2012 Presidential Election, March 7, 2012

Category: Digital Media, Politics

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

18 Responses to “Where Do Presidential Candidate Stand on Key Issues?”

  1. NoKidding says:

    Abortion, marajuana and Muslim community centers. Is that what people care about?

    I’d like Paula Abdul to run, just to see. Maybe not president. Bet she could make Senator.

  2. ssc says:

    I do not follow any of these guys (I am a total cynic), but I happened to hear what Ron Paul had to say on abortion, if I remember correctly (I am fairly certain, as this was no more than a year ago), he said he’s against federal intervention, and the matter should be decided by each state, so the question posted is not entirely clear (legal option: federal, state??). I do not know if any against abortion candidate has proposed to make abortion illegal a constitutional amendment (otherwise, as Scalia likes to say, but, the constitution did not say that).

  3. rd says:

    This is better than I thought.

    I would have figured that all of the boxes would just be NC.

  4. Frilton Miedman says:

    Romney’s list needs a five minute interval auto-refresh function.

    For Santorum, don’t bother, just look in the Bible or refer to where the Pope stands.

    Gingrich won’t answer, buy his book, it’s in there.

    Ron Paul, simple, get rid of everything, eliminate all taxes, buy a club and move to a cave.

    Obama, his list stands…as long as it doesn’t offend the GOP and their special interest masters too much.

  5. dsimmons says:

    @ssc: Paul was a doctor by profession and each state’s along with their medical board dictates acceptable policies. I’m *guessing* he’s saying it’s not about the 14th amendment but a medical-political state issue.

    I’m not sure why I am constantly fascinated by our political system. The above issues often have nothing to do with long standing laws, Constitutional and Supreme Court precedent, or the gargantuan political will to change the US on these issues. Since when are credit cards a hot issue in America? The death penalty itself is on death row save a couple of states which is what it is, a state issue. Conscription?!?! WTF!

  6. cswake says:

    This is absurd. Most of the people on that list have shown an affinity toward wholesale shifts in core beliefs, so taking them at their word means exactly nothing. Even the voting record has no meaning since the bills are substantially more complicated than a single issue.

    Consequently, it is not surprising the information is not accurate. Even liberals recognize that Obama is okay with torture used for the right torture, even though his words say otherwise:

  7. cswake says:

    ^ right reasons

  8. Iamthe50percent says:

    That Johnson guy sounds OK, except for a few major issues such as Social Security. Even there I would rather have it privatized than means tested. I’m guessing that Lib stands for Libertarian rather than Liberal. Romney’s responses mean nothing as I have heard him contradict himself twice in the same debate on the same subject, He’s a perfect (slang term for prostitute). Goldman Sachs will love him. Obama is just as truth- challenged. The man promised Change then kept Bush’s people and Bush’s policies.

    Whatever happened to the Socialist Party?

  9. SecondLook says:

    From Ron Paul’s official website:

    As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.

    Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn.

    After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life. And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

    As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

    * Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

    * Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

    The classic Libertarian position would be complete freedom of choice for women – individual liberty and all that. Paul breaks from that and goes over into the social conservative camp. Not surprising, most people do the Chinese menu approach to their philosophies; one of this, one of that.

  10. Frilton Miedman says:

    SecondLook , thank you.

    I and my wife are both pro-life, we believe that if you do the deed you should be accountable excepting rape/incest & life threatening conditions,

    However,I have absolutely no right to decide this for others, especially not with the idea of life @ conception, that’s theocracy, nothing else.

    As a Libertarian I cannot tell you how frustrated I am over the last few years watching the GOP, with help from Fox propaganda network, take over the definition of Libertarian ideology.

    Libertarian “personal Liberty” is NOT “corporate Liberty” as has been so promoted by the Fox.

    Milton Friedman didn’t just warn about government power only, he warned against ANY concentration of power, be it government or anyone else.

    This constant historic Revisionism, convenient cherry-picking of economic theory and Swiss cheese interpretation of the Constitution is endless…..corporate whores all attempting to generically link words like “liberty” and “freedom” with bribed interests and sell it to anyone who buys it….and there were a lot of buyers in 2010.

    That is NOT Libertarianism, corporations are NOT people.

    The new America:

    “In Koch we trust”

    “I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of Rupert Murdoch, Loyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon and anyone else that makes 8 figures and bribes my government”

    “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what it can do for the wealthy at your expense”

    “Live free or die, as long as you can afford big lobby and campaign funds.”

    “The Congress shall make no law…. except for laws that revolve around righteous religious zeal.”

    Ok, Ill stop

  11. Joe Friday says:


    …Social Security. Even there I would rather have it privatized than means tested.

    A) Nobody in the private-sector has or can deliver the same guaranteed ROI.

    B) Social Security is already “means tested”. There is a capped maximum monthly benefit no matter how much one pays in.

  12. Theravadin says:

    It’s a funny thing: a table like this makes it look like Romney, Santorum and Gingrich actually have intelligible positions on subjects. Either this table makes things look clearer than they are, or the gentlemen in question are remarkably bad at communicating intelligible positions on… well, just about anything.

  13. Iamthe50percent says:

    Joe Friday, you are wrong. The benefit cap applies to everyone. Means testing would cut payments to those who had a pension or significant money in their IRA. Means testing makes SS into welfare, only available to the destitute. I’d rather take my chances on the market than have nothing. Both Parties have joined this war on seniors. Republicans want more money for tax cuts. Democrats want more money for pork barrel projects.
    The voters can always be manipulated by Madison Avenue. Both Parties just shrill their dog whistles loud and often fueled by corporate donations.

  14. mathman says:

    Since there is only one environmental question, please read this:

    (from article)
    “In a letter to Ernest de Chabrol dated 9 June 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: “As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring it?”

    Nearly two hundred years later, de Tocqueville has been vindicated not only as a superb social critic but also as a forecaster. Knowing nothing about de Tocqueville, the ten-year-old son of a friend put his own spin on recent history: “Mom, I think people value Father Time more than they value Mother Earth.” His words sting me like freezing rain, squeezing tears from the corners of my eyes. There’s nothing new there for me, except the perspective of youth: I often weep when I think about the hellishly overheated world we’re leaving him and his young friends. We’re destroying this world in large part because we care more about chasing fiat currency than we care about the living planet and its occupants.”


    “According to NASA, anthropogenic climate change is primarily due to human actions. The ongoing crisis is intensifying, and much of North America is experiencing summer in March. Ninety degrees in winter is not normal, climate-change deniers notwithstanding. Ditto for this year’s Silent Spring.

    If you’re under the age of 35, you’ve never experienced “normal” temperatures despite a weakening sun. In fact, February 1985 was the last time global mean monthly average was below the twentieth-century average. Already, climate has shifted to a new state. That state can only be described as dire. And yet because Earth’s climate system behaves in a nonlinear manner, future changes could occur very rapidly, making it seem as if more than three decades without a below-normal temperature reading were the good ol’ days.

    What does the future hold? First, a warning: Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

    A global average rise in temperature of 2 C is now optimistic, according to French scientists. Climatologist Matthew Huber agrees. But even that seemingly modest increase in temperature raises sea level 40 to 70 feet. Meanwhile, the OECD concludes we’re headed for an average temperature increase of 3-6 degrees Celsius by 2050 (full original report is here). Supporting documentation is far more abundant than revealed by these recent headlines:

    Climate change is shaking the world, literally

    Global warming borders is close to being irreversible, according to conservative scientists

    Greenland’s ice will melt at a much lower temperature than previously estimated

    It might be irreversible already

    The Arctic death spiral continues unabated

    After all, a carbon time bomb has been dropped in the Arctic

    At the other pole, an iceberg the size of New York state is about to break away from Antarctica

    For many years, people have been metaphorically stealing glaciers to put into cocktails. Now they’re literally doing it.

    Habitat for millions of people will disappear with flooding from the oceans

    Water, water, everywhere, but the world’s rivers are failing to make it all the way to the oceans

    Oceans are acidifying at an ‘unparalleled’ rate, and will not survive business-as-usual disaster-as-usual

    Conveyor belt tipping point has been reached, as I pointed out in this space more than a year ago

    As I also pointed out, at the same time under slightly different name, ‘Compost bomb’ is latest climate change ‘tipping point’

    Meanwhile, drought in the southwestern United States is intensifying even as U.S. heat waves are set to intensify from New York to Los Angeles

    According to tables of flowering dates in 1840s Massachusetts, average temperature already has risen 2.4 C in Concord since the industrial revolution began

    Elsewhere in the United States, the heat is unprecedented, with 7,000 record high temperatures so far this year

    A vital species of tree killed by climate change brings to mind one my favorite lines from Derrick Jensen: “Forests greet us and deserts dog our heels”

    The abundance of dire information and a slow news days causes even ABC “News” to point out the weather weirding

    How bad is the situation? Desperation is leading to long-shot technical “fixes.” Naturally, these do not include changing the behavior of people in the industrialized world. As usual, Americans, still affluent relative to people in other nations, can’t be bothered because they’re too concerned about the industrial economy to worry about persistence of Homo sapiens. The occasional thoughtful American writes a letter of apology to his grandchildren, preferring the ease of an apology over the difficulty of action. On the other hand, President Obama continues to ignore the issue, even though he certainly knows he is committing his family and young children to hell on Earth.

    If we didn’t already have enough reason to terminate this absurd set of living arrangements, human extinction might do the trick. It might be too late, of course: More than two years ago Tim Garrett pointed out that only collapse of the industrial economy prevents runaway greenhouse. In those two years, we’ve set records for carbon emissions on this overheated planet. But if we act as if it’s too late, our actions become self-fulfilling prophecy.

    In the spirit of Edward Abbey, let’s channel some Kierkegaard-inspired anxiety to act as if the future matters. Let’s act as if we have a future. Let’s act now, while the idea of a future still persists. Before it’s too late. Before there’s no tomorrow for our entire species.”

  15. billingeneva says:

    WTF… liberal or conservative we overwhelmingly agree that our political process is corrupted by special interest money and rigged but nowhere on the list is there any mention of reform or getting money out of politics? Why vote for anyone who is not going to fix the root problem that prevents progress on all of our other priorities.

  16. rd says:

    @ Joe Friday and Iamthe50percent:

    I am quite annoyed about the “means testing” blathering about Social Security. Why should somebody who paid in the same amount over their life but did not save in IRAs and 401ks get more money than somebody who did save? The person who did save (like myself) usually did so by not over-spending during their working years. Why should this be penalized?

    The income inequality means that there will be a fairly sharp cutoff at a relatively low-income that will penalize the savers. It won’t be worth setting the income cut-off high (say above $200k) because there will be few people at that level because of the large concentration of wealth and income at the top end, so not many people will have those high incomes. To make it worth while as a cost-saving measure, they will need to put the cutoffs squarely in the middle-class range.

    If they want to address something, get rid of the myriad of tax credits and deductions. I am doing my taxes and I get to go through screen after screen of credits and deductions that don’t apply to us. Even some of the deductions that we can take then get partially or totally taken away by AMT at the end (TaxCut kindly informed me that the AMT was cutting my refund in half).

  17. Joe Friday says:


    you are wrong.

    I’m afraid not.

    The benefit cap applies to everyone.

    That’s what I posted.

    However, below the cap, those that pay in more get a larger monthly benefit. After the cap, those that pay in more get the maximum monthly benefit, no matter how much more they paid in.

    Means testing would cut payments…

    That’s what the maximum monthly benefit cap DOES.

    I’d rather take my chances on the market than have nothing.

    Once again, private-sector returns have been inferior.

    Both Parties have joined this war on seniors.

    Not that I’ve noticed. Perhaps from RightWingers masquerading as Democrats. I don’t pay any attention to them.

    Republicans want more money for tax cuts.

    And the sun rises in the East.

  18. Joe Friday says:


    I am quite annoyed about the ‘means testing’ blathering about Social Security.

    I haven’t advocated “means testing”.

    If they want to address something, get rid of the myriad of tax credits and deductions. I am doing my taxes and I get to go through screen after screen of credits and deductions that don’t apply to us. Even some of the deductions that we can take then get partially or totally taken away by AMT at the end (TaxCut kindly informed me that the AMT was cutting my refund in half).

    A large number of Americans WISH they had your complaint. They don’t earn enough income to have the AMT kick-in.