68 questions for POTUS (Includes 3rd parties)

[kochman]

http://2012election.procon.org/view.source-summary-chart.php

This test gives you hyperlinked answers to 68 questions from 5 contenders. Of course, 2 are all that matter... but, you can see for yourself why that shouldn't be the case. I thought some of the hyperlinks were a little dubious, but whatever.

In my case, I weighed the answers on how they mattered to me... on some issues, I don't care one way or the other, etc. I liked being able to do this rather than being pigeon holed into someone else's scale. So, I then ranked the ones I do care about, etc. and added the totals together.

I came out with the following (negative being bad):
Obama -8
Romney -5
Goode -4
Johnson 0
Stein +2

http://2012election.procon.org/view.source-summary-chart.php

 

[Leonel]

I was hoping Anderson would be up there.

 

[AlpsStranger]

LOL, Romney supports abstinence only education.

I used to think he was formidably intelligent, but that's instant disproof right there.

You know, I'm pretty angry with the anti-SSM people. It's cultural bullying and it's wrong. SSM everywhere, yesterday. I respect the pro-life people even though I'm pro-choice. Yet saying "I'm in favor of abstinence only sex ed" is just too much. That's one of those silly, purely ideological brain farts occasionally inflicted on our culture by the Puritan remnant.

My respect for Romney actually did take a hit when I saw that. I thought he was "moderate Mitt."

*I'm aware they aren't literally connected to the historical Puritans before anyone decides to be cute.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, you could make the case that that is what he really believes, but it's Mitt Romney - how will anyone ever be able to tell whether he believes something or he's simply sucking up to his many and varied potential voters?

 

[kochman]

LOL, Romney supports abstinence only education.

I used to think he was formidably intelligent, but that's instant disproof right there.

You know, I'm pretty angry with the anti-SSM people. It's cultural bullying and it's wrong. SSM everywhere, yesterday. I respect the pro-life people even though I'm pro-choice. Yet saying "I'm in favor of abstinence only sex ed" is just too much. That's one of those silly, purely ideological brain farts occasionally inflicted on our culture by the Puritan remnant.

My respect for Romney actually did take a hit when I saw that. I thought he was "moderate Mitt."

*I'm aware they aren't literally connected to the historical Puritans before anyone decides to be cute.

So, your one issue voting is decided on sex ed courses?
Who cares what he thinks on that topic... as pointed out by Arakhor, he probably doesn't care... it's just to get some of the Repub base excited because they think it matters.

 

[AlpsStranger]

So, your one issue voting is decided on sex ed courses?

I already early voted for Obama. By definition nothing that happens now can change my vote. I lost some respect for Romney, that's all.

 

[GhostWriter16]

LOL, Romney supports abstinence only education.

I used to think he was formidably intelligent, but that's instant disproof right there.

You know, I'm pretty angry with the anti-SSM people. It's cultural bullying and it's wrong. SSM everywhere, yesterday. I respect the pro-life people even though I'm pro-choice. Yet saying "I'm in favor of abstinence only sex ed" is just too much. That's one of those silly, purely ideological brain farts occasionally inflicted on our culture by the Puritan remnant.

My respect for Romney actually did take a hit when I saw that. I thought he was "moderate Mitt."

*I'm aware they aren't literally connected to the historical Puritans before anyone decides to be cute.

The whole SSM game is what happens when you get the Federal government involved in culture wars.

Just give it back to the states already.

I personally am opposed to it. I agree with equal rights (Meaning that gay couples should be able to get the same rights as straight couples) but if I have to take a stand I don't think government should be interfering with the definition of marriage.

Of course, if New York, Iowa exc. want to legalize gay marriage, no Presidential candidate should be telling them they can't. The President has far, far, far, far bigger issues to worry about.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, until marriage has absolutely no legal ramifications whatsoever, of course the government should be 'interfering with the definition of marriage', because it's their duty and privilege to make the laws that we have to obey and live by.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why should marriage be their concern?

The government shouldn't recognize same sex marriage because it objectively isn't marriage.

 

[_random_]

LOL, Romney supports abstinence only education.

I used to think he was formidably intelligent, but that's instant disproof right there.

You know, I'm pretty angry with the anti-SSM people. It's cultural bullying and it's wrong. SSM everywhere, yesterday. I respect the pro-life people even though I'm pro-choice. Yet saying "I'm in favor of abstinence only sex ed" is just too much. That's one of those silly, purely ideological brain farts occasionally inflicted on our culture by the Puritan remnant.

My respect for Romney actually did take a hit when I saw that. I thought he was "moderate Mitt."

*I'm aware they aren't literally connected to the historical Puritans before anyone decides to be cute.

It's a pretty smart thing to support politically if you're trying to establish some conservatism cred while avoiding issues that are discussed frequently.

 

[Arakhor]

The government shouldn't recognize same sex marriage because it objectively isn't marriage.

And that is you misusing words again. 'Objectively' does not mean 'I agree with it' or anything else remotely subjective.

 

[_random_]

Abusing the word "objectively" is practically a sport on this forum, so I think I'll let it slide.

That being said, I'm curious why you think gay marriage should be a state issue. I get the argument for things like hunting laws or agricultural regulations or other things where the landscape and population of a given state really does make a difference, but I can't see how that would apply to SSM.

 

[AlpsStranger]

It's a pretty smart thing to support politically if you're trying to establish some conservatism cred while avoiding issues that are discussed frequently.

Only if we're accepting the fact that Romney is a bald faced liar of convenience.

I had assumed most of his supporters weren't.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Different cultural attitudes, the tenth amendment, and the fact that its not an important enough issue on either side to impose either side on all parts of the country.

 

[_random_]

Only if we're accepting the fact that Romney is a bald faced liar of convenience.

I had assumed most of his supporters weren't.

Don't mistake me for a Romney supporter. I just don't think he's an idiot.

Different cultural attitudes, the tenth amendment, and the fact that its not an important enough issue on either side to impose either side on all parts of the country.

Given that married people may move around the country together, I think a national standard of just what marriage is would be incredibly useful. And if it's a matter of civil rights, then cultural attitudes shouldn't matter a great deal.

 

[Arakhor]

Different cultural attitudes, the tenth amendment, and the fact that its not an important enough issue on either side to impose either side on all parts of the country.

For you, abortion is literally a life-or-death matter that is of the highest importance, so why is it that you get to determine that gay marriage is not important enough to achieve legislation?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Given that married people may move around the country together, I think a national standard of just what marriage is would be incredibly useful. And if it's a matter of civil rights, then cultural attitudes shouldn't matter a great deal.

But unconstitutional.

The state's rights thing is ultimately a fair compromise that let's us worry about real issues.

Ignoring the constitutional issues, if its a matter of civil rights then fine, pass a law ensuring that those rights are available for same sex couples. But don't define it as "Marriage."

@Arakhor- Constitutionally abortion is a state issue as well. As is pretty much any crime.

But I certainly consider abortion far more important than SSM. That is my opinion afterall.

 

[_random_]

I'd be okay with a "civil unions for all" thing if the terminology is really that contentious, but I don't see why it ought to be. Nobody's forcing you personally to recognize it as a marriage.

And you do come up with the rather thorny issue of two husbands who move to a state where marriage is constitutionally defined as not what they have. Can they file jointly for taxes or be compelled to testify against one another? Federal involvement to clear this up isn't forbidden by the Constitution as far as I know.

 

[Arakhor]

Yes, GW, but you're stating your opinion as if it's a fact. Gay marriage is highly important to some people, as I know you're well aware.

 

[peter grimes]

But unconstitutional.

The state's rights thing is ultimately a fair compromise that let's us worry about real issues.

Ignoring the constitutional issues, if its a matter of civil rights then fine, pass a law ensuring that those rights are available for same sex couples. But don't define it as "Marriage."

@Arakhor- Constitutionally abortion is a state issue as well. As is pretty much any crime.

But I certainly consider abortion far more important than SSM. That is my opinion afterall.

Constitutionality is irrelevant here, actually. There's nothing about marriage in it at all (unless I'm completely wrong - I honestly don't know).

It's pretty insulting to gay people (and Yes, you almost certainly have a gay relative, a gay teacher, a gay friend) to say that their legal situation is not a real issue.

Because for millions of our compatriots, it is a VERY real issue. And if you turn out to be gay, it will also become a huge issue for you.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-cross-in-the-closet-timothy-kurek/1112999942

This book sounds pretty interesting. He lived as an openly gay man for a couple of years, and it completely changed his views on homosexuality. He even brought his mother's views around (she had been pretty anti-gay before).