post your results

http://www.isidewith.com/

Candidates you side with...

88%
Barack Obama

on foreign policy, economic, domestic policy, environmental, and immigration issues more info

77%
Jill Stein

on foreign policy, domestic policy, and environmental issues more info

72%
Mitt Romney

on economic, domestic policy, immigration, and social issues more info

79% for Obama....I think their methodology must be junk (i.e. ignore weightings, but probably more about loaded questions). Not that surprising - I'm progressive on most social issues, but they are not important to me. Still interesting and fun

I mean, this is ass backwards:
BO on economics (lmfao), science, immigration and environmental issues
Romney on environmental, domestic policy and social issues.

gut;1261914 wrote:79% for Obama....I think their methodology must be junk (i.e. ignore weightings, but probably more about loaded questions). Not that surprising - I'm progressive on most social issues, but they are not important to me. Still interesting and fun

I mean, this is ass backwards:
BO on economics (lmfao), science, immigration and environmental issues
Romney on environmental, domestic policy and social issues.

I literally don't agree with Jill Stein on anything and I got 77%

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1261917 wrote:I literally don't agree with Jill Stein on anything and I got 77%

She was my third at 65%, behind Gary Johnson at 74%

I mean, one of the key questions (to me) as far as budgets/spending wasn't really asked. Apparently favoring raising the debt ceiling (which HAS to be done, no matter how distasteful) with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases is siding only with Obama.

Obama 87% economic, social, healthcare, science, environmental and immigration
Jill Stein 84% economic, foreign policy, social, science and health care
Rocky Anderson 61% social and heathcae
Mitt Romney 57% foreign policy and immigration

Looks like the same one I did a couple months back. Wound up siding with Gary Johnson as #1 (mid 80s) and can't remember who was #2. Did think it was telling that the two guys actually with a chance to win were like #4 and #5 on the list, though.

Heretic;1261951 wrote:Looks like the same one I did a couple months back. Wound up siding with Gary Johnson as #1 (mid 80s) and can't remember who was #2. Did think it was telling that the two guys actually with a chance to win were like #4 and #5 on the list, though.

Make that #3 and #4. Did it again and things were probably roughly the same (depending on my mood, things might go from "somewhat" to "more" or "less".

83% Gary Johnson

on domestic policy, foreign policy, economic, healthcare, social, and immigration issues

74% Jill Stein

on domestic policy, foreign policy, environmental, healthcare, and science issues

72% Barack Obama

on foreign policy, economic, environmental, social, science, and immigration issues

63% Mitt Romney

on economic, social, and immigration issues

Gary Johnson 93%. Not surprised since that's who I'm voting for.

Mitt and Obama 3rd and 4th for me.

95% Mitt Romney
76% Gary Johnson
60% Barack Obama

92% Mitt Romney
86% Virgil Goode
85% Gary Johnson
43% Barack Obama

Gary Johnson - 84%
Mitt Romney - 69%
Barrack Obama - 69 %

Libertarian - 74%
Republican - 65%
Green - 60%
Democrat - 58%

98% Gary Johnson
77% Jill Stein
71% Rocky Anderson

I couldn't tell you a single thing about any of them. Gary J sounds like someone I could support though.

Mulva;1262224 wrote:98% Gary Johnson
77% Jill Stein
71% Rocky Anderson

I couldn't tell you a single thing about any of them. Gary J sounds like someone I could support though.

Then vote for him. I am. Don't waste your vote on two indistinguishable guys that you don't agree with.

Cleveland Buck;1262231 wrote:Don't waste your vote on two indistinguishable guys that you don't agree with.

No need to worry about that one. I'm not even registered to vote at this point in time.

Cleveland Buck;1262231 wrote:Then vote for him. I am. Don't waste your vote on two indistinguishable guys that you don't agree with.

Great logic. Waste your vote because a proven failure and Romney are exactly the same.

I wish they would let Johnson into the debates. It is really a joke that Romney even received the nomination in the first place but it was his turn and he had the most money.

pmoney25;1262293 wrote:... it was his turn and he had the most money.

Ding! This is essentially the extent of the "integrity" involved in the nomination process.

91% Romney
66% Johnson
61% BHO

not surprisd.

gut;1262248 wrote:Great logic. Waste your vote because a proven failure and Romney are exactly the same.

Great logic. Vote for a candidate you don't believe in because they're in one of the "big two" parties. Because, obviously, the only way the major parties will understand they're providing less-than-inspiring candidates will be for us to unanimously support them above all others.

gut;1262248 wrote:Great logic. Waste your vote because a proven failure and Romney are exactly the same.

Vote for Party-Liner A who represents Failed Party A
Vote for Party-Liner B who represents Failed Party B
Vote for someone else.

The individuals aren't as much the problem. Their candidacy is a product of two failed parties whose contemporary platforms are intellectually contradictory, thus ensuring no solid defense of them as a whole, because a defense of one side of the platform undermines the foundation of the other.

Call it picking between the lesser of two failures. The time to affect change is not now, eventually it's put-up or shut-up time. You don't stay the course because the alternative may only be marginally better, you do what you can to stop or slow the bleeding NOW.

The only appropriate response, at this point in time, is to boot out any incumbents (Congress included) who aren't doing the job. Throwing away your vote doesn't send any sort of message when failures get re-elected as a result. I don't see how failing to hold someone accountable is going to magically make them accountable.

Heretic;1262958 wrote:Great logic. Vote for a candidate you don't believe in because they're in one of the "big two" parties. Because, obviously, the only way the major parties will understand they're providing less-than-inspiring candidates will be for us to unanimously support them above all others.

O-Trap;1262967 wrote:Vote for Party-Liner A who represents Failed Party A
Vote for Party-Liner B who represents Failed Party B
Vote for someone else.

The individuals aren't as much the problem. Their candidacy is a product of two failed parties whose contemporary platforms are intellectually contradictory, thus ensuring no solid defense of them as a whole, because a defense of one side of the platform undermines the foundation of the other.

:thumbup:

Heretic;1262958 wrote:Great logic. Vote for a candidate you don't believe in because they're in one of the "big two" parties. Because, obviously, the only way the major parties will understand they're providing less-than-inspiring candidates will be for us to unanimously support them above all others.

As I've said repeatedly, we've had 4 years (much longer) and even more recently the Republican primaries to promote a VIABLE third party or alternative candidates. Sometimes being an adult requires picking between two bad choices, or at least sub-optimal. You've already had plenty of time to voice your displeasure and protest, NOW is the time to fire the people who aren't doing the job.

If you want to send a message, then do all you can to prevent failed incumbents from being re-elected. And, by the way, that makes a future third party more viable when they don't have to go up against entrenched incumbents. And it also makes them more effective without having to navigate around powerful career politicians.