If Trump was not the nominee

ChileG said:
Sure, as long as that person was truly fiscally responsible including sensible tax reform, continued support for Ukraine, supported abortion rights, gay marriage, climate change research, investment in infrastructure, universal healthcare, strengthening social security and Medicare, investing in education (not through vouchers), and spending resources to help bring in legal immigrants, not only funding for keeping immigrants out.
It would help if they had a history of denouncing Trump from at least 2015 onward, but I’d settle for one that has denounced Trump since the Jan 6 debacle.

Know of any that fit the bill?
Click to expand...
add protecting voting rights and promise to allow Jack Smith to finish his prosecution of Trump for attempting to overthrow the government and I could vote for that republican
 
tallheel95 said:
Probably not, because I don’t agree with what I see as a fundamental pub value — I call it “I want what’s mine and screw the rest of you all.” Pub policies negatively affect the poor/middle class and the environment, and right now their general attitude affects the way we see and treat each other as human beings. I just can’t get on board. However — if this election were Harris vs. Mitt Romney, I’d sleep just fine on election night and probably wouldn’t even be reading this board right now. Romney has shown himself to be a decent human being, and he is a statesman that could represent the country in a positive way. I share some of his values and morals, even if some of his policy decisions (and religious beliefs) may not line up with my own. I’d trust that he could be a fair president and I would not be experiencing the anxiety and angst that I feel from the current political landscape.
Click to expand...
This. I couldn't have summed up my feeling on the subject better if I had written this post out myself. Especially the part I put in bold italics.
 
CFordUNC said:
I'd potentially vote for Nikki Haley as I think she has strong foreign policy chops, and foreign policy is one of the most prominent policy points on which I vote (though, it's certainly not the only one).
Click to expand...
I'd vote Haley over Harris for similar reasons. Both seem perfectly adequate compared to the two recent alternatives. I don't hold Haley's Trump endorsement against her too much. She's doing what she has to do to stay in the game.
 
The similarities between party members dwarf their differences, especially for the GOP.

So no, I wouldn't vote for Haley. The best-case scenario for her would be GWB. She would just go all in on fossil fuels like the rest of them; would not be a bulwark against the erosion of abortion rights or LGBT rights; would appoint vicious ideologues to the courts (she would just do Leo's bidding like Trump); would be fine with the mass deportation and family separation plans; and would not be able to stand up to the "cruelty is the point" mentality of the GOP.

Haley would be a disaster for the country and the world. Not necessarily the existential threat posed by Trump, but she would not be good. Nothing good will ever come out of the GOP until they abandon their long-running war on expertise, their hatred of universities, and expel their white/Christian nationalists.
 
Scientific Mapp said:
I'd vote Haley over Harris for similar reasons. Both seem perfectly adequate compared to the two recent alternatives. I don't hold Haley's Trump endorsement against her too much. She's doing what she has to do to stay in the game.
Click to expand...
So, you'd vote for Haley over Harris because Haley was Trump's Ambassador to the UN?
 
Given the current constitution, philosophy, and policy positions of the Republican party, I don't think it's realistic that I could vote for a presidential candidate calling themself a Republican (or that their political positions could be closer to mine than whoever the Democratic candidate was).
 
Callatoroy said:
Would you still vote for kamala over Haley? Scott?

Is there anyone in the Pub party you would vote for over kamala?
Click to expand...
Yes, but I wouldn't consider the consequences nearly as dire.

Although at this point we need more balance on the supreme court so every presidential and senate elections are of utmost importance.
 
People should have learned from GWB that most Republicans are more or less the same. Remember how he campaigned on "compassionate conservatism" and being a "different type of Republican"? And then look what happened.

People think of Romney as a good guy -- because he lost. If had won, he would have been another GWB. A more intelligent one, but his policies would have been more or less the same.

Democrats are also similar, though there is more variance because the Dem coalition is broader. But in general, the party controls the agenda. Voting for parties as opposed to candidates is the only rational course of action in today's political climate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top