Google+

Where do 2012's presidential candidates stand on video games?

Know which candidates support your favorite hobby

Words: on November 1, 2012
Back to Article

114 comments

  • ferethi - January 25, 2012 4:38 p.m.

    I didn't realize that so many people are actually still falling for Obama and his so called "policies." I would've thought that most people by now realized that he's a socialist, and will only make the country worse, especially with his under-the-table spending. Anyway, I don't really think video games are on the top of the political agenda, or really an issue at the point. As long as developers keep doing what they do, no government involvement is needed.

  • kyle94 - January 25, 2012 4:54 p.m.

    If I were you, I'd pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of "socialist" before using it again. I'm a socialist myself, in the true sense of the word, not the "grr, evil Communist who wants to take away money and use it to buy drugs for slackers". Obama is a moderate. Hell, compared to many European politicians, he's closer to the right than the left.

  • INSURGENCYmusic - January 26, 2012 11:30 a.m.

    wth are you talking about? He's closer to the right than to the left? He's for bigger government. he's not moderate, He is a socialist. I'm not saying that being a socialist is bad, but it's illegal under the constitution. The proper right wing, is Ron paul = less government. Obama wants government everywhere, government to regulate everything, which is socialism. Just because he's a war monger, doesn't make him more right.

  • kyle94 - January 26, 2012 1:56 p.m.

    He's closer to the right than the left when compared to Europe. Europe as a whole is typically more left-wing and liberal in the US. Where people here incorrectly refer to Obama as a Socialist, in some parts of Europe, he would be called a moderate. And no, he's not a socialist. He hasn't pushed for universal healthcare (just healthcare reform and insurance reform, but still far from Universal Healthcare. Hell, it would have just backed preexisting private businesses, not put them into public control). He hasn't pushed for free education. His Wall Street Bailout was far from Socialist. Instead of restructuring and nationalizing businesses, it gave government money to private businesses, keeping them private. After the Auto Bailout, the government assumed partial control of GM, but it was a temporary move to improve the corporation, and the key-word is 'partial'. It's not nationalizing, or Socialist either. As the head of the Democratic Socialists of America, Llewellyn, said about Obama: "He's trying to save capitalism from itself rather than a radical trying to change into a new system"

  • kyle94 - January 26, 2012 2:01 p.m.

    In addition, the Constitution is flawed. It was written during the 1700s, and was important in their time, but everything under it no longer perfectly applies to the present day. That's the entire point of the ability to have amendments. To be able to change the laws of the country as time changes, for what's best. The Founding Fathers were ahead of their time in terms of democracy in much of the world, and they wanted it to stay that way, not let things be held back. Plus, don't forget Jefferson's quote: "Every generation needs a new revolution."

  • INSURGENCYmusic - January 26, 2012 9:44 p.m.

    First off, obama is a socialist for the people he works for. which ofcourse is the special interest, banking cartels, military industrial complex, Elite, etc... Those good old folks. the people that put hi in power. He runs absolutely nothing. 2nd, the constitution is the greatest document ever written. Period. what doesn't have flaws? The laws that are changing today aren't moving towards a free society, they're moving towards censorship, less freedom, big brother, etc... The middle class is getting wiped out due to the economic policies and things will continue to get worse. Because of the corruption that we are facing. Big business is buying our government and that's where the problems lay. It's really no point in arguing unless you can at least see that our government is completely corrupt and bought off by special interest. If you can't see that, then there is really no point in continuing.

  • kyle94 - January 27, 2012 4:51 a.m.

    "First off, obama is a socialist for the people he works for. which ofcourse is the special interest, banking cartels, military industrial complex, Elite, etc..." So, in other words, he's not a socialist. Because that's the complete opposite of Socialism. It's like saying "That guy is a Monarchist because he wants to kill all the kings and create a direct democracy." And I do agree that there is a lot of corruption in DC. However, if you think that it's completely corrupt, then I'm sorry, but you're just overly paranoid about your own system of government.

  • INSURGENCYmusic - January 27, 2012 12:32 p.m.

    I'm paranoid? I don't think so. Look At the wars. completely unjust, undeclared, 70% of the american people want us out, yet the government continue to fund these wars. invasion of privacy. The TSA molests people on a daily basis and they are protected from being sued. The NDAA, completely strips us of our rights. The bailouts, the biggest scam in history and no one is getting arrested for fraud. Goldman sachs people are being given government jobs, etc... This is absolute corruption at the highest level. Where don't you see corruption?

  • theschwartzb - January 29, 2012 5:28 p.m.

    I think I see another InfoWars fan. Go Alex Jones!!!

  • theschwartzb - January 29, 2012 5:36 p.m.

    "But the whole "left/right" schtick is just a ruse anyway. Both major parties actual want more power and bigger government, just at different paces. " You hit the nail square on the head with that.

  • codystovall - January 25, 2012 4:08 p.m.

    They all suck, the fact that their campaigns get any attention is a joke of how stupid our nation is. Keyeep govnment out o' me vidyageems!

  • Conservative_Gamer - January 25, 2012 3:47 p.m.

    Given how little videogames were mentioned in the campaigns, I don't think that gamers should have to worry about anything. Just as long as the industry continues to police itself the way it has been doing for the past +20 years, the government will stay out of the business regardless of who the next president is. If any of the candidates were to have a serious stance on the game industry, I'm sure we would all know about it as it would have been mentioned in one of the countless debated the GOP has had.

  • madman725 - January 25, 2012 3:59 p.m.

    +1 We police ourselves and there is no need for government intervention

  • obviouslyadouche - January 25, 2012 3:09 p.m.

    I have a hard time listening to anything newt says about morality after he wlked out on two of his wives when they were both ill.

  • GhostLightning - January 25, 2012 2:55 p.m.

    Ricky Perry is a stud

  • profile0000 - January 25, 2012 2 p.m.

    Can't we just have Mikel Reparaz for President? Then games would be totally safe. Good article though, Coop. Great job finding all that info.

  • FOZ - January 25, 2012 1:51 p.m.

    Yeah, damn those Nintendos. Super Mario is sick and perverse. The one with the guns and cars, right? That's Super Mario? If you don't know a damn thing, don't talk. Goddamn.

  • Pwnz0r3d - January 25, 2012 1:25 p.m.

    There is no valid argument against videogames. "Kids are exposed to gore and sexuality!" No they aren't. The parents ALLOW them to be exposed to it. A parent buying a 4 year old Gears of War or Grand Theft Auto is the same as letting the same parent letting the same kid watch porn in my eyes. Anywho, none of them have my vote. While I'm not too pleased with Obama's performance (not because he didn't get shit done, or make things worse, but because he didn't bust his balls TRYING to get shit done), he's better than any of the Republican candidates. It'll be a LONG time before I would EVER vote Republican. Mainly because of the decisions made by the Carter (yeah I know he was Dem, but Bush Sr was his CIA head, read about he was doing under the table), Reagan, and Bush Sr/Jr administrations.

  • EwoksTasteLikeChicken - January 25, 2012 1:08 p.m.

    I would say Ron Paul, but since he probably won't make it to the very end, I'll stick with Obama.

  • DryvBy - January 25, 2012 2:51 p.m.

    A wise man once said you could waste time going out and voting for the "meh" candidate, or you could stay at home in masturbate. Only of of those options will leave you with something to show off. Eff Obama and eff anyone outside of Ron Paul. I don't need another progressive garbage politician who can't balance a check book because he spends too much. I need a dude that gets it.

  • Sonattine - January 25, 2012 12:45 p.m.

    This year is a presidential election year in France too, but no candidate ever mentions video games as a relevant topic. When they do mention video games it's to say how well our companies do (France is good at special effects and has a few big money makers and job providers in the industry). Microsoft alone is worth praise for what it does for America's economy and world influence surely. Why bash the product when you have so much to gain ? Not for the first time, I find the USA as weird as is it fascinating.

  • EnigmaSpirit - January 25, 2012 12:34 p.m.

    Colbert should have been on the list. He lost the fight for president of the united states of south carolina, but it still would have been fun. My vote goes to president Obama.

Showing 81-100 of 114 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment
(HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

Connect with GamesRadar


Featured Guides

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.