Here's a whole heap of data on Obama.

[richard_daily]

I'm glad I have options for candidates that represent my views...


http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?Rick_Santorum=7.0%2C8.5&Newt_Gingrich=8.0%2C7.5&Mitt_Romney=7.0%2C6.5&Ron_Paul=9.0%2C-1.0&Barack_Obama=6.0%2C6.0&You=-9.3%2C-9.0%3Cdiv%20style=

 

[Ham Murabi]

There is a whole heap of data. Not all of it reflects positively on Obama. And what do you make of the following paragraph:
"The facts are clear: The health-care law provides a significant tax cut, averaging about $,000 for more than 18 million middle-class people and families — a tax cut Republicans in Washington are vowing to repeal, socking it to the middle class once again." —White House advisor David Plouffe, June 29, 2012

I don't know how this "tax cut" that's worth $,000 will impact me. I do know that the health insurance provided by my company has gotten much more expensive since ObamaCare passed, in both cost to my employer and money out of my pocket. I'm more inclined to believe the following, also from Perg's source:

"What we really have here is a bill that, without question, will kill jobs, will limit access to health care, will raise taxes, and will lead to a government takeover of health care." —Senator Roy Blunt, July 14 2009

 

[Peregrinator]

I would imagine you answered that multi-nationals are evil on both of those and that they are exploiting the developing world.

For my part, I don't care so much as long as they meeting the contractual obligations they signed and aren't abusing human rights or the environment.

I also don't think poorly of moneytraders, the business is as old as prostitution.

"Exploiting the developing world" is synonymous to me with "abusing human rights and the environment." What else would it mean?

I don't remember how I answered on specific questions. I think I split on those two. Was one of them something like "they only exist to make profits?" Because I think that's true.

I didn't see a value judgment on money traders; the question asked whether they contribute anything to society.

 

[Peregrinator]

I'm glad I have options for candidates that represent my views...


http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?Rick_Santorum=7.0%2C8.5&Newt_Gingrich=8.0%2C7.5&Mitt_Romney=7.0%2C6.5&Ron_Paul=9.0%2C-1.0&Barack_Obama=6.0%2C6.0&You=-9.3%2C-9.0%3Cdiv%20style=

That's pretty funny.

 

[Peregrinator]

There is a whole heap of data. Not all of it reflects positively on Obama. And what do you make of the following paragraph:
"The facts are clear: The health-care law provides a significant tax cut, averaging about $,000 for more than 18 million middle-class people and families — a tax cut Republicans in Washington are vowing to repeal, socking it to the middle class once again." —White House advisor David Plouffe, June 29, 2012

I don't know how this "tax cut" that's worth $,000 will impact me. I do know that the health insurance provided by my company has gotten much more expensive since ObamaCare passed, in both cost to my employer and money out of my pocket. I'm more inclined to believe the following, also from Perg's source:

"What we really have here is a bill that, without question, will kill jobs, will limit access to health care, will raise taxes, and will lead to a government takeover of health care." —Senator Roy Blunt, July 14 2009

No, it doesn't, and that was part of why I posted it. Despite what the dopes on page one of the thread seem to think.

Can I have half of that tax cut?

Yeah, I hope Blount is wrong, but I fear he's correct.

 

[kbate]

I'm glad I have options for candidates that represent my views...=

That is because the test does not accurately reflect your views. You'd be with Francois Mitterrand in the Authoritarian Left if the test was accurate.

The test skews you away from that with the government in the bedroom questions.

If it had a "neutral" option, it might come out closer to one's true beliefs.

 

[CHNOPS]

That is because the test does not accurately reflect your views. You'd be with Francois Mitterrand in the Authoritarian Left if the test was accurate.

The test skews you away from that with the government in the bedroom questions.

If it had a "neutral" option, it might come out closer to one's true beliefs.

The tests are almost always flawed, and at any rate, game-able. Why not Just read the GOOP and DuNCe platforms, and put checkmates next to the positions you agree with? The one with the greater number of checkmarks is the way you lean.

 

[mercury14]

Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.18



It would be difficult to get more middle-of-the-road than that.


As for the OT, I haven't made up my mind about who to vote for, and was considering Obama. But as of last week that's no longer true; he's officially off my list. But thanks for the comprehensive info anyway.

Informed in Indiana,
Ellie

Mitt Romney comes out and criticizes Obama for his statement regarding Libya even before Obama had made one... And that was enough to earn your vote.

 

[richard_daily]

That is because the test does not accurately reflect your views. You'd be with Francois Mitterrand in the Authoritarian Left if the test was accurate.

The test skews you away from that with the government in the bedroom questions.

If it had a "neutral" option, it might come out closer to one's true beliefs.

No, I wouldn't be with Mitterand, and I am really far from authoritarian on just about every issue. Feel free to try me, and prove yourself wrong.

 

[EllieTalbot]

Not a shocker at all.

I'm starting to wonder if the test is skewed Libertarian like that famous one was. I suppose that it might be that Lit is skewed that way.

So will you vote Willard or some third party candidate?

I don't know yet. What Obama's administration did last week was so heinous that I went from considering him as a candidate, to seriously considering Romney for the first time because he has the best chance of beating him. There's no place in the White House for someone who orders Google and YouTube to consider making a video, legally produced by a US citizen, disappear from the public sphere. Obama broke his vow to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights when his administration did that.

*sigh* But despite the fact that he hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning, I'll probably end up doing the uncynical thing and vote for Johnson.

Disenchanted on the Delaware,
Ellie

 

[Peregrinator]

The tests are almost always flawed, and at any rate, game-able. Why not Just read the GOOP and DuNCe platforms, and put checkmates next to the positions you agree with? The one with the greater number of checkmarks is the way you lean.

That's a funny typo. And a good strategy. I basically did that four years ago with all the third parties. It's eye opening what some of them stand for. Around the time I got to Hawaiian independence in the Green Party platform my eyes glazed over.

 

[Peregrinator]

I don't know yet. What Obama's administration did last week was so heinous that I went from considering him as a candidate, to seriously considering Romney for the first time because he has the best chance of beating him. There's no place in the White House for someone who orders Google and YouTube to consider making a video, legally produced by a US citizen, disappear from the public sphere. Obama broke his vow to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights when his administration did that.

*sigh* But despite the fact that he hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning, I'll probably end up doing the uncynical thing and vote for Johnson.

Disenchanted on the Delaware,
Ellie

I wish lots of people would. At least enough to put Libertarians on the radar for a change.

 

[CHNOPS]

That's a funny typo. And a good strategy. I basically did that four years ago with all the third parties. It's eye opening what some of them stand for. Around the time I got to Hawaiian independence in the Green Party platform my eyes glazed over.

For what it's worth, that was an autocorrect typo. I went back and retyped it three times, and must not have noticed the last time it changed back.

 

[richard_daily]

I wish lots of people would. At least enough to put Libertarians on the radar for a change.

I can't stand those right wing goofballs... You excluded of course.

 

[Peregrinator]

For what it's worth, that was an autocorrect typo. I went back and retyped it three times, and must not have noticed the last time it changed back.

No judgment implied; I couldn't tell if it was you being clever or inadvertent.

I can't stand those right wing goofballs... You excluded of course.

Exactly.

 

[mercury14]

I don't know yet. What Obama's administration did last week was so heinous that I went from considering him as a candidate, to seriously considering Romney for the first time because he has the best chance of beating him. There's no place in the White House for someone who orders Google and YouTube to consider making a video, legally produced by a US citizen, disappear from the public sphere. Obama broke his vow to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights when his administration did that.

*sigh* But despite the fact that he hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning, I'll probably end up doing the uncynical thing and vote for Johnson.

Disenchanted on the Delaware,
Ellie

The White House ordered what now?

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-5.25&soc=-4.56

How odd...

*head shake...*

and not a single solitary candidate for me...

as evidenced by

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?Rick_Santorum=7.0%2C8.5&Newt_Gingrich=8.0%2C7.5&Mitt_Romney=7.0%2C6.5&Ron_Paul=9.0%2C-1.0&Barack_Obama=6.0%2C6.0&You=-5.3%2C-4.6%3Cdiv%20style=

 

[kbate]

"Exploiting the developing world" is synonymous to me with "abusing human rights and the environment." What else would it mean?

I don't remember how I answered on specific questions. I think I split on those two. Was one of them something like "they only exist to make profits?" Because I think that's true.

I didn't see a value judgment on money traders; the question asked whether they contribute anything to society.

Exploiting can mean, "taking their resources" which has nothing to do with human rights or the environment. Economic exploitation. We here might consider something "exploitation" while the locals might consider it "jobs".

You don't think "Contribute to society" is a value judgement?

 

[Peregrinator]

Exploiting can mean, "taking their resources" which has nothing to do with human rights or the environment. Economic exploitation. We here might consider something "exploitation" while the locals might consider it "jobs".

You don't think "Contribute to society" is a value judgement?

Taking their resources affects the environment every single time. There was something there and now it isn't. I guess you're right that just taking their money isn't an environmental concern, except in a shit rolls downhill kind of way.

I agree that there's some perception differences there. That grey area is often exploited by propagandists both for and against.

Not necessarily, no. Contribution is quantifiable.

 

[kbate]

Taking their resources affects the environment every single time. There was something there and now it isn't. I guess you're right that just taking their money isn't an environmental concern, except in a shit rolls downhill kind of way.

I agree that there's some perception differences there. That grey area is often exploited by propagandists both for and against.

Not necessarily, no. Contribution is quantifiable.

Contribution is quantifiable, but exploitation is definite?

now do you see why the test is invalid? Even within a couple questions the definitions of the words cannot engender agreement.