Based on the Issues - Which Presidential Candidate Represents You?

Bush's budget proposals in 2008 and 2009 were not even considered by the Democrat Congress, he veto'd several spending bills sent to him because they increased spending so much but in the end when the one party controls the House and the Senate they control the budget.

It is quite clear that when the Republicans controlled the budget they did a good job of getting it through the recession, yes a little lower spending would have been preferred but the deficit topped out a $400 billion for just one year. As the recovery took hold they cut the deficit three years running down to a measly $161 billion. Obama and the Democrats increased in TEN FOLD.

 

It says here I side most with the libertarian candidate, and second most with Jill Stein, but I will almost certainly vote for Jill Stein and not the libertarian candidate. That is because I do not adhere to the sort of free market fundamentalism that so many libertarians do. The market is great at providing many things, but in a capitalist market system, the market only provides for that which is profitable. Profitable is a morally neutral concept. Some things are good and profitable, while some things are good and unprofitable. While other things are bad and profitable, and others bad and unprofitable.

A perfect example of this is health care. It is profitable for people to get sick, stay sick, and to spend huge amounts of money to get better!! That is a failure of the market, and it creates a perverse set of incentives for the health care industry. The same is true of the prison industrial complex, which incentivizes incarcerating people. And again it is true of the military industrial complex which incentivizes war or at the very least hawkish behavior. So while I believe the market is the best way to allocate resources by a long way, I also realize, that like all things, markets are flawed. So expecting them to provide for whatever it is we want and need is absurd. Therefore steps should be taken to correct those failures. Libertarians just seem to ignore those failures, or more intelligent ones just think that those failures exist, but government intervention won't improve the matter. Which has some truth to it, but a government which is not hugely influenced and controlled by corporate interests would be able to sensibly intervene when necessary to correct the failures of the market. I believe that is true and necessary, and libertarians don't. So I cannot vote for them, because it is an essentially important philosophical difference!!

 

are you kidding me? I went thru the whole quiz and it couldnt find the page??

 

Ron Paul 85% Mitt Romney 71%

Libertarian 81% Republican 71%

One might not think it from the way I debate though.

 

It took me like 5 minutes. No big deal....

 

Its not those two clowns Mittens Or OBummer.thats for sure.This is why.
http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...ns-why-you-fool-if-you-vote-obama-romney.html

I see everyone is avoding this thread not addressing the facts in them cause they know they cant counter them so they want the thread to die.Problem is I wont let it.


If only we lived in a world where vote fraud did not go on.what a dream that would be to have the two finalists come down between the choice of ron paul or Gary Johnson.Only in our dreams unfortunately.

 

And since it didn't show them on the image...I also got:

Gary Johnson - 92%
Ron Paul - 88%
Stewart Alexander - 73%
Jill Stein - 55%
Virgil Goode - 54%
Barack Obama - 37%
Jimmy McMillan (lol) - 33%
Mitt Romney - 28%

If he was on the ballot in my state, I'd probably vote Stewart Alexander, simply because he's the more socialist candidate. But since he's not, Johnson it is.

Also, I'm not surprised, except that Alexander wasn't in first or second place. Third place is a bit surprising to me.

 

Having now looked at this test more closely, the positions they have some candidates taking are laughable!! For example, to this question "Should the U.S. intervene in the affairs of other countries?" It says Romney thinks "Only if there is a direct threat to our national security." I imagine this is a joke, but I can't be sure!! Some of the other questions, I chose the best option available, even though none of the options actually expressed my opinions. Which is why I imagine they have me agreeing most with the libertarian candidate, even though I would never vote for a libertarian candidate.

 

It's based on what candidates say they will do. Obviously Romney is not actually going to only intervene if there was a direct threat to our national security.

 

I would have expected pbama to be about 5%, but otherwise, this seems pretty accurate.

 

Like I said, it's based on what candidates claim to support. I think everybody agrees with candidate Obama on at least 20-30% of the issues, but few people actually agree with President Obama on the same issues

 

Q: Is it possible to pick the questions in such an order that the outcome is the lowest for all candidates? Or even a 0% outcome? Because it seems that this kind of political questions systems is always setup to force a visitor to side with a candidate (that is well known because one had the ability to have a voice in the mass media) Or what will an outcome under 50% for every candidate mean for a voter? Will it mean not to vote on any candidate? These kind of political voting systems seems never accurate and honest. As long as this is the case a system was setup for one goal, make a voter force to pick one of the candidates (because if a voter sees an outcome of 96% than that must be the right man to vote for, and people are really going to do this)

 

Ya, so really I agree with Barrack Obama about 5% and Mitt Romney about the same, but they lie a lot, so it pushes the numbers up higher.

 

I don't think so. I most certainly do not agree with pbama 20-30% of the time. Any true, small govt, constitution-loving libertarian will not agree with him that much. He is big govt out the wazoo. IMO, he hates the Constitution.

 

As a card carrying Libertarian I would have to disagree. There have been several notable actions or attempted actions by President Obama that Libertarians support although there are obviously things we disagree with.

Libertarians universally support President Obama's ending of any "enhance interrogation techniques" implemented under former President Bush. Under US statutory law all of the "enhance interrogation techniques" were torture based upon the Title 18 definition of torture.

Libertarians supported the closure of GITMO that President Obama attempted to do but it was blocked by Congress. The detention facility at GITMO violates the Cuban-American treaty which limits the use of the US base there to a coal refueling station exclusively and establishing a prison there violates that treaty.

Libertarians supported the trial of accused terrorists by a criminal court which Obama attempted to do but which was blocked in some cases by Congress. Criminal offenses unrelated to conduct on the battlefield or the US Armed Forces should not be prosecuted before a military tribunal under the US Constitution.

Obviously Libertarians supported the removal of all US military forces from Iraq by Obama but also want all US foreign military bases closed and the complete withdrawal from Afghanistan which Obama has not proposed.

Libertarians are divided on the issue of abortion which Obama supports but Libertarians are in universal agreement that there should be no laws restricting a woman's choice to have an abortion. This is a decision that only the woman should be allowed to make and government should get out from between her legs.

Libertarians support same-gender marriage because the prohibitions to it violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Better still Libertarians overwhelmingly support abolishing the government controlled institution of marriage and allowing it to be a matter of contract law between consenting adults. The government in the United States should not be involved in socially engineering society with laws of discrimination.

I don't know what percentage that would work out to and I've certainly left things out that Libertarians do find common ground with Obama on but we can't say we don't agree with some of his political positions.

Overall though Libertarians oppose both progressive-liberalism as well as social-conservatism but I would say that progressive-liberalism is less offensive to a Libertarian than social-conservatism and is the "lesser of two evils" in most respects.

 

Yes, you're talking about his actions as President. I'm talking about his words as a candidate.

 

Right, basically.

 

Carrying a card doe not make one a libertarian. Supporting the Constitution does.

This illustrates why you are not a true libertarian. A true libertarian very specifically believes these decisions to be the right of the people and not under the authority of the federal govt. By insisting that the govt recognize same-sex marriage, you completely contradict the inherent fact that the govt is not to define, license or restrict personal relationships as stated plainly in the Libertarian Party platform. Neither should the govt insist or require that same-sex marriage be supported or approved by others. That is a very serious intrusion into many people's religious freedom.

Libertarianism is from the heart. A true libertarian supports freedom even when they disagree with it. They support the rights of racists as well as gays. And they always fall on the side of smaller govt. No one can possibly agree with pbama more than 10-15% and not be for big govt. He grows govt with every breath he takes and govt cannot grow lest freedom shrink.

Most of the rest of your post has to do with foreign policy. I would say the libertarian position is "minding our own business" in foreign policy too. You can't for a moment believe pbama has done that or even says he does.

 

You obviously didn't read a single (*)(*)(*)(*) thing she wrote. She flat out stated the government needs to abolish the legal institution of marriage so everybody can get married to whomever they wish without stepping on someone's toes.

In short, you said the exact same thing.

You're forgetting that there are libertarians who existed before your modern brand of anarcho-libertarianism. Matter of fact, it was one such libertarian - a libertarian socialist - that coined the term "libertarian" in the first place.

 

You're totally right. I have a bad habit of skimming some posts. However, he was trying to explain how he could be a libertarian and still agree with pbama 68%. That is the reason I didn't read the rest of the paragraph. He apparently does not agree with pbama which doesn't answer my post anyway. I don't know why he even brought up gay marriage.

Sorry. It's 2012. Freedom is the meat of the libertarian philosophy. Pbama is the anti-thesis of that.

 

Apparently unless you have $100 million in your "war chest" you can't really get introduced to the american people.

 

Yeah, well, 2012 or not, us libertarian socialists are still around and carrying on the tradition of real freedom

 

I think I've done this one before.

Candidates you side with...

94%
Mitt Romney

on immigration, healthcare, social, environmental, domestic policy, and economic issues.

86%
Ron Paul

on immigration, domestic policy, environmental, and economic issues.

71%
Virgil Goode

on immigration, domestic policy, social, and economic issues.

37%
Barack Obama

on science issues.

[h=2]Who you side with by party...[/h] 94% Republican

78% Libertarian

37% Democratic

21% Green

 

I don't know if it takes $100 million but it does cost a lot which our current campaign contribution limits prevent "outside" opinion from addressing. A person might have a very good political opinion and may have a single supporter of those opinions with several million dollars to contribute the that person but the laws limit them to $2500 in direct contributions. The laws are catering to the large political establishments and this prevents those lacking these existing established PAC's from competely from having their message heard.

I'm not concerned with "dollars" but instead I'm concerned with transparency. I had a "wild idea" about running for president for example. We all know that presidents make hundreds of appointments that are really related to political favoritism. Ambassadorships being a prime example that are often given in return for large campaign contributions to PAC's. We all know this is going on and has gone on since the first election in the US.

My idea, prohibited under current law, would have been to encourage contributions by promising any contributor the "appointment" they wanted if they made the largest contribution related to that appointment. In the memo section of the check they'd simply write in the "appointment" they wanted and if their check was larger than anyone else's then they get the appointment. If not the "thanks" for the donation. Most of these "appointees" are nothing more than figureheads anyway and if they screw up then they're fired so "no harm, no foul" IMO. People would come unglued if a politican did this but they allow it to happen so long as it's not "public" and is done under-the-table by candidates.