why dont the presidential canidates fill out a chart of what they are for and against?

Question

they can just check yes or no next to each issue....it would be a lot easier to follow than their debates and junk publicity.

then if they dont know how they STAND on an issue they really shouldnt be running. Uggg

Answer 1

Part of the problem with finding a good LEADER is that they have to be willing to NOT be everything to everybody as it just isn't possible. But to gain the largest possible percentage of the electorate's support, you have to at least APPEAR to be telling Joe and Jane Voter what they want to hear.

This makes it unlikely that any of them will ever print up pamplets saying:

I support a woman's right to abortion except past the 2nd trimester.

I support the right to bear arms for every American citizen of legal voting age provided they were not convicted in the past for violent crime and are not medically diagnosed as mentally ill.

I support a Federally mandated health care system requiring all employers to cover costs for every employee to take part in a Federal HMO covering costs of drugs and procedures.

etc etc

These types of black and white pronouncements are GOING to alienate portions of the voters.

Unfortunately, it means we have to dig harder to try and determine what the politicians would ACTUALLY do...based on who is giving them $ (the favors they owe), who is endorsin them, tand their past voting record (because as the saying goes, a zebra doesn't change its stripes). There's a GREAT non-partisan site that does a lot of this listed below.

Also, it's a good idea to actually pay attention to the "mud slinging" ads because while there's tons of spin in them, usually there's a grain of truth at the heart of the accusation. To have a candidate worth choosing, they should be able to face scrutiny.

Answer 2

I propose that the better cut back for contributions be accomplished away with, and that the optimum payouts in retirement nonetheless proceed to be as they're, adjusted for inflation. Social protection isn't a "provide away" application yet one which all of us make contributions to love a discounts plan, and could be risk-free against different makes use of by the government. Do you compromise or disagree and why? in case you're so hectic approximately it then why do not you; first positioned it back into the non-public sector and make to have been no can take out funds from it for their very own pastime, 2d pay back each and every penny you have borrowed from the two Social protection and Medicare, 0.33 take the unlawful immigrants off of it and people who come over here yet in no way paid a penny to it, and ultimately have it an analogous for each guy or woman; in different words government officers are to take part in it and in the event that they opt for something greater they do it on their very own with out the tax payers investment it?yet, the financial stytem feeding the imbalances had in no way been truly replaced. They, a team of scholars, suggested that one and all fees of pastime could be 3% or much less for each guy or woman to grow to be wealthy if needed (that could desire to be genuine additionally to taces). the ideal financial concern could be, they pronounced, whilst there have been no fees of pastime. Why not attempt this answer? the wealthy could nonetheless be wealthy. My question is: whilst soial protection will become a issue related to federal money owed, why not artwork with a balanced or earnings funds and spend no greater beneficial than is supplied in, as any relatives has to attempt for? Why not ban all loobying presents with a view to get rules that serve the country? God bless united states of america.

Answer 3

Because they want to appeal to the right people at the right time. They do not want you to know their stance on everything on yes/no terms. What they know you'll disagree with they won't address that is why debates are so important to campaigns. Ron Paul seems to lead the Republicans on that side of the coin. Also voting records are huge. Ron Paul has 18 years of them that all confirm what he says!

Answer 4

They are afraid of alienating a current or future supporter. They want to please as many as possible.The minute they deviate from something on their list they are considered untrustworthy. Moreover, it becomes feeding time for the press and just about anyone else. Just look at
Hillary; voted for the war
Huckabee; wanted to raise taxes
Romney; used to be for abortion
They have all changed their positions and have had a difficult time expaining themselves.

Answer 5

Because their answers to the same question changes depending on the group they are talking to. Being vague is just good politics.

Answer 6

They all have their own websites that will tell you what their issues are. There are some sites that will tell you all the candidates issues. You just have to search

Answer 7

Project Vote Smart regularly sends out surveys to political candidates to ask them to fill it out to better explain their positions on issues. However, most do not return the survey.
http://www.vote-smart.org/

Answer 8

You make a good point.

We need alot more candor from the candidates on each side.

Answer 9

None of them want to get that pinned down. They want to be able to spin their position on everything.

Answer 10

WHAT'S THIS it's honesty and organization you want, that would leave no room for lies and corruption.

(yelling) - WILL HAVE NONE OF THAT !!!

Behave yourself, I don't want to have to talk to you about this again.