What's your litmus test for national politics?

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Litmus test: (1) something (such as an opinion about a political or moral issue) that is used to make a judgment about whether someone or something is acceptable; (2) a test in which a single factor (as an attitude, event, or fact) is decisive

...the general GOP stance on this issue [global climate change] is/was pretty flabbergasting. Kasich deserves credit for not toeing the apparent party line on this. That said, the recognition of climate change is really a pretty low bar and it is shameful that the issue has become so politicized. The effects of climate change like drought, fire, flooding don't really care who you voted for.

Yeah, I try hard not to be a one-issue voter, but I find it very hard to support anyone who's denies climate change. I suppose in that regard Trump was a non-starter for me from the beginning (well, that and I had a pretty unfavorable view of him to begin with since half my family are from nyc).

The above exchange in the "Legitimate Criticisms..." thread got me thinking about the topic of so-called "single-issue" voters. Conservative voters have been pretty roundly castigated for being single-issue voters on any number of topics: namely, pro-gun rights, anti-abortion rights, and anti-gay marriage rights. Nereo pointed out that he would have difficulty voting for a politician who denies climate change, so that issue essentially functions as a litmus test for a candidate's acceptability, which would, in essence, make him a single-issue voter. This issue serves as a dividing line between the "acceptable" candidates and the "unacceptable".

Though I've never thought of myself as a single-issue voter, it occurs to me that, indeed, the circumstances under which I would vote for a climate change denier in a national election are exceedingly rare. There are a wealth of issues that are important beyond the climate change issue, but because I consider it the greatest long-term threat to our nation's (and indeed, humanity's) continued viability, it serves as a great dividing line in much the same way that gun rights or abortion functions for the conservative voter.

I think that the test probably functions similarly for me that it does for many conservatives: it's by no means the only issue that they care about, it's simply the first issue, such that all other issues become subordinate. It makes me wonder if the derision towards so-called "single-issue" voters is truly warranted - regarding the process by which they determine a candidate's acceptability, not the issues themselves.

So, I'm curious: What (if any) "litmus test" issues do you have regarding national politics?

[ender]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

[Kris]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

[Pigeon]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

Yeah, I can't think of a politician I could vote for who would want to deny me or my daughters the right to control over their own bodies, so I guess I'm single issue over this.  TBH though, anybody who would make abortion illegal is likely to come with a whole host of other issues that I would disagree with, so I haven't encountered a situation that ever truly came down to a single issue vote.

[Gin1984]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

Yeah, I can't think of a politician I could vote for who would want to deny me or my daughters the right to control over their own bodies, so I guess I'm single issue over this.  TBH though, anybody who would make abortion illegal is likely to come with a whole host of other issues that I would disagree with, so I haven't encountered a situation that ever truly came down to a single issue vote.

The VP candidate is not so great on this issue, but the other option is worse.

[Pigeon]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

Yeah, I can't think of a politician I could vote for who would want to deny me or my daughters the right to control over their own bodies, so I guess I'm single issue over this.  TBH though, anybody who would make abortion illegal is likely to come with a whole host of other issues that I would disagree with, so I haven't encountered a situation that ever truly came down to a single issue vote.

The VP candidate is not so great on this issue, but the other option is worse.

Agreed. Much worse.

[Kris]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

Yeah, I can't think of a politician I could vote for who would want to deny me or my daughters the right to control over their own bodies, so I guess I'm single issue over this.  TBH though, anybody who would make abortion illegal is likely to come with a whole host of other issues that I would disagree with, so I haven't encountered a situation that ever truly came down to a single issue vote.

The VP candidate is not so great on this issue, but the other option is worse.

From what I have seen, Tim Kaine is personally opposed to abortion, being Catholic, but does not feel the need to impose his views on others legally.

I see this as a completely fine stance. He does not need to be personally fine with abortion as long as he doesn't try to control women's bodies.

Edit: used wrong word.

[jrhampt]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

Yeah, I can't think of a politician I could vote for who would want to deny me or my daughters the right to control over their own bodies, so I guess I'm single issue over this.  TBH though, anybody who would make abortion illegal is likely to come with a whole host of other issues that I would disagree with, so I haven't encountered a situation that ever truly came down to a single issue vote.

The VP candidate is not so great on this issue, but the other option is worse.

From what I have seen, Tim Kaine is personally opposed to abortion, being Catholic, but does not feel the need to impose his views on others legally.

I see this as a completely fine stance. He does not need to be personally anti-abortion as long as he doesn't try to control women's bodies.

I agree with this.  Tim Kaine's stance is totally fine with me.

[jrhampt]

Back to a litmus test, though - I would say that anyone who's anti-vaccine I would tend to rule out as being generally a bit crazy and anti-science.

[stoaX]

I can't decide whether my litmus test is:
 - getting rid of the penny, or,
- getting rid of changing the clocks twice a year.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Back to a litmus test, though - I would say that anyone who's anti-vaccine I would tend to rule out as being generally a bit crazy and anti-science.

That's a good one - it's not a rigid predictor of party lines, like climate change. There are plenty of kooks on both sides of the party aisle.

[deadlymonkey]

I can't decide whether my litmus test is:
 - getting rid of the penny, or,
- getting rid of changing the clocks twice a year.

I totally support both of these measures, although it seems there aren't too many politicians that feel the same way...the penny lobby and the clock changer union is too strong.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I can't decide whether my litmus test is:
 - getting rid of the penny, or,
- getting rid of changing the clocks twice a year.

I totally support both of these measures, although it seems there aren't too many politicians that feel the same way...the penny lobby and the clock changer union is too strong.

I've been ready to dump the penny for ages, but as long as I work for an employer who requires me to be at the office between the hours of 8 AM and 5 PM, I will continue to support DST.

[nereo]

Neat!  One of my comments spawned an entire new thread!
Well, I guess you already have my litmus test...

[wenchsenior]

For the last 20 years, for me it's been 1) denial of evolution/supporting teaching intelligent design in science classes; and 2) denial of the existence of/anthropogenic contributions to global warming. Those are absolute deal breakers.

What's incredible is that the GOP regularly used to field candidates who passed these litmus tests, but with every year that goes by there are fewer such in the GOP. Thus, I now vote almost exclusively Dem, even though that party often drives me nuts.

[wenchsenior]

I can't decide whether my litmus test is:
 - getting rid of the penny, or,
- getting rid of changing the clocks twice a year.

I totally support both of these measures, although it seems there aren't too many politicians that feel the same way...the penny lobby and the clock changer union is too strong.

Heh. One of my favorite things about living in Arizona was NO STUPID DAYLIGHT SAVINGS.

[iris lily]

I dont have a litmus,test, but I,really like to hear what they have to say about flat tax.

Unfortunately that has led me to candidates I do not like.

[GuitarStv]

- getting rid of changing the clocks twice a year.

I didn't think I had a litmus test, but them . . . BAM.  There it is.  I would feel morally compelled to vote for any politician advocating this position.

[Gin1984]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

Yeah, I can't think of a politician I could vote for who would want to deny me or my daughters the right to control over their own bodies, so I guess I'm single issue over this.  TBH though, anybody who would make abortion illegal is likely to come with a whole host of other issues that I would disagree with, so I haven't encountered a situation that ever truly came down to a single issue vote.

The VP candidate is not so great on this issue, but the other option is worse.

From what I have seen, Tim Kaine is personally opposed to abortion, being Catholic, but does not feel the need to impose his views on others legally.

I see this as a completely fine stance. He does not need to be personally anti-abortion as long as he doesn't try to control women's bodies.

I agree with this.  Tim Kaine's stance is totally fine with me.

Except that as Governor, he did.  My point was just that even if you have a litmus test, sometimes you still chose to vote for them because the other option is worse.

[Kris]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

Yeah, I can't think of a politician I could vote for who would want to deny me or my daughters the right to control over their own bodies, so I guess I'm single issue over this.  TBH though, anybody who would make abortion illegal is likely to come with a whole host of other issues that I would disagree with, so I haven't encountered a situation that ever truly came down to a single issue vote.

The VP candidate is not so great on this issue, but the other option is worse.

From what I have seen, Tim Kaine is personally opposed to abortion, being Catholic, but does not feel the need to impose his views on others legally.

I see this as a completely fine stance. He does not need to be personally anti-abortion as long as he doesn't try to control women's bodies.

I agree with this.  Tim Kaine's stance is totally fine with me.

Except that as Governor, he did.  My point was just that even if you have a litmus test, sometimes you still chose to vote for them because the other option is worse.

Hmmmm... I wasn't aware of that. Looking at the Wikipedia page for him, I'm not seeing too much about that. A couple of things I would rather he not do, but nothing horrifying. Can you point me to what you're thinking of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kaine#Abortion.2C_birth_control.2C_and_sex_education

[Gin1984]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

Yeah, I can't think of a politician I could vote for who would want to deny me or my daughters the right to control over their own bodies, so I guess I'm single issue over this.  TBH though, anybody who would make abortion illegal is likely to come with a whole host of other issues that I would disagree with, so I haven't encountered a situation that ever truly came down to a single issue vote.

The VP candidate is not so great on this issue, but the other option is worse.

From what I have seen, Tim Kaine is personally opposed to abortion, being Catholic, but does not feel the need to impose his views on others legally.

I see this as a completely fine stance. He does not need to be personally anti-abortion as long as he doesn't try to control women's bodies.

I agree with this.  Tim Kaine's stance is totally fine with me.

Except that as Governor, he did.  My point was just that even if you have a litmus test, sometimes you still chose to vote for them because the other option is worse.

Hmmmm... I wasn't aware of that. Looking at the Wikipedia page for him, I'm not seeing too much about that. A couple of things I would rather he not do, but nothing horrifying. Can you point me to what you're thinking of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kaine#Abortion.2C_birth_control.2C_and_sex_education

I'll PM it to you to not derail this thread.

[MayDay]

-Climate Change, because I think you are either stupid or anti-science if you don't believe in it.  I don't feel *that* strongly about it in and of itself, because I think no matter who gets elected, they will dick around with climate change initiatives and do nothing meaningful. 

-Abortion, because I think that if you think your religious opinions on abortions should be legislated, then fuck you.  I don't care what you believe for your own body, but the minute you start to want to control mine I get a titch crabby.

-At this point healthcare is pretty high up there.  Every single person in my immediate family is uninsurable on the pre-ACA private market.  Anyone who wants to repeal ACA without instituting some other plan to provide healthcare to everyone regardless of their medical history is on my NO list.  If you think you have a better idea than ACA, that is cool though, it is by no means perfect.

-I get pretty ragey about both teaching "alternatives" to evolution and about abstinence only sex ed, but I cannot see those being big issues in a national election.  Now at the state or local level, those things could be my litmus test for sure.  This kind of circles back to number one:  SCIENCE and DATA. 

[libertarian4321]

My litmus tests are that the candidates can't be either corrupt/dishonest (e.g. Hillary Clinton) or bat shit crazy (Trump).

Which means I'll be voting for Libertarian governors Johnson and Weld this year.

[iris lily]

- getting rid of changing the clocks twice a year.

I didn't think I had a litmus test, but them . . . BAM.  There it is.  I would feel morally compelled to vote for any politician advocating this position.

God, I would like that.

[stoaX]

I can't decide whether my litmus test is:
 - getting rid of the penny, or,
- getting rid of changing the clocks twice a year.

One more possible litmus test:  Banning car alarms.  I just don't want to hear them anymore. 

[Kris]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

Yeah, I can't think of a politician I could vote for who would want to deny me or my daughters the right to control over their own bodies, so I guess I'm single issue over this.  TBH though, anybody who would make abortion illegal is likely to come with a whole host of other issues that I would disagree with, so I haven't encountered a situation that ever truly came down to a single issue vote.

The VP candidate is not so great on this issue, but the other option is worse.

From what I have seen, Tim Kaine is personally opposed to abortion, being Catholic, but does not feel the need to impose his views on others legally.

I see this as a completely fine stance. He does not need to be personally anti-abortion as long as he doesn't try to control women's bodies.

I agree with this.  Tim Kaine's stance is totally fine with me.

Except that as Governor, he did.  My point was just that even if you have a litmus test, sometimes you still chose to vote for them because the other option is worse.

Hmmmm... I wasn't aware of that. Looking at the Wikipedia page for him, I'm not seeing too much about that. A couple of things I would rather he not do, but nothing horrifying. Can you point me to what you're thinking of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kaine#Abortion.2C_birth_control.2C_and_sex_education

I'll PM it to you to not derail this thread.

Okay, if you prefer. Personally, I think it's a discussion worth having *within* the thread, since stance on abortion is one of the big 3-4 topics that is likely to serve as a litmus test for those who have one.

[RetiredAt63]

Litmus test - for fact/science based decisions, against "for something because it fits my agenda even though the evidence doesn't support it" (I am open to a better descriptor).  Amazing how many things fit into each category.

Long live the long form census! 

[RetiredAt63]

Okay, if you prefer. Personally, I think it's a discussion worth having *within* the thread, since stance on abortion is one of the big 3-4 topics that is likely to serve as a litmus test for those who have one.

But we aren't discussing actual policies here, this thread is for is a list of litmus tests. And of course it is an international litmus test list, since there are potentially posters of many nationalities. We have a perfectly good abortion thread going (surprisingly civilized given the topic) if you want discussion.

[GuitarStv]

I can't decide whether my litmus test is:
 - getting rid of the penny, or,
- getting rid of changing the clocks twice a year.

One more possible litmus test:  Banning car alarms.  I just don't want to hear them anymore.

It even made Popular Mechanics swear:  http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a17477/why-the-hell-do-they-still-make-car-alarms/

[Kris]

Okay, if you prefer. Personally, I think it's a discussion worth having *within* the thread, since stance on abortion is one of the big 3-4 topics that is likely to serve as a litmus test for those who have one.

But we aren't discussing actual policies here, this thread is for is a list of litmus tests. And of course it is an international litmus test list, since there are potentially posters of many nationalities. We have a perfectly good abortion thread going (surprisingly civilized given the topic) if you want discussion.

Sure. Like I said, if you guys prefer that, it's fine with me. I'm not interested in discussing abortion here, though. My interest was in what specifically Gin1984 had a problem with re Tim Kaine, because I can't figure out how his policies are problematic. My understanding of "pro-choice" is that it does not mean "pro-abortion," it simply means that one does not feel that government should tell women what to do with their bodies, and I was interested in how Kaine did not fit that description.

But if you think that's not relevant to this thread, fine with me.

[Kris]

ON topic:

A friend of mine re-tweeted this from Neil deGrasse Tyson today, and it is quite relevant:

Retweeted Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson):

My sense is that we don’t think enough about how much we collectively, yet unwittingly, force politicians to lie to us.

[RangerOne]

My litmus tests are that the candidates can't be either corrupt/dishonest (e.g. Hillary Clinton) or bat shit crazy (Trump).

Which means I'll be voting for Libertarian governors Johnson and Weld this year.

I wanted to like Johnson, but I have a really hard time getting behind someone who is for the following:

1. Thinks climate change will best/only be dealt with by a free market.
2. Thinks that we should remove all caps on contributions to people running for office.

On issue one I would be willing to hear an argument that carbon taxes are stupid, or that the free market offers solutions to climate change, but to essentially say government legislation has no place and can only do harm in mitigating climate change is something I don't buy. I don't think we can afford to have people in power with this kind of wishy washy stance on climate change when to even move the needle so much effort needs to be put in to negotiating with foreign governments.

On issue two we know a major source of corruption is campaign finance from large donors both individual and corporate. I simply do not buy his theory that candidates can be provided loads of money to win an election from private interests and that this doesn't inevitably lead to legal bribery and quid pro quo.

He seems like a better person than either primary candidate, but both the above stances are on the wrong side of big issues for me and his stance against them stinks of simply being too stuck on the philosophy that less government is always better and free markets solve everything.

[forummm]

My litmus tests are that the candidates can't be either corrupt/dishonest (e.g. Hillary Clinton) or bat shit crazy (Trump).

Which means I'll be voting for Libertarian governors Johnson and Weld this year.

I wanted to like Johnson, but I have a really hard time getting behind someone who is for the following:

1. Thinks climate change will best/only be dealt with by a free market.
2. Thinks that we should remove all caps on contributions to people run

When you don't understand how markets work, you shouldn't be in office. Climate change is a problem because of market failure. You have to correct the market failure or it's likely going to continue to exist. If you simply charge people for the damage they are causing, that can eliminate the market failure--by using a market mechanism. Externalities are real.

He also thinks that if someone gives a candidate $10 million, the candidate won't ever be influenced by the views of the donor. Either he's an absolute idiot or he's a liar.

[RetiredAt63]

Okay, if you prefer. Personally, I think it's a discussion worth having *within* the thread, since stance on abortion is one of the big 3-4 topics that is likely to serve as a litmus test for those who have one.

But we aren't discussing actual policies here, this thread is for is a list of litmus tests. And of course it is an international litmus test list, since there are potentially posters of many nationalities. We have a perfectly good abortion thread going (surprisingly civilized given the topic) if you want discussion.

Sure. Like I said, if you guys prefer that, it's fine with me. I'm not interested in discussing abortion here, though. My interest was in what specifically Gin1984 had a problem with re Tim Kaine, because I can't figure out how his policies are problematic. My understanding of "pro-choice" is that it does not mean "pro-abortion," it simply means that one does not feel that government should tell women what to do with their bodies, and I was interested in how Kaine did not fit that description.

But if you think that's not relevant to this thread, fine with me.

Ah well, looks like everyone want to discuss other people's litmus tests, so you were just the first of many.  This is going to be a very distracted thread  ;-)   And already very American in the specifics, I guess you are all focused on politics now whereas Canadians went through it all last year. 

[Kris]

Okay, if you prefer. Personally, I think it's a discussion worth having *within* the thread, since stance on abortion is one of the big 3-4 topics that is likely to serve as a litmus test for those who have one.

But we aren't discussing actual policies here, this thread is for is a list of litmus tests. And of course it is an international litmus test list, since there are potentially posters of many nationalities. We have a perfectly good abortion thread going (surprisingly civilized given the topic) if you want discussion.

Sure. Like I said, if you guys prefer that, it's fine with me. I'm not interested in discussing abortion here, though. My interest was in what specifically Gin1984 had a problem with re Tim Kaine, because I can't figure out how his policies are problematic. My understanding of "pro-choice" is that it does not mean "pro-abortion," it simply means that one does not feel that government should tell women what to do with their bodies, and I was interested in how Kaine did not fit that description.

But if you think that's not relevant to this thread, fine with me.

Ah well, looks like everyone want to discuss other people's litmus tests, so you were just the first of many.  This is going to be a very distracted thread  ;-)   And already very American in the specifics, I guess you are all focused on politics now whereas Canadians went through it all last year.

Maybe. I didn't create the thread, but since the subject is "What's your litmus test for national politics?" I assumed it would be a discussion of people's litmus tests...

[yuka]

I've sometimes thought I had tripwires beyond which I would be compelled to vote for the other person, but that assumes that the other person is being mostly reasonable. I would love to get to a point where all candidates were so unobjectionable that I could commit to voting for the one who fixes the Comcast internet problem that's in so much of the country.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Ah well, looks like everyone want to discuss other people's litmus tests, so you were just the first of many.  This is going to be a very distracted thread  ;-)   And already very American in the specifics, I guess you are all focused on politics now whereas Canadians went through it all last year.

Maybe. I didn't create the thread, but since the subject is "What's your litmus test for national politics?" I assumed it would be a discussion of people's litmus tests...

Well, as the OP, I'll say that I'm more than happy to discuss our personal litmus tests, rather than just listing them. After reading Tim Kaine's bio, I'm pretty curious what the opposition to his positions for the pro-choice crowds would be. I will say that this gave me pause:

In 2005, when running for governor, Kaine said he favored reducing abortions by...fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education.

But it appears that he back-pedaled as governor:

In 2007, as governor, Kaine cut off state funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, citing studies which showed that such programs were ineffective, while comprehensive sex education programs were more effective. Kaine believes that both abstinence and contraceptives must be taught, and that education should be evidence-based.

[deadlymonkey]

Ah well, looks like everyone want to discuss other people's litmus tests, so you were just the first of many.  This is going to be a very distracted thread  ;-)   And already very American in the specifics, I guess you are all focused on politics now whereas Canadians went through it all last year.

Maybe. I didn't create the thread, but since the subject is "What's your litmus test for national politics?" I assumed it would be a discussion of people's litmus tests...

Well, as the OP, I'll say that I'm more than happy to discuss our personal litmus tests, rather than just listing them. After reading Tim Kaine's bio, I'm pretty curious what the opposition to his positions for the pro-choice crowds would be. I will say that this gave me pause:

In 2005, when running for governor, Kaine said he favored reducing abortions by...fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education.

But it appears that he back-pedaled as governor:

In 2007, as governor, Kaine cut off state funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, citing studies which showed that such programs were ineffective, while comprehensive sex education programs were more effective. Kaine believes that both abstinence and contraceptives must be taught, and that education should be evidence-based.

This is the hallmark of a GOOD politician.  Someone who stated their opinions (which you may or may not disagree with) and then when presented with the actual evidence, alter the course to a more effective one.....Not go down with the ship to remain ideologically pure.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Ah well, looks like everyone want to discuss other people's litmus tests, so you were just the first of many.  This is going to be a very distracted thread  ;-)   And already very American in the specifics, I guess you are all focused on politics now whereas Canadians went through it all last year.

Maybe. I didn't create the thread, but since the subject is "What's your litmus test for national politics?" I assumed it would be a discussion of people's litmus tests...

Well, as the OP, I'll say that I'm more than happy to discuss our personal litmus tests, rather than just listing them. After reading Tim Kaine's bio, I'm pretty curious what the opposition to his positions for the pro-choice crowds would be. I will say that this gave me pause:

In 2005, when running for governor, Kaine said he favored reducing abortions by...fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education.

But it appears that he back-pedaled as governor:

In 2007, as governor, Kaine cut off state funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, citing studies which showed that such programs were ineffective, while comprehensive sex education programs were more effective. Kaine believes that both abstinence and contraceptives must be taught, and that education should be evidence-based.

This is the hallmark of a GOOD politician.  Someone who stated their opinions (which you may or may not disagree with) and then when presented with the actual evidence, alter the course to a more effective one.....Not go down with the ship to remain ideologically pure.

I agree - I'd much rather vote for someone who's willing to consider the evidence and change their mind than someone remains ideologically pure with a finger in each ear.

[RetiredAt63]

Well, as the OP, I'll say that I'm more than happy to discuss our personal litmus tests, rather than just listing them. After reading Tim Kaine's bio, I'm pretty curious what the opposition to his positions for the pro-choice crowds would be. I will say that this gave me pause:

In 2005, when running for governor, Kaine said he favored reducing abortions by...fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education.

But it appears that he back-pedaled as governor:

In 2007, as governor, Kaine cut off state funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, citing studies which showed that such programs were ineffective, while comprehensive sex education programs were more effective. Kaine believes that both abstinence and contraceptives must be taught, and that education should be evidence-based.

This is the hallmark of a GOOD politician.  Someone who stated their opinions (which you may or may not disagree with) and then when presented with the actual evidence, alter the course to a more effective one.....Not go down with the ship to remain ideologically pure.

I agree - I'd much rather vote for someone who's willing to consider the evidence and change their mind than someone remains ideologically pure with a finger in each ear.

Wow, making a change based on evidence!  Impressed.  He passes my litmus test.  Can't vote for him, wrong country.

[Kris]

Ah well, looks like everyone want to discuss other people's litmus tests, so you were just the first of many.  This is going to be a very distracted thread  ;-)   And already very American in the specifics, I guess you are all focused on politics now whereas Canadians went through it all last year.

Maybe. I didn't create the thread, but since the subject is "What's your litmus test for national politics?" I assumed it would be a discussion of people's litmus tests...

Well, as the OP, I'll say that I'm more than happy to discuss our personal litmus tests, rather than just listing them. After reading Tim Kaine's bio, I'm pretty curious what the opposition to his positions for the pro-choice crowds would be. I will say that this gave me pause:

In 2005, when running for governor, Kaine said he favored reducing abortions by...fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education.

But it appears that he back-pedaled as governor:

In 2007, as governor, Kaine cut off state funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, citing studies which showed that such programs were ineffective, while comprehensive sex education programs were more effective. Kaine believes that both abstinence and contraceptives must be taught, and that education should be evidence-based.

This is the hallmark of a GOOD politician.  Someone who stated their opinions (which you may or may not disagree with) and then when presented with the actual evidence, alter the course to a more effective one.....Not go down with the ship to remain ideologically pure.

I completely agree. The last thing we need on the left is our personal Ted Cruz. Ugh.

[nereo]

Well, as the OP, I'll say that I'm more than happy to discuss our personal litmus tests, rather than just listing them. After reading Tim Kaine's bio, I'm pretty curious what the opposition to his positions for the pro-choice crowds would be. I will say that this gave me pause:

In 2005, when running for governor, Kaine said he favored reducing abortions by...fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education.

But it appears that he back-pedaled as governor:

In 2007, as governor, Kaine cut off state funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, citing studies which showed that such programs were ineffective, while comprehensive sex education programs were more effective. Kaine believes that both abstinence and contraceptives must be taught, and that education should be evidence-based.

This is the hallmark of a GOOD politician.  Someone who stated their opinions (which you may or may not disagree with) and then when presented with the actual evidence, alter the course to a more effective one.....Not go down with the ship to remain ideologically pure.

I agree - I'd much rather vote for someone who's willing to consider the evidence and change their mind than someone remains ideologically pure with a finger in each ear.

Wow, making a change based on evidence!  Impressed.  He passes my litmus test.  Can't vote for him, wrong country.

According to Donald Trump, you can!  In fact, it's the only way he'll lose!

[Jrr85]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

That's pretty much what criminal law is, is forcing other people to live by society's moral convictions.  We don't make murder illegal because it's inefficient when Joe doesn't show up to work on Monday because he was killed on Sunday morning.  We make it illegal because it's morally wrong to off Joe.  It doesn't become less morally wrong if Joe can't complain before hand because he's mute, or if he can't complain because he's a six month old baby, or if he can't complain because he's a baby that won't be delivered for one week.   

I can understand people having different opinions on abortion, but it is somewhat flabbergasting to see how few people on the pro-choice side even understand the position of people on the pro-life side.  The vast majority of them would think it is abhorrent for a parent to decide that they're really not ready for parenthood and kill their week old baby.  Yet a large portion of them can't even intellectually understand why people would be similarly horrified at killing a baby that was one month away from his/her due date? 

[Jrr85]

So, I'm curious: What (if any) "litmus test" issues do you have regarding national politics?

I can't come up with a reasonable litmus test that would also allow me to vote.  Only voting for honest and/not corrupt candidates would be nice, but that would rule out voting in too many elections. 

The closest thing I have to a "single issue" is somebody understanding that people have natural, inalienable rights and there are some limits to what the state can legitimately do.  Don't have to agree with me on what those are, but if they have a reasonably coherent philosophy on that, I will pretty much vote for them.  Doesn't come up very often.  Even Gary Johnson, who I think is by far the best candidate left and the only candidate left that is fit for office, arguably doesn't qualify by this standard. 

[Kris]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

That's pretty much what criminal law is, is forcing other people to live by society's moral convictions.  We don't make murder illegal because it's inefficient when Joe doesn't show up to work on Monday because he was killed on Sunday morning.  We make it illegal because it's morally wrong to off Joe.  It doesn't become less morally wrong if Joe can't complain before hand because he's mute, or if he can't complain because he's a six month old baby, or if he can't complain because he's a baby that won't be delivered for one week.   

I can understand people having different opinions on abortion, but it is somewhat flabbergasting to see how few people on the pro-choice side even understand the position of people on the pro-life side.  The vast majority of them would think it is abhorrent for a parent to decide that they're really not ready for parenthood and kill their week old baby.  Yet a large portion of them can't even intellectually understand why people would be similarly horrified at killing a baby that was one month away from his/her due date?

"killing a baby that was one month away from his/her due date? "

Straw man. No one is arguing for that, and if you have to pretend they are, you are implicitly acknowledging that your argument is weaker than you'd like it to be.

We have laws against murder because my right to kill you does not trump your right not to be killed.

The abortion debate is about whether an actual born, sentient human being ought to be able to make decisions about her own body, or whether you get to decide for her.

The tricky part is that there is a fetus inside that woman. The debate, when one does not try to throw a straw man into the middle of it, is about whether that fetus is a viable human with rights. Reasonable people can disagree about this, but it is not medically clear, and arguments to the contrary tend to come from a religious perspective, which is not valid in a country that separates church and state.

So, you can be morally opposed to abortion. And yes, you can personally consider it murder. But it is not the same as murdering an actual post-partum being. As you have sort of admitted by feeling the need to use your straw man.

[deadlymonkey]

I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

That's pretty much what criminal law is, is forcing other people to live by society's moral convictions.  We don't make murder illegal because it's inefficient when Joe doesn't show up to work on Monday because he was killed on Sunday morning.  We make it illegal because it's morally wrong to off Joe.  It doesn't become less morally wrong if Joe can't complain before hand because he's mute, or if he can't complain because he's a six month old baby, or if he can't complain because he's a baby that won't be delivered for one week.   

I can understand people having different opinions on abortion, but it is somewhat flabbergasting to see how few people on the pro-choice side even understand the position of people on the pro-life side.  The vast majority of them would think it is abhorrent for a parent to decide that they're really not ready for parenthood and kill their week old baby.  Yet a large portion of them can't even intellectually understand why people would be similarly horrified at killing a baby that was one month away from his/her due date?

Your argument is a little factitious.  Very few in the pro-choice crowd advocate for legalization of abortions in the 3rd trimester, let alone 4 weeks before due date.  That is well past the viability stage.  It comes down to when it is much earlier in the pregnancy when the fetus is not viable.  The morality argument is when is something alive?  When does it gain rights?  I think most pro choice folks think that point is somewhere after viability is established, where the fetus can be separated from the woman and survive.  Most religious texts including the bible say it isn't until the moment of birth.  What is right?

[Northwestie]

Against abortion but somehow the death penalty is ok.  Against abortion and against better birth control availability.  Against abortion but for killing brown people in foreign lands.  Sounds like the GOP platform.

[nereo]

I can understand people having different opinions on abortion, but it is somewhat flabbergasting to see how few people on the pro-choice side even understand the position of people on the pro-life side.  The vast majority of them would think it is abhorrent for a parent to decide that they're really not ready for parenthood and kill their week old baby.  Yet a large portion of them can't even intellectually understand why people would be similarly horrified at killing a baby that was one month away from his/her due date?

I have not encountered people who argue that we should allow the termination of a fetus one month from the due date unless the life of the mother is severely at risk.  I believe there's a large consensus even on the pro-choice side that third-trimester abortions should be reserved for only extremely dire and rare circumstances.
Once we get into smaller and smaller time-scales the issue becomes more murky. For example, the insistence on calling an embryo or fetus which is not viable outside the womb a "baby" or "human" seems deliberately disingenuous, as does effectively blocking all access to something that is technically legal.

I have no problem with others choosing to terminate a pregnancy after 7 days, while i can object to someone terminating an otherwise viable pregnancy 7 months in. Comparing the former to the latter is absurd.

[Northwestie]

I just find with folks who oppose abortion under any circumstances - ok then, don't have one.   But don't try to impose your view through government sanction on the decisions of a woman and what she wants to do with her body.  Interestingly it's always old white guys trying shove this down on women.

Maybe this conversation should continue here:  http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/please-take-your-abortion-talk-here-you're-ruining-a-perfectly-good-thread/

[Gin1984]

I can understand people having different opinions on abortion, but it is somewhat flabbergasting to see how few people on the pro-choice side even understand the position of people on the pro-life side.  The vast majority of them would think it is abhorrent for a parent to decide that they're really not ready for parenthood and kill their week old baby.  Yet a large portion of them can't even intellectually understand why people would be similarly horrified at killing a baby that was one month away from his/her due date?

I have not encountered people who argue that we should allow the termination of a fetus one month from the due date unless the life of the mother is severely at risk.  I believe there's a large consensus even on the pro-choice side that third-trimester abortions should be reserved for only extremely dire and rare circumstances.
Once we get into smaller and smaller time-scales the issue becomes more murky. For example, the insistence on calling an embryo or fetus which is not viable outside the womb a "baby" or "human" seems deliberately disingenuous, as does effectively blocking all access to something that is technically legal.

I have no problem with others choosing to terminate a pregnancy after 7 days, while i can object to someone terminating an otherwise viable pregnancy 7 months in. Comparing the former to the latter is absurd.

I'm one of the few that do say that a fetus should be removed at any time if a mother wants to remove her consent.  That does not mean I am saying abortion of a 7 month fetus.  You can remove a fetus and have it live at 7 months.  And that choice (consent to the fetus being removed by c-section) vs consent to the fetus being in her should be a choice the woman has, IMO.  But even among us "crazy" extremists, no one is saying that the fetus should be killed after it is viable.