BUT I'm not going to try to convince you to like a candidate that I like (check out Ron Paul) or ask you to laugh at Giuliani as he admits his race was entirely based on the premise that he was the mayor of a town that experienced a great tragedy (but you should also point at the screen when you read it or hear it on the news). I'm not even going to beg of you to not vote for Hillary Clinton solely because you want a woman as the president (you wouldn't buy popular brand X's fried won ton just due to the packaging, would you? Err... bad example). All I'm going to do is as you to check out this website if you have 5 minutes to kill:
http://glassbooth.org/
Really, as much as I like Ron Paul's ideals and credit, I want everyone to vote for the person that they think matches what they believe. Most of the time, there is the vague stretches of truth and great ideas that are used only for public persuasion. And I say this because everyone should at least look at their three top candidates that the test reveals just to draw whether the test is correct in pitting you with Candidate Y's crew. However, even a test like this one comes with its many shortcomings in its simplicity... but it is a beginning. Or a middle. Really, it could be just an affirmation or change, as well.
So, Spain is great; check out the website.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I took the quiz. I don't think you'd like my matches. The two that are left in the race: Obama and Clinton. 75% match on both. Now what? Don't disown me :(
Actually, Suzy and I both took the quiz and were pretty much the same: Mike Gravel with mid 80% (whom I had actually like a lot...) and then Clinton and Obama about equal at mid 70% as well...
I have some personal reservations about one of the candidates it listed but I'm not against Obama nor Gravel by any means. I really need to research more on those two but I've been a bit preoccupied with a couple other things as of late.
Mike Gravel - 80%
Barack Obama - 78%
Hilary Clinton - 78%
I really hope Obama gets the nomination because if Clinton gets it, I have no idea what I'm going to do...
Just out of curiosity, why do you guys prefer Obama over Clinton? Not to take away from your preoccupation...
Alright. So I surf online a lot and there's a large internet community that is pro-Obama and pro-Paul.... there was a fair amount for Gravel and Kucinich as well. Anywho, I can't deny that first and foremost I just do not trust Hillary Clinton as a person and I every day passes, I read about more and more people that are shifting their support to Obama for the similar reasons. To highlight the article: she sat on Walmart's board of directors and never spoke against the anti-union movement there, she's a businesswoman first and a politician second, and (what I feel is most important right after the businesswoman before politics thing) she stretches truths a lot in an attempt to play the I'm better than Obama card. But I haven't seen any proof that she is better than Obama. In fact, every time that she plays this, I see Obama coming out on top because she (or her husband has been caught as well) flat out lies to the media about another candidate.
And, if you'll remember from a previous political post (near the bottom), Obama started up a website with another senator (Tom Coburn) to improve the transparency of government spending. This is related to something that I was concerned about when I posted it and still today: our outrageous debt. (Actually, a complete sidenote: Osama is attacking us by draining our economy now. I say this for all of those that are still hardcore "let's get him!" and for those that understand the huge problem with our economy)
I'm kinda tired of writing but I still haven't covered Gravel at all (can anyone else touch up on him?). I hope I answered your question, though, Ashlee. It's not so much that I like Obama more than Hillary (I do, but that's not it); it's that I really don't think that Hillary has the nation in her best interests (and that is why I whole-heartedly believe in Ron Paul).
So, check out the candidates on your own (or, if you are able to, click through all of the links on this post) and make your own decision who is right for you.
Just out of curiosity... where did Ron Paul turn up for you in the quiz? How does that affect your support?
I find this interesting because I know that I have differing opinions from you guys on some pretty fundamental issues, and I, too, got the gravel/obama/clinton mix (though in the high 80%s). And Paul was nowhere to be found...
I've already chosen my candidate from this trifecta based on both the issues *and* mitigating factors (the trust that you mentioned being one of them). We Canucks call it "strategic voting".
I won't go into any kind of rant about the vagueness of this quiz... 20 over-simplified questions does not a candidate make. But hey, it's an interesting barometer, at least...
Ah... Marijke. I'm not entirely sure where Ron Paul turned up for me. I didn't expect him to be in my analyzed via algorithm top three choices, really. As you said, it is a very simplistic approach to "who to vote for." When I saw this website, the reason I wanted to post it was because it would help someone (but not necessarily direct that person) to one of the candidates whom share their views.
Ron Paul has some very libertarian views and he shares some very Republican views. Of his Republican views, I don't necessarily agree with him but he believes that the president or federal government shouldn't make that decision. Because he is pro-small government and pro-giving more power to the state governments, he delegates that responsibility of whether abortion is right or wrong or whether gay marriage is immoral or equal opportunity or whether XXXXXX to the states. I respect that tremendously because why shouldn't we all have such a huge influence in the laws that are run within our country? Why should one person have that power?
You're thinking... because he's the president, idiot, and we elected him to it. Okay, understandable, but we also elected our current president twice and he's abused our laws as he creates more abusive laws. Why should these obtrusions still be observed if so many people do not approve of him? Why shouldn't these decisions that focus on my free will (ie, marriage, abortion) be imposed on me if I do not agree with them? When did our government start deciding that they know better than me for my own body? My own beliefs?
The moment what I do affects someone else, that is when an authoritative figure should step in but shouldn't I be the one that lives with my decisions for what I do to myself? Yes, we could take this conversation into so many dramatic situations, but for the sake of argument, let's leave it at "yes, other people could be emotionally hurt from my decisions, but every decision you make has reciprocations that vibrate out to anyone that will care about you."
Alright, that's completely off topic. And, yes, this is a simplistic test as I had mentioned before. And, yes, it is also a computer algorithm that determines the outcome (ie, who you match most) based solely on rules. There is no emotional factor that plays in like trust, confidence, or context of ideology.
Because Paul is pro-state government delegation of power, the website quotes him saying on his "Opposes increased funding for public schools" (something that I think everyone would agree we could always spend more one public education) that "The US Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level. Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children." So, he opposes funding of public schools because he wants to delegate that to the states; he's not against public schools, the algorithm just misses the context completely.
Not sure if anyone will see this as I imagine most people don't check this religiously like I tend to do. But I found an interesting little snippet related to politics and I thought it was worthwhile to mention it here.
I had mentioned before that I liked the candidates that are for more government transparency and those that don't accept lobbies as I am completely against them and their ideology. Government shouldn't be a business decision.
Well, Hillary Clinton seems to think otherwise. She has accepted over $800,000 from registered lobbyists. The next person in line is McCain with nearly half of that.
I'm not sure about you all but I want a responsible politician making decisions in regard to its positive effect for the public well-being... not big pharm or any other corporation or industry.
Hey Greg...you outta know I check these ;)
I've been really torn between Obama and Clinton. I've read all you links, but I'm still not understanding the reason behind your mention of distrust. A few others have eluded to it as well. I understand that she has made compromises in her political history, most markedly for me in healthcare, but I think they were in fact compromises and that they don't mean she wouldn't like to see further development in universal healthcare. I think that so long as the candidates are allowed to except funding from lobbyists, it would be foolish of them not to. Furthermore, not excepting as much money as her doesn't make someone less 'buyable' but it could possibly mean that there are less lobbyists that care for them. There's a huge rift between the types of companies that donate to Reps vs Dems, why not a difference btw candidates? Let's not forget that Clinton has been around for longer; she's going to have more mistakes on her record by default and she's going to have more corporate support by default.
I think the main difference I'm seeing difference I'm starting to see is that I just don't have the same disdain for large government. I get pissed when it interferes with personal liberties, but I think it needs power to make large improvements. I feel like I'm a citizen of the USA, not just of Missouri. If I felt the other way, I'd find another state! Also, why do so many prefer candidates without strong political histories, such as Paul or Obama? That's where my distrust is placed. I wouldn't trust a politician who's been a doctor most of his life any more than I'd trust a doctor that's been a politician most of his life....
Okay, done for now.
Well, for experience, Paul has been a senator for around 20 years...
Obama's lack of experience worried me in the beginning, but then I figgered that you can't want change for your country and count on someone who is the same as all the other candidates. Also, that's what advisers are for, no?
Personally, they're the same to me too. It's actually quite disappointing that voters have no real difference in choice. :(
He was also an OBYN until 1996...
I see differences between the two.
Bonjorno, n3ruda.blogspot.com!
[url=http://viagraycla.pun.pl/ ]Acquistare viagra generico[/url] [url=http://cialisonya.pun.pl/ ]Acquistare cialis in Italia[/url] [url=http://viagrareta.pun.pl/ ]Acquistare viagra online[/url] [url=http://cialisybea.pun.pl/ ]Vendita cialis online[/url] [url=http://athe.pun.pl/ ]Compra in Italia[/url] [url=http://viagraradf.pun.pl/ ]Acquisto viagra generico[/url]
Post a Comment