grades or something like that, I am talking total lack of any kind of higher education). Failure to take care of their children, pay child support, etc...that would be huge for me. But that is about it, I suppose....
 
Good point. Some poor young kid out of college declaring bankruptcy and then going on to riches later in life isn't the same as someone just screwing up badly.

I wouldn't vote for any convicted felons either (unless it is found out later they are innocent).
 
You do both make good points. Bankruptcy in general would be a major red flag for me, but seeing it from different angles now, I MIGHT be able to look past it (but I seriously doubt it).

When I mentioned military, the dishonorable discharge was actually the first thing that came to my mind. I think I would be more likely to vote for someone with experience as opposed to someone without, all other things (politics wise) equal, but not having experience isn't a deal breaker.
 
Someone who for whatever reason failed to pay his or her taxes for a number of years or hid their money in overseas accounts like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes too just like Mitt Romney.
 
I think it depends on the person. If it is someone like Donald Trump declaring bankruptcy after basically raiding his own company, propping himself up through debt and then screwing over his investors by declaring bankruptcy, yeah...I can see the flaw. But what if it is someone from the lower to middle class who has no choice but to use debt to climb out of the gutter? Credit cards, college loans, etc...these are becoming necessary tools to rise above your initial place in life and they can quickly become overwhelming. This is something Mitt Romney and the likes could never understand. Not everyone has everything given to them. In fact, I think I'd be more likely to vote for someone if they declared bankruptcy because they amassed such credit card debt or whatever while trying to improve their life. Unfair practices from the credit industry, banks, etc are the problem. They often make it the only choice. I feel like someone who did that (and then overcame it) has a better understanding of the struggle of the middle and lower class than a Mitt Romney.

What about hard work and saving money? :huh: From what I see credit cards and college loans are putting people, mostly young, in the gutter, not getting them out. And student loans or credit card debt is a way of getting your hands on something you haven't earned. Is not far off from the rich kid who gets to go to college when daddy pays for it.

I got respect for someone who worked their way through college and didn't free ride it.
 
Personal things such as religion, sexual orientation, etc...I don't really care about....

As a Fiscal Conservative, if they can't handle their own money, I certainly do not want them anywhere near mine.

I do like finding out what framed their political ideology...

I also like a STRONG vetting process....the vetting process for Obama was very much lacking, and I fell for it....I won't do that again. If I don't believe they have been vetted properly by their campaign, OR the media then they probably won't get my vote....although after 4 years in office, how they did their job can certainly change my mind.
 
Since you bring up religion as something that doesn't matter to you, it really does shock me how many people have attacked Romney as a Mormon and Obama as some kind of secret Muslim spy. Not to offend any voodoo enthusiasts out there, but I feel as long as Candidate A is not using chicken bones to cast a spell on Candidate B, their religion or denomination isn't something opponents should attack.
 
Newt Gingrich bothers me....
 
-If they were abusive towards their family or companion.

- Tax evasion / foreign bank accounts.

-If they are/were an Evangelist.

-Dishonorable discharge from the military. Or, if they committed war crimes (which are not punished as severely as they should be.)

- If they believe in conspiracy theories.

-At last, but not least, a history of racism, homophobia, or xenophobia.
 
For obvious personal reasons, I won't vote for someone I believe to be homophobic.

I don't really think Clinton's infidelity, just as an example, affected what kind of President he was, or FDR for that matter.

Religion...don't care if Obama worships the brrad crumb in a Mason jar he believes contains a tiny universe if he fixes things.

Prefer higher education and some business record.
 
Religion would only bother me if they kept referring to it and made it known they would legislate based on it.

Bankruptcy would only bother me if it were something like the Trump scenario posted. What would matter more to me, would be how they handled things in the years after their bankruptcy.

I personally feel military experience should be required for someone who is going to be leading the military. A dishonorable discharge is definite deal breaker.

Finding out they were a member of a hate group.

Any jail time.

I couldn't probably think of more but, that's it for now.
 
Jail time is kind of a broad scope.
 
Assuming hypocrisy is off the table (i.e. a candidate who speaks out against adultery but cheats on his wife), the standalone traits I would object to are as follows:

-Past membership in a strongly-identified hate group (like on the KKK level)

-A previous history of white collar crime or financial dishonesty; I'd vote for a murderer before I'd vote for an embezzler

-Past direct association with an anti-gay group or agenda; for me, this means more than just belonging to Church ABC or belonging to a group that, among other things, is against same-sex marriage; for me, this means directly working with a group or campaign that actually seeks to increase discrimination against gay people or "converting" them

-An avowed fan of any of the following sports teams: the NE Patriots, Oak. Raiders or Montreal Canadiens :oldrazz:
 
Adultery.

Religiosity. If you're a deist, that's fine. But I don't want anyone making policy because of their religious beliefs.

Really, nothing extreme. No racism, sexism, etc.

I don't think I have high standards.
 
For me:
-Adulterer
-Bankruptcy/Embezzlement/Racketeering
-Dishonorable discharge from military
-Extended jail time (week or more)
-Time spent working for a lobbying group
-Drug addict
-Affiliation with terrorist groups or people connected to terrorism (domestic or foreign)
 
I don't think that being an adulterer should be all that disqualifying. Until Nixon came on board, Presidential mistresses were quite common.
 
Adultery really only bothers me when it is particularly callous. Like if they were cheating on their spouse while the spouse was in the hospital with cancer or something like that. Or if they make family values a big part of their platform. In that case, I'm more concerned about them being a fraud than the act itself.
 
Adultery really only bothers me when it is particularly callous. Like if they were cheating on their spouse while the spouse was in the hospital with cancer or something like that. Or if they make family values a big part of their platform. In that case, I'm more concerned about them being a fraud than the act itself.

That's why Gingrich is the sole exception of my rule of adultery being a disqualification for me.
 
I don't think that being an adulterer should be all that disqualifying. Until Nixon came on board, Presidential mistresses were quite common.
If you go in front of cameras to deny it's happening, rather than just keeping it hush-hush, then that's the big qualifier right there. I basically see it as if you're willing to lie to me in front of the camera right off the bat, I'm not going to trust you if you're in office telling me something else.
 
I don't think that being an adulterer should be all that disqualifying. Until Nixon came on board, Presidential mistresses were quite common.

It is ironic that one of the most corrupt presidents in history (Nixon), was also the most faithful to his wife.

Point is though, if you can't trust a guy to not betray the trust of the woman he promised himself to, how can you trust him to do anything else?
 
I don't think that being an adulterer should be all that disqualifying. Until Nixon came on board, Presidential mistresses were quite common.

I agree with this.

It's immoral, sure, but I don't think it changes, say, FDR's accomplishments as President.
 
What about hard work and saving money? :huh: From what I see credit cards and college loans are putting people, mostly young, in the gutter, not getting them out. And student loans or credit card debt is a way of getting your hands on something you haven't earned. Is not far off from the rich kid who gets to go to college when daddy pays for it.

I got respect for someone who worked their way through college and didn't free ride it.

This isn't the 1950s. You can't work in a steel mill or some other union job and earn a good wage while going to night class. Such jobs do not exist anymore. You can't put yourself through college on minimum wage (assuming we're not talking about some community college degree factory that will get people laughed out of job interviews). Now-a-days the only way to get through college is by amassing an unreasonable amount of debt.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,683
Messages
21,786,270
Members
45,616
Latest member
stevezorz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"