"I Side With . . ." quiz

[Jellybean]

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]

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]

@SteyrAUG

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 fucking 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 fucking 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:

[SteyrAUG]

@theblackknight

89%

WTF, Romney is a fag. GTFO out and Ryan isnt any better.

Unfortunately Reagan isn’t running this year.

[ForTehNguyen]

[jaxman7]

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

[SteyrAUG]

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

[SMETNA]

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.

[a0cake]

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 fuck 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

[SteyrAUG]

@a0cake

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 fuck 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 fucked up.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm

[MegademiC]

^^ 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

[chadbag]

@SteyrAUG

Jill Stein is pretty fucked 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?

---

[a0cake]

@SteyrAUG

Jill Stein is pretty fucked 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.

[LHS]

@SteyrAUG

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 fucking 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 fucking douchebag and according to this test he’s my personal hero right up there with Ron Paul.

You need to run for President.

[RancidSumo]

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.

[SMETNA]

@a0cake

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

[a0cake]

@SMETNA

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.

[chadbag]

@a0cake

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 fuck 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)

[a0cake]

@chadbag

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.

[chadbag]

@a0cake

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.

---