Elections 2012 [third-party candidate option added]

[kyle]

take the quiz here and see who you really side with.

As of right now a lot of states side with my views better than any of the candinates. Maybe i should run

[Mkay1]

This whole topic is bleh....

Thank Rush for creating crazy conspiratists. Is that guy believes in What he says then he's Ill.

**** politics. It only seems to make good people argue with one another, or cause people to be terminally pissed off at the world. I would rather be ignorant than part of this mess.

[Overrated]

take the quiz here and see who you really side with.

As of right now a lot of states side with my views better than any of the candinates. Maybe i should run

Pretty much accurately put me where I figured I would be. Romney and Obama at 41% and 31% respectively. Ron Paul at 79% and Johnson at 85%. Didn't think I'd be siding with Johnson so much but Paul was the only candidate from the two main parties I actually agreed with for the most part.

I don't know too much on any of the candidates, but Ron Paul was the only person I actually liked from either party when I had to do a class project earlier in the year. Won't look into Johnson until closer to elections but it seems like I'll have to consider him.

Regardless, I still don't believe the President has much true power and the candidate that ends up getting chosen (unless it's a third party candidate I don't know much about) won't really do much to "help" us. I think all the power comes from Congress, but it's bleh to me.

[Jonathan]

**** politics. It only seems to make good people argue with one another, or cause people to be terminally pissed off at the world. I would rather be ignorant than part of this mess.

Annoyingly, that's exactly why you should get into it. Your own individual input is unlikely to change anything. But if you take all people with similar opinions, and they all stay out of it (they're similar after all), that's a sizable systematic bias against you. It's more about moving entire groups than the occasional individual, but this is what I can do.

[sinewav]

Jill Stein is my girl! (I guess?) Also, I never imagined myself a Democrat. Weird. Two years ago I took a similar test and it said I was a Libertarian. I think it's all a bunch of hooey.

[ElmosWorld]

Anyone else so even between the candidates?

[Clutch]

Haven't heard of this lady, to google I go

[kyle]

I should have said this with the test. it is more acurite if you use the other responces rather than yes or no. if there is one that fits you.

First time I took it with just yes or no I sided with Romney 95%, I selected more specific answers and that dropped him to 51%. Johnson and Paul remained about the same 88% and 87% respectfully.

it also says 53% of america sides with me

[Jonathan]

I had quickly clicked through it before I had to leave a few hours ago, although I couldn't answer everything accurately (even if I had taken the time) because I'm ignorant about some American issues. It looked like a slightly more extreme, slightly more green version of sinewav's result. Not surprising, considering how appalled I am by Romney and the Republicans. Would be a nice name for a stage act, but this is one large stage.

[noob13]

I'm not american, but my quiz results are these:

[Ratchet]

http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/57671951.jpg

[Phytotron]

Addendum: Here's the other Daily Show clip about the myth of voter fraud, versus actual election manipulation on the part of the right. And again, for some reason the video on the Comedy Central site won't play for me, but now neither will the HuffPo video. Eh.

I agree with compguygene, you know almost nothing about your president's history

When did you become a conspiracy theorist? Hilarious. Although, let's be honest, you're full of shit. This is just trolling for the sake of it. BORING. I'm betting if I were to do a search of your many screennames, I would find a past post wherein you bashed someone for believing that nonsense. Typical you. Bug off, you're old and worn out.

phyto already said something was racist about cpg's post even though it's not.

I do want to be clear about this, however. No, I did not. I said the Birther movement is fundamentally rooted in racism. There's no other basis for it in reality. This isn't to say that all Birthers are racists; I didn't call Gene a racist. Many (reactionary) people have, however, jumped on this crap for providing little more than a convenient smear, an attempt to delegitimize Obama.* And of course, people already prone to conspiracy theory are going to believe it, too. It's a truism about conspiracy theorists that if they believe one, they're highly likely to believe most others with which they're presented. So in the case of someone like Gene, it's a one-two punch; he's bound to believe it, even if he didn't have a racist bone in his body.

But the fact is, the origins of Birtherism are racist.

* SIDEBAR: They certainly need to concoct reasons. Considering that the bulk of Obama's legislative agenda and Presidential policies have been tediously middle-of-the-road, and in some cases even center-right, many even co-opted from Republican proposals, they need something with which to smear him. Hence as well, cries of "OMG CREEPING SOCIALISM" applied to something like so-called "Obamacare," specifically the "individual mandate," which is in reality a fundamentally Conservative/Republican concept and program. Indeed, its origins are with the bona-fide conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation; it's the same legislation. The individual mandate is all about putting the onus on personal responsibility to get private insurance, over social/collective responsibility of the public/government; against people being free riders (or "free-loaders," in the pejorative) on the system. Moreover, the health care industry and insurance remain private; indeed, private insurers will make bank off this. There's nothing socialistic about it. Damn morons.

Well, if we are going to actually debate these things, I have created separate, new topics to separate this out into 2 issues.

No thanks. The Birther stuff, in particular, is unadulterated garbage. Period. And that includes your sources. And while I wholeheartedly support third parties (and, again, have been active in so doing, which, again, does not entail simply posting stuff on websites), once you bring the "International Bankers" conspiracies and hyperbole about tyranny into it, forget it. It's not an honest debate. A legitimate debate must be preconditioned on an agreed-upon conception of reality and what qualifies as facts. That is not the case here, and therefore doesn't qualify as a debate. Those two threads are incapable of being any more legitimate or productive a "debate" than evolution versus creationism. One is reality, the other fantasy. The end.

take the quiz here and see who you really side with.

Did everyone fill out all the "choose more [issue category] questions?" I did. I also ended up choosing "choose another stance" on nearly every question, and even wrote in a few, heh. On a few I wish I could choose more than one. But anyhoo, my results:

A bit odd at the top; I'm not quite sure what explains that. I think they possibly give the Democrats, as a whole, far too much Left credit. I also don't know how, or even if, it interpreted the answers where I filled in write-ins. And I don't know how they figure I side with Ron Paul on foreign policy issues, either; I don't think any of my responses were in line with his strict isolationism. Nor do I know where even the mere 3% agreement with Rmoney comes from. So, I question this thing's accuracy a bit. Oh well, whatever. I know where I stand; I don't need some web quiz to tell me.

I also thought this was funny, the phrasing of it:

[FFIIXXIITT]

Why vote if one must choose between a duche and a turd sandwich?

[Kijutsu]

The joke will be on you once your reptillian president will eat you, Phyto. Where's his birth certificate, btw?

[Word]

Did everyone fill out all the "choose more [issue category] questions?

I did, but misread one of those essential questions about evolution [evolution is a fact <---> evolution is not a fact] so I ended up with agreeing with Mitt Romney in the Science part (but still got 78% Obama).


Oh, and: