Presidential Candidate Selection Quiz
 

This is fairly short and sweet with only 11 questions. I decided to post here rather than Found On The Web because of the topic.

If it's a repost, someone let me know and I'll merge the two together.

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

I was mildly surprised that I matched up better to Chris Dodd than I did to Bill Richardson. This is an interesting exercise, but for me it wasn't anything earthshaking.

Heh Chris Dodd is my lowest score, which just shows you have a lot of rethinking to do:thumbsup:

I found it funny you were allowed to have 'no position' on privatizing social security but had to favor or oppose abortion.

Apparently McCain is my guy, my first Democrat is Joe Biden, at 20.

Plus who the hell is Duncan Hunter, hes my #2 along with Thompson.

Interestingly my lowest republican (Ron Paul) is still higher than my highest Democrat. Shame they tried to torpedo Liberman.

haha i got the troll (Kucinich). Personally I still like Obama or Edwards.... or even better Gore!

My lowest ones are Tompson and Tancredo.

McCain ranked highest on mine as well. Giuliani was down with the other Democrats. I was surprised to learn I disagree with Ron Paul on Iraq, Health Care, Abortion, Line-Item Veto and Death Penalty. Even so if I was going to vote he is the one I'd vote for. McCain blew it when he came out for amnesty.

Frankly, I don't believe any of these polititians and whichever one wins will continue to grow the government except Paul and even he would not be able to stop the ever expanding central government. Since we are already in Iraq, I think we must finish the job and not just pull out.

I've done some digging, and it's convinced me that Duncan Hunter is an extremely corrupt politician who has no business serving in congress, let alone running for president. (I deleted all of the support for this opinion about Duncan Hunter, and other criticism about Ustwo's political POV.)

My test results (I did not choose an answer to the immigration question, none
of the answers adequately reflected my position.) are Kucinich, with Dodd and Gravel tied for second best "fit" with my positions on the issues covered in the test..

host, do you bother to read posts any more or do you just search based on keywords? I'm honestly curious because the post above certainly seems like the latter.

Ustwo took an online poll about which candidate lines up the most with his beliefs.

Can you justify your response in its relevancy to the OP or any other post besides Ustwo's 9 words?

I think that American presidential politics in general...since they "serve up" an unindicted criminal as Duncan Hunter as a "candidate", are in a crisis state. Ustwo's posted affinity for Hunter and what he "stands" for, is icing on the cake.

When and where would it be more appropriate to post a reaction to Hunter, considering Ustwo's mention of him, than here, and now?

We're averaging less than ten new posts per day on the threads on this forum. It didn't require any extraordinary search to find Ustwo's post.

Update: I edited my previous post, and this one. I initially reacted to Ustwo's post because his mention of Duncan Hunter helped set off my larger issue with what goes on at the most responded to thread on the forum, about Ron Paul's candidacy. So many dismiss the federal government now, as something that "doesn't work".

If it "doesn't work", and the reaction is to support the proposals of Ron Paul, instead of examining why it "doesn't work", and how and when did the government's performance get worse, I don't think supporting Ron Paul's goals of "shrinking" the government, will improve anything.

Where were we, less than ten years ago? Non-military employment in the federal government had been reduced, the 1993, annual US treasury debt increase of $290 billion had been reduced to $18 billion, and agencies, FEMA, for example, had been upgraded and was managed by the disaster response professional, James Witt.

More recently, in 2005, FEMA fell on it's ass, managed first by a Bush campaign manager with no disaster preparedness/response experience, and then handed off to the management of the former campaign manager's old college buddy, a dismissed Arabian horse competition judge.

The annual US treasury debt increases have, for the last several years, been at about the $540 billion racked up in the fiscal year ended 9/30/07.

I don't think that "the problem" is that the government "doesn't work". I think that the record shows that it has been intentionally undermined. Take for example, a bright spot, republican lawyer turned non-partisan US inspector general in Iraq:
Duncan Hunter had attempted a stealth insertion of a provision, in an already completed and reconciled in conference, defense appropriations bill, to end Stuart Bowen's much needed and fruitful inspections:

Kucinich. No surprise here.

host thats spiffy, maybe you could wear out my poor scroll button more next time.

Really, use the hide button so I can read your 5 lines among a mountain of spam.

Edit: I did read your first three lines btw. I know you have issues, but please, I filled out a form on a small number of issues and his name came up as #2. I even posted I have no idea who he is, and you act like I said 'I love Hitler'.

I'll take your reaction to mean he is most likely the best man for the job, I've never been a McCain fan myself, but whats really a fluff thread did not require this.

I also challenge you to reply to this without cut and pasting various things.

Ustwo, you post that you don't read my posts, and that you knew nothing about Duncan Hunter. The TFP search function results include 14 prior posts where I've mentioned Hunter, and the google results display some. too:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ti...e=off&filter=0

Here is where it seems to me that we are:

1.) You don't read the supporting materials I include in my posts.
2.) You are of the opinion that these materials are of no consequence, "spam", as you put it.
3.)You want me to post my opinions without sharing the information that help to justify them...made them what they are.
4.) I've spent enough time and effort researching and following the activities of Duncan Hunter to become convinced that he is a "poster boy" for some of the examples of why Ron Paul supporters are convinced that the "government doesn't work".
5.) Despite all of my efforts to find and post news reporting about Duncan Hunter, you claim you've paid no attention to it, and even if you had, my cited sources would be so inconsequential as to be of no persuasion.

We don't agree about what the problems are, or what reporting about them is substantive. You are closed to the concept of reviewing the info I've already attempted to share with you. You claim to know nothing of Hunter, a man I believe to be at the center of all that has gone on during at least the past seven years, to sabotage the function, accountability, and responsible and effective spending of the government.

You request that I confine my posts to my own unsupported opinion, with an implied "carrot"....that you might then read them, and I assume that the best I can hope for is that you'll respond with your own unsupported opinions.

Romney? Who knew?

I got Alice Cooper! MONEY!

...

Nah, I'm voting Obama. He's young and impressionable.

Like cookie dough crammed into a suit.

Dodd
then
Barack

Do I want to vote for the person who most agrees with me, or do I want the person who I mostly agree with, but believe that they will be more effective in passing their agenda?

The page was down so I couldn't do the quiz, but if it appears to be an "issues" match - meaning that they ask you your position on issues and then see how much they overlap different candidates' positions - then it's not informative for me. I was having a conversation with one of my partners today in which we both agreed that if the two front runners (HRC and Giuliani) were the candidates, we would have no one to vote for. The reason? For me it is because both of them have serious authoritarian tendencies. I don't care what their positions on the issues are, I don't trust them with the power of the presidency.

I tend to agree, loquitur. Throw Romney in that stew pot while you're at it.

Obama came up #1 for me, which didn't surprise me in the slightest. Clinton was #2, followed by Dodd.

Dodd and Kucinich tied for the lead.

Funny, I agree more with Tancredo than anyone else on Immigration. At least he wants to go after the demand side. The fact that he's also a fascist might put a damper on my support of him.

It's a damn shame that Biden is the only one (now that Brownback's gone) who has a sensible take on Iraq. By sensible I mean one that might improve the situation.

Hunter and Thompson tied for me. No surprise. Also no surprise that Biden did best among the Democrats, as I lean toward his idea of dividing up Iraq.

Hunter Thompson. :lol: I realize you mean Duncan and Fred, but a Gonzo President might have been fun. Fear and Loathing in Washington DC (moreso than ususal).

One thing that sort of is telling about this is just how out of step the tfp left is from the rest of the country when Kucinich's name keeps coming up.

We are talking about someone who is practically a communist, a vegan, and who talked about seeing a UFO while visiting Shirley Mclain. :paranoid:

I'd vote for him if I thought he had a chance in hell of winning (he doesn't and never would) only because him in the Whitehouse for 4 years would guarantee a Republican congress, senate and Whitehouse for the next 8 years at the minimum.

Don't be such a drama queen. When I joe about being one of 10 people that supports Kucinich, the reality is that he has the support of going on millions. The UFO thing was debunked.

Dodd, Kucinich and Edwards at the top, Tancredo and Thompson at the bottom. Not much of a surprise for me.

There is also a great "quiz" to square your political beliefs with the candidates for president. Don't freak, like I did, when you get your initial results, you still need to weigh the issues importance.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...match-game.htm

Not a bad survey. I still got Kucinich, folowed by Gravel, then Brownback? Color me confused on #3.

According to the USA Today quiz, my Top 3 candidates are Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney.

Kucinich
Obama
Richardson

...on the usatoday one...

I guess I never posted my results.

Clinton, Kucinich, Edwards

Ruddy, Paul, Thompson.

I can't say it will influence who I choose, but it was funny watching Kucinich's head get lower and lower.

Yeah, I don't really consider myself a Kuchinich kind of Democrat, but eh...

I haven't made up my mind.

Mitt, Mike and Rudy.

Rudy was my number one on the other test, and I think Mitt was close as well.

Guess I'm a damn dirty conservative...

Kucinich is at the top for me and frankly I think a lot of Democrats and liberals will find that is who pops to the top of their list. What is also true is that most will skip right past him to the #2 or 3 position to find someone they can 'get behind' because we've all been so conditioned to not take him seriously.

Ustwo intimates that Kucinich and those who support his views are out of touch, but I rue the thought that such ideas from being respected the world over to taking care of our neighbors who fall ill are ideas 'out of touch' with mainstream America. When mainstream America aspires not to greatness, nor to compassion, nor to responsibility, but instead wallows in a pit of self-righteousness, seeking to be free of all responsibility to do more than merely satisfy selfish desires--that is when America is doomed.

If aspiring to lead America to greatness, to end wasteful wars, to restore American pre-eminence as a world leader, to ensure the best possible living conditions for all Americans today and into the future, is out of touch, then I truly weep for America. But I don't believe Ustwo. I don't believe most Americans are okay with watching their fellow citizens suffer needlessly simply because they can't afford care, or sending thousands of our best off to die in the desert.

It isn't about liberal or conservative agendas. Since when did Conservatism include military adventurism?

Democrats won't put up Kucinich because they've convinced themselves that he can't win in November against a slick Rudy or Mitt campaign. It really is too bad, because I think if we really wanted a good campaign for a President commited to his platform, not his electoral chances, we'd pit Kucinich and Paul against eachother in November. But this is a 2008 election, not 1860, so we'll be stuck watching a "race" between Clinton and Rudy. Oh joy!

Giuliani and Tancredo at the top

I'm really black or white on the issues and I go to both ends of the spectrum, so I don't think this quiz is a very good indicator for me...but I do support Giuliani

Kucinich came out on top, which is no surprise because the quiz was exclusively issue driven. Issues positions are very important -- even the most important -- but they are not everything.

In the case of Kucinich I just can't see him being an effective player on the world stage. Being right just isn't enough.

Depending on which of the several acceptable answers I give on the USA Today thing, I can get Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, Obama, and Brownback in my top three w/o much cognitive dissonance. For an Evangelical, Brownback really has his head screwed on pretty straight. He could be nearly as good a president as Carter. All joking aside, leaving out the hot buttons of Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Stem Cells, he and I could probably get along. Unfortunately, there's a reason (several actually) that those are hot buttons, so all three of them together are kind of a deal breaker.

Obama and Hillary TIED for me, followed one point behind by Dennis the Menace. I really am a nutjob liberal. Bottom: Fred Thompson. He and I agree on the death penalty and that's it.

And in the USA Today poll it was Kucinich by a mile, followed by Gravel and then everyone else was about the same. My lord I am crazy.

heh....... they matched me with Ron Paul. But the problem I had with the quiz is that the questions were "loaded" - they assumed things that they shouldn't necessarily assume - and that the proposed answers often didn't include stuff that matched my view. So a lot of my answers were "approximations."

They represented the 'packaged' positions that the issues have been boiled down to. Naturally, it'd be pretty tough to have a multiple-choice quiz with millions of answers to reflect the nuances of opinion that are held individually across the country, but does certainly highlight the fact that political discourse amongst politicians and in the media is ultimately shoehorned for the most part into pre-defined boxes.

Surely, I doubt even the creators of this quiz thought it to be the end-all-be-all of the 2008 race, but I do think that if you are pretty well versed on where you stand and where the candidates stand, you probably shouldn't be blown away by the top five or bottom five of your list. Of course, if there is anyone in there you are shocked about, it might bear taking another look at the person.