Relative Importance on issues

[JDalla]

So just wrote this, kind of tired and maybe not the greatest writer but input / disagreement / criticism welcome.

Also, a note on tone, this isn't meant to be offensive but it does have some offensive phrasing/ terms, but they are meant in a 'tougue and cheek' manner.


Relative Importance


During every presidential election season, an assortment of issues are debated and discussed, and the more prevalent they appear to be to the candidates, the more attention they will receive. Any one issue can often make or break candidates’ chances, both in the primaries and the general election.

But people have a real problem prioritizing these issues. My goal here is not to take a stand on any one issue, just point out their relative importance.


-The Iraq War / Iran / all other foreign policy.

The president has quite a bit of influence on foreign policy, and a war our country is engaged in seems like a pretty big deal. Ok, so this is important stuff, regardless of where you stand on it.

-The Environment

This issue’s relative importance will likely be affected by your view on it. If you (A) are very concerned about the Earth’s future / are concerned about global warming, pollution, etc., then this should be a high priority, perhaps the highest. If you (B) don’t believe global warming is happening, or a real threat or you just don’t care about the planet after your dead, then this will not be of so much importance to you, and probably shouldn’t affect your vote. If you are the rarer (C), and want the world to end because it will bring the Rapture, then you should look for candidates who will make anti-environmental decisions.

-Abortion

This is an issue of morality, and to a lesser extent, science and faith. People differ on if abortion = murder, when life begins, etc. I think this really an over- prioritized issue, in terms of presidential elections. The president is not in charge of abortion laws, and a candidate’s stance on abortion is merely a reflection of his or her personal beliefs / morals. And in this day and age I think it is naïve and idealistic to make personal beliefs a major criterion for a candidates worthiness. There’s a pretty good chance they’re lying anyway to garner support.

Now let’s say you are (A) pro-choice. You believe that it’s a personal right to be able to not have a baby. If you are sexually active and don’t desire children, this could be considered a very important issue to you. But I’m going to go out on a limb and say that unless you are poor and live in a red state, you should not worry quite so much. We have a pro-lifer in office right now, who has appointed judges to the Supreme Court, and still Roe v. Wade hasn’t been jeopardized. But what many don’t know is that if IS overturned, the legality of abortion would go to the states, and many states would never outlaw abortion.

Now if you are (B) pro-life, this issue still seems fairly un-important (in regards to electing a president in this day and age). Besides the fact that the president has highly limited abilities in affecting this issue, the legality of abortion is not going to affect you personally, besides maybe offending / horrifying you, because obviously if you get pregnant you won’t get one. I suppose if you are a male in a red state with a poor, pro-choice girlfriend (get it, she can’t get out of the state and it’s not allowed so she has to have the kid!), you might worry more about this. But you should probably just break up! Additionally, this issue has little relevance for what’s best for the country in a practical sense. While pro-lifers may object to tax dollars going towards ‘murder,’ the actual amount of tax dollars relegated to abortions is quite small in comparison to other issues. So perhaps you don’t ignore this issue all together, but it should not be the deciding factor in electing a president.

-Gay Marriage / Rights

This is another overhyped issue. If you are (A) against, you should realize that this has absolutely no impact on your life. Even if you think it’s a sin, it’s still going to happen, what we call it is pretty irrelevant. The 'sinful [censored]' will continue they’re deviant behaviors even if you don’t let them get married. Move the f*** on. If you are (B), in favor, you may feel a little more driven on the issue, particularly is you are one of ‘deh gays,’ but how much time are you willing to waste on the semantics of the word ‘marriage’ vs. ‘civil union.’ Even if it seems crazy that they would come up with a special name for your ‘marriage,’ as long as the end result will be essentially the same, does it really matter? If 'nutjob Jesus freaks' want to hoard over a word, just throw them the freakin’ bone, get the civil union and we can all get back to hating each other quietly again!

-Patriotism

This is bulls***. Does anyone really think that Kerry, or Rudy, or Ron Paul, or Hill-dog, or John McCain has the interests of some other country secretly at heart? That they hate America and want to destroy it, piece by piece, from atop their throne in the White House? If Barack Obama doesn’t wear an American flag pin on his vest, then he must be a terrorist!? If you are really going to worry about allegiances, you would worry about those made to special interests and multinational corporations instead of the interests of the people (or perhaps your own self-interests.) And that accusation, while often equated with the Republicans, applies to the Democrats too, who like to kid themselves into thinking that the undue influence of lobbyists and businesses doesn’t apply to their party. It does.

-The Death Penalty

… Affects so few people that everyone should stop worrying about it so much. Since 1930, there has been an average of 70 executions a day. In recent years there have been around 43,000 fatal road deaths a year, roughly 700 US soldiers die in Iraq each year (and way more Iraqis), around 500,000 from cancer and nearly 700,000 kick in the bucket from heart disease each year. So really, should a handful of murderers spend their lives in a jail or be killed off? Why don’t we debate that in philosophy class and leave it out of our presidential elections.


That’s only some of the issues, but hopefully the point is clear by now. People need to get their priorities straight, based on their relevant importance. I personally don’t think we should have a National Endowment for the Arts, but I would never vote against a candidate because they support it. Those numbers cited earlier suggest to me that health care may be a more important issue. And the fact that everyone is getting dumber… would point to education.

For me, certain recent legislation has negatively affected my profession, making it harder for Americans to gamble on the internet (and thus reducing the amount of money out there to be won by a hard working poker player like myself). And if I think a candidate is going to help pave the way for full legalization of online poker, I’m going to support them. Even if they think the world was made in 7 days and men used to ride on dinosaurs. Now that’s prioritizing.

[boracay]

That’s true to some point. However what I would be most interested is which opinions/beliefs would have the greatest direct impact on my quality of life and freedom.

Since there’s no doubt that current administration made some of the most damaging decisions precisely on things which I value the most, anything but a complete U-turn in foreign politics would be a disaster for me.

No doubt the most important direct impact on the quality of my and my children’s life would have questions about Iraq/Iran. Any candidate having strong connections with the same lobbies as present administration would be a disaster. In short any candidate who feels he should be representing an average American would be better choice than one leaning to accomplish interests of haves and more haves only, no matter if he’s an Alien or Antichrist.

The next thing I would be watchful would be lying about the most important issues.
I’d be very watchful about pretending patriotism wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross. All freedom issues like abortion, gay rights, death penalty are important for me, but somehow it wouldn’t have that much direct impact on my life, so I’d say they would be less important for my decision at this moment.

Not critical, but anyway – I’d much rather have a lawyer for a president, than a cowboy, one who puts cooperation in front of militarization or repression. And of course I’d really rather have a candidate with at least 100+ IQ.

[manbearpig]

My order of importance:

1) Economic situation
2) Foreign policy
3) Everything else.

If we dont get our financial situation fixed soon everything else is a moot point. But this is not sexy or easy to talk about so it gets no play in the media or in the debates. No reason to worry about if the gays have rights or if you can have an abortion if China comes calling for their money.

[Copernicus]

Nationa security>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>economy/taxes>>>>>>>>>>>& gt;>>>>everything else combined

[tomdemaine]

Whether or not I'm free do decide what I do with my own property >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>> oh wait that's all that's important.

[Copernicus]

youre not, you never will be, and there are good reasons why you shouldnt be.

guess you'll be sitting out of the political process

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]

guess you'll be sitting out of the political process

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup

[bobman0330]

Economic issues are really huge and underestimated.