[evan]

Yeah, so maybe I'm a little late getting into the game. So what. The important thing is that I'm putting forth the effort now.

First, I guess I'll give some info about myself. I'm 19 and soon to be a registered voter in the state of Virginia. I've always been more or less apathetic towards politics but usually when I made a decision it was fiscally conservative and socially liberal (I like privitization in principle and I don't care if gays get married - let them do what they want).

I've been wanting to get into this election for a few months now but I don't really know where to look - everybody has a bias one way or another. All I want for now at least is a comprehensive list of each candidates positions and policies on the important matters - which is why I turned here. I figured instead of scouring news articles or reading through the bullshit on the candidates' web pages I would just ask the knowledgable folk here I beg you, please leave your bias at the door, all I want (for this thread at least) is just an objective view of the facts of this election and where each candidate stands.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by CoachKrzyzewski All I want for now at least is a comprehensive list of each candidates positions and policies on the important matters...

...and of all the places out there, a Mac geek forum seemed like the best one. Sure, why not?

Originally Posted by CoachKrzyzewski I beg you, please leave your bias at the door, all I want (for this thread at least) is just an objective view of the facts of this election and where each candidate stands.

Wow, an optimist. You have read "political threads" here before, right?

Let me save you some time - and the mods from having to police yet another unhinged batshit-fest - and just check out several of the thousands of sites (Google is your buddy) that do this sort of thing for a living. You're really not going to get "unbiased" and "objective" here, I can pretty much guarantee that.

[evan]

fair enough. i just figured i'd turn here first because it usually is the first place I ask advice...

[psmith2.0]

I understand; it's a good group of smart, passionate people and I'm happy to call it home. But historically, threads like this tend to degenerate into complete squabbling and insanity within two pages (and sometimes even less).

Fact is, the people most likely to respond and offer up some info won't be among the most "middle of the road", unbiased 'Novans.

A pretty tall order!

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 (...) Mac geek (...)

Taken out of context, entirely for my own amusement.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by apple007 Beyond [that], "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" is a common definition of a libertarian,

Bingo. Why call it anything else?

[Banana]

Coach,

Before this thread get locked, it may make more sense, as Pscates already alluded earlier, for you to look out for forums that shares common belief with what you want to be. Some candidates has a forum, so if you happen to have a candidate you particularly like, could look around to see if there's such forum and meet with like-minded folks who hopefully are seasoned politic veterans and can provide you with some guidance.

Also, you will want to hook up with your state/county party, even if you're undecided or generally opposed to parties. This is really the best resource in getting know who's the bigwigs and getting started with being active.

HTH.

[Luca]

I have cleansed this thread. Read the original post about avoiding biased political discussion before you post. Further thread hijacks will result in a lock and possibly a one-day BAN.

OP, I'd go to www.ontheissues.org for some concrete, unbiased information on the candidates' voting records.

[Taskiss]

Politics isn't politics without partisan bullshit, it's "government".

[apple007]

'Luca' -- Did you delete my post above? If so, why? This site is getting ridiculous.

[Moogs]

To the OP: good marks to you for getting involved in the election of your local and federal leadership. Don't look here for answers. Read a good cross-section of papers (USA Today is not a good paper), ignore CNN (coverage thin and vapid) and Fox (coverage extremely biased towards Republicans), NPR (extremely biased towards Democrats) and make up your own mind. My non-editorial recommendations are the BBC web site, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the PBS news hour.

Meantime, know that George cares deeply about you and that is why he has labeled this country a compassionate democracy. He likes to label things a lot. Makes 'im feel more better... in touch with the world, as it were.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by apple007 'Luca' -- Did you delete my post above? If so, why? This site is getting ridiculous.

The replies were coming in so fast you probably didn't notice what I said just earlier:

Originally Posted by Luca I have cleansed this thread. Read the original post about avoiding biased political discussion before you post. Further thread hijacks will result in a lock and possibly a one-day BAN.

I am attempting to allow the thread to live rather than have it die and leave the OP frustrated. To that end I deleted the posts. If I end up locking the thread anyway, then I will undelete them for posterity.

But please, try to keep things on topic. The OP is looking for how to get information on the candidates' positions, not your own personal assessment of how evil Barack Obama is.

[tomoe]

CoachKrzyzewski, both Bill Moyers Journal (podcast and television) and Frontline (television) are quality investigative journalism for brushing up on current & foreign affairs. They're both on PBS.

[Moogs]

Agree Moyers is good though I've not seen that show in a while.

[evan]

Thanks for the help everybody, i've actually gotta do some work now so I'll look more into this tomorrow when I'm slacking off...

anyway, I guess a better question to ask whould have been, "Where can I go for some quality polical news, backgrounds for the candidates, and particular positions of the individual candidates/their parties"

also thank you Luca for keeping it clean and civil and not just locking it

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Luca I am attempting to allow the thread to live rather than have it die and leave the OP frustrated. To that end I deleted the posts. If I end up locking the thread anyway, then I will undelete them for posterity.

Seemed a little premature, but whatever. If I die and get stuck at 9,999 posts or something like that, I guess I'll have you to blame for coming up short.

Originally Posted by Luca But please, try to keep things on topic. The OP is looking for how to get information on the candidates' positions, not your own personal assessment of how evil Barack Obama is.

Well, with all due respect, if posting reply comments is now strictly constrained by the exact verbiage of an OP, then this place will need about 20 more Mods.

Beyond that, I know unlimited amounts of Bush- and GOP-bashing are acceptable here while it's long been verboten to say anything even remotely negative about the esteemed Senator from Illinois, Mr. Barack Obama, but my initial post in this thread was hardly off-topic or inflammatory if one leaves their pro-Obama bias at the door.

The OP mentioned he is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." The simple fact is, as I made clear in my post, neither McCain nor Obama even remotely can be shoe-horned into that description. McCain is fiscally conservative and socially conservative. Obama is fiscally liberal and socially liberal.

As I said before the Obama fans went bonkers, the OP needs to decide which half of his self-description is more important to him, because both candidates will (massively) disappoint him on one half or the other. If anyone believes that to be in dispute or to be inflammatory or inaccurate, they don't know too much about either candidate.

[alcimedes]

Originally Posted by apple007 The OP mentioned he is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." The simple fact is, as I made clear in my post, neither McCain nor Obama even remotely can be shoe-horned into that description. McCain is fiscally conservative and socially conservative. Obama is fiscally liberal and socially liberal.

Actually if your first post left it at this I think it would be spot on. It's the paragraph after that that was out of line.

The above statement is pretty spot on though.

For the OP, odds are you aren't going to find a main stream candidate that agrees with your positions, and you'll end up choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwhich. (to steal from South Park)

Or, you can do like some of us and vote for you you'd actually like to see in office, along with about 2% of the other Americans that both believe in something other than Dem. vs. Rep. and are actually willing to vote as such.

Otherwise it's just a question of which principles you don't mind compromising, and getting used to the fact that most political discussion devolves to substance-free platitudes and bullshit, where your side has a good reason for that stupid shit they did, and their side is made up of baby eating assholes.

[Luca]

apple007, I actually think most of your first post (and most of this one) is okay. There were just certain parts that seemed designed to set people off, and that's what isn't acceptable. But sure, pointing out that neither candidate fits the economically conservative + socially liberal label is perfectly acceptable, and you're right.

I will also ask you to quit complaining about the moderation here. I do what I can. Life hands me poop, I make poop-ade, and it doesn't taste so good. I'd like to be able to let you discuss things without having to worry about you putting flamebait in your posts.

[Swox]

You might also want to look at particular issues that are important to you, and see where candidates stand on them. That might help you narrow it down using something more specific than general leanings. If you want a site that might help you find your political orientation, or just identify some political issues that are important to you (even if you didn't realize it yet), you can check out the Political Compass site. I think it's pretty neat, and it has good definitions of all sorts of political terminology as well.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Or, you can do like some of us and vote for you you'd actually like to see in office, along with about 2% of the other Americans that both believe in something other than Dem. vs. Rep. and are actually willing to vote as such.

The funny (or pathetic) thing about American politics is how so few people actually seem to vote based on the issues they claim to hold near and dear. I'm hearing more and more people describing themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," as the OP stated, and Ron Paul's popularity rivaled that of the Beatles for a while, yet Bob Barr, the actual Libertarian candidate, is polling at like 2%, tops, and Ron Paul managed to convert record-breaking fundraising into pathetic vote totals. People might not like GOP vs. Dem, but they're sure not in any big hurry to hop in bed with the alternatives, either.

Originally Posted by alcimedes Otherwise it's just a question of which principles you don't mind compromising, and getting used to the fact that most political discussion devolves to substance-free platitudes and bullshit, where your side has a good reason for that stupid shit they did, and their side is made up of baby eating assholes.

That, and the unfortunate reality that 98% of the promises made by presidential candidates won't remotely come close to getting accomplished, even if the White House and Congress are controlled by the same party.

Originally Posted by Luca apple007, I actually think most of your first post (and most of this one) is okay. There were just certain parts that seemed designed to set people off, and that's what isn't acceptable. But sure, pointing out that neither candidate fits the economically conservative + socially liberal label is perfectly acceptable, and you're right.

I might not be the most diplomatic member of AN, but I just have a hard time getting my mind around the idea that posting facts can somehow be (hysterically) construed as a personal attack or whatnot. I did not say Barack Obama eats babies or wants to outlaw religion. I stated he was in favor of gun control and against parental notification for minors having abortions. Those are not opinions, those are facts -- facts I posted within the context of describing Obama as the candidate closest to the "socially liberal" model favored by the OP.

Again, if anyone can refute those facts, I'm all ears, but in the meantime, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I shall quote a liberal, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan from the great State of New York:

"You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts."

Originally Posted by Luca I will also ask you to quit complaining about the moderation here. I do what I can. Life hands me poop, I make poop-ade, and it doesn't taste so good. I'd like to be able to let you discuss things without having to worry about you putting flamebait in your posts.

Man, you really do want to take away all my fun here, don't you? What next, I have to stop picking on 'scates and 'Roboman'?

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by Swox You might also want to look at particular issues that are important to you, and see where candidates stand on them. That might help you narrow it down using something more specific than general leanings. If you want a site that might help you find your political orientation, or just identify some political issues that are important to you (even if you didn't realize it yet), you can check out the Political Compass site. I think it's pretty neat, and it has good definitions of all sorts of political terminology as well.

That compass is skewed to the left, Swox. It had me closer to Stalin than Friedman. Which I know for a fact is wrong.

It's questions should have been stated neutrally, but they consequently depicted lefist statements in a better light than right-wing statements. For example; all the questions on economics seemed to revolve around monopolies and predatory corporations rather than even touching on something as basic as Adam Smith. You often felt like you couldn't disagree with the statements "intended answer" without being a douche bag. If the test was going to use partisan statements like that it should at least have tried to have statements that countered each other.

For example:

Left: I think we should share the goods of society to some extent.
Right: Everyone should be allowed to try and create their own fortune.

I wouldn't disagree wildly with any of the above statements, so they would cancel each-other out. But if you remove one of them, you wouldn't start disagreeing more with the remaining, so now the test is successfully skewed.

I'm calling BS on that compass.

[Swox]

Originally Posted by Mugge That compass is skewed to the left, Swox. It had me closer to Stalin than Friedman. Which I know for a fact is wrong. It's questions should have been stated neutrally, but they consequently depicted lefist statements in a better light than right-wing statements. For example; all the questions on economics seemed to revolve around monopolies and predatory corporations rather than even touching on something as basic as Adam Smith. You often felt like you couldn't disagree with the statements "intended answer" without being a douche bag. If the test was going to use partisan statements like that it should at least have tried to have statements that countered each other.

I hadn't taken the test for a while, and I agree that 4 of the questions are poorly worded, as you have pointed out. There are at least 4 questions that are worded in a way that I would argue would encourage more traditionally "right wing" answers. I don't think that "balances it out", I think that means that there are (at least) 8 poorly worded questions on the survey.

That being said, measuring something like political views is not a science, and I'm sure anyone taking a survey of this nature will feel constrained at times by the choices they are given. That's also just the nature of surveys (and why I am not likely to employ them often in my own research).

The reason (to stay on topic) that I pointed the site out is that taking the test at least points out some of the contemporary issues that people care about in politics. By thinking about where you stand on those issues, you can better match yourself to candidates. Maybe the best way to do it is to make a list of the issues (i.e. abortion, capital punishment, taxes, etc.) that are important to you, and see how candidates compare to you.

We can have a debate about politics and douchbaggery elsewhere

For example: Left: I think we should share the goods of society to some extent. Right: Everyone should be allowed to try and create their own fortune. I wouldn't disagree wildly with any of the above statements, so they would cancel each-other out. But if you remove one of them, you wouldn't start disagreeing more with the remaining, so now the test is successfully skewed. I'm calling BS on that compass.

I'm not sure quite what you're getting at here, seeing as you have four choices indicating how strongly you agree or disagree. You don't have to choose between two statements. This is probably besides the point though.

[curiousuburb]

The ontheissues.org link Luca provided does a reasonable job of comparing the positions of McCain and Obama, but not all of the answers match up. There are a few Nader references, too.

McCain seems to be all for eliminating many obsolete crypto restrictions and a requirement for government keys ( generally a good geek thing )
Obama seems to be all for Net Neutrality ( generally a good geek thing )

...but neither candidate seems to have a direct answer for the other position (no McCain Net Neutrality views, no Obama crypto views)

They differ strongly on the Patriot Act, but share some views that special interests have f**ked up the 1996 Telecommunication Act and some Spectrum Allocation legislation

Interesting reading nonetheless.

[zsummers]

[Kickaha]

Ahm athinkin mister skwirrel is one o them thar gun control pinkos... Mmmm, mmm. skwirrel stew.

[joveblue]

Finding a site that gives a side-by-side comparison, such as this one might be a helpful starting point.