For the Conservatives: There is no “conservative" case to be made for Harris, so let me put that obtuse idea to rest

[Vambram]

Let me put it another way. THE VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IS NOT THE SOLE DECIDING FACTOR IN POLITICAL POLICIES IN OUR NATION. Yes, I shouted that.

We have all sorts of political contests. Governor, senators, representatives, etc. I normally vote for both Republicans and Democrats in the same election. That's because I like a balance. So what policies am I voting for? US presidents can't enact most of the policies they're advocating anyway. They need help, and if the US Congress isn't inclined to help, they're not going to get very far.

Saying that I'm voting for Democrat policies by voting for one Democrat for president is ludicrous.

I agree that the POTUS is not the only deciding factor concerning what policies and manner of government we have in our nation. May I ask you what kind of nominees will you vote for in the Senate, the US House of Representatives, and also in your state and local elections? What political policies influence your votes?

 

[Yttrium]

I agree that the POTUS is not the only deciding factor concerning what policies and manner of government we have in our nation. May I ask you what kind of nominees will you vote for in the Senate, the US House of Representatives, and also in your state and local elections? What political policies influence your votes?

Oh, I'm glad you asked. Let me think here...

I'm always concerned about trying to keep debt under some restraint. I don't want to see budget-busting spending or massive tax cuts. New programs should be paid for. Tax cuts should be balanced by spending cuts.

Spouting nutty conspiracy theories is right out. Don't care what side they're on. (Note that not all conspiracy theories are nutty, and nuttiness is a subjective thing.)

Trans issues have high visibility these days, and as always, I want them dealt with in moderation. I don't want trans folks to suffer from discrimination, but I don't want people with male genitals naked in women's locker rooms either. I want gender affirming care to be available for those who are legitimately diagnosed as needing it, but I'm against gender reassignment surgery for young children.

I'm all for supporting Ukraine's resistance against Russia, in ways that won't spread the conflict to other countries or increase the risk of the use of nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the Biden administration for the current inflation issues (I blame them on COVID-19), but I will be very annoyed if a candidate doesn't admit that they're a real economic problem that we need to address.

I want to see Democrats treat illegal immigration as an actual problem. I'm not fond of certain Republicans feeding paranoia about it.

Acting like a Trump sycophant will get a candidate on my bad side. That's not really a policy thing, but it can restrict my choice of candidates a little.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure they can, if they consider Trump to be a legitimate threat to the Constitution. Harris is the only candidate who has a chance of beating Trump. She's probably not going to be any worse than other Democrat presidents we've had, and we survived them.

That's an interesting way of looking at it...

Sure we've survived Democratic Party presidents. Unless we're in that group of people who didn't. Hey homeless guy who's job was mandated closed....at least you survived!

 

[Robban]

There is no “conservative" case to be made for Harris, so let me put that obtuse idea to rest

I've read the case. I've considered the arguments' merits. And after it all, I firmly stand by this moral conviction:

notthebee.com

A person can lay legitimate claim to the title of conservative and not cast a ballot for Donald Trump this November. A person cannot lay legitimate claim to that title and cast a ballot for Kamala Harris.​

In these parts of geography, Conserve, conservatives mean canned goods.

So a conservative would be safe and secure until opened, then they have short shelf life when they discover, times change.

Or maybe I am not intressted in politics.

 

[FenderTL5]

I disagree with the premise.
If fiscal conservatism is your thing, then Democratic administrations have a far better track record than Republicans over the last ~50 years.
Only two Presidents in that time span have had a balanced budget. President Lyndon Johnson did it in 1969, and President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001. President Obama lowered deficits. There has been no Republican to lower the deficit, much less run a balanced budget in the same time frame.

I would disagree on the issue of personal character as well. Trump became famous for his tabloid immorality and built a reputation of fraud and unethical business practices. YMMV

 

[Vambram]

I disagree with the premise.
If fiscal conservatism is your thing, then Democratic administrations have a far better track record than Republicans over the last ~50 years.
Only two Presidents in that time span have had a balanced budget. President Lyndon Johnson did it in 1969, and President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001. President Obama lowered deficits. There has been no Republican to lower the deficit, much less run a balanced budget in the same time frame.

I would disagree on the issue of personal character as well. Trump became famous for his tabloid immorality and built a reputation of fraud and unethical business practices. YMMV

It's a fallacy, in my opinion, to look at Federal Government budgets and talk about them based only who was the POTUS at the time. For example, who was the majority party in the House of Representatives during the Clinton and Obama years when annual deficits were lowered?

 

[FenderTL5]

It's a fallacy, in my opinion, to look at Federal Government budgets and talk about them based only who was the POTUS at the time. For example, who was the majority party in the House of Representatives during the Clinton and Obama years when annual deficits were lowered?

IMHO you'd be amiss to ignore the fact that budgets are submitted to Congress by the President, a requirement that has been in place since 1921.
The GOP is not fiscally conservative.

 

[Vambram]

IMHO you'd be amiss to ignore the fact that budgets are submitted to Congress by the President, a requirement that has been in place since 1921.
The GOP is not fiscally conservative.

I am not ignoring any of the facts.

 

[JSRG]

Let me put it another way. THE VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IS NOT THE SOLE DECIDING FACTOR IN POLITICAL POLICIES IN OUR NATION. Yes, I shouted that.

We have all sorts of political contests. Governor, senators, representatives, etc. I normally vote for both Republicans and Democrats in the same election. That's because I like a balance. So what policies am I voting for? US presidents can't enact most of the policies they're advocating anyway. They need help, and if the US Congress isn't inclined to help, they're not going to get very far.

Saying that I'm voting for Democrat policies by voting for one Democrat for president is ludicrous.

The point I believe Hammster was trying to make, though I think they did a poor job making it due to being unnecessarily argumentative, is that since you don't (as far as I know) identify as a conservative or claim to vote for candidates from a conservative standpoint, you saying you plan to vote for Harris isn't really an argument against his point, the claim being advanced that was while it's understandable for a conservative to not vote for Donald Trump and instead vote third party or not vote at all, it's incoherent for a conservative to vote for Kamala Harris.

 

[Bradskii]

...it's incoherent for a conservative to vote for Kamala Harris.

Unless they actively don't want Trump anywhere near the Oval Office. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

 

[Vambram]

Unless they actively don't want Trump anywhere near the Oval Office. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

The first term of the Trump administration was leaps and bounds superior to the first term of the Joe Biden and the Kamala Harris administration.

 

[Hazelelponi]

 

[Bradskii]

The first term of the Trump administration was leaps and bounds superior to the first term of the Joe Biden and the Kamala Harris administration.

Which, even if that was true, has nothing at all to do with why some Republicans will be casting protest votes.

 

[Vambram]

Which, even if that was true, has nothing at all to do with why some Republicans will be casting protest votes.

The "Republicans" who will be casting protest votes probably prefer the globalist agenda instead of an America first agenda for the USA.

 

[Bradskii]

The "Republicans" who will be casting protest votes probably prefer the globalist agenda instead of an America first agenda for the USA.

You still have difficulty in comprehending what a protest vote actually is. It's not a preference for something. It's a protest against something. The something in this case being Trump.

 

[NxNW]

The first term of the Trump administration was leaps and bounds superior to the first term of the Joe Biden and the Kamala Harris administration.

Except in terms of economy, government functionality, international relations, unemployment, stock market, electoral security, etc.

 

[keith99]

Respect for the law is right at the top of conservative priorities.

That is a pretty good reason to vote against Trump, and in a two party race that means voting for Harris.

 

[A2SG]

There is no “conservative" case to be made for Harris, so let me put that obtuse idea to rest

I've read the case. I've considered the arguments' merits. And after it all, I firmly stand by this moral conviction:

notthebee.com

A person can lay legitimate claim to the title of conservative and not cast a ballot for Donald Trump this November. A person cannot lay legitimate claim to that title and cast a ballot for Kamala Harris.​

Is it your view that a vote for a particular candidate means you entirely support them, and everything they do?

Does a vote for Donald Trump mean you support his many frauds, his crimes, his adulteries, his sexual assault, etc?

-- A2SG, just trying to figure out the logistics here....

 

[Hammster]

Unless they actively don't want Trump anywhere near the Oval Office. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

That’s like saying that I don’t want Freddy Kruger for president, so I will vote for Hannibal Lecter instead.

 

[Hammster]

Is it your view that a vote for a particular candidate means you entirely support them, and everything they do?

Does a vote for Donald Trump mean you support his many frauds, his crimes, his adulteries, his sexual assault, etc?

-- A2SG, just trying to figure out the logistics here....

Are you really?