Questions:

1. Which form of taxation do you support?
2. What is your view on foreign policy?
3. What is your view on domestic policy?
4. What are your views on the death penalty?
5. Do you feel there should be any more restrictions on immigration?

Answer: Mitt Romney's view

What are your views on the death penalty?

Mitt Romney believes that President Obama is to gentle with the execution of the death penalty. Although abuse of this process can prove to be unconstitutional and immoral, some criminals which are backed by powerful organizations or nations that are enemies of the country should be executed in the principle of domestic safety. Mitt Romney does not completely oppose or support the death penalty, but rather takes a middle position between the two. Mitt Romney's legislation also supports the involvement of the jury in deciding if a death penalty is necessary, which is a more democratic approach to this controversial and sensitive subject. 

Source: http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Capital-Punishment.php

I believe that the fact that Mitt Romney is trying to take a more neutral stand with the death penalty signals to me that he does not plan to make any changes to this process. However, I do respect and admire his statement about the jury deciding if a death penalty is necessary. A more liberal approach to the process would go a long way to decrease the controversy and arguments on the topic. If you let an unbiased jury decide the fate of the criminal, no substantial controversy or complaints can take place. 

Solar Energy

     Obama's plan for solar energy is to  build solar panels, and having other solar energy developments in selected areas in California,  Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico.  He plans on having about 285,000 acres of land covered in solar plants, solar panels, and take a huge step in solar development.  Non of the other candidates have much to say on solar energy.  They mostly focus on other forms of energy such as wind, and other ways to get fossil fuels.  There are many good benefits with solar energy though.  It absorbs energy from the sun which is very good.  It is a constant source of energy and can store energy to last through the night and for several days for that matter.  The sun will never run out so there is no need to worry about not having your source of energy.  The solar panels are also placeable anywhere.  They can go on your roof or in your yard, they can be put anywhere.  The only problems with them is that they are costly and sometimes too big if you live in a very small community.  Other than the cost the solar panels are very accessible and worth having because u can save money and the environment by not burning fossil fuels.

-Alex

Geothermal Energy - Presidential Campaign

  Pros: 

Geothermal Energy is renewable.

Geothermal Energy can save a lot of money.

Geothermal Energy has unlimited potential. There is a huge amount of energy stored in the core of the Earth.

Cons:

Steep initial costs.

Danger of earthquakes if not careful

A large area is needed.

  As a result of my research, I found out that none of the Presidential candidates even attempted to touch on Geothermal energy. It is a subject that is considered irrelevant by many of the current presidential candidates, and I think that is a huge mistake. Although we do have large resources of oil and coal in our reserves, they are not renewable sources and will one day run out. However, people tend to center their focus on current issues and ignore the future prospects. If we do not focus not these subjects now, we might face a financial crises in the future. It is better to deal with the issue now rather than face horrible consequences in the future.

Energy Independence

                        Obama's and Rick Perry's plans on energy independence are complete opposites (in the sense of improving the environment/ being environmental-friendly) which try to achieve the same thing: being energy independent from other countries, specifically ones from the Middle East. Rick Perry focuses on Machiavelli's "Ends justify the means" idea by attempting to create jobs anyway possible, even if it means the environment will get further destroyed and the natural resources further depleted. He says getting the industry "back to work" will be the "quickest" way to create millions of jobs and begins completely dismantling the EPA in order to drill oil in Alaska and other places. While, Obama for the most part supported a cleaner way of becoming energy independent, by cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent, investing billions of dollars into renewable "coal", supporting incandescent light bulbs and so on. Basically, both candidates attempt to reach their goals in different ways, Obama makes the better choice (in my opinion) and wants to convert America into clean energy in order not to completely stop importing oil from the Middle East, while Perry tries to find other places to deplete oil from, which will eventually run out and force America to be energy/oil dependent.
                     I lean towards Obama's plan because I believe the best way to be energy independent is to convert to clean energy which will benefit the environment as well. Although most people believe that humans didn't cause Global Warming and such, they undermine the fact that (if they really didn't cause Global Warming) humans are only making it worse through the burning of fossil fuel. So, the underlining fact is cleaner energy will have a much more environmental-friendly and beneficial long-term affect than Perry's creation of jobs through drilling oil in Alaska and other offshore and onshore drilling.
                    Hydroelectric power is an alternative energy source which employs water turbines and generators from dammed water; although an alternative energy source, hydroelectricity has has its pros and cons. Some negative aspects are that energy production depends on the volume of the water and the height between the source and the outflow of the water and can have lasting negative impacts on surrounding ecosystems. On the other hand, hydroelectricity totally eliminates fuel, doesn't cause pollution in water and air, they are more durable (last 50 to 100 years) and the cost of labor is very low since the plan is normally automated.
                                                                                                                                        -Denis
                      

Homeland Security

                 Both Obama and Romney have solid stances on homeland security. They both believed in investments in science and technology and upgrading nuclear security. However, Obama believes in solely technology as a major factor in protecting the U.S. while Romney wants to expand the military by adding 100,000 ground troops and sees improvements in science and technology (which he doesn't mention specifically) not as important.
                In Obama's plan, he want's to improve intelligence capacity and information sharing by collecting, analyzing and sharing intelligence/information better and faster; expanding digital information and communication through securing the internet; securing borders and ports by enhancing transportation networks; strengthening the transportation infrastructure and lastly, upgrading nuclear and biomedical security by establishing well planned coordinated responses in case of emergencies and discovering vaccines for diseases.
                Romney's plan on the other hand focused mostly on mostly international improvements such as promoting Democracy around the world, helping allies increase defenses and investments in security, building a stronger military and so on. His similarity with Obama on improving and investing in basic science research and technology, is barely mentioned, while his view in updating nuclear deterrent is to update the missile defensive system. Therefore, Romney is basically focused on military improvements; the more advanced and bigger the U.S. military is, the more secure America becomes.
               Both of these plans cover major points and have very viable ideas however, I believe Romney focuses too much on the U.S. military and not as much on securing the digital network for example while Obama barely mentions improving the military at all (which is declining quantity-wise). And therefore, I cannot choose which plan would be better for America, although I slightly view Obama's plan as better. 

                                                                                                            -Denis

Gay Right: Obama v Cain

             Obama and Cain's views on gay rights are relativity different. Obama, who had recently signed the removal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell Act, which now allows openly gay people to join the military, is for the equality for the gay community. Obama had said that "we are moving toward equality for all." Obama, who is leaning forward for equality for the gay community, has been successful in giving more civil rights.
             Unlike Obama, Cain seems to think that "being gay is a choice" and feels like they should be given much rights. Cain, whom seems to be more of a Christian man, seems to reject the opinion of the gay community and does not want to give them as much rights as they deserve. Cain, who has been going up in ranks of the Republican candidates, might have finally step into a gap. However, his views, like many of his followers, have been supported, which makes this topic very controversial.

-Steven

Abortion- Obama v.s. Romney

     Barack Obama fully supports abortion, while Mitt Romney says there are only specific instances when a women should be able to get an abortion.  President Obama's selected staff all support abortion and the women's right to choose. He has also supported given money to parts of the UN that support abortion and has forced taxpayers to help fund abortion clinics in other countries. Mitt Romney says that women should only be able to get abortions if they are pregnant because of rape, incest, or to save the mothers life.  Romney is pro- life and has said that he will support the unborn child and does not want to hurt the unborn children who can feel the pain of an abortion.  On this topic like most others i support President Obama.  President Obama gives women the choice to abort their unborn child if they want.  Telling them that they cannot or that there are only certain situations like Mitt Romney wants to.  It should be the right of the women and denying their rights is like denying their freedoms.

-Alex