|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 25, 2015 7:26:13 GMT -5
Finally got around to doing the candidate quiz, with my matches being:
Marco Rubio - 80%
Rand Paul - 72%
Hillary Clinton - 70%
Jeb Bush - 66%
Ted Cruz - 63%
Bernie Sanders - 62%
Scott Walker - 61%
These aren't all that surprising to me. I tend to be socially liberal, which explains the Clinton/Sanders matches, but fiscally conservative, which is why I line up with the Republicans. This is pretty much why I don't vote in presidential elections, because there is no one candidate that matches my profile, which leaves me choosing between Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche, and I'm not going to waste a vote on either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 8:01:53 GMT -5
I am going to repost these from the favorite quote thread; they explain why I really do feel the candidates no longer even really matter...whoever is elected form either side will not be able to (and probably does not want to) accomplish anything that actually matters.
Politicians are always realistically maneuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers.
R. Buckmister Fuller
If you take all the machinery in the world and dump it in the ocean, within months more than half of all humanity will die and within another six months they’d almost all be gone; if you took all the politicians in the world, put them in a rocket, and sent them to the moon, everyone would get along fine.
R. Buckminster Fuller
As for left, right, liberal conservative, I bring you Robert Anton Wilson...
“It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.”
-RAW
it's all bias. The first lesson any real historian is taught is that every source is biased. Being unbiased is a myth, an unattainable goal that only exists in the hypothetical, not the real. You have to be able to identify the bias and understand its effects in order to evaluate the reliability of the sources, and even primary sources are biased. Plus, you always bring your own biases to the party, so you have to first identify those and be aware of how they will affect your response to the sources in question as well before you can even begin to evaluate the reliability of the source.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jun 25, 2015 8:21:40 GMT -5
MRP just stated what I was trying to say FAR, FAR better than I tried to.  I especially like that RAW quote... though at other times in history, it can go the opposite way. |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jun 25, 2015 8:21:46 GMT -5
No surprise, I'm traditionally a Democrat, but am going to be switching in Independent.
This shows me as a Centrist, which I consider myself.
Hillary Clinton 79 %
Bernie Sanders 79 %
Marco Rubio 56 %
Chris Christie 56%
Ted Cruz 44 %
Scott Walker 36 %
Carly Fiorina 25 %
Ben Carson 25 %
Rand Paul 24 %
Completely shocked that Marco Rubio and I are that highly ranked together.
Ted Cruz is fairly highly ranked because of my anti-illegal immigrant stance.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 25, 2015 10:19:40 GMT -5
MRP just stated what I was trying to say FAR, FAR better than I tried to. I especially like that RAW quote... though at other times in history, it can go the opposite way. As they say, history is written by the victors. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 25, 2015 14:08:49 GMT -5
(Glenn Beck was a pretty smart guy once, a long time ago) When was this?
I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 25, 2015 14:24:27 GMT -5
This is pretty much why I don't vote in presidential elections, because there is no one candidate that matches my profile, which leaves me choosing between Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche ... I just don't see it that way. I think it's better to study the individual candidates and party positions, consider which party is most likely to lie us into another stupid war, look at social issues and Supreme Court nominations, think about which candidate will be most likely to push for increasing the power and influence of a theocracy and then think about why "fiscally conservative" seems to mean ridiculously huge and inefficient military budgets and corporate welfare.
For me, it works a lot better than pretending that "South Park" has ever made a single thoughtful point about public policy or government in general. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jun 25, 2015 16:44:39 GMT -5
(Glenn Beck was a pretty smart guy once, a long time ago) When was this?
I'm genuinely curious.
Back when he was on CNN, he was a genuinely logical, moderate analyst that actually was pretty entertaining to watch. It was only when he went to Fox that he turned into Rush Limbaugh without the drugs. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jun 25, 2015 18:48:58 GMT -5
My wife says that there was a time - the late 80s/early 90s - when Rush himself was worth listening to. He was conservative but not yet crazy, and you could learn things from his show that you couldn't hear anywhere else.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jun 25, 2015 18:57:00 GMT -5
I would actually agree with that to an extent. I was into him when he first got popular.... I think I own his 1st book. It's pretty reasonable. Not practical, mind you, but reasonable. Sadly, in his case, the reasonablness was really a bridge to try to lure you into crazytown... I listened to him once a few years ago for a bit, and the entire show was about his refuting things he said previously.
But, actually, that's kinda what Glen Beck has done, too. So maybe he was doing the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Jun 25, 2015 20:19:57 GMT -5
That doesn't mean the two guys that run the site can't like him, though. I was just looking around, as Shax suggested. While the site runners claim to have 'different views' they don't say what they are. If you don't filter anything, you get NO conservative-slanted sources.. you have to click on 'conservative' to get that. I mean, just the fact that they acknowledge Socialism exists makes it FAR more liberal that most sources in the US. I'm not saying the site is run by the campaign or anything, but it's clear to me the guys who are massaging the data have a bias, that's all. Action Ace's results did not come up in favor of Sanders. I'm a control group! |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jun 25, 2015 21:31:44 GMT -5
The problem with our system is that there is the illusion of choice. Special interest groups predetermine, long before any actual votes are cast, who will be our choices, which usually boils down to two individuals with a realistic chance of winning. The problem here is that we have it just good enough in the U.S. not to revolt, so this ridiculous cycle continues. No truly decent, altruistic, person would want or desire to be president. I've long come to this conclusion.
Another issue that I think is the core problem with politics is the background of most senators, legislators, governors and even presidents. Most of them seem to be lawyers. Where are the scientists, engineers, sociologist, philosophers in our political pool?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 22:58:43 GMT -5
I don't think special interest groups predetermine our choices. The two major parties do, because they have the money to fund a campaign. The fix would be to severely limit campaign spending, and campaign donating. Most of that money is dumped into swing states anyway though, so reforming our election process could fix that as well.
Although my own politics pretty much align with the Democratic party to the letter, not every Democratic politician follows the party platform as close as they could in some areas, especially when it comes to business and finance. Again, that has a lot to do with needing those corporate dollars. But even though I'd probably not likely support a third party candidate, I don't see the harm in evening the playing field through campaign finance and election reform. It's a pipe dream though, since BOTH parties in power benefit from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 26, 2015 9:46:39 GMT -5
So, both sides are the same, eh?
Would the U.S. have today's Supreme Court decision legitimatizing same-sex marriage in the entire country if Kagan and Sotomayor were replaced by McCain's or Romney's appointees?
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 26, 2015 10:57:32 GMT -5
So, both sides are the same, eh? Would the U.S. have today's Supreme Court decision legitimatizing same-sex marriage in the entire country if Kagan and Sotomayor were replaced by McCain's or Romney's appointees? Discuss. Probably not. Though it's not ever that clear. Kennedy was appointed by Reagan and Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion upholding The Affordable Care Act, was appointed by Bush II. The court makes strange bedfellows...though you definitely have hardcore ideologues like Uncle Thomas. That said, replace either or both of those justices with Republican appointees and there is likely a different result. |
|
