Who's your candidate (match-o-matic)

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Paul is for elimination of the Income Tax, which kind of encompasses all of those other plans of lowering the corporate tax and making other concessions. The reason I didn't like the choice is because it doesn't lay out what will replace the income tax, and therefore it makes it hard for someone to choose that choice. If it had said, "replace all income tax with a consumption or "fair" tax" then I would have been more accurate.

Excellent find, Outkast!

#1 Ron Paul
#2 Mitt Romney
#3 Barack Obombem

/TOA

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Paul 8
Perry 2
Gingrich 2

Thanks, that was cool.

It just kills me that the only candidate to mention the Space Program was Newt. But then again, he said we should be mining on the Moon.

Apparently my matches were as follows:

1 John Huntsman
2 Rick Perry
3 Michelle Bachman

reply to post by The Old American


You have the same results I had...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah, it forces you to choose bad ideas instead of horrible ideas, because the good ones aren't available, doesn't surprise me with abc.

Originally posted by Razimus
Yeah, it forces you to choose bad ideas instead of horrible ideas, because the good ones aren't available, doesn't surprise me with abc.

I don't really think it has anything to do with ABC.

They put the positions the candidates have taken as the available options.

I think it is important to show that even for the most loyal die hard support of any candidate will disagree with them on SOMETHING.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I disagree with Paul on his National Parks positions. I don't trust private entities to protect our National Treasures. Still, his good far outweighs his bad!

Interesting, my results are

1. Ron Paul
2. Jon Huntsman
3. Newt Gingrich

I could live with the number one option.

reply to post by AshleyD

Although for some strange reason, when giving me my results Paul's cartoon graphic was used for both himself and Romney. I'll post a screen shot if needed.

Fascinating. I got Obama as my top match, but the picture was of John Huntsman! The irony of this was that I assumed that Huntsman would have been my number two match, but it turned out to be Newt Gingrich!

It gave me Obama.

That's a sure sign there is something wrong with this little quiz, like getready I also felt like I was forced to pick certain things out of the lack of options. Paul was second and somehow Bachmann was third despite the question about gay marriage that I actually answered in favor of gays, I also picked the pro-abortion choice. Somethings wrong or maybe I misclicked an answer somewhere, because this is about as accurate as a blind, drunk darts player.

What the hell does "My views about gay marriage are evolving" supposed to mean?

I guess this:

Obama’s Views on Gay Marriage ‘Evolving’

LOL! Wasn't that the ONLY pro-gay marriage selection on that particular question? So because I don't agree with Paul about abortion (both abortion and gay marriage are minor issues IMO), they knocked him down to second and Obama slid on in with the gay marriage question, despite every other answer as far I can remember was Paul oriented.

reply to post by RSF77


Yes, it does force you to pick things you aren't exactly in line with...just like the election will.

And Obama IS the only "pro-gay marriage" candidate in the 2012 race.

All of the options come straight from the candidates, most of them you can find directly worded on the candidates websites.


I don't think there is anything wrong with the quiz...just some people don't realize who they agree with the most.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


It's just that the difference is not enough to make me vote for Obama, I don't particularly care about gays or abortion enough to make me vote for those two. The poll assumes all issues are equal for everyone, far from it.

Though I think abortion should be legal, in my eyes there are more important things to deal with.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I don't think there is anything wrong with the quiz...just some people don't realize who they agree with the most.

No, there is no ignorance here, but thanks for insulting me. Yes, there is something wrong with the poll, it's not very accurate.

Like I said, Obama could be for or against abortion AND/OR gay marriage, it would not change a thing as far as I'm concerned.

reply to post by RSF77


If you only agreed with Obama on abortion and gay marriage, then he shouldn't of been your number one pick.

What other issues did you agree with Obama on?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


1) Invest in infrastructure. (Should be common sense, not a political issue)

2) Cut tax breaks for the rich.

3) Bring them home now and cut the DoD budget.

4) Construct a complete, double border fence. (Prob not entirely effective but creates jobs, this is another one that is no biggy with me personally, I honestly I don't even care about the whole fence thing but there is nothing wrong with it, McCain can have his fence and we can get some work as well as maybe preventing some crime and drugs in Mexico from entering the US)

5) End all foreign aid to Pakistan. (More importantly, end all military ties with them, remove all military assets)

6) The government should not be involved in healthcare. (Unless they intend to pay for every single citizens healthcare out of goodwill, not attempt to "regulate" by means of law.)

7) Raise fuel efficiency and develop renewable sources. (This question is kind of vague, but I had to pick something)

8) Human beings have caused carbon pollution.

9) My views are "evolving", no law banning gay marriage. (I believe in sep. of chruch and state, of course, just not Obama. The 3 other options are all anti-gay and pro-state/fed control. No choice but the SPECIFICALLY pro-Obama answer, obviously. This is not "having to pick something I am not in line with", this is having to pick either Obama or going against the 1st #ing amendment. Blatantly skewed poll question in favor of Obama.)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

10) I support abortion rights. (The abortion issue is also rooted in religion, see #9 and the 1st amendment. I don't believe abortion is murder like the hodgepodge of religious fanatics do.)

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Yes, it does force you to pick things you aren't exactly in line with...just like the election will.

^^ Yes, that's my compromise with Ron Paul, the obgyn (which I am not) who appears to also place great value in the US constitution.

11) More investment in public schools. (This should also be common sense, the government should foster the creation of intelligent citizens. Nobody will ever get anywhere if nobody gives a # about education and school is viewed as more of a "job" than actual training. "Investment", not "regulation".)

Regardless of any ideological similarity, minor or major, I haven't spent 4 years waiting for someone else to take the torch just to change my mind now about abortion and gays, two things that I see as small issues but are somehow touted as "Hot Topics" and whatnot.)

I won't be voting for Obama or Bachmann, ever. Period. But, interesting thread I guess.

I had the same experience, having them choose Obama for me. I almost made a thread about it too, but I was going to put it in the jokes forum

reply to post by RSF77

1) Invest in infrastructure. (Should be common sense, not a political issue)

You agree with Obama on this, not Ron Paul. I have no idea what Ron Paul's position is on how to create jobs...I would assume it is removing regulations and taxes and let the "market work". That is just another way to say "trickle down economics".

2) Cut tax breaks for the rich

More in line with Obama again. Ron Paul wants to eliminate ALL income taxes and the IRS...to him the decreased revenue doesn't matter because he plans on cutting most social programs anyway. So if they run out of funds, that just helps Ron Paul's end goal.

11) More investment in public schools. (This should also be common sense, the government should foster the creation of intelligent citizens. Nobody will ever get anywhere if nobody gives a # about education and school is viewed as more of a "job" than actual training. "Investment", not "regulation".)

Again...you agree with Obama on this...not Ron Paul. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the entire department of education. He actually says that is one of the first things he'll do...just eliminate it...which will eliminate federal aid money to schools. He expects the states (which are broke) to manage the schools.



It seems you are a lot like me. I agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy almost 100%. But his domestic policies are INSANE. He wants to cut social programs, get rid of regulations on corporations, cut their taxes, eliminate income taxes, and get rid of most social programs (Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, etc.).

I can't vote for someone who puts all their trust into corporations and feel they will just do the right thing once they aren't regulated and taxed.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by RSF77

 

1) Invest in infrastructure. (Should be common sense, not a political issue)

You agree with Obama on this, not Ron Paul. I have no idea what Ron Paul's position is on how to create jobs...I would assume it is removing regulations and taxes and let the "market work". That is just another way to say "trickle down economics".

No it's not, trickle down economics is the belief that if you make the rich richer it benefits the poor by proxy. This has not much to do with investing in infrastructure, which like I said, should be a given for ANY government from the Sentinelese to an interstellar empire. It's not trickle down economics, it's common sense.

Where is Obama going to get this money for investing in Infrastructure? I assume not by cutting the government's budget like Ron Paul? No, hes going to take it out of our asses one way or another. Given Obama's current definition of "change", I'm not going to sucker myself into believing he is going to do anything for our benefit, other than imprison us from ourselves.

Also, if you have no idea what Paul's stance is, how can outright ignore it and tell me I'm more in line with Obama?

2) Cut tax breaks for the rich

More in line with Obama again. Ron Paul wants to eliminate ALL income taxes and the IRS...to him the decreased revenue doesn't matter because he plans on cutting most social programs anyway. So if they run out of funds, that just helps Ron Paul's end goal.

11) More investment in public schools. (This should also be common sense, the government should foster the creation of intelligent citizens. Nobody will ever get anywhere if nobody gives a # about education and school is viewed as more of a "job" than actual training. "Investment", not "regulation".)

Again...you agree with Obama on this...not Ron Paul. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the entire department of education. He actually says that is one of the first things he'll do...just eliminate it...which will eliminate federal aid money to schools. He expects the states (which are broke) to manage the schools.

Obama: Print money for these things and we continue going into debt, hope you like paying $100 for a loaf of bread.

Paul: Save money for these things and we begin climbing out of debt. We just don't have the money, there is none, the first step to all this IS cutting the budget in a Ron Paul like fashion.

That is as simple as I can put it. We are in national debt, there IS NO money to invest, printing more just decreases its value and degrades us as a nation.

It seems you are a lot like me. I agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy almost 100%. But his domestic policies are INSANE. He wants to cut social programs, get rid of regulations on corporations, cut their taxes, eliminate income taxes, and get rid of most social programs (Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, etc.).

I can't vote for someone who puts all their trust into corporations and feel they will just do the right thing once they aren't regulated and taxed.

We won't get anywhere arguing about this, you seem to imply that Welfare is a good thing.

The government never had the power to impose an income tax btw, Q: What happened on February 3, 1913?

Q: What do all these people have in common?

Wesley Snipes, Willie Nelson, Darryl Strawberry, Spiro Agnew, Richard Hatch, Leona Helmsley, Al Capone, Boris Becker, Heidi Fleiss.

Yet somehow, before 1913, the United States was not constantly collapsing due to lack of money without value. The only thing that is INSANE, is the corruption that has flourished and been allowed to do so since then. We have dug a hole a century deep and what Ron Paul is suggesting is transitioning back to an uncorrupted economy.

Many of those "regulations" for corporations you are talking about are actually meant to favor corporations against small business. AKA Promoting corporate rule, AKA fascism. You have been subject to propaganda, sorry.