View Full Version : "I Side With . . ." quiz
http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz
It's a good quick quiz that covers all the bases.
My results weren't a surprise: 97% Ron Paul
http://www.isidewith.com/results/63077715
Ron Paul 98%
Mitt Romney 57%
El Jefe 4%
No surprise there, I guess...
Gary Johnson 89%
Mitt Romney %87
Ron Paul %76
I was a little surprised by the results, especially since I'd only heard of Gary Johnson and know absolutely nothing about the man.
I was also %86 Republican and %76 Libertarian.
Voodoo_Man
08-26-12, 10:52
Romney 93%
Paul 84%
LOL
Magic_Salad0892
08-26-12, 10:56
Yeah. I had Gary Johnson as my highest, and Mitt Romney as my second highest.
I almost shit my pants when it told me that I agreed with most of Obama's social stances. But it was mostly talking about gay marriage, abortion, and the death sentance. Which was a terrible Kevin Bacon film.
Then it told me I was something like 86% republican, and 79% libertarian.
I'll have to retake it later, and post my results here.
Ron Paul 98%
on immigration, healthcare, economic, domestic policy, foreign policy, science, and environmental issues
Mitt Romney 98%
on immigration, foreign policy, economic, domestic policy, healthcare, science, environmental, and social issues
Gary Johnson 88%
on healthcare, economic, domestic policy, foreign policy, science, and environmental issues
Virgil Goode 67%
on economic, domestic policy, science, and social issues
Barack Obama 19%
on foreign policy and social issues
(probably not really -- maybe similar result but opposite reasoning? Some of the things didn't really have a choice that matched me)
Rocky Anderson 15%
no major issues
(Rocky is an idiot -- former SLC mayor)
Jill Stein 7%
no major issues
(who?)
Utah Voters 50%
on foreign policy, domestic policy, economic, environmental, and social issues.
American Voters 47%
on foreign policy, domestic policy, and economic issues.
Parties:
Republican 98%
Libertarian 73%
(probably because of abortion, in which matter the LP is not very libertarian, allowing the use of force against innocents to solve problems)
Green 10%
Democrat 7%
-
http://www.isidewith.com/results/63263026
No surprises for me:
99% Ron Paul
94% Gary Johnson
69% Libertarian
63% Republican
Interestingly, for me at least, I apparently agree more with the Green Party than the Democrats, 7% to 3%.:blink:
Reagans Rascals
08-26-12, 12:11
85% Republican
62% Libertarian
43% Green
39% Democratic
_____________________________
87% Ron Paul
87% Mitt Romney
84% Gary Johnson
Observation: I bet there are a lot of folks out there who never even think through many of these issues, or worse, select an option that is what they hear stated by our current administration or the media, as opposed to any actual knowledge of classic economics theory and historic precedent.
Tip: Use "choose another stance" for each question to get better options.
Tip: Click on "Show more ... questions" link that appears under most sections to ensure you answer all questions and get the most accurate results.
The gun control question was the hardest one for me to answer.
Oh, and 97% Paul, 91% Johnson, 76% Romney, 13% Obama.
When I click "Show All Candidates" some guy named Virgil Goode appears and is at 73%.
CaptainDooley
08-26-12, 12:34
Gary Johnson 97%
on economic, domestic policy, healthcare, immigration, science, foreign policy, and environmental issues
Ron Paul 93%
on economic, healthcare, domestic policy, foreign policy, science, and environmental issues
Mitt Romney 53%
on domestic policy and economic issues
Barack Obama 30%
on immigration issues
93% Libertarian
71% Republican
16% Green
13% Democratic
Standard answers: Romney 94% , Paul 89% , Obama 51%
Extended answers: Paul 85%, Johnson 83% , Romney 75% , Obama 23%
50% spread between the two contestants for POTUS either way.
Is there a quiz that factors in lies? It would be interesting to take the results and apply a "lie factor" based on the persons historic actions or where that data is missing to apply an estimate based off the actions of the people that they most closely associate and identify with.
IOW, let's say the question was.
Do you support Obama's "shovel ready jobs".
Well that seems reasonable.. so you choose yes. 100%. Then you apply the "lie factor" and find jobs were not there, other jobs went elsewhere, etc. and say some were created so maybe a factor of .50
So now you get 50% for that question.
I would love to see a complex quiz based on that type data.
Candidates you side with...
94%
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
on immigration, domestic policy, healthcare, economic, foreign policy, and environmental issues
89%
Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson
on domestic policy, healthcare, economic, science, foreign policy, and environmental issues
88%
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney
on immigration, domestic policy, healthcare, economic, environmental, and social issues
52%
Barack Obama
Barack Obama
on science and social issues
54%
Florida Voters
on domestic policy, science, foreign policy, economic, environmental, and social issues.
54%
American Voters
on domestic policy, science, foreign policy, environmental, and social issues.
Who you side with by party...
88% Republican
67% Libertarian
53% Democratic
51% Green
Crap, I've become a Republican.
Observation: I bet there are a lot of folks out there who never even think through many of these issues, or worse, select an option that is what they hear stated by our current administration or the media, as opposed to any actual knowledge of classic economics theory and historic precedent.
Tip: Use "choose another stance" for each question to get better options.
Tip: Click on "Show more ... questions" link that appears under most sections to ensure you answer all questions and get the most accurate results.
The gun control question was the hardest one for me to answer.
Oh, and 97% Paul, 91% Johnson, 76% Romney, 13% Obama.
When I click "Show All Candidates" some guy named Virgil Goode appears and is at 73%.
I actually didn't notice the "more questions" options the first time through. So I ran through the additional questions:
http://www.isidewith.com/results/63420721
100% Ron Paul
97% Gary Johnson
81% Libertarian
66% Republican
The gap between the Greenies and the Dems widened, 11% to 3%. Again :blink:
ETA: What kind of disturbs me is the answers the rest of Virginia is giving. I know it could be a case of selection bias, but it appears as though VA is going majority retard.
C
52%
Barack Obama
Barack Obama
53% Democratic
51% Green
Crap, I've become a Republican.
Honestly, I'd be more concerned about the above than becoming a Republican if I were you.......
Who you side with by party...
90% Republican
43% Libertarian
28% Green
28% Democratic
My numbers....
Someone should go through and answer all the questions with the most statist, socialist, and interventionist answer possible and see if it'll spit out a 100% Barry verdict :laugh:
I went and re-did mine with the extra questions and options. I got completely different results.
Ron Paul 89% on economic, domestic policy,healthcare, social and science issues.
Gary Johnson 87% on economic, domestic policy, healthcare, immigration and science issues.
Mitt Romney 62% on foreign policy issues.
Barak Obama 28% on foreign policy and immigration issues.
73% Republican
72% Libertarian
44% Democratic
4% Green
Kinda surprised at some of the results, especially where I agree with the current POTUS.
Honestly, I'd be more concerned about the above than becoming a Republican if I were you.......
No concerns.
1. I understand that evolution is a fact.
2. I could barely give a damn if homosexuals want to get married.
3. Global warming IS a threat to the environment, just like all other Earth cycles. I don't agree with the popular premise that it is caused by man, but I know a greenhouse effect would be bad.
That fact that other than those obvious issues, that I despise the Green Party as a bunch of ****ing communists and have little else in common with the Democratic Party doesn't seem to be factored in too heavily by this test.
Of course along those lines I also think Mitt Romney is a major ****ing douchebag and according to this test he's my personal hero right up there with Ron Paul.
Ron Paul 96%
Mittens 92% (although they didn't say which one, the rino or the one trying to get elected)
Gary Johnson 83%
theblackknight
08-26-12, 17:03
89%
Mitt Romney
on immigration, economic, social, and environmental issues
88%
Ron Paul
on immigration, domestic policy, economic, foreign policy, healthcare, and environmental issues
82%
Gary Johnson
on domestic policy, economic, foreign policy, environmental, and healthcare issues
53%
Barack Obama
on science and social issues
51%
North Carolina Voters
on domestic policy, science, economic, foreign policy, and environmental issues.
52%
American Voters
on domestic policy, science, foreign policy, and environmental
WTF, Romney is a fag. GTFO out and Ryan isnt any better.
Well, that was telling, albeit not surprising.
RP-97%- Economic, Foreign, Health, Social issues
Gary J-96%-Economic, Foreign, Health, Social issues
Romney-89%-Economic, Health, Social issues
B.O.- 13%-Foreign issues
86% Republican
81% Libertarian
18% Dem
13% Green
Apparently I agree with 51% of all American voters on Domestic policy, Health, and Social issues.
Virginia, WTF?
GeorgiaBoy
08-26-12, 17:45
Candidates you side with...
93% Gary Johnson
on foreign policy, domestic policy, healthcare, social, and economic issues
91% Ron Paul
on foreign policy, domestic policy, healthcare, immigration, and economic issues
72% Mitt Romney
on immigration, domestic policy, healthcare, and economic issues
34% Barack Obama
on social issues
55% Georgia Voters
on domestic policy, environmental, social, immigration, and economic issues.
56% American Voters
on domestic policy, healthcare, environmental, and social issues.
Magic_Salad0892
08-26-12, 18:07
No concerns.
1. I understand that evolution is a fact.
2. I could barely give a damn if homosexuals want to get married.
3. Global warming IS a threat to the environment, just like all other Earth cycles. I don't agree with the popular premise that it is caused by man, but I know a greenhouse effect would be bad.
That fact that other than those obvious issues, that I despise the Green Party as a bunch of ****ing communists and have little else in common with the Democratic Party doesn't seem to be factored in too heavily by this test.
Of course along those lines I also think Mitt Romney is a major ****ing douchebag and according to this test he's my personal hero right up there with Ron Paul.
Based on your results we could trade ballots and have all the same answers.
Too bad you hate all my favorite movies. D:
89%
WTF, Romney is a fag. GTFO out and Ryan isnt any better.
Unfortunately Reagan isn't running this year.
ForTehNguyen
08-26-12, 20:47
http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/63998533.jpg
Heck I can't believe I even scored a 27% with Obama. That's gonna make me revisit my dinner even if just that amount!
-Jax
So I answered the questions with the exact opposite of my actual views, interesting result:
Candidates you side with...
91%
Jill Stein
Jill Stein
on environmental, immigration, economic, foreign policy, social, and science issues
82%
Barack Obama
Barack Obama
on science, social, healthcare, economic, and immigration issues
66%
Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson
on social, science, and foreign policy issues
20%
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
no major issues
47%
Florida Voters
on foreign policy, environmental, science, and social issues.
53%
American Voters
on foreign policy, environmental, science, and social issues.
Show all candidates
Who you side with by party...
97% Democratic
94% Green
27% Libertarian
1% Republican
**Important Notes**
• The quiz makers profess that they are non biased, and the two guys that built it are from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. Take that for whatever you think it's worth.
• Its pretty obvious that this quiz takes into account only what Mittens SAYS he's for, not what he actually is for, based on his record. Those are two different people.
I'll probably get shredded for this, but that's fine. I've got no problem putting my positions under scrutiny. Also, I've got to confess that I have no idea who the **** Jill Stein is. I'd have to put in a little research to see if I really like her half as much as this thing says I do. It may very well turn out that that's not the case, and I wouldn't be surprised.
84%
Jill Stein
on foreign policy, social, science, immigration, domestic policy, and environmental issues
81%
Barack Obama
on social, economic, science, and environmental issues
69%
Rocky Anderson
on social, economic, and environmental issues
24%
Mitt Romney
on domestic policy issues
19%
Ron Paul
on domestic policy and healthcare issues
89%
Democratic
81%
Green
21%
Libertarian
20%
Republican
I'll probably get shredded for this, but that's fine. I've got no problem putting my positions under scrutiny. Also, I've got to confess that I have no idea who the **** Jill Stein is. I'd have to put in a little research to see if I really like her half as much as this thing says I do. It may very well turn out that that's not the case, and I wouldn't be surprised.
Jill Stein is pretty ****ed up.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm
^^ looks like someone likes being told how to live.;)
Candidates you side with...
95%
Ron Paul
on economic, domestic policy, healthcare, social, foreign policy, and science issues
87%
Mitt Romney
on economic, environmental, domestic policy, social, and foreign policy issues
86%
Gary Johnson
on economic, healthcare, foreign policy, and science issues
11%
Barack Obama
no major issues
47%
Ohio Voters
on domestic policy and foreign policy issues.
46%
American Voters
on domestic policy and foreign policy issues.
Show all candidates
Who you side with by party...
89% Republican
61% Libertarian
4% Green
1% Democratic
Jill Stein is pretty ****ed up.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm
"Record profits-with politicians' help--caused the recession. (Jan 2012)"
Hello? Recessions are caused by businesses making profits?
----
Jill Stein is pretty ****ed up.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm
I disagree with about 50% of her statements listed on that site, across various issues - extremely so on some. I still think she might make less of a disaster than Ron Paul though.
No concerns.
1. I understand that evolution is a fact.
2. I could barely give a damn if homosexuals want to get married.
3. Global warming IS a threat to the environment, just like all other Earth cycles. I don't agree with the popular premise that it is caused by man, but I know a greenhouse effect would be bad.
That fact that other than those obvious issues, that I despise the Green Party as a bunch of ****ing communists and have little else in common with the Democratic Party doesn't seem to be factored in too heavily by this test.
Of course along those lines I also think Mitt Romney is a major ****ing douchebag and according to this test he's my personal hero right up there with Ron Paul.
You need to run for President.
RancidSumo
08-26-12, 23:55
Candidates you side with...
99%
Gary Johnson
on domestic policy, economic, foreign policy, healthcare, social, science, environmental, and immigration issues
99%
Ron Paul
on economic, domestic policy, foreign policy, healthcare, science, environmental, social, and immigration issues
62%
Virgil Goode
on domestic policy and environmental issues
59%
Mitt Romney
on science, environmental, and immigration issues
5%
Jill Stein
no major issues
4%
Rocky Anderson
no major issues
2%
Barack Obama
no major issues
45%
Colorado Voters
on social and immigration issues.
45%
American Voters
on social and immigration issues.
Who you side with by party...
87%
Libertarian
61%
Republican
16%
Green
2%
Democratic
I'm sure anyone that has read my posts around here could see that one coming.
81%
Barack Obama
69%
Rocky Anderson
89%
Democratic
No offense intended by the following:
Would it bother you if civilian ownership of semi autos, class 3, and all magazine-fed weapons were banned?
How can you reconcile your support of self defense/gun rights with the quote above? Seems a lot like a wealthy business owner extolling Lenin
No offense intended by the following:
Would it bother you if civilian ownership of semi autos, class 3, and all magazine-fed weapons were banned?
How can you reconcile your support of self defense/gun rights with the quote above? Seems a lot like a wealthy business owner extolling Lenin
Right, because some percentages from a hokey internet quiz must mean that I lend my unequivocal support to every single nonsensical position held by those with whom I share some degree of commonality on various unrelated issues.
That's the problem with thinking for yourself - it's frustrating when somebody like you comes along and says "oh, you have left-leaning fiscal policy inclinations and are a social-libertarian?" HOW CAN YOU RECONCILE THAT WITH ADVOCATING FOR GUN RIGHTS?
SMETNA, what does one have to do with the other, besides incidental correlation with the official positions of various political parties? Nothing.
Your question is a complete non-sequitur.
ETA: And you talk about the salmon voting for the bear...the pervasiveness of the right's economic policies among the middle class appear to me as nothing but Stockholm Syndrome on an incredible scale and of an incredible scope.
Right SMETNA, because some percentages from a hokey internet quiz must mean that I lend my unequivocal support to every single nonsensical position held by those with whom I share some degree of commonality on various unrelated issues.
That's the problem with thinking for yourself - it's frustrating when somebody like you comes along and says "oh, you have left-leaning fiscal policy inclinations and are a social-libertarian?" HOW CAN YOU RECONCILE THAT WITH ADVOCATING FOR GUN RIGHTS?
SMETNA, what the actual **** does one have to do with the other, besides incidental correlation with the official positions of various political parties? Nothing.
Your question is a complete non-sequitur.
Not really. "left-leaning fiscal policy" usually equates to government intrusion into basically everything in a person's or business's existence.
If the government can intrude to that extent into a person's existence, how can you possibly be in favor of gun rights? You already have advocated for government basically controlling everything basic to a person's existence.
What you really advocate for is gun privileges
"The government that has the power to fix all your problems also has the power to basically screw you/force you to do whatever it wants" (my paraphrase of someone else much more eloquent than I)
Not really. "left-leaning fiscal policy" usually equates to government intrusion into basically everything in a person's or business's existence.
If the government can intrude to that extent into a person's existence, how can you possibly be in favor of gun rights? You already have advocated for government basically controlling everything basic to a person's existence.
What you really advocate for is gun privileges
"The government that has the power to fix all your problems also has the power to basically screw you/force you to do whatever it wants" (my paraphrase of someone else much more eloquent than I)
Slippery Slope fallacy mixed insidiously with a little No True Scotsman with a dash of Strawman. Not worth expositing on in detail - sorry.
Slippery Slope fallacy mixed insidiously with a little No True Scotsman with a dash of Strawman. Not worth expositing on in detail - sorry.
Whatever. You never care to exposit on anything and just dismiss anything that you don't agree with.
There is no "slippery slope" in my argument, nor "straw man." Sorry. try again.
My point is that if you basically give the government the power to regulate a person the way leftist fiscal policy does, you have given the government power to do what it wants. You are no longer talking rights. You are only talking privileges.
---
Whatever. You never care to exposit on anything and just dismiss anything that you don't agree with.
You try disagreeing with 95% of a forum on the issues it likes to discuss most, and see how long you have the patience or desire to draft essays every single time a group dogpiles on you.
I have and will continue to go in-depth on various issues and at certain times, but it's unreasonable to expect me to do it every single time there's general disagreement with a simple statement I make - which is almost every day here.
And especially not when the charges are so vaccuous as in this particular case (it's a slippery slope because you wrongly equivocate economics with a wider morality - X will lead to Y - and it's a strawman because you don't even know what my specific positions are before extrapolating what my greater worldview must be - you went from my left-leaning fiscal policies to saying I want the state to control every aspect of life - a false reduction, at best).
Not whining - just being realistic. I think I should have a reasonable expectation to participate in a thread like this - posting the quiz results, not without being challenged or criticized, but free from being obligated to indulge every single person who wants to either get a jab in or start an extended argument.
The point you make arises from a fundamental disagreement over economic-philosophy. You seem to solipsize your economic convictions into a wider moral framework. I don't think my economic persuasions have the moral underpinnings you seem to assign them.
This isn't something that can be covered in a few paragraphs. Can't I just get some flexibility to post my numbers like everyone else, and indeed be criticized for them (to be expected), but NOT be obligated to get into some extended tangential discussion without getting called out for it? ESPECIALLY when the charges I'm being asked to answer for are based off of NUMBERS from a quiz website, and barely from anything I've actual said?
And especially not when the charges are so vaccuous as in this particular case (it's a slippery slope because you wrongly equivocate economics with a wider morality - X will lead to Y - and it's a strawman because you don't even know what my specific positions are before extrapolating what my greater worldview must be - you went from my left-leaning fiscal policies to saying I want the state to control every aspect of life - a false reduction, at best).
I did not equate economics with a wider morality. I only recognized that the power to implement left-leaning economic policies by necessity means a powerful state that has no limits and hence recognizes no rights, only privileges. In other words, if the state can implement "left leaning" economic policies, it can do anything else it darn well wants. Whether or not you advocate such things explicitly is not the question. Your economic beliefs lead to such an outcome from a philosophical standpoint.
Not whining - just being realistic. I think I should have a reasonable expectation to participate in a thread like this - posting the quiz results, not without being challenged or criticized, but free from being obligated to indulge every single person who wants to either get a jab in or start an extended argument.
SMETNA asked a question. You could ignore or decline to answer. But you chose to answer, which opens up new criticisms and questions.
The point you make arises from a fundamental disagreement over economic-philosophy. You seem to solipsize your economic convictions into a wider moral framework.
No. I only recognize certain things about certain positions. Like if the state has the power to implement "left leaning" economic policies, it really has no limits when you really look at it. I make no moral judgements or assume no moral framework.
And your condescending BS just make you look stupid btw/
I don't think my economic persuasions have the moral underpinnings you seem to give them.
I gave them none.
This isn't something that can be covered in a few paragraphs. Can't I just get some flexibility to post my numbers like everyone else, and indeed be criticized for them (to be expected), but NOT be obligated to get into some extended tangential discussion without getting called out for it?
Yes, you can just post numbers like anyone else. Once you start pontificating though you better back it up.
--
It's like the twilight-zone with you man. I rarely engage you because you don't ask "well what do you think about X" or "what do you believe." You went straight to TELLING me what I must think about gun control or the role of the state in every single facet of life from my simple statement of "left-leaning economics." Hence your statements: "What you really advocate for is gun privileges" and "you already have advocated for government basically controlling everything basic to a person's existence." ****ing really, dude? From "left-leaning fiscal policy?" REALLY? If that's not a slippery slope fallacy and a huge exaggeration, I've never heard one.
You'd of had much better luck asking me to expand on specifically what I think beyond "left leaning fiscal policy" before going on the attack and making me answer for charges I didn't commit.
With SMETNA, it went straight from numbers to gun control. At least his was more of a question that could lead to dialogue. With you, it went from a 4 word statement, "left leaning fiscal policy," to me assaulting basic human dignity and liberty. If that's not equating economics with a wider moral framework, I don't know what is. I can only argue with people who agree that A=A and B=B. You can't say "you already have advocated for government basically controlling everything basic to a person's existence" and then argue that you haven't assigned false moral underpinnings to a simple, non-specific statement I made.
If you're genuinely curious about what I think because of the poll numbers I posted, then ask questions. Don't go on the attack based on numbers and 4 word statements. Or if you DO go on the attack, at least make it for things that you can legitimately derive from 4 word statements like "left-leaning fiscal policy." Sorry, but total control of the state into every facet of human existence is not one of those things. I see no reason to respond to empty statements like that.
Done here, unless you want to change the tone and ask me what I think, instead of fabricating false extensions of simple things that I say and then putting me on trial for them.
Alright. So you're not a nanny-stater. Points awarded!
But there must be more to your stance than just "left leaning fiscal policy" if you're 89% in the democrats'' corner.
It is a hokey Internet quiz. But it has done a pretty decent job of confirming the quiz takers' stance, IMO.
When I think of the democratic party, I think:
• Raise taxes, spend money on socialist programs "that benefit everybody"
• Expand government, regulations
• Placate minorities with affirmative action, selective prosecutions, and do nothing about the southern border
• Redistribute wealth
• Placate the poor by choice, lazy by choice
• Chip away at the constitution by attempting to ignore the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments, and giving themselves broad powers based on the words "promote the general welfare" in the PREAMBLE.
• Act in a condescending, asinine way and make the subjects' decisions for them, as they clearly aren't smart enough
• Talk about defending nature and the environment constantly while they live in big cities and have only been to the woods a handful of times
When I think of the democratic party, I think:
• Raise taxes, spend money on socialist programs "that benefit everybody"
• Expand government, regulations
• Placate minorities with affirmative action, selective prosecutions, and do nothing about the southern border
• Redistribute wealth
• Placate the poor by choice, lazy by choice
• Chip away at the constitution by attempting to ignore the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments, and giving themselves broad powers based on the words "promote the general welfare" in the PREAMBLE.
• Act in a condescending, asinine way and make the subjects' decisions for them, as they clearly aren't smart enough
• Talk about defending nature and the environment constantly while they live in big cities and have only been to the woods a handful of times
Well, I do take issue with the way you color some of these points, IE, social programs primarily serving to placate and benefit the poor and lazy by choice, as if poverty is in any statistically significant way the result of an ethical failure on the part of the poor person. It may be for some, but to apply this narrative in a general sense is dangerous.
It's 430 here, and also I do think any real look into any of this stuff involves some "heavy lifting" and goes beyond what can be done in a reply of reasonable length. Your reply is basically a list of assertions - what good would a litany of assertions from me in response be?
So I've attached a few ZIP folders containing PDF's that I've scanned from books into files from various sociological and economic sources that I've read over the last 5 or 6 years. They all directly address the issues brought up on the list and are for the most part, with some exceptions, representative of my views also. Even if you disagree with the arguments, it's better material than you're going to find from most online sources and you might find them interesting, even if you think they're wrong.
If you decide to take a look, let me know if you have issues with the download. It's my first time using this site so I'm not sure how well it will work.
http://www20.zippyshare.com/v/95540531/file.html
Magic_Salad0892
08-27-12, 04:29
Question 9. Should Congress raise the debt ceiling?
''Yes. Congress should raise the debt ceiling during a recession.''
Doesn't that sound sarcastic as shit?
Magic_Salad0892
08-27-12, 04:39
83% Gary Johnson
82% Ron Paul
67% Mitt Romney
43% Barack Obama
63% Libertarian
56% Republican
51% Democratic
20% Green
Now. Here are the details.
Immigration
I side the most with Gary Johnson on immigration issues.
Domestic policy
I side the most with Ron Paul on domestic policy issues.
Healthcare
I side the most with Gary Johnson on healthcare issues.
Science
I side the most with Mitt Romney on science issues.
Social
I side the most with Barack Obama on social issues.
the Environment
I side the most with Mitt Romney on environmental issues.
the Economy
I side the most with Gary Johnson on economic issues.
Foreign Policy
I side the most with Gary Johnson on foreign policy issues.
Well, I do take issue with the way you color some of these points, IE, social programs primarily serving to placate and benefit the poor and lazy by choice, as if poverty is in any statistically significant way the result of an ethical failure on the part of the poor person.
IMO, two things:
There is no real poverty in this country. Even the poorest among us can have electricity, a refrigerator, a tv, a cell phone, a car. Americans don't know what poverty is, so I don't think there ought to be any social programs to help them. The poorest American lives like an upper middle class chinaman.
Second: the poor have every opportunity to move up, under their own hard work. My grandmother was a cafeteria cook, my mom is a superintendent of a school district, and my sister is a lawyer. Just because you're born in the hood doesn't mean you're destined to stay there. Hard work is rewarded here. Poor people are lazy, that's why they're poor. (or, in some instances, they just prefer to live simply, but in those cases they aren't looking for free benefits)
91% Ron Paul
on economic, domestic policy, immigration, science, and social issues
91% Mitt Romney
on economic, domestic policy, social, healthcare, foreign policy, environmental, and immigration issues
82% Virgil Goode
on economic, domestic policy, social, healthcare, and immigration issues
81% Gary Johnson
on domestic policy and economic issues
20% Barack Obama
no major issues
10% Rocky Anderson
no major issues
5% Jill Stein
no major issues
CarlosDJackal
08-27-12, 10:44
Not surprised by the results. Romney is still not my first choice but he is the most viable choice.
93% - Mitt Romney
83% - Ron Paul
79% - Gary Johnson (who is this?)
39% - barrack obama (I refuse to capitalize this pos' name)
56% - with Virginia Voters
55% - with American Voters
92% Republican
72% - Libertarian
17% - dumboKratic
10% - Green
CaptainDooley
08-27-12, 11:11
79% - Gary Johnson (who is this?)
He is the Libertarian Party's candidate for President this year. He will be on the ballot in all 50 states and is a former governor of New Mexico.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_johnson
It's like the twilight-zone with you man.
Takes one to know one. It is like talking to some stuck up pompous idiot talking to you. You say things and when people disagree with you or point out your errors you smugly say that you are better than we are and have no need to respond or defend your statements.
I rarely engage you because you don't ask "well what do you think about X" or "what do you believe." You went straight to TELLING me what I must think about gun control or the role of the state in every single facet of life from my simple statement of "left-leaning economics." Hence your statements: "What you really advocate for is gun privileges" and "you already have advocated for government basically controlling everything basic to a person's existence." ****ing really, dude? From "left-leaning fiscal policy?" REALLY? If that's not a slippery slope fallacy and a huge exaggeration, I've never heard one.
Truth hurts. The fact is, philosophically, if you believe in "left leaning economics" then you believe in a state powerful enough to do anything or enact anything in terms of intrusion in peoples' lives. Whether you personally support such intrusions is immaterial. You support the state being powerful enough to do so. That is the FACT of the matter. "Left leaning economics" cannot be enacted without such power. This is where the whole "commerce clause" BS comes in. They have to have the power to do whatever they want (in terms of regulating and intruding on other peoples' lives) in order to be able to confiscate wealth from others to redistribute it, which is the basis of "left leaning economics"
You'd of had much better luck asking me to expand on specifically what I think beyond "left leaning fiscal policy" before going on the attack and making me answer for charges I didn't commit.
No need. The basis of "left leaning fiscal policy" is wealth redistribution (under governmental aegis and by governmental force). Redistribution without that is not "left leaning". It is called "the market" and is rather the antithesis of "left leaning."
I'd have been happy if you'd left it at "the numbers." But you started pontificating in response to SMETNA and were hence open game for further questions and/or comments.
Heaven knows you like to comment on others and say how "f*-ed" they are or they are spewing BS. Done so in a condescending way. (cf. your "solipsize" comment.)
With SMETNA, it went straight from numbers to gun control. At least his was more of a question that could lead to dialogue. With you, it went from a 4 word statement, "left leaning fiscal policy," to me assaulting basic human dignity and liberty.
Again, you draw conclusions that I did not state. I did not say you were assaulting basic human dignity and liberty. I said that your position of "left leaning fiscal policy" (I said economics earlier) leads to the conclusion that you support an all-intrusive state regulation of people and business as that is the only way to enact "left leaning fiscal policy" and such a state has the power to also completely regulate firearms, hence there are no "firearms rights", only "firearms privileges."
If that's not equating economics with a wider moral framework, I don't know what is. I can only argue with people who agree that A=A and B=B. You can't say "you already have advocated for government basically controlling everything basic to a person's existence" and then argue that you haven't assigned false moral underpinnings to a simple, non-specific statement I made.
Sure I can. I was pointing out the logical conclusion of such policies as it refers to state power. There is no moral underpinning there. It is a statement of logic and fact.
If you're genuinely curious about what I think because of the poll numbers I posted, then ask questions. Don't go on the attack based on numbers and 4 word statements. Or if you DO go on the attack, at least make it for things that you can legitimately derive from 4 word statements like "left-leaning fiscal policy." Sorry, but total control of the state into every facet of human existence is not one of those things. I see no reason to respond to empty statements like that.
Done here, unless you want to change the tone and ask me what I think, instead of fabricating false extensions of simple things that I say and then putting me on trial for them.
The dude had the balls to post his left-leaning political views on a freaking GUN FORUM. If you want to take him to the woodshed for it, PM is probably a better place. No disrespect, just sayin'...
95% Ron Paul
on immigration, domestic policy, economic, healthcare, foreign policy, and environmental issues
93% Mitt Romney
on economic, immigration, domestic policy, healthcare, and environmental issues
92% Gary Johnson
on domestic policy, economic, foreign policy, healthcare, environmental, and science issues
28% Barack Obama
on science and social issues
56% Florida Voters
on domestic policy, economic, environmental, foreign policy, science, and social issues.
54% American Voters
on domestic policy, environmental, foreign policy, science, and social issues.
I disagree with about 50% of her statements listed on that site, across various issues - extremely so on some. I still think she might make less of a disaster than Ron Paul though.
We are in significant disagreement on that as well.
Unlike Ron Paul, Jill Stein advocates simplistic sounding, deliberately misrepresented and incredibly dangerous views that would be gleefully gobbled up by the uninformed majority of the public and rapid expressed through Congress.
Hard as it might be for anyone here to fathom, I think Jill Stein would be even worse than Obama.
Ron Paul would be an extremely valuable course correction. But much like Reagan, he would have an opposition Congress undermining him from both sides of the aisles as he would be taking money out of their pockets for a change. Assuming he is as good as his word.
IMO, two things:
There is no real poverty in this country. Even the poorest among us can have electricity, a refrigerator, a tv, a cell phone, a car. Americans don't know what poverty is, so I don't think there ought to be any social programs to help them. The poorest American lives like an upper middle class chinaman.
Second: the poor have every opportunity to move up, under their own hard work. My grandmother was a cafeteria cook, my mom is a superintendent of a school district, and my sister is a lawyer. Just because you're born in the hood doesn't mean you're destined to stay there. Hard work is rewarded here. Poor people are lazy, that's why they're poor. (or, in some instances, they just prefer to live simply, but in those cases they aren't looking for free benefits)
I'm gonna disagree with you on both points.
There was a time in my life when I was "this close" to homeless (camping with a plan) and I had none of those things. I have a very real understanding of what poverty is from personal experience.
And once you drop below "this line" it is damn ****ing hard to get back above it. Everyone says "get a job." Do you have any idea how hard that is to do when you don't have a place to live? Not like you can shower and shave in a public bathroom. When you wear shitty clothes to an interview you generally don't get hired.
I was in that boat with a lot of people. It was mostly luck and the fact that I knew a few people who helped me that I was able to get out of that boat. I could have just as easily been ****ed for good.
loganp0916
08-27-12, 14:38
There is no real poverty in this country. Even the poorest among us can have electricity, a refrigerator, a tv, a cell phone, a car. Americans don't know what poverty is, so I don't think there ought to be any social programs to help them. The poorest American lives like an upper middle class chinaman.
Sounds like you need to take a ride around Pike county, Ohio. I know of a couple homes that still don't have electricity, running water, and still have dirt floors.
JBecker 72
08-27-12, 15:32
Paul 90%
Johnson 87%
Romney 86%
Obama 46%
Ca voters 52%
American voters 53%
Johnson 92%
Paul 91%
Romney 77%
Obama 27%
Ohio voters 52%
I'm surprised, as up until I read this thread, I never heard of Gary Johnson....
And once you drop below "this line" it is damn ****ing hard to get back above it. Everyone says "get a job." Do you have any idea how hard that is to do when you don't have a place to live? Not like you can shower and shave in a public bathroom. When you wear shitty clothes to an interview you generally don't get hired.
This guy would disagree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcZTtlGweQ
The real guy this movie is about DID shave and bathe and even sleep IIRC in a public restroom
---
OK, I was a little surprised:
Ron Paul 96%
on economic, healthcare, domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration, social, environmental, and science issues
Mitt Romney 94%
on economic, domestic policy, healthcare, social, environmental, immigration, and foreign policy issues
Gary Johnson 91%
on economic, healthcare, foreign policy, domestic policy, immigration, environmental, and science issues
Barack Obama 20%
No major issue
I had imagined that I'd be more Mitt and less Paul on the issues; I learn something new every day. On the other hand, the party affiliations were about what I expected:
97% Republican, 66% Libertarian, 13% Democratic, 1% Green
Ron Paul - 91%
on immigration, economic, domestic policy, healthcare, and foreign policy issues
Mitt Romney - 88%
on science, immigration, economic, environmental, social, and healthcare issues
Gary Johnson - 85%
on healthcare, domestic policy, economic, and foreign policy issues
Barack Obama - 20%
on foreign policy issues
88% Republican, 80% Libertarian, 21% Democratic, 16% Green
I'm actually surprised. I would have thought that I would have agreed with Johnson more and Romney less. I would have thought that I would be 88% Libertarian and 80% Republican.
Sounds like you need to take a ride around Pike county, Ohio. I know of a couple homes that still don't have electricity, running water, and still have dirt floors.
And how is that government aid helping them out? Are they having more children to get more money? Not saying THEY do, but many do. Is the govt aid improving their life in any quantifiable way, as a whole?
IMO, two things:
There is no real poverty in this country. Even the poorest among us can have electricity, a refrigerator, a tv, a cell phone, a car. Americans don't know what poverty is, so I don't think there ought to be any social programs to help them. The poorest American lives like an upper middle class chinaman.
Second: the poor have every opportunity to move up, under their own hard work. My grandmother was a cafeteria cook, my mom is a superintendent of a school district, and my sister is a lawyer. Just because you're born in the hood doesn't mean you're destined to stay there. Hard work is rewarded here. Poor people are lazy, that's why they're poor. (or, in some instances, they just prefer to live simply, but in those cases they aren't looking for free benefits)
Eh, I'd caution you with the absolutes. I dont think you mean it as "absolutely" as you stated. Im up for helping people that need it, but its not the fed's job.
That said, some people just suck at life and want nothing more than to play cod, screw, and drink beer. They can work 20-40hrs/week, and achieve this, or do the same on our dime. I've known people that make a living out of disability and welfare.
Too many people see a choice of governmet heavyhandedness or nihilism(sp?) The fed govt should NOT be doing this, the states can. Instead, the states $ is confiscated, eaten up in the fed ieffeciency, and redistributed to the same place it came from. Its not a theory, its FACT. The federal government subsidizing roads, education, welfare, etc is nothing but a waste of money and a means of the fed govt controling the states.
And then, this:
1. I understand that evolution is a fact.
Im impressed you "understand" more than roughly the entire scientific community.
This guy would disagree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcZTtlGweQ
The real guy this movie is about DID shave and bathe and even sleep IIRC in a public restroom
---
I'd call that an exception to the general rule. And of course options vary with locations.
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/131/isidewith.png
I don't believe nearly as many people truly need financial help as we think. I believe an overwhelming majority take help because it's there, and why not?
There cannot and should not be a reward or incentive to not work. This only serves the state.
A society where the takers outnumber the makers is doomed. Makers should be encouraged, not the opposite
I don't believe nearly as many people truly need financial help as we think. I believe an overwhelming majority take help because it's there, and why not?
There cannot and should not be a reward or incentive to not work. This only serves the state.
A society where the takers outnumber the makers is doomed. Makers should be encouraged, not the opposite
Did you read any of the documents I put up? Anybody can make assertions like "poor people are just lazy" or "it's your fault if you're poor" until they're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true.
If you can only read two, read "Rank, Poverty, and Welfare" and "Block, Compassion Gap."
Obviously these documents aren't some absolute, infallible standard, but the way of thinking and information contained within them has been transformational in the way I view poverty.
If nothing else, reading them and other sources like them will challenge what you think you know, even if it pisses you off - which I think you'd agree is never a bad thing.
I'm not talking down to you either; if you want to throw reading material my way that's antithetical to the way I think, I'll read it and give it a fair shot.
But until people take a deeper look into the issues by reading scholarly reports, it's just a bunch of emotion A vs. emotion B and assertion A vs assertion B. That goes nowhere fast. I mean, look at the thread. It goes something like this: "Poverty is usually an ethical failure (laziness, etc)." "No it's not." "Yes it is." "No it's not." "Yes it is." WTF? I post legitimate source material to look deeper into the issue and nobody reads it. Sometimes I wonder why anyone even talks about this stuff here.
Here's the link again:
http://www20.zippyshare.com/v/95540531/file.html
I haven't been on my computer since you posted the link, just my phone. I can't unzip files, and even if I could, sorting through a PDF on a phone is beyond frustrating. I'll give it a glance once I get some time on my laptop.
I will say this though: a philosophical stance/ opinion, doesn't necessarily need quantification by other peoples studies. I.e. "There cannot and should not be an incentive or reward for people to not work"
If you have an iTunes account, search the iTunes store for the podcast channel Thomas E. Woods Jr. He's a great speaker and knows his stuff. I couldn't find exactly what I wanted on YouTube but I did get these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlX-QORf1KY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwtV8WFykco&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OvV7tfGcS8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
One aspect of this poll that makes me a little suspicious is that I'm listed as agreeing with Ron Paul and Mitt Romney on issues of foreign policy. That seems a little odd since these 2 are pretty much polar opposites on foreign policy.
Also, this poll probably makes Paul supports uncomfortable if they believe that Romney and Obama are indistinguishable. That is to say, most of us are in close agreement with Paul AND Romney (usually within 10% points). Do the math and this must mean that Paul is also indistinguishable from Obama if he shares such overlap in the issues with Romney (i.e. If Romney=Obama, and Romney approximates Paul, then Paul and Obama must also be similar). Either this poll is inaccurate or it puts a stake in the heart of that argument. :D
I don't believe nearly as many people truly need financial help as we think. I believe an overwhelming majority take help because it's there, and why not?
There cannot and should not be a reward or incentive to not work. This only serves the state.
A society where the takers outnumber the makers is doomed. Makers should be encouraged, not the opposite
I have no issue with any of that. And I tend to agree. The absolute absurdity of course is when "I" slipped below that line, I couldn't find any "government services" who were willing to help me out with anything. I was on my own.
92% Ron Paul
86% Mitt Romney
I forget the rest...but that's basically the two numbers that matter. Rand Paul 2016!
I have no issue with any of that. And I tend to agree. The absolute absurdity of course is when "I" slipped below that line, I couldn't find any "government services" who were willing to help me out with anything. I was on my own.
And you did it! Bonus points! (not to make light of your struggle). Friends and family and fellow church members (if that's applicable) should be willing to help someone who can't catch a break if they love you. Who says the government even needs to be involved? Same argument as "without government, who will pave the roads?"
I think there ought to be a private sector unemployment insurance people could buy, as a safety net. And I also think if the gov is involved at all, the money shouldn't go directly to individuals. It should go to soup kitchens and shelters. Pay for food, sheets and soap. If people lose their shit, they can stay at a shelter, eat and shower, ride the bus to work and save up enough to get back to self sufficiency.
One aspect of this poll that makes me a little suspicious is that I'm listed as agreeing with Ron Paul and Mitt Romney on issues of foreign policy. That seems a little odd since these 2 are pretty much polar opposites on foreign policy.
Also, this poll probably makes Paul supports uncomfortable if they believe that Romney and Obama are indistinguishable. That is to say, most of us are in close agreement with Paul AND Romney (usually within 10% points). Do the math and this must mean that Paul is also indistinguishable from Obama if he shares such overlap in the issues with Romney (i.e. If Romney=Obama, and Romney approximates Paul, then Paul and Obama must also be similar). Either this poll is inaccurate or it puts a stake in the heart of that argument. :D
That's a really good point. Also, why is Ron Paul even included? He's not running anymore, and he has no plans to run as an independent. The constitution party has their guy, and so does the libertarian party. If RP is included, they should include Palin, Hillary Clinton, Dan Quayle and Elizabeth Dole
Wow, 99% Romney, 93% Paul...
20% odumbo, surprised it's that high.
ChicagoTex
08-29-12, 04:39
Cool link, thanks for posting SMETNA.
I'm not gonna post all my results, just the highlights:
91% Ron Paul (foreign & domestic policy, economic, immigration, healthcare)
60% Mitt Romney (immigration, healthcare, environmental)
27% Barack Obama (science, social)
53% Texas Voters (I don't believe that for a second. If nothing else, I'm not sure the average Texan knows how to vote for a non-encumbent)
50% American Voters (is there really anybody who got much off the 50% mark?)
Party Stats:
70% Libertarian
55% Green
54% Republican
34% Democrat
100% Sure they all suck ass.
ETA: I don't think matters of economic policy were really truly well represented in this questionnaire. While I'm VERY compatible with libertarians on most social issues, the "remove all economic controls and the free market will save us" strategy is tantamount to economic suicide in a globalized world. Attempting to operate a free market in a world filled with nations who think nothing of subsidizing the crap out of companies that compete with us in our own markets has already pretty much sacked our entire manufacturing industry and opening the floodgates even more would only increase the pain. It's pretty freaking hard to win in a game of Monopoly when everybody else is cheating.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.