What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Supporting Politicians You Have Something In Common With (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
This was part of the Trump discussion and Christians.

I think it becomes a super interesting discussion to dive into how one's faith should affect their vote. In other words, as a Christian, should I vote for the "best Christian"? If that's the case, Jimmy Carter is likely our best president in recent memory. Not sure he's on many lists for actual best president though. 

And it's not just a Christian thing.

Should a woman give positive points to presidential candidates Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren?

Should a person of Muslim faith in Minnesota give positive points to Ilhan Omar when she's in the next election? 

I'd guess it's likely human nature to support people you have something in common with. Just not sure it's the right thing. 

What do you think?

 
I’m not a fan of identity politics.

I found the previous Christian discussion quite odd.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
This was part of the Trump discussion and Christians.

I think it becomes a super interesting discussion to dive into how one's faith should affect their vote. In other words, as a Christian, should I vote for the "best Christian"? If that's the case, Jimmy Carter is likely our best president in recent memory. Not sure he's on many lists for actual best president though. 

And it's not just a Christian thing.

Should a woman give positive points to presidential candidates Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren?

Should a person of Muslim faith in Minnesota give positive points to Ilhan Omar when she's in the next election? 

I'd guess it's likely human nature to support people you have something in common with. Just not sure it's the right thing. 

What do you think?
Click to expand...
There are several substantial differences between thinking this way about Christian candidates and thinking this way about female candidates or Muslim candidates. The most obvious, of course, is that representation matters.  Christian men don't grow up wondering if they could ever be president one day, or why there's not many people like them in the US Congress. Pretty much everyone else does grow up wondering those things.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
This was part of the Trump discussion and Christians.

I think it becomes a super interesting discussion to dive into how one's faith should affect their vote. In other words, as a Christian, should I vote for the "best Christian"? If that's the case, Jimmy Carter is likely our best president in recent memory. Not sure he's on many lists for actual best president though. 

And it's not just a Christian thing.

Should a woman give positive points to presidential candidates Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren?

Should a person of Muslim faith in Minnesota give positive points to Ilhan Omar when she's in the next election? 

I'd guess it's likely human nature to support people you have something in common with. Just not sure it's the right thing. 

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think you're talking about identity politics.

No, I'm not a fan. I think particularly race. Personally I don't have a problem with Sotomayors saying she's bringing her Latina background into her job, and I don't have a problem with a Catholic like whoever who says he's against abortion because life starts at conception, and I don't have a problem with a Warren or a woman pol saying they know what it's like for women to work under someone's thumb.

I just don't think you should vote for someone because they're Latino, Catholic, or female. Vote for the best person, with the best experience, with the best character, and who most closely meets your values. That would produce for us the best government we can have.

 
TobiasFunke said:
There are several substantial differences between thinking this way about Christian candidates and thinking this way about female candidates or Muslim candidates. The most obvious, of course, is that representation matters.  Christian men don't grow up wondering if they could ever be president one day, or why there's not many people like them in the US Congress. Pretty much everyone else does grow up wondering those things.
Click to expand...
Of course, they're not exactly the same. I think you're talking more about privilege. That's obviously super important but wasn't what I was asking in this thread.

I'm asking here, how much do people give positive points to candidates that they have things in common with like faith or gender or race or geography or other things. 

My guess is it's a balance between the issues one supports and how effective a politician the person is. 

In other words, I might give positive points to a candidate because we share the same view on XYZ. But if he's an ineffective politician, maybe I vote for the guy who isn't quite as aligned with me on my view on XYZ but the candidate seems like they'd be a much more effective at actually getting stuff done.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Personally I don't have a problem with Sotomayors saying she's bringing her Latina background into her job,
Click to expand...
Did you have a problem with Trump saying that he thought a Latino judge would be politically biased against him?  Because it's literally the exact same argument.

Edit: To clarify which side I'm on, I think Sotomayor and Trump were both wrong on this count.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Did you have a problem with Trump saying that he though a Latino judge would be politically biased against him?  Because it's literally the exact same argument.
Click to expand...
Yes I do have a problem with Trump’s statement.

Kavanaugh and Sotomayor are both Catholic, I think both of them would say that’s affected their view of the law. They obviously would rule differently on many things. I don’t think that means neither of them can be objective either. We want humans, not robots.

 
I don't trust politicians at all.  By definition, they are liars and most of what they say is more geared for the furtherment of their Party...not the country

My dad told me a story as to why politicians should not be trusted.

A scorpion wanted to cross a river but he knew that he would drown.  He waited and waited until a turtle came along.  He asked the turtle if he would give him a ride across the river.  The turtle refused, asking, "Why would I do that?  Somewhere, along the line, you will sting me and I will die".  The scorpion replied, "Why would I do that?  If you die in the river...I will also die". 

Thinking further, the turtle decided to trust the scorpion and give him a ride.  Halfway across the river, the scorpion stung the turtle in the back of the head.  As the poison took effect and the turtle began to slip under the water, he asked the scorpion...."Why did you do that?"  The scorpion replied, "Because I'm a scorpion...and that's what scorpions do." 

Politicians lie...that's what they do... and knowing this, if you put your trust in them, you deserve what you get.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
I don't trust politicians at all.  By definition, they are liars and most of what they say is more geared for the furtherment of their Party...not the country

My dad told me a story as to why politicians should not be trusted.

A scorpion wanted to cross a river but he knew that he would drown.  He waited and waited until a turtle came along.  He asked the turtle if he would give him a ride across the river.  The turtle refused, asking, "Why would I do that?  Somewhere, along the line, you will sting me and I will die".  The scorpion replied, "Why would I do that?  If you die in the river...I will also die". 

Thinking further, the turtle decided to trust the scorpion and give him a ride.  Halfway across the river, the scorpion stung the turtle in the back of the head.  As the poison took effect and the turtle began to slip under the water, he asked the scorpion...."Why did you do that?"  The scorpion replied, "Because I'm a scorpion...and that's what scorpions do." 

Politicians lie...that's what they do... and knowing this, if you put your trust in them, you deserve what you get.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should just vote for turtles.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Did you have a problem with Trump saying that he thought a Latino judge would be politically biased against him?  Because it's literally the exact same argument.

Edit: To clarify which side I'm on, I think Sotomayor and Trump were both wrong on this count.
Click to expand...
That's a really interesting point I think. 

 
According to Quinnipac's latest poll at least as far as the Democratic primaries go age, gender or race doesn't matter to a solid majority across the spectrum. So not a great cycle to rely too heavily on what you are over what your policies are.

 
We're a representative government. To me that suggests we send people to government to represent us. If representation is not things we have in common, I don't know what is. If you are suggesting that things like race, gender, religion and what not are not things we should use as "things in common" I would ask "why not?"

 
IvanKaramazov said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Personally I don't have a problem with Sotomayors saying she's bringing her Latina background into her job,
Click to expand...
Did you have a problem with Trump saying that he thought a Latino judge would be politically biased against him?  Because it's literally the exact same argument.
Click to expand...


I don't follow this train of thought at all.

Sotomayor - my background colors my views

Trump - his background makes him biased against me

I am struggling to see how these are the same.  Sotomayor is not suggesting she is for or against anyone - and certainly not before hearing the matter.

Trump is affirmatively saying - that an hispanic judge must be biased against Trump, simply because the judge is Hispanic.  Is there something in the judge's background that should make him biased against Trump?

 
Sinn Fein said:
I don't follow this train of thought at all.

Sotomayor - my background colors my views

Trump - his background makes him biased against me

I am struggling to see how these are the same.  Sotomayor is not suggesting she is for or against anyone - and certainly not before hearing the matter.

Trump is affirmatively saying - that an hispanic judge must be biased against Trump, simply because the judge is Hispanic.  Is there something in the judge's background that should make him biased against Trump?
Click to expand...
"I'm going to bring my Latina experience to bear on my legal reasoning."  Hooray!

"This guy is going to bring his Latino experience to bear on his legal reasoning."  Racist!

 
IvanKaramazov said:
"I'm going to bring my Latina experience to bear on my legal reasoning."  Hooray!

"This guy is going to bring his Latino experience to bear on his legal reasoning."  Racist!
Click to expand...
Thats not what Trump said.  :shrug:

You are somehow imputing "latino experience" to "biased against Trump"

I do not think there is anything inherent in the "latino experience" that would bias them against Trump.

Now, there may be things in Trump's past that may bias people against him.  But that is not the same as suggesting Latinos have an inherent bias against Trump.

 
Joe Bryant said:
This was part of the Trump discussion and Christians.

I think it becomes a super interesting discussion to dive into how one's faith should affect their vote. In other words, as a Christian, should I vote for the "best Christian"? If that's the case, Jimmy Carter is likely our best president in recent memory. Not sure he's on many lists for actual best president though. 

And it's not just a Christian thing.

Should a woman give positive points to presidential candidates Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren?

Should a person of Muslim faith in Minnesota give positive points to Ilhan Omar when she's in the next election? 

I'd guess it's likely human nature to support people you have something in common with. Just not sure it's the right thing. 

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I could care less about a candidate's gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.  All I care about is their position on issues that are important to me.  It's very important to me to support politicians that I have something in common with, just not the things you describe.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think you're talking about identity politics.

No, I'm not a fan. I think particularly race. Personally I don't have a problem with Sotomayors saying she's bringing her Latina background into her job, and I don't have a problem with a Catholic like whoever who says he's against abortion because life starts at conception, and I don't have a problem with a Warren or a woman pol saying they know what it's like for women to work under someone's thumb.

I just don't think you should vote for someone because they're Latino, Catholic, or female. Vote for the best person, with the best experience, with the best character, and who most closely meets your values. That would produce for us the best government we can have.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I guess I should admit I don't have a great understanding on exactly what identity politics is. :bag:  

I can see how one can say it's not a great thing to give tons of points to the woman candidate simply one has being a woman in common. 

But clearly I can see giving tons of points to the candidate who has an immigration stance you have in common. 

Am I looking at that wrong?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Though I haven’t watched the new iteration, I seem to recall a rather humorous episode of the original Will and Grace about this.  Will was supporting “the gay man” in a political race while Grace was supporting “the Jewish woman.”  Hilarity ensued when they held fundraisers for both at their home and found out their actual political stances. 

The Jewish woman wanted to ship all of the homeless people to another city on a bus to not have to look at them, and the gay man began his speech with something to the effect of “it’s so gratifying to see all of these white faces here tonight.”

 
Joe Bryant said:
I can see how one can say it's not a great thing to give tons of points to the woman candidate simply one has being a woman in common. 
Click to expand...
Help me understand why that is a bad thing?

I don't think its a great idea to choose a candidate solely on gender.  But, I do see value in "any" woman breaking the glass ceiling, on future candidates, and that might carry some weight with some voters.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Help me understand why that is a bad thing?

I don't think its a great idea to choose a candidate solely on gender.  But, I do see value in "any" woman breaking the glass ceiling, on future candidates, and that might carry some weight with some voters.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm saying that seems like not a great thing to give a ton of positive points to a candidate because of their gender. 

That goes for male and female.

If I'm honest though, part of why I voted for President Obama twice was I wanted our country to have a black president. And I don't feel bad about that. So maybe giving points for that stuff is fine. I guess that's what I'm talking about here. @SaintsInDome2006 is this what you're talking about with identity politics?

 
Joe Bryant said:
If I'm honest though, part of why I voted for President Obama twice was I wanted our country to have a black president. And I don't feel bad about that. So maybe giving points for that stuff is fine
Click to expand...
I am not sure I follow - are you saying its fine to give credit for race, but not gender?

Or, are you now thinking its ok to give some credit to these "identity" issues, like race or gender?

 
I think it also matters how we define "tons of credit"

Voting for a candidate based solely on gender (or race) is probably not good.

Using race or gender as a tie-breaker between two candidates is probably good.

So, finding that right mix in the middle - how much weight do you give someone's identity.  That is probably as personal as how much weight do you give anyone's position on any given topic.  Some will value that trait higher than others.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I am not sure I follow - are you saying its fine to give credit for race, but not gender?

Or, are you now thinking its ok to give some credit to these "identity" issues, like race or gender?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm just talking it through. I'm saying I'm pretty much all over the map. :bag:

It doesn't seem like one should give too much credit for gender.

Yet I admit I gave positives to Obama because of his race. 

So I guess I'm a hypocrite. Shocker there. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
I guess I'm saying that seems like not a great thing to give a ton of positive points to a candidate because of their gender. 

That goes for male and female.

If I'm honest though, part of why I voted for President Obama twice was I wanted our country to have a black president. And I don't feel bad about that. So maybe giving points for that stuff is fine. I guess that's what I'm talking about here. @SaintsInDome2006 is this what you're talking about with identity politics?
Click to expand...
It's slightly different. I can see value in saying first of xyz race/gender/religion elected to abc office is saying something about America or society.

I guess I come from a particular place. I'm not sure if it's that different, but NO had its first elected black official in 1974. however many black officials were elected that year and soon after and many continued to be elected into the 2000's. NO has a strange internecine set of political blocs, these are parties within parties, but all of it was race based. And what ended up happening is we ended up voting for a lot of politicians who did not have good government at heart. And then people would get bad government and even corruption, and then what would happen? Well they'd be invited back into office again. And it's hurt people's lives. And frequently unfortunately it was often just based on race. Ray Nagin got elected with 80% of the white vote the first time because he was running against traditional machine (read black) politics even though he was black himself. Then next time he ran an explicitly race based campaign in which he won 80% of the black vote against Mitch Landrieu. All sides lost both times. All sides were easily manipulable. And this was at a time when raw positive emotion and reformist energy was at a max due to the storm, it didn't matter.

There's one view of politics that says republican, representative government means having people who look/act/think like you is good government. That's different than the Obama or Hillary situations IMO. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
Thats not what Trump said.  :shrug:

You are somehow imputing "latino experience" to "biased against Trump"

I do not think there is anything inherent in the "latino experience" that would bias them against Trump.

Now, there may be things in Trump's past that may bias people against him.  But that is not the same as suggesting Latinos have an inherent bias against Trump.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you can hold that position while simultaneously taking the view that Sotomayor's Latina heritage would shape her interpretation of the commerce clause.  Either people can (and should) transcend their ethnicity, or they can't (or shouldn't).

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I don't see how you can hold that position while simultaneously taking the view that Sotomayor's Latina heritage would shape her interpretation of the commerce clause.  Either people can (and should) transcend their ethnicity, or they can't (or shouldn't).
Click to expand...
I am of the position that - everyone's life experiences shapes their current views, and it would be impossible to divorce yourself from those experiences.  (In fact, in my view we should have 13 Supreme Court Justices - one to represent each Circuit Court, including the DC Circuit, and Federal Circuit - and that justices should be chosen specifically from each circuit.  I think there are many fine, and well-qualified, potential jurists who do not necessarily have an Ivy League law degree.)

But - I do not equate those experiences with inherent bias against any individual - and that is what Trump was saying.  Trump was saying that because he hates Mexicans/hispanics, that anyone with Mexican or Hispanic heritage, would necessarily be biased against him.  Aside from that being a horribly twisted sense of logic - I don't subscribe to the notion that Mexicans are inherently biased against Trump.  (Disagreeing with his positions on various issues, does not make anyone biased agains a person.)

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Either people can (and should) transcend their ethnicity, or they can't (or shouldn't).
Click to expand...
Help me understand this particular phrase - Do you think everyone with hispanic heritage is biased against Trump?

Because - that is what I am taking from the conversation when you suggest that if someone cannot transcend their ethnicity [then Trump must be right about the Mexican judge].

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Did you have a problem with Trump saying that he thought a Latino judge would be politically biased against him?  Because it's literally the exact same argument.

Edit: To clarify which side I'm on, I think Sotomayor and Trump were both wrong on this count.
Click to expand...
I disagree that this is necessarily true.  

Let's say the legal system is objectively biased against a group of people 

Let's say that somebody is unbiased - neither for nor against that group of people. 

They also happen to belong to that group of people, and believe that their knowledge of issues that are unique to that group of people helps them remain unbiased. 

Does that make them biased?  More biased that the average judge?  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Newsweek: Muslim & Christian Parents Unite In Michigan Against "Sexually Explicit" School Books (10/14/22 02:46 PST)
2
Replies
53
Views
1K
Captain Cranks
Captain Cranks
GordonGekko
OP/ED: Biden Will Be Impeached After The Mid Terms & WWYD (5/17/22 19:42 PST)
2 3
Replies
128
Views
3K
quick-hands
quick-hands
GordonGekko
Scott Chipman/AALM: Biden's Marijuana Pardons Will Have "No Real Impact Other Than The Headlines” (10/8/22 11:47 PST)
Replies
17
Views
542
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top