Grid Of Each Candidates Stance On The Issues

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Found several of these things, this on in particular seems pretty good. This sort of thing makes it much easier to sort of "weed out" flowery speeches from actual stances. (although im sure theres errors/ oversimplifcations)

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

I don't see any info there i think is incorrect but i also have not been following the candidates very closely recently.

I really do like this sort of layout though with all the individual issues.

There was a YouTube website with all the candidates listed and then all the issues, then links to statements they've made publicly , which i cant seem to find again. If anyone can find that page, hook me up.

[Msterbeau]

This one's pretty cool. I like that it highlights the issues and candidates so it 's easy to make comparisons.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

One thing i like about such lists are they keep the actual ISSUES positions of each candidate in your face, rather than getting caught up in the horse-race.

Even just the first two lines are interesting:

Roe V Wade

Death Penalty

Traditionally Democrats are supposed to be Pro R v Wade and against the Death penalty. Republicans against R v Wade and pro Death Penalty.

But just a quick glance at that grid link shows a huge range regardless of party affiliation.

[jadnifer]

This has so prompted me to start a new thread!

[Troy Spiral (13)]

This has so prompted me to start a new thread!

You know your topic sucks when....

[jadnifer]

No no no that isnt what I meant....I wanted to talk about the Roe V Wade and the death penalty but I didnt want to thread jack...go read my new post...I would very much like to know your opinion

[ttogreh]

Well, this whole "Roe v. Wade" thing... it seems like its impact is a mile wide and an inch deep. I mean, no anti-abortion candidate wants to go back to the days where frightened women were bleeding to death in dark alleys, and no pro-choicer wants to live in a world where abortions are some kind of preferred method of birth control.

As for the death penalty... Federal law allows for the execution of persons found guilty of certain crimes. If an executive chooses to not exercise this ability, he or she can simply commute all federal prisoners sentenced to death, to life imprisonment. If he or she agrees with the death penalty, the death warrants can be signed without any twinge in conscience.

The no child left behind law... it penalizes schools that need help, and encourages schools to teach the test. It is a crap law, and it is killing our future. Not to be one sided, or anything...

Embryonic stem cells... once again, mile wide, inch deep. If there are embryos languishing in cold storage, and the family could donate them to another family, or barring that, to science, that should be encouraged. Right now, we ARE THROWING EMBRYOS AWAY. That is what should be most offensive to you, not that a scientist wants to extract cells from an organism incapable of feeling pain...

The ANWR thing... there are already spills happening on the north slope. Remember Exxon Valdez? We should be trying to get away from oil, not trying to make it cheaper...

As for Kyoto... several signatories have higher greenhouse gas emissions now than when they signed. We should come up with some sort of agreement that gets us away from non-renewables, rather than focus on emissions....

The assault weapon ban... all it does is make citizens that follow the law unable to get access to these weapons. The criminals will get them, no matter what. We should be focusing on punishing those who use a gun in the commission of a crime, not those that have a gun that COULD be used in a crime. There is no perfect solution, and banning guns in America is like banning air...

The PATRIOT act is a patchwork of laws. Saying you are for, or against the act is utterly meaningless. All you are doing is playing to one base, or another. Some of the laws are good, some of the laws, not so good.

Guantanamo... Prisoners of War are afforded certain rights underneath the Geneva convention. Noncombatants that have committed crimes against America are afforded certain rights under United States law. In either case, the current usage of Guantanamo Bay is illegal.

Torture.... Really? Has this administration sullied the good name of our country to the point that Presidential candidates have to actually make a statement saying that they are against TORTURE? How did we let this happen to us?

Wiretapping... the FISA law is not out of date. Wiretapping, if conducted in a way that is commensurate with the Fourth Amendment, is perfectly legal. Being "For" or "Against" wiretapping is, once again, playing to one base or another.

We can't possibly send 12 million people back home in any reasonable amount of time. For the most part, these people are just like our grand parents or great grand parents. We have to figure out a way to improve the economic condition of the places that these people are coming from, as well as getting rid of the shadow economy that is encouraging people to come here and break the law. We should not give people a free ride, but we should be open to the idea that they are part of who we are.

Net neutrality... this is quite silly. If ISPs get to control how and where data flows... they lose their common carrier status, making them responsible for all the llama porn that their lines distribute. Once big corporations realize that Net Neutrality SAVES THEM MONEY AND INSULATES THEM FROM LAWSUITS...

Iran, Iraq... we are stretched too thin, and everyone knows it. Bush's machinations are delaying the inevitable. Our troops WILL come home within the next two years. Arguing over when someone voted for what, and for when... it's all white noise.

Minimum wage... it is a dual-edged sword. Such a manipulation of the economy has to be done carefully, and thoughtfully. I will not vote for or against anyone because of their stance on this issue.

Same sex marriage / unions... it is a state matter. An amendment to the constitution removing power away from the many states should be opposed by everyone.

We HAVE universal healthcare. If you are sick, and show up in an emergency room, you are going to get treated. It will cost far too much, and you may die, but you will get treated. We have to recognize the economic reality, and come up with something that is more cost-effective, empowers states, and gets this issue off of the national stage...

[Troy Spiral (13)]

One issue listed there is "background checks" for gun control. Unless its like , up your ass with a 10 foot pole type background check , i'm kind of in awe that there are some candidates that are against it. I could argue gun control itself one way or the other, but actually knowing if your selling the gun to a felon on probation... ?

According to that list:

Obama (?) seems to be the most "traditional" democrat.

Huckabee (?) the most "traditional" republican.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

No no no that isnt what I meant....I wanted to talk about the Roe V Wade and the death penalty but I didnt want to thread jack...go read my new post...I would very much like to know your opinion

I was just teasing. =D

Yeah i think the most controversial issues (perpetually) are Abortion Rights, Death Penalty and Gun Control. Not necessarily the most make or break issues for everyone, but they seem to be the key ones people get pretty fire-breathing about.

Like every few months i almost think there should be an automatic "so what are your thoughts on X" (of the three issues listed there) currently? Topic created. (only half joking. lol)

[creatureofthenyte]

I think choosing one canidate to vote for is going to be very difficult for me.

I look at the grid, I read the paper, I watch the news. I even listen to Rush Limbaugh.

It just seems to me, that one canidate has a good stance on one thing, and another canidate has a good stance on something else, but it seems that there isnt a canidate yet, that has a good stance on many things. Or maybe Ive not done enough research ?

It'd be nice if, when a canidate is being asked about a particular issue, that they would say something like: "I feel this way about this issue".

I too am baffled by the fact that some canidates are not in favor of gun control in light of events like the VT shootings.

I just hope that Clinton doesn't win. In my opinion, she seems to be running on the premise of: "Hey vote for Me cuz I'm a girl!"

[Troy Spiral (13)]

(in response to creature)

Hilliary really does have a platform, if you see her in action she really does know her shit (not that i agree with it, just shes clearly educated and has an agenda) other than just "im a girl". Shes were she is due to a TON of cash-backing, networking and generally knowing how to be a politician from the ground up. Often shes actually tried to downplay "the girl" issue, unless shes specifically targeting voters already known to be swayed by that issue, since its a known oversimplification that any woman running for office can be marginalized by such thinking.

I personally don't care about the gun issue one way or another, even though i've been doing my homework on it for years. I think its INTERESTING but its not something i have a strong stance on. I'm all for more personal freedom at the risk of less safety if its the will of the majority, this personal freedom in particular does have a clear price (which again i'm all for the risk, i just want people not to fool themselves that its safe).

I like real data, rather than cute stories or cooked data based on a given bias. All the actual research I've read (that isn't put out by the NRA say) seems to say that countries with strict gun control laws about guns in the hands of civilians are clearly safer. Despite anecdotal stories about "the criminals will still have guns" and such. It "feels" safer to have a gun, yeah people kill people guns dont kill people, more gun education is needed, etc etc. But the real research seems to dispute these historical / gut-level ideas. Less guns = more safety, just works that way in any serious research i've read. I dont CARE all that much about the issue again, i just like to not fool myself with emotional "research" about how things "Feel" or hunting down a few half-baked studies. If the majority want guns, i'll go along with it. Virtually everyone in my family has a gun in their household.

Removing guns is difficult to implement in the US due to our long history of an armed population? Sure. But the UK was an "armed" population , and after a few years of "no guns" (and the criminals obviously still having them albeit much harder to get away with) their crime rates and death rates are all clearly down virtually as an indisputable correlation/causation.

Want a gun? Want more personal freedom? Ok fine by me. Just realize that more personal freedom almost always = less safety. Particularly in this case.

[creatureofthenyte]

(in response to creature)

Hilliary really does have a platform, if you see her in action she really does know her shit (not that i agree with it, just shes clearly educated and has an agenda) other than just "im a girl". Shes were she is due to a TON of cash-backing, networking and generally knowing how to be a politician from the ground up. Often shes actually tried to downplay "the girl" issue, unless shes specifically targeting voters already known to be swayed by that issue, since its a known oversimplification that any woman running for office can be marginalized by such thinking.

I personally don't care about the gun issue one way or another, even though i've been doing my homework on it for years. I think its INTERESTING but its not something i have a strong stance on. I'm all for more personal freedom at the risk of less safety if its the will of the majority, this personal freedom in particular does have a clear price (which again i'm all for the risk, i just want people not to fool themselves that its safe).

I like real data, rather than cute stories or cooked data based on a given bias. All the actual research I've read (that isn't put out by the NRA say) seems to say that countries with strict gun control laws about guns in the hands of civilians are clearly safer. Despite anecdotal stories about "the criminals will still have guns" and such. It "feels" safer to have a gun, yeah people kill people guns dont kill people, more gun education is needed, etc etc. But the real research seems to dispute these historical / gut-level ideas. Less guns = more safety, just works that way in any serious research i've read. I dont CARE all that much about the issue again, i just like to not fool myself with emotional "research" about how things "Feel" or hunting down a few half-baked studies. If the majority want guns, i'll go along with it. Virtually everyone in my family has a gun in their household.

Removing guns is difficult to implement in the US due to our long history of an armed population? Sure. But the UK was an "armed" population , and after a few years of "no guns" (and the criminals obviously still having them albeit much harder to get away with) their crime rates and death rates are all clearly down virtually as an indisputable correlation/causation.

Want a gun? Want more personal freedom? Ok fine by me. Just realize that more personal freedom almost always = less safety. Particularly in this case.

Thanks Troy,

point taken.

I've much research to do still...

If only my decision for a canidate were as easy as deciding to go get a cuppa Mtn dew....

[ttogreh]

Removing guns is difficult to implement in the US due to our long history of an armed population? Sure. But the UK was an "armed" population , and after a few years of "no guns" (and the criminals obviously still having them albeit much harder to get away with) their crime rates and death rates are all clearly down virtually as an indisputable correlation/causation.

You know, pissing off or being contrary to the founder of a web discussion board is not a good idea, ever. I think what I am about to do is going to firmly place me in the "problem member" category...

The UK is not safer for having restricted access to guns. It just isn't. Indeed, the assault rates for The US (7.57 per 1,000), UK (7.46 per 1,000), and Canada (7.12 per 1,000) are statistically equivalent. The burglary rates of the UK (13.83 per 1,000), US (7.10 per 1,000), and Canada (8.94 per 1,000) indicate that disarming a population encourages crime.

Finally, when criminals are less fearful of getting perforated, they commit more crime, which overworks the police force. 89 per cent of the American population believe the police are efficient, compared to 87 per cent in Canada, and 72 per cent in the UK.

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. All of my statistics are from Nationmaster.com

[hunhee]

You know, pissing off or being contrary to the founder of a web discussion board is not a good idea, ever. I think what I am about to do is going to firmly place me in the "problem member" category...

The UK is not safer for having restricted access to guns. It just isn't. Indeed, the assault rates for The US (7.57 per 1,000), UK (7.46 per 1,000), and Canada (7.12 per 1,000) are statistically equivalent. The burglary rates of the UK (13.83 per 1,000), US (7.10 per 1,000), and Canada (8.94 per 1,000) indicate that disarming a population encourages crime.

Finally, when criminals are less fearful of getting perforated, they commit more crime, which overworks the police force. 89 per cent of the American population believe the police are efficient, compared to 87 per cent in Canada, and 72 per cent in the UK.

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. All of my statistics are from Nationmaster.com

but I guess I need to ask now is, what was it BEFORE gun control (UK before gun control and UK after, what are the stats)? not compared to the US and other countries NOW.

And I don't believe you will piss the founder of the site off just by stating statistics, and disagreeing with him, he's a bit more logical and sensible than that.

Edited January 5, 2008 by hunhee

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

When exactly was there not gun control in the UK?

[n0Mad]

but I guess I need to ask now is, what was it BEFORE gun control (UK before gun control and UK after, what are the stats)? not compared to the US and other countries NOW.

I don't know where Troy is getting his data. Every study I've seen shows that after the UK and Australia banned guns, crime went up in all areas as a direct correlation. Furthermore, extensive studies by the CDC in America have failed to find that any amount of gun control, even background checks, have any significant effect at preventing crime whatsoever. Additionally, more American studies show that as soon as a state passes "shall issue" carry laws, crime immediately and consistently drops as a direct correlation and passing "castle doctrine" laws lowers burglary. Finally, Switzerland requires all males to own a firearm and they have relatively low crime; Kennesaw, Georgia recently passed a law requiring every household to possess a firearm and crime dropped significantly in that neighborhood; recently Israel had a problem with school shootings and decided to require all teachers to carry firearms, the shootings virtually stopped and there has been no accidents or firearm thefts like America is worried about.

Anyone interested in any of these issues, I encourage you to download and read the free book located at http://www.gunfacts.info/ and peruse the site http://www.guncite.com/

[the eternal]

I know where Creature's getting his view on Hillary from.

A couple months ago she was in a debate, I think on the east coast, no less.

She made a comment about politics being a boys club or something, and the press had a sh*&storm over it. Anyway, that touched off a month or so of missteps, that put her behind in Iowa. She never recovered there,

finally finishing in third place

Trust me, unless she's speaking in front of the national Organization for Women, that tack will not be used strongly again.

Ironically, why she's STILL top in the national polls is that she seems the most "manly" of the top tier candidates,

(ie tough, unwavering).

It's also due to her perceived "vast experience" (Since when did being a first lady count for elected political office, huh?)

Look at her speeches.

On the stump, she's strong and decisive, as well as being the most conservative dem when it comes to troop withdrawal.

Obama, on the other hand, comes off more friendly and concerened about others (ie more "female")

Plus, he likes to think things through and make reasoned decisions based on

crazy things like facts and common sense. And only after he's considered the different options.

He may have momentum now, but voters seem to like someone who's strong and decisive, who doesn't need to mull things over. Like Him

Of course, we are looking for a change. Maybe, just maybe, dem or GOP, we won't pick the safe choice.

When I say we, I mean non-MI Americans. Since all the major Democratic candidates aren't even on the primary ballot, and even if they were, it wouldn't count (see the Your vote Doesn't Matter thread) I have no say in my Democratic nominee.

But I hope and I pray the rest of America chooses wisely.

[hunhee]

I don't know where Troy is getting his data. Every study I've seen shows that after the UK and Australia banned guns, crime went up in all areas as a direct correlation. Furthermore, extensive studies by the CDC in America have failed to find that any amount of gun control, even background checks, have any significant effect at preventing crime whatsoever. Additionally, more American studies show that as soon as a state passes "shall issue" carry laws, crime immediately and consistently drops as a direct correlation and passing "castle doctrine" laws lowers burglary. Finally, Switzerland requires all males to own a firearm and they have relatively low crime; Kennesaw, Georgia recently passed a law requiring every household to possess a firearm and crime dropped significantly in that neighborhood; recently Israel had a problem with school shootings and decided to require all teachers to carry firearms, the shootings virtually stopped and there has been no accidents or firearm thefts like America is worried about.

Anyone interested in any of these issues, I encourage you to download and read the free book located at http://www.gunfacts.info/ and peruse the site http://www.guncite.com/

Umm.. did you mean the ATF (Alcohol/Tobacco/Firearms) because the CDC (Center for Disease Control) has nothing to do with guns. (Sorry, I just wanted to clarify)

[creatureofthenyte]

I know which democrat I won't be voting for, thankfully I am not affiliated with either party, so I can choose to vote for whoever.

[jadnifer]

Doesnt Clinton want universal health care???

[n0Mad]

Umm.. did you mean the ATF (Alcohol/Tobacco/Firearms) because the CDC (Center for Disease Control) has nothing to do with guns. (Sorry, I just wanted to clarify)

No, I meant the CDC. The ATF loves pushing their clout and disarming lawful citizens. The CDC on the other hand is interested in preventing people from dying. So they do studies with large amounts of fundings to find out why people die and how to stop it. All of their investigations into firearms deaths show that guns don't kill people, 5 gallon plastic buckets full of water left unattended kill people. Don't believe me, check their reports. For the year 2002 (I think) more children under 14 had accidental deaths caused by 5 gallon plastic buckets (how specific can you get) than from firearms.

Edited January 6, 2008 by Spook