The Glade 4.0

Science
Obama/Dems: frequently praise science/scientists and advocate for better science education
Romney/Reps: frequently denigrate science/scientists as biased and political, and influential Reps that Romney is unlikely to challenge advocate for teaching creationism in schools

Environment
Obama/Dems: accept HIGW as fact; advocate for more green energy and tighter restrictions on pollutants
Romney/Reps: reject (or at least demur on) HIGW; denigrate green energy; advocate for more fossil fuels and fewer restrictions on pollutants

"the gays"
Obama/Dems: repealed DADT; reject DOMA; support anti-discrimination laws; support state-level gay marriage and federal recognition thereof
Romney/Reps: want to reinstate DADT; favor DOMA, oppose anti-discrimination laws and gay marriage; advocate for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in every state

Domestic Policy re Patriot Act & corporations as people
Obama/Dems: suck on the Patriot Act stuff but are subject to anti-PA pressure from their left flank; mostly pro-corporation in practice, but opposed the result in Citizens United and favor greater regulation of corporate financial and political activities
Romney/Reps: really suck on the Patriot Act and are subject to pro-PA pressure from the neo-con right; overtly pro-corporation in practice and rhetoric; supported the result in Citizens United and favor reducing regulation of corporate financial and political activities

Foreign Policy
Obama/Dems: favor embargoes of rogue states but not of major powers like China and Russia; some (but not much) diplomatic pressure and no practical pressure on Israel; favors special forces and drone attacks on suspected terrorists/militants outside Afghanistan rather than large-scale invasions; oppose military attacks on Iran for now but note that it remains an option down the road; advocate a gradual drawdown in US forces in Afghanistan but subject to pressure to accelerate from their left flank; supportive of democratic outcomes in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world but favor diplomatic pressure on human rights issues

Romney/Reps: favor confrontational position vis-a-vis China and Russia and threaten embargoes against them; favor a blank check for Israel; criticize drone strikes only in the sense that they don't go far enough; advocate large-scale air attacks and possibly invasion of Iran in the near-term; hedging their bets on drawdown of US forces in Afghanistan but subject to pressure to remain from neo-con flank; opposed to democratic outomes in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world

Fiscal Policy
Obama/Dems: favor reduced growth in military spending, Medicare and SS coupled with increased taxes on those making over $250k now and eventual increase for everyone once the economy stabilizes
Romney/Reps: oppose reduction in growth of military spending and favor significant cuts in Medicare and SS coupled with reduced taxes for everyone but mostly for those in the top income brackets

There needs to be a like button for RD's post there.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Firstly, you're changing the scope of the argument. The comparison is President Obama vs. Mr. Romney.


You choose rhetoric over record.

Environment
Obama/Dems: accept HIGW as fact; advocate for more green energy and tighter restrictions on pollutants
Romney/Reps: reject (or at least demur on) HIGW; denigrate green energy; advocate for more fossil fuels and fewer restrictions on pollutants[/quote]
You choose rhetoric over record.

"the gays"
Obama/Dems: repealed DADT; reject DOMA; support anti-discrimination laws; support state-level gay marriage and federal recognition thereof
Romney/Reps: want to reinstate DADT; favor DOMA, oppose anti-discrimination laws and gay marriage; advocate for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in every state[/quote]
I'll research these, but two claims in here don't seem accurate to me. But this may be the problem I pointed out above where you're now conflating candidate campaign platform with party.

(Ran out of time to finish - have to go to school)

_________________
The Dude abides.

If you are using the natural order as seen in animals as proof that the natural order in not to kill group members, I think you've fallen prey to the Noble Savage syndrome. Animals kill each other all the time in their social groups. Infanticide, siblicide, patricide and killings by the alpha to maintain its status are common occurrences.


I guess, if you "like" unsubstantiated talking points.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I loved NASA growing up, its unconstitutional and private programs are far outpacing NASA at innovation including deep space mining operations.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Obama/Dems fund failing and currently uneconomical green energy programs with taxpayer funds, the failing companies having no incentive to change operational and business plan fail and the taxpayer money goes into nothing. If they do succeed the company continues to produce and sell products that are uneconomical however the costs are hidden by subsidy.

Fixed it for ya RD.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

True, I am changing the scope a bit, but in my opinion it's a mistake to consider the Presidential candidates without taking their parties' positions into account. I have no idea what Mitt Romney's actual beliefs about gay people are, but I can pretty confidently say that as President he wouldn't buck his party's general anti-gay positions on things. Still, on points where the candidate has staked out a position that is different than that of his party (or an influential part of his party), I noted it by saying "subject to pressure from" or something to that effect.

Sure, you're welcome to prefer Romney's stance on that issue to Obama's. I'm just pointing out that there's a pretty significant difference there. Note, however, that Romney favors even more expansive subsidies for oil and gas companies, so choose your poison I guess.

Again, you are sorely mistaken on Republicans and science. There is not going to be any creationism taught in classrooms just because a Republican got elected. That's just something they tell the fundie Christians to get votes, sort of like how Obama told the Democrats he was going to close Guantanamo Bay.

So, here we go. Democrats are bad for science. They've gutted NASA's budget under Clinton and Obama. NASA is where the majority of our scientific and technological advancement has come from. Every electronic device that you use in your day to day life that you take for granted and can't live without has its origins in a NASA project. Kids don't want to learn math and science, because we're not going to the moon. That makes Democrats bad for education in science, and in fact makes them worse than Republicans talking about intelligent design. Most of what we know about "the environment" - and by that, I mean real knowledge of environmental science, and not chuckleheads talking about climate change - has come from studying other planets and how their environments work. So Democrats are pretty bad for the environment, too.

Sound like a stretch? Consider that your argument for why Republicans are bad for science comes down to opposing the Kyoto treaty, opposing stem cell research, and praying to Jesus.

Democrats ended manned space flight. According to their record, and not what pundits say, Democrats oppose this:

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Another broken promise (and to be clear, Romney is a liar too and neither is getting my vote).

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/30/smallbu ... ?hpt=hp_t3



Wow imagine the ramifications. The President told you to go ahead and take your money, set up your business and we will leave you alone only to show up 3 years later, seize your crop and throw you into Federal Prison.

Good thing you didn't build that.

_________________

Obama doesn't control the DEA. He told them not to prioritize action against people acting lawfully in their own states, but until we do something to change its legality at a federal level you're still running a pretty big risk. Keep in mind that all legal dispensaries here are supposed to be non profit cooperatives, and that article says some were pulling in millions in profit and making sure to only accept cash so they wouldn't leave the trail. That deserves to get shut down. The personal story from that guy Sandusky kinda sucks, but he was still aware of the risk.

Isn't the DEA part of the Department of Justice, which is part of the executive branch of the government, which is under the President? Isn't the President able to issue an executive order to the DEA, just like it did with ICE regarding illegal immigrants?

_________________

You want the President to tell the DEA to ignore federal law? Or do you think a better idea would be to change the law?

Isn't that the exact same thing the President did 2 months ago regarding young illegal immigrants?

My contention isn't that Obama should've done that, but saying that he can't, or that he doesn't control the DEA, is factually incorrect.

_________________

He didn't give an executive order regarding the immigration stuff, either. It was an administrative directive from the DHLS.

I want the President to do what he says he's going to do. I'm really surprised you're giving him a pass on this. I have a tendency to believe that is exactly why the crack-down is taking place so heavily in solid "blue states".

I have a hard time believing that prioritizing where the Justice Department expends it's resources is a contravention of Federal Law or that he would not jump at the chance if he viewed it as expedient politically(he's shown he's got no problem directing ICE not to arrest "certain" illegal immigrants). Further, I find it hard to believe that Justice views dispensaries as being as high a priority as narco terrorists (nor should it be), or that it has more than enough resources to take care of all the actors in the "war on drugs" right down to the pot shop.

Obviously I think it would be better to change the law (hell, change all the drug laws), but how does busting a medical marijuana operation further that cause?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I'm not happy about it, nor do I feel like I'm giving him a pass, but the law is the law. At least Obama is open to discussion on the subject whereas Mitt flat out denies it.

The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General (who is over the DOJ that the DEA reports to) both answer to the President. Directives given at the departmental or major sub-agency level have tacit Presidential approval. DHS would not be issuing administrative directives in contravention of the President's wishes.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I want the President to direct the Executive branch to not enforce unconstitutional laws. Every time, in every case.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

even ones on which the court is already ruled?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Yes, of course.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

This was the framer's design when they wrote the Constitution. It was never intended that the courts have the final and only say. The executive holds the power to not enforce laws it finds to be unConstitutional, and the legislature holds the power to not fund them.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

The fframer's design was that the courts would rule. The Constitution is law. the Supreme Court has the final say on all questions of law.

Even if that weren't the case, the fact is that we now have 200+ years of precedent that we will do things that way regardless of the framer's intent (if, indeed, it's even possible to say that there was any single intent for that many different people who compromised endlessly simply to create the document, or that the states that ratified it necessarily agreed with those individuals' interpretation.) Framer's intent is one guide to what the Constitution means, and only one. It does not dictate, especially since that "intent" is being filtered through through the views of those purporting to present that intent.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm glad that you agree with me, given that we now have 200+ years of precedent demonstrating that the executive doesn't have to enforce, and congress doesn't have to fund, the decisions of SCOTUS.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I understand, for example, that congress can defund with the power of the purse for any reason that it wants and I'm okay with that. I'm not sure why I have a bigger issue with how the executive has been run under the last two administrations, seeming to do more than its supposed to ignoring laws on the books and writing executive orders to gut them.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"