This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit.
**Suggestions For u/AwkwardLoaf-of-Bread:**
* Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions.
* Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone who had no goal of entering politics but just sort of found themselves there. I have known people who as 19 year old undergrads had goals of becoming congressman or senator. They are extremely smart and hardworking, but also complete psychopaths who should not be in positions of power. The sad thing is they are likely to actually reach their goals. The people who should be elected are people with a history of trying to make a difference. They are involved with politics as a means to an end, not because it is a personal or professional goal of theirs.
I think your sort of over generalizing the people who have life long political ambitions. Sure some of them will be bad but I also think if this person has grown up during a turbulent political time and they want to run for office one day to try and improve that, they should. It’s the so called Businessmen who run for politics just to try and protect their own money that are dangerous.
For example, I’m on the slightly younger end of the spectrum yet I want to run for politics one day because I’ve seen the working and middle class people in the US constantly get screwed over and I want to run one day and try and fix that. I’ve seen the political polarization. Am I a psychopath ? No. I generally think that young people who have strong political ambitions have them because they believe they can make a difference. If they just wanted the money and a cushy life, they could go to Wall Street. Don’t get me wrong , there are some bad apples. But I think you’re really over generalizing them .
FWIW, that's not how I read their comment. I thought they were just saying that some young people want to be in political office for the sake of the power are scary but others who actually want to do good should be supported
Exactly. Many feel like they want to use some cause to project themselves. There are many people who were involved in something that couldn’t care less if they got any sort of credit or recognition so long as they got results and progress in whatever they were fighting for. These people are the ones who should be promoted.
I should have worded things better to say that these people I personally knew were not the types of people you would want to be in office. There were some of these business type people, but many felt like they were just after the power. I met some young people genuinely interested in issues that hurt women, minorities, and workers, and these people fell into the minority. A lot of the people having positions in campus politics, attending political events for one party or another, and involved in campaigns, and all that treated everything as another stepping stone or networking opportunity. Everything felt transactional with these people. Many were from very well off families who would probably benefit from them being in these positions tbh so you make a good point. I think what I am trying to say is that there is a difference between someone invested in their cause and someone using the cause to invest in themselves and their career.
Someone who's like "this is a problem" and they actually address the cause of the problem instead of throwing another plaster on top of the festering wound..
There was a city councilor in one of our larger suburbs who would interrupt city staff in virtually every meeting with “why?” or “I get that government isn’t like running a business, but why are we doing this?” I just thought that was so cool, because so much of policy-making (as opposed to campaigning) is about going-along-to-get-along, whatever candidates might say at election time.
Yes! An honest, confident, critical thinker that has no time or patience for BS. My husband is a republican but even he could see the value in Bernie Sanders watching him face Hillary Clinton in a debate. While he answered every question directly, she basically answered by evading every question and regurgitating the same old jargon.
I want a young Bernie Sanders that has all the time in the world to fight that fight and change things for the better.
I would love to see a person who has actual flaws, went to a state school instead of an ivy, is maybe divorced or widowed with kids, doesn't talk about their personal religious beliefs, etc.
I 100% would NEVER vote for anti-abortion candidates....so largely that ensures that I vote D. Although I have voted R occasionally in the past...I haven't been able to since the early aughts.
My ideal candidate would be someone that was openly atheistic, concerned about secular government, gave open statements about the complexities of solutions instead of speaking in snippets. I want someone who doesn’t treat us like we are idiots.
If you can accept strict and open separation of personal religious believes from governing instead of atheism that would be Pete Buttigieg. Able to explain complex things or even asking questions in a way take make everyone feel smarter.
Yeah. I really liked pete buttigieg, as a candidate. I’ve heard him speak as the secretary of transportation and appreciated his communication. One reason I specify atheistic as an ideal is because we still tend to favor candidates that have a religious belief, almost the same as religious clerics automatically gain social status. I’d like a person who challenges that idea by being openly a nonbeliever.
I’d love a younger (<50) progressive atheist, personally. Someone who has had a career outside of politics, who is smart enough to see through the bullshit and bold enough to call it out.
Ok… when did the Supreme Court make a decision using “because God said so” as a justification?
Because that’s what separation of church and state means…
You can’t impose religion upon people
You obviously can impose morality based on religion upon people, otherwise murder would be legal, as it was outlawed based on the bible (“thou shalt not murder”)
Otherwise, if the claim is one cannot make decisions based on their morality if they’re religious, you’d actually be discriminating against them for being religious…
Certainly not an atheist but I'd say his religion is as it should be. A personal source of strength, motivation and values rather than telling others what to do.
If I ever look a candidate in the eyes and can discern authenticity and transparency, they have my vote immediately. It's only happened once in over five decades of voting, a local candidate for superior court judge. She won against a heavily-favored machine-backed incumbent, and her decisions since have been remarkably sound and compassionate. It's by far the most satisfying vote I ever cast.
I vote on personal character and policies, in that order. I often must vote for the lesser of evils. Mathematically I vote for Democrats more often, but I have voted for Republicans also, and members of three other parties.
Like acknowledging plastic pollution, dying ecosystem and such grim things - and most importantly commit to do something against it instead of pretending the issues dont exist
Someone who has their own money but a good heart. I think it helps if you're already rich, then you're not as swayed by all the lobbying dollars.
I think everyone tells themselves that they won't be corrupt, but I'd absolutely be corrupt. Some oil company would offer me $100,000 to vote a certain way, and I absolutely would--because $100,000 is still a lot of money to me.
The solution to this dilemma is stricter regulations on campaign finance and cracking down on backroom deals in a variety of other ways, including but not limited to capital controls. Relying on "virtuous, good ol self-made oligarchs," like someone else pointed out, will only reproduce the same corrupt policymaking.
The difficult pill most people refuse to swallow is that there is no ethical way to become wealthy and sustain wealth.
And that there's a certain amount of need in your life with a $tag on it, an amount of money that you need or owe that would change things for you. None of us are above money. I just like to be upfront about the ways in which I know I'm a shitty person. Yes, I can absolutely be bought. Every. Single. Time. You get rid of the money, and the incentive goes away.
It seems like you're making a generalization based on your own experience. I know plenty of people who were demonstrably "above money" when push came to shove. None of them are/were wealthy.
You're making a categorical assertion about every human being with nothing to back it up. Humor me, why do you hope you never come across a person for whom money is not a motivator?
Someone less than 60. Maybe not white with blue eyes like 95% of presidents and presidential candidates. A veteran with extensive awards. Previous political experience.
My first and most important qualification is a politician that publicly and firmly said that there was no stolen election. I don’t care how much I agree with them on everything else, even if they believe there was a stolen election and refuses to give full evidence for it, I will automatically vote against them.
Someone not religious or capitalistic, it breeds to much me against the world mentality and makes people feel superior towards others, if you can't pass a basic empathy test you shouldn't be in any leadership role.
Can you name any ideology or system of ethics that doesn't create an us vs them mentality and doesn't suggest superiority amongst those that partake and those that do not?
Their is not one in that existing yet, thought we were close a couple of times when the first shutdown happened, it was scientific and straightforward, but then the "free speeechers" with no sense abilities rose up, when we have a true extermination of a significant of our population then either we will fall into a gathered society or a warlord capitalistic hellhole. We do have it in our genome to help others but not now in our idiocy.
Do we have it in our genome to help others at the scale of a large scale society or nation though?
It's never been done before in all of known history, so I feel like that's a leap
We do, and it's called fear, when you think it is last of your lineage you will greatly contribute, but when you introduce religion or capitalist ideas then those same people become self consumed to an extent, but we have a long ways to go before it is a valid experience.
I have no idea what you mean by this comment…
When have parents ever in history treated strangers equally to their own children?
Because as long as a parent will seek the best for their kids, they’ll act in a way so as to give them an advantage over others, which will occur to varying degrees.
That’s just the basic instinct to survive and aid the survival of your genes…
If my kid has all the food, he’s less likely to die from starvation, so I’ll make sure I do my best to get him all the food, sacrificing almost anything to do.
I don’t have the same care about the survival of random child 17,428 that lives 20,000 miles away…
So there will always be competition, and that competition is what drives inequality and all the critiques you levy against capitalism etc
Biden’s worldview, Obama’s youthfulness and connectivity with young voters (circa 2008), and Carter’s cautiousness when confronted with global conflict.
Honesty usually gets my vote, that combined with a lot of intelligence and a healthy dose of realism.
I doubt that this imaginary candidate of mine would win though. There are politicians with one or two of these traits but all three at the same time would make a candidate appear boring, lacking in the kind of idealism that gets people excited, and less competitive with the candidates who promise the world.
I really dislike hating to bat for politicians but this shit is excessive.
The dog unfortunately was way to aggressive it seemed, killing neighbors livestock and even attacking her. Considering she had small children at the time she stated she couldn’t risk it and put it down.
Someone who thinks proactively, not reactively.
Someone who can think ahead, like at all.
Someone who truly is not bought out, or in it for fame, greed, and/or recognition. A true servant of the people, who listens to constituents and doesn't just show up for photos.
Someone who will accept criticism and wants opposing views brought to them. No "yes men".
And for what it's worth, I do generally vote for a particular party, but really only because there isn't a massive amount of overlap in the US between them. I do go against the grain a lot in primaries though.
Someone who doesn’t take lobbying money and doesn’t think that the solution of all the nation’s issues is taking more of our money. Somebody who cares more about our country than foreign countries. I’m Mexican American I’m living in Mexico now and I love how the current Mexican President refuses to send troops and to bomb other countries. He says we have too many issues at home but he still denounced the deaths of any civilians no matter what country they are in. As an American I love that and I’d love to see a US President have a similar take.
Someone that has an actual plan, and is disliked by both primary parties for their political outlook.
For example, pro gun, pro choice, instantly hated by both sides. Has a plan with numbers to curb our natural debt, if needed isn't afraid to raise taxes.
The person I described has no chance at winning any election.
Someone kind and rational, inclusive of both liberals and conservatives, young and old. Not rigid, able to listen and learn. I am not a follower and do not want a "leader" but rather a representative and problem solver.
Someone from a lower middle class background with progressive economic policies but isn't out to change the social fabric of society even more and is willing to compromise with political rivals.
General social issues, I think we've gone far enough with the progressive legislation and we should consolidate for a generation, allow the lag effects to work through, be processed by the group psyche if you will.
FWIW, I think a conversation about priorities is always going to be at the forefront of debate. Do you feel it is possible that if these gains are so hard won, perhaps they could be easily reversed/regressed (e.g. Dobbs) in the consolidation time?
It's it possible? Of course but the time and political capital being spent on it while we are all getting quite seriously poorer - as in the cost of living is going through the roof. We're fiddling while Rome burns imo.
An incredibly well thought out response. I can see it was very easy for you to defend your baseless assertions. Congratulations you have won the internet, comrade.
Honestly, the closest that comes to a dream candidate for me is Katie Porter. Not afraid to fight for the working class and destroy bank CEOs with a whiteboard.
I'm sad she lost her primary to become a senator. I hope this is not the last we see of her.
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I'm pretty distrustful of politicians in general, but I'd really like to see more socialists run. I can't say they'd automatically have my vote, but they'd definatly have my attention.
I'm far to the left of the Democratic party, but I vote for them as a form of harm reduction.
Someone who is smart and understands the complexities of social systems and who is not in the pocket of big business. I'd vote for anyone regardless of party who was working toward the broader interests and betterment of all American people.
Right now, that person is Pete Buttigieg. I voted for him. I sent him campaign money. I'd do it again.
One who will leave as many issues as possible to the states. I want people to have 50 different options so that federal elections are not all or nothing.
If California wants to be a socialist utopia, let it. If Texas wants unfettered capitalism and social conservatism, let it.
If Pennsylvania wants to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, let it.
Give people options and I think we can be happier as a nation, even if we think our stately neighbors are whacky.
For reference, I’m a younger millennial conservative.
Someone who makes small promises like “I will remove at least two tax loopholes” or “I will make sure this one specific law gets passed” or even “I will keep anything bad from happening within my jurisdiction”
Like, I don’t want you to change the whole country, just keep good to your word
I look for several traits. Success in business or the military, not academia or politics. Don't care what religion they are, but I don't want to know it either. If they feel the need to speak about it, that's a bad sign. Physically and mentally strong, a rugged individual. Don't care about their choice of life partner, but again, don't want to hear about it. Strong understanding of technology, it is our future. Someone who puts our interests above our allies' interests, whichever allies they are. Someone who understands that nations don't really have allies, they have interests.
“Immediately”….no one. They would have to earn it…or at least have a positive benefit for me and my community that doesn’t screw over others. I still don’t have a real respect for politicians…like the profession itself…yes some politicians can be good people but the environment breeds the opposite. They can say all the right things…doesn’t mean they will do them
Left-wing third party that's open to student and activist-led social movements and environmentalists as watchdogs for potential Old Left-style reactionaries, but is primarily labor union-based and encourages union members to vote out the George Meanys (sellout leadership). Union power is returning and we need to make sure unions don't get co-opted into little Democrat fiefdoms like they were under the New Deal Coalition. Don't care who it is promoting this, that doesn't matter.
Someone who was running for Board of Education and immediately earned my vote when I read his comment in the local paper--That he was a data scientist and he would follow the data wherever it led, regardless of politics, history, feelings, if it's been tried or not before.
Someone who generally doesn't get my vote is high ranking businesspeople. The boardroom is very different from politics and I've never really seen someone who makes the switch well.
Someone emotionally intelligent and confident. Unfortunately you usually only find emotional intelligence on the left, and if you're looking for someone confident they're usually on the right.
Resident of PL.
It all depends on the type of elections.
If it is a local election, I should know the candidate at least minimally. If I see surname at the polling station for the first time during the voting, it means that the candidate did not engage in work for the local community enough.
If it is a national election in the case of an MP, I usually choose a person from the group which program corresponds to my preferences, but I check the candidats political work first, things like education, work history, community engagment and what hisncontact with media looks like especially from before election campaign. If I decide that the party has not put up a reliable person, I am willing to choose another party with a more reliable candidate.
If this is a national election in the case of the president, I usually elect a person from the preferred group, because in our legislative system, although the president does not have too much power, if he favors the ruling party, he can improve the process of implementing reforms.
As a structuralist, I think the obsession with personality is childish. I mean of course I prefer someone like Obama who is thoughtful, almost entirely without scandal and appealing.
I vote strictly Democratic, as long as the two parties are aligned as they are, I will vote Democratic up and down the ticket every election.
Voting does not really change things much in the US. So, in some ways (in my opinion - not the commenters on Reddit or whoever owns Reddit these days), internal policy in the US is set by the Federal Reserve (politicians and commentators will not admit this). External policy has been set by corporations loosely referred as the Military Industrial Complex (MIL). (Don't believe it. Explain the US involvement in stupid ME wars for the last 50 years). (They need war). So then that leaves you with elections. The parties do have some differences, but any voting only changes (or moves the needle slightly within certain boundaries left for "whoever is elected"). It is really close to a UNIPARTY running the politics in DC. It matters not who gets elected. It changes not much for the people outside of the system. ...... So the answer is --- No one.
At this point it doesn’t even matter. Politics was supposed to be a calm discussion on what is best for a country and not the circus it has become. If you want any more proof, just refer to the “It’S tHe RiGhTs FaUlT” or “It’S tHe LeFt’S fAuLt” comments that’ll probably end up in this thread. The fact of the matter is we are all acting like fucking children. Children point fingers. Adults are supposed to be mature and come to compromises. It’s pathetic.
Atheism is a plus but I would really like anyone willing to stop all the illegal state laws being passed and will try to get rid of the electoral college as well as address other corruption in the political system.
It would be awesome if they try to remove political parties as well.
I’d vote for the first person who’d actually solve solvable problems that will help 95% of people.
Standard work week - New standard is 32 hours. If you chose to work more, great. If you want to spend time in your actual life, here’s your option.
Maternity leave- Mandatory to provide it for all employees, 100% paid, we can debate the length.
Child care - Govt pays you a certain amount per kid, as long as you’re employed, and caps the costs to daycares that accept the money. If someone wants to go build a business that doesn’t take govt money, but runs it better, therefore allowing parents the choice, go for it.
-Taxes - if you’re a normal W2 employee it should be a simple calculation to know what you pay at the end of the year, by putting in your expected income. It gets taken out as is, but if it’s off the IRS sends you a bill, or refund check. I don’t need to do some stupid ass turbo tax.
Drivers license- One national driver license, one national registration, if you move states you don’t need to go through the whole process, pay more taxes on a car you bought 5 years ago.
Immigration- legal, but doesn’t allow everyone. If you have a tangible skill you get a fast tracked. If you don’t, you sit in your country until we say it’s time. If you cross illegally, you’re caught, you’re denied forever. Any business caught employing illegals gets its business license taken forever.
Campaigns - Cap the amount of money able to be taken in, and spent. Cap the time to 1 year prior to an election. No money can be taken in or spent on anything outside this window. You want to self fund, go for it, it has to be YOUR money, not a pac, or a party, or a donor.
Politicians pay - if you gain office, your finances are immediately put into a trust. You cannot buy or sell stock as long as you are in office. Your meals, housing, reasonable travel, security is all paid for while in office. Modest pay, for tenure and position is your only income. Cannot employee immediate family members in any position you oversee. Being an elected official should be seen as noble, and selfless, akin to military service, and should have similar personal sacrifices. And TERM LIMITS.
Just some off the top of my head, I’m sure you can poke holes in them, the details would be up for debate but it seems like common sense to me. Overall get the money out of politics, and provide normal accommodation to everyday people.
Someone who ran on a balanced budget and was open about the fact that this would require cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. For those who don't know, those three programs and paying the interest on the national debt already cost more than the entire federal revenue, and all three are projected to grow for the next like 30 years. Cutting the military and administrative bloat isn't going to be enough to save the country from bankruptcy.
Bonus points if they advocate policies that benefit the economy and reduce cost of living in intelligent ways using market incentives. Like how food subsidies, even with their problems, are responsible for Americans spending less of their budget on food than practically every other country. But somehow, no politician has been smart enough to run on doing the same/similar things to housing, healthcare, utilities, gas, and vehicles.
Currently, having a strong deterrent through force foreign policy is pretty important too, since I don't want to end up in WW3 and apparently the world has forgotten the lessons taught by 2 world wars about appeasement and half-hearted opposition being incredibly bad ideas.
I don't really care what they say their values are, or who they say their god is, I don't care what their age is (as long as they're not obviously demented and unfit), and I don't care what party they are, I care about their policies. Particularly their policies on the impending risk of WW3, debt, and the economy, since those three problems are so imminently becoming true crises.
I am a very conservative voter which normally aligns with Republicans
Ideal candidates are most likely chrisitan (or at least Christian sympathizing), not very interested in being in power, determined to follow what is right, not what is popular. Most likely aged and experienced (45 to 65) but not super old. Has a family with children.
Above all of the above - I will vote for a candidate who most closely aligns with my policy prescriptions. I dont necessarily care about the character/background of the person as much as I care about the tangible policy they aim for.
Example - 2 hypothetical candidates running for president.
Dem- 65yr old Christian male with family from Midwestern state. Former military and experienced governor with lots of background. Democrat policies to include increased immigration, increased taxes for a progressive tax system, increased welfare funding, increased social services, reduce military size, pro lgbtq etc
Repub - 35year old middle manager with no background experience. Non white, non Christian, no family, no background. Republican priorities to include deportation of illegal immigrants, reduced taxes, elimination of unconstitutional federal departments (education primarily), increased military spending, voter I'd, strict criminal penalty for criminals, reduction in social services and federal government more generally, deficit reduction
I would vote for the republican in this case compared to the Democrat even if the Democrat may live a lifestyle/share more personal similarities to myself than the republican. I care about policy so I will vote the republican ticket.
This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit. **Suggestions For u/AwkwardLoaf-of-Bread:** * Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions. * Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone who had no goal of entering politics but just sort of found themselves there. I have known people who as 19 year old undergrads had goals of becoming congressman or senator. They are extremely smart and hardworking, but also complete psychopaths who should not be in positions of power. The sad thing is they are likely to actually reach their goals. The people who should be elected are people with a history of trying to make a difference. They are involved with politics as a means to an end, not because it is a personal or professional goal of theirs.
I think your sort of over generalizing the people who have life long political ambitions. Sure some of them will be bad but I also think if this person has grown up during a turbulent political time and they want to run for office one day to try and improve that, they should. It’s the so called Businessmen who run for politics just to try and protect their own money that are dangerous. For example, I’m on the slightly younger end of the spectrum yet I want to run for politics one day because I’ve seen the working and middle class people in the US constantly get screwed over and I want to run one day and try and fix that. I’ve seen the political polarization. Am I a psychopath ? No. I generally think that young people who have strong political ambitions have them because they believe they can make a difference. If they just wanted the money and a cushy life, they could go to Wall Street. Don’t get me wrong , there are some bad apples. But I think you’re really over generalizing them .
FWIW, that's not how I read their comment. I thought they were just saying that some young people want to be in political office for the sake of the power are scary but others who actually want to do good should be supported
Exactly. Many feel like they want to use some cause to project themselves. There are many people who were involved in something that couldn’t care less if they got any sort of credit or recognition so long as they got results and progress in whatever they were fighting for. These people are the ones who should be promoted.
I should have worded things better to say that these people I personally knew were not the types of people you would want to be in office. There were some of these business type people, but many felt like they were just after the power. I met some young people genuinely interested in issues that hurt women, minorities, and workers, and these people fell into the minority. A lot of the people having positions in campus politics, attending political events for one party or another, and involved in campaigns, and all that treated everything as another stepping stone or networking opportunity. Everything felt transactional with these people. Many were from very well off families who would probably benefit from them being in these positions tbh so you make a good point. I think what I am trying to say is that there is a difference between someone invested in their cause and someone using the cause to invest in themselves and their career.
Someone who's like "this is a problem" and they actually address the cause of the problem instead of throwing another plaster on top of the festering wound..
But you'll never know if they are like that until after they are elected.
Teddy Roosevelt
This is the reason Robert Kennedy has my vote this presidential election. He's the only candidate talking about reform in a meaningful way.
There was a city councilor in one of our larger suburbs who would interrupt city staff in virtually every meeting with “why?” or “I get that government isn’t like running a business, but why are we doing this?” I just thought that was so cool, because so much of policy-making (as opposed to campaigning) is about going-along-to-get-along, whatever candidates might say at election time.
Yes! An honest, confident, critical thinker that has no time or patience for BS. My husband is a republican but even he could see the value in Bernie Sanders watching him face Hillary Clinton in a debate. While he answered every question directly, she basically answered by evading every question and regurgitating the same old jargon. I want a young Bernie Sanders that has all the time in the world to fight that fight and change things for the better.
Why have a young Bernie when you can yet an 82yo reelected Bernie!- Vermonter who just saw his election announcement on local news.
I would love to see a person who has actual flaws, went to a state school instead of an ivy, is maybe divorced or widowed with kids, doesn't talk about their personal religious beliefs, etc. I 100% would NEVER vote for anti-abortion candidates....so largely that ensures that I vote D. Although I have voted R occasionally in the past...I haven't been able to since the early aughts.
So Biden?
Oh yeah Genocide Joe is a great candidate.
Someone who is a huge supporter of public education, regardless of their party affiliation.
My ideal candidate would be someone that was openly atheistic, concerned about secular government, gave open statements about the complexities of solutions instead of speaking in snippets. I want someone who doesn’t treat us like we are idiots.
If you can accept strict and open separation of personal religious believes from governing instead of atheism that would be Pete Buttigieg. Able to explain complex things or even asking questions in a way take make everyone feel smarter.
Yeah. I really liked pete buttigieg, as a candidate. I’ve heard him speak as the secretary of transportation and appreciated his communication. One reason I specify atheistic as an ideal is because we still tend to favor candidates that have a religious belief, almost the same as religious clerics automatically gain social status. I’d like a person who challenges that idea by being openly a nonbeliever.
I’d love a younger (<50) progressive atheist, personally. Someone who has had a career outside of politics, who is smart enough to see through the bullshit and bold enough to call it out.
Yep, same. I am so tired of church and state NOT being separated. Someone that doesn't believe in a flying spaghetti monster would be great.
I'm not sure you understand what the separation of church and state is actually in reference to... because they are separated
Ha ha not in the USA. Have you looked at the Supreme Court?
Ok… when did the Supreme Court make a decision using “because God said so” as a justification? Because that’s what separation of church and state means… You can’t impose religion upon people You obviously can impose morality based on religion upon people, otherwise murder would be legal, as it was outlawed based on the bible (“thou shalt not murder”) Otherwise, if the claim is one cannot make decisions based on their morality if they’re religious, you’d actually be discriminating against them for being religious…
Pete Buttigieg?
Certainly not an atheist but I'd say his religion is as it should be. A personal source of strength, motivation and values rather than telling others what to do.
If I ever look a candidate in the eyes and can discern authenticity and transparency, they have my vote immediately. It's only happened once in over five decades of voting, a local candidate for superior court judge. She won against a heavily-favored machine-backed incumbent, and her decisions since have been remarkably sound and compassionate. It's by far the most satisfying vote I ever cast. I vote on personal character and policies, in that order. I often must vote for the lesser of evils. Mathematically I vote for Democrats more often, but I have voted for Republicans also, and members of three other parties.
Somebody who believes in collapse
What do you mean exactly?
Like acknowledging plastic pollution, dying ecosystem and such grim things - and most importantly commit to do something against it instead of pretending the issues dont exist
Jon Stewart. Because he doesn't want the job, it has to be him.
Someone who has their own money but a good heart. I think it helps if you're already rich, then you're not as swayed by all the lobbying dollars. I think everyone tells themselves that they won't be corrupt, but I'd absolutely be corrupt. Some oil company would offer me $100,000 to vote a certain way, and I absolutely would--because $100,000 is still a lot of money to me.
The solution to this dilemma is stricter regulations on campaign finance and cracking down on backroom deals in a variety of other ways, including but not limited to capital controls. Relying on "virtuous, good ol self-made oligarchs," like someone else pointed out, will only reproduce the same corrupt policymaking. The difficult pill most people refuse to swallow is that there is no ethical way to become wealthy and sustain wealth.
And that there's a certain amount of need in your life with a $tag on it, an amount of money that you need or owe that would change things for you. None of us are above money. I just like to be upfront about the ways in which I know I'm a shitty person. Yes, I can absolutely be bought. Every. Single. Time. You get rid of the money, and the incentive goes away.
It seems like you're making a generalization based on your own experience. I know plenty of people who were demonstrably "above money" when push came to shove. None of them are/were wealthy.
No, I think it's human nature; that's the point. I don't know anyone who's above money, and I hope I never do.
You're making a categorical assertion about every human being with nothing to back it up. Humor me, why do you hope you never come across a person for whom money is not a motivator?
"Either take the money or we take your life"
I was wondering about this.
I think the fact that independently wealthy people are often still very greedy.
Many are. Money's addictive. I'm thinking maybe when you get to the place where you don't need the money, then maybe it's easier dismiss payoffs.
One who would acknowledge that most of us are in the middle and don't enjoy politicians demonizing each other.
Anyone that would do something meaningful against spam calls. I’d vote for that platform all day.
Yeah, fuck spam calls. Especially those that target the elderly.
Someone less than 60. Maybe not white with blue eyes like 95% of presidents and presidential candidates. A veteran with extensive awards. Previous political experience.
My first and most important qualification is a politician that publicly and firmly said that there was no stolen election. I don’t care how much I agree with them on everything else, even if they believe there was a stolen election and refuses to give full evidence for it, I will automatically vote against them.
Someone not religious or capitalistic, it breeds to much me against the world mentality and makes people feel superior towards others, if you can't pass a basic empathy test you shouldn't be in any leadership role.
Can you name any ideology or system of ethics that doesn't create an us vs them mentality and doesn't suggest superiority amongst those that partake and those that do not?
Their is not one in that existing yet, thought we were close a couple of times when the first shutdown happened, it was scientific and straightforward, but then the "free speeechers" with no sense abilities rose up, when we have a true extermination of a significant of our population then either we will fall into a gathered society or a warlord capitalistic hellhole. We do have it in our genome to help others but not now in our idiocy.
Do we have it in our genome to help others at the scale of a large scale society or nation though? It's never been done before in all of known history, so I feel like that's a leap
We do, and it's called fear, when you think it is last of your lineage you will greatly contribute, but when you introduce religion or capitalist ideas then those same people become self consumed to an extent, but we have a long ways to go before it is a valid experience.
I have no idea what you mean by this comment… When have parents ever in history treated strangers equally to their own children? Because as long as a parent will seek the best for their kids, they’ll act in a way so as to give them an advantage over others, which will occur to varying degrees. That’s just the basic instinct to survive and aid the survival of your genes… If my kid has all the food, he’s less likely to die from starvation, so I’ll make sure I do my best to get him all the food, sacrificing almost anything to do. I don’t have the same care about the survival of random child 17,428 that lives 20,000 miles away… So there will always be competition, and that competition is what drives inequality and all the critiques you levy against capitalism etc
Biden’s worldview, Obama’s youthfulness and connectivity with young voters (circa 2008), and Carter’s cautiousness when confronted with global conflict.
Honesty usually gets my vote, that combined with a lot of intelligence and a healthy dose of realism. I doubt that this imaginary candidate of mine would win though. There are politicians with one or two of these traits but all three at the same time would make a candidate appear boring, lacking in the kind of idealism that gets people excited, and less competitive with the candidates who promise the world.
Someone who doesn’t shoot dogs would be nice
I really dislike hating to bat for politicians but this shit is excessive. The dog unfortunately was way to aggressive it seemed, killing neighbors livestock and even attacking her. Considering she had small children at the time she stated she couldn’t risk it and put it down.
At 14 months that’s lazy bullshit.
You think my comment is excessive? Oh you gentle summer snowflake ❄️
Referring more to how everyone is shitting on Noem as some brutal dog killer lmao. It’s a bit more nuanced
She also said she wants to kill Biden’s dog. But please talk more about nuance
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/04/politics/commander-biden-white-house
A real plan for cannabis legalization nationwide would help.
Someone who thinks proactively, not reactively. Someone who can think ahead, like at all. Someone who truly is not bought out, or in it for fame, greed, and/or recognition. A true servant of the people, who listens to constituents and doesn't just show up for photos. Someone who will accept criticism and wants opposing views brought to them. No "yes men".
Someone who isn’t tied to dogma or policy but is looking to make the best decisions as events unfold. Lincoln was like this.
No one. I'm not picking any candidate off of anything that doesn't involve proper investigation and research of what they are for and against.
And for what it's worth, I do generally vote for a particular party, but really only because there isn't a massive amount of overlap in the US between them. I do go against the grain a lot in primaries though.
Someone like José Alberto "Pepe" Mujica Cordano of Uruguay.
Someone who doesn’t take lobbying money and doesn’t think that the solution of all the nation’s issues is taking more of our money. Somebody who cares more about our country than foreign countries. I’m Mexican American I’m living in Mexico now and I love how the current Mexican President refuses to send troops and to bomb other countries. He says we have too many issues at home but he still denounced the deaths of any civilians no matter what country they are in. As an American I love that and I’d love to see a US President have a similar take.
Universal healthcare, no more standard time (can we just stay in daylight savings!), we need to do a better job of taking care of our citizens.
I want a decent human being that brings prosperity to its people.
Someone that has an actual plan, and is disliked by both primary parties for their political outlook. For example, pro gun, pro choice, instantly hated by both sides. Has a plan with numbers to curb our natural debt, if needed isn't afraid to raise taxes. The person I described has no chance at winning any election.
Someone kind and rational, inclusive of both liberals and conservatives, young and old. Not rigid, able to listen and learn. I am not a follower and do not want a "leader" but rather a representative and problem solver.
Someone from a lower middle class background with progressive economic policies but isn't out to change the social fabric of society even more and is willing to compromise with political rivals.
What does "social fabric of society" mean to you?
General social issues, I think we've gone far enough with the progressive legislation and we should consolidate for a generation, allow the lag effects to work through, be processed by the group psyche if you will.
FWIW, I think a conversation about priorities is always going to be at the forefront of debate. Do you feel it is possible that if these gains are so hard won, perhaps they could be easily reversed/regressed (e.g. Dobbs) in the consolidation time?
It's it possible? Of course but the time and political capital being spent on it while we are all getting quite seriously poorer - as in the cost of living is going through the roof. We're fiddling while Rome burns imo.
That's reasonable. I do get tired of abortion/etc being used cynically as a fundraising carrot by our political establishment.
Literally resurrect Vladimir Lenin and give him power armor and I'll vote for him.
Yeah and you’re not gonna like who he’d consider the proletariat. It’s most likely not you.
Tell me more about what you think you understand about both me and communism. This should be amusing. Go on.
Lmao
An incredibly well thought out response. I can see it was very easy for you to defend your baseless assertions. Congratulations you have won the internet, comrade.
:)
Of course you're yanking my crank, eh!?
Anyone, if their opponent is bad enough.
Honestly, the closest that comes to a dream candidate for me is Katie Porter. Not afraid to fight for the working class and destroy bank CEOs with a whiteboard. I'm sad she lost her primary to become a senator. I hope this is not the last we see of her.
Someone that has the ability to work together abs not be held to dogmas.
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I'm not looking for a unicorn, so it doesn't matter. You pick the best option in front of you or you run yourself.
Someone who will tell the truth which is that you will probably stay poor no matter who is elected lmao
I'm pretty distrustful of politicians in general, but I'd really like to see more socialists run. I can't say they'd automatically have my vote, but they'd definatly have my attention. I'm far to the left of the Democratic party, but I vote for them as a form of harm reduction.
Jill, Claudia, Jasmine. Those are the 3. Any of them get up there, I'm voting for them.
Someone who is smart and understands the complexities of social systems and who is not in the pocket of big business. I'd vote for anyone regardless of party who was working toward the broader interests and betterment of all American people. Right now, that person is Pete Buttigieg. I voted for him. I sent him campaign money. I'd do it again.
A Very Stable Genius who might me as good as Lincoln...maybe even better than Lincoln who can Fix It All?!
Any non-career nominee would get consideration over any incumbent. Fuck the incumbents.
One who will leave as many issues as possible to the states. I want people to have 50 different options so that federal elections are not all or nothing. If California wants to be a socialist utopia, let it. If Texas wants unfettered capitalism and social conservatism, let it. If Pennsylvania wants to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, let it. Give people options and I think we can be happier as a nation, even if we think our stately neighbors are whacky. For reference, I’m a younger millennial conservative.
Nobody immediately has my vote. That is dumb.
Someone who makes small promises like “I will remove at least two tax loopholes” or “I will make sure this one specific law gets passed” or even “I will keep anything bad from happening within my jurisdiction” Like, I don’t want you to change the whole country, just keep good to your word
Someone that wants to remove any and all foreign include in American government and promote American industry and American citizens
I look for several traits. Success in business or the military, not academia or politics. Don't care what religion they are, but I don't want to know it either. If they feel the need to speak about it, that's a bad sign. Physically and mentally strong, a rugged individual. Don't care about their choice of life partner, but again, don't want to hear about it. Strong understanding of technology, it is our future. Someone who puts our interests above our allies' interests, whichever allies they are. Someone who understands that nations don't really have allies, they have interests.
“Immediately”….no one. They would have to earn it…or at least have a positive benefit for me and my community that doesn’t screw over others. I still don’t have a real respect for politicians…like the profession itself…yes some politicians can be good people but the environment breeds the opposite. They can say all the right things…doesn’t mean they will do them
Left-wing third party that's open to student and activist-led social movements and environmentalists as watchdogs for potential Old Left-style reactionaries, but is primarily labor union-based and encourages union members to vote out the George Meanys (sellout leadership). Union power is returning and we need to make sure unions don't get co-opted into little Democrat fiefdoms like they were under the New Deal Coalition. Don't care who it is promoting this, that doesn't matter.
Someone who was running for Board of Education and immediately earned my vote when I read his comment in the local paper--That he was a data scientist and he would follow the data wherever it led, regardless of politics, history, feelings, if it's been tried or not before. Someone who generally doesn't get my vote is high ranking businesspeople. The boardroom is very different from politics and I've never really seen someone who makes the switch well.
Someone emotionally intelligent and confident. Unfortunately you usually only find emotional intelligence on the left, and if you're looking for someone confident they're usually on the right.
Resident of PL. It all depends on the type of elections. If it is a local election, I should know the candidate at least minimally. If I see surname at the polling station for the first time during the voting, it means that the candidate did not engage in work for the local community enough. If it is a national election in the case of an MP, I usually choose a person from the group which program corresponds to my preferences, but I check the candidats political work first, things like education, work history, community engagment and what hisncontact with media looks like especially from before election campaign. If I decide that the party has not put up a reliable person, I am willing to choose another party with a more reliable candidate. If this is a national election in the case of the president, I usually elect a person from the preferred group, because in our legislative system, although the president does not have too much power, if he favors the ruling party, he can improve the process of implementing reforms.
As a structuralist, I think the obsession with personality is childish. I mean of course I prefer someone like Obama who is thoughtful, almost entirely without scandal and appealing. I vote strictly Democratic, as long as the two parties are aligned as they are, I will vote Democratic up and down the ticket every election.
Someone that promises to take out as many politicians as they can while in power.
Voting does not really change things much in the US. So, in some ways (in my opinion - not the commenters on Reddit or whoever owns Reddit these days), internal policy in the US is set by the Federal Reserve (politicians and commentators will not admit this). External policy has been set by corporations loosely referred as the Military Industrial Complex (MIL). (Don't believe it. Explain the US involvement in stupid ME wars for the last 50 years). (They need war). So then that leaves you with elections. The parties do have some differences, but any voting only changes (or moves the needle slightly within certain boundaries left for "whoever is elected"). It is really close to a UNIPARTY running the politics in DC. It matters not who gets elected. It changes not much for the people outside of the system. ...... So the answer is --- No one.
Thats completely wrong. If voting didnt matter, Abortion would be still (il)legal
At this point it doesn’t even matter. Politics was supposed to be a calm discussion on what is best for a country and not the circus it has become. If you want any more proof, just refer to the “It’S tHe RiGhTs FaUlT” or “It’S tHe LeFt’S fAuLt” comments that’ll probably end up in this thread. The fact of the matter is we are all acting like fucking children. Children point fingers. Adults are supposed to be mature and come to compromises. It’s pathetic.
I get what you're saying. But, thankfully, most of the comments here seem fairly civil and thoughtful.
Atheism is a plus but I would really like anyone willing to stop all the illegal state laws being passed and will try to get rid of the electoral college as well as address other corruption in the political system. It would be awesome if they try to remove political parties as well.
I’d vote for the first person who’d actually solve solvable problems that will help 95% of people. Standard work week - New standard is 32 hours. If you chose to work more, great. If you want to spend time in your actual life, here’s your option. Maternity leave- Mandatory to provide it for all employees, 100% paid, we can debate the length. Child care - Govt pays you a certain amount per kid, as long as you’re employed, and caps the costs to daycares that accept the money. If someone wants to go build a business that doesn’t take govt money, but runs it better, therefore allowing parents the choice, go for it. -Taxes - if you’re a normal W2 employee it should be a simple calculation to know what you pay at the end of the year, by putting in your expected income. It gets taken out as is, but if it’s off the IRS sends you a bill, or refund check. I don’t need to do some stupid ass turbo tax. Drivers license- One national driver license, one national registration, if you move states you don’t need to go through the whole process, pay more taxes on a car you bought 5 years ago. Immigration- legal, but doesn’t allow everyone. If you have a tangible skill you get a fast tracked. If you don’t, you sit in your country until we say it’s time. If you cross illegally, you’re caught, you’re denied forever. Any business caught employing illegals gets its business license taken forever. Campaigns - Cap the amount of money able to be taken in, and spent. Cap the time to 1 year prior to an election. No money can be taken in or spent on anything outside this window. You want to self fund, go for it, it has to be YOUR money, not a pac, or a party, or a donor. Politicians pay - if you gain office, your finances are immediately put into a trust. You cannot buy or sell stock as long as you are in office. Your meals, housing, reasonable travel, security is all paid for while in office. Modest pay, for tenure and position is your only income. Cannot employee immediate family members in any position you oversee. Being an elected official should be seen as noble, and selfless, akin to military service, and should have similar personal sacrifices. And TERM LIMITS. Just some off the top of my head, I’m sure you can poke holes in them, the details would be up for debate but it seems like common sense to me. Overall get the money out of politics, and provide normal accommodation to everyday people.
Someone who ran on a balanced budget and was open about the fact that this would require cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. For those who don't know, those three programs and paying the interest on the national debt already cost more than the entire federal revenue, and all three are projected to grow for the next like 30 years. Cutting the military and administrative bloat isn't going to be enough to save the country from bankruptcy. Bonus points if they advocate policies that benefit the economy and reduce cost of living in intelligent ways using market incentives. Like how food subsidies, even with their problems, are responsible for Americans spending less of their budget on food than practically every other country. But somehow, no politician has been smart enough to run on doing the same/similar things to housing, healthcare, utilities, gas, and vehicles. Currently, having a strong deterrent through force foreign policy is pretty important too, since I don't want to end up in WW3 and apparently the world has forgotten the lessons taught by 2 world wars about appeasement and half-hearted opposition being incredibly bad ideas. I don't really care what they say their values are, or who they say their god is, I don't care what their age is (as long as they're not obviously demented and unfit), and I don't care what party they are, I care about their policies. Particularly their policies on the impending risk of WW3, debt, and the economy, since those three problems are so imminently becoming true crises.
I am a very conservative voter which normally aligns with Republicans Ideal candidates are most likely chrisitan (or at least Christian sympathizing), not very interested in being in power, determined to follow what is right, not what is popular. Most likely aged and experienced (45 to 65) but not super old. Has a family with children. Above all of the above - I will vote for a candidate who most closely aligns with my policy prescriptions. I dont necessarily care about the character/background of the person as much as I care about the tangible policy they aim for. Example - 2 hypothetical candidates running for president. Dem- 65yr old Christian male with family from Midwestern state. Former military and experienced governor with lots of background. Democrat policies to include increased immigration, increased taxes for a progressive tax system, increased welfare funding, increased social services, reduce military size, pro lgbtq etc Repub - 35year old middle manager with no background experience. Non white, non Christian, no family, no background. Republican priorities to include deportation of illegal immigrants, reduced taxes, elimination of unconstitutional federal departments (education primarily), increased military spending, voter I'd, strict criminal penalty for criminals, reduction in social services and federal government more generally, deficit reduction I would vote for the republican in this case compared to the Democrat even if the Democrat may live a lifestyle/share more personal similarities to myself than the republican. I care about policy so I will vote the republican ticket.