2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

Lol @ any survey that simultaneously ranks you 80% libertarian and 70% socialist.

Even from question one I can tell how messed up this thing will be. It wants to know if I'm pro-choice (which will give me points towards libertarian and democrat) or pro-life (which will give me points towards conservative and republican). There's actually a big intellectual divide within the libertarian community about abortion and it hinges on when life begins. If life begins at birth, then the mother would be free to get an abortion in a libertarian society. However, if life begins at conception, the baby's right to life supersedes the mother's liberty to have an abortion and the libertarian is compelled to be pro-life. For the libertarian, abortion is a scientific, rather than philosophical, issue.

I'm impressed that they included "take the government out of marriage and instead make it a religious decision" on the gay marriage question.

84% Libertarians
83% Constitution Party
83% Republicans
83% Conservative Party
20% Democrats

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

Mine was similar:

97% Republican

97% Conservative Party

97% Constitution Party

73% Libertarian Party

37% Democrat Party

I don't always vote Republican either (Didn't vote for McCain), but I guess don't take my gun from me, give guns to our military, and quit shooting babies in the womb. Thought I was a little closer to moderate, but still leaned right. Guess not.

I respect how he handled his business in Vietnam. But outside of that...what a Douche.

 

[connor_in]

I'll just leave these here for you to ponder:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/rfU3hI8ML30" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZqCFxg2ez44" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Q6h7kZLpWYA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[connor_in]

I took this political compass quiz a few weeks ago, I liked its thoroughness. I'm pretty sure the people at r/neutralpolitics recommended it (a fantastic subreddit by the way).

America’s Most Popular Online Voting Guide

My results:

1) Green Party 86%
2) Libertarian 80%
3) Democrat 80%
4) Socialist 50%
5) Republican 9%

At first I was really shocked that my GOP score was only 9%, but not after I thought about it. To me, my results showed some validity to Ralph Nader's claim that Americans on the Right and Left actually agree on a ton of issues, they're just off the table due to corporate control of Congress. If I lined up with 86% of the Green Party and 80% of Libertarians...that should say something significant about how close the thinking is out there. And, how much of an idea dumpster fire the Republican Party is.

looking at the various results people got in your link...either there are no moderates here or that link won't determine anyone to be a moderate

 

[wizards8507]

looking at the various results people got in your link...either there are no moderates here or that link won't determine anyone to be a moderate

I don't think it will. One guy scored highly on both socialism and libertarianism, which is some serious cognitive dissonance in the survey methodology.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't think it will. One guy scored highly on both socialism and libertarianism, which is some serious cognitive dissonance in the survey methodology.

Interesting discussion on Philosophy Forums website here: Can one be both libertarian and a socialist?: Philosophy Forums

 

[GoIrish41]

looking at the various results people got in your link...either there are no moderates here or that link won't determine anyone to be a moderate

I don't think the survey is that nuanced.

I thought the survey was interesting, but it certainly was not a perfect tool to determine one's political alighnment. The survey gives you the opportunity to go back and compare your answers to the views of each political party. There were several instances when there the survey answers for a specific party said it could not determine the party's position. Here's one I found funny:

Do you support President Obama’s executive order to stop the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants?

We could not determine Republicans' stance on this issue

lol. I'm pretty sure they are against it.

 

[wizards8507]

Interesting discussion on Philosophy Forums website here: Can one be both libertarian and a socialist?: Philosophy Forums

The guy on there "Jamalrob" who seems to think libertarianism and socialism are closely married is missing the mark on one key point that causes the rest of his argument to fall apart. He argues that libertarianism can either be pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist, with the pro-capitalist side favoring free markets and the anti-capitalist side favoring something close to anarchy.

The problem with his position is that, by definition, libertarianism neither favors nor opposes capitalism. Libertariansim favors individuals and if individuals form markets and enter capital-based exchanges, so be it. If they don't that's fine too. History shows us that they generally do. Libertarianism is not a "system" so much as an intellectual framework to let whatever system towards which individuals naturally gravitate come to be.

 

[wizards8507]

lol. I'm pretty sure they are against it.

Do mean the Republican power structure, or the Republican base? Establishment GOPers, including the Chamber of Commerce and much of the "elite" donor base are ALL IN on amnesty.

Face It: Republicans Want Amnesty - The Rush Limbaugh Show

 

[GoIrish41]

Do mean the Republican power structure, or the Republican base? Establishment GOPers, including the Chamber of Commerce and much of the "elite" donor base are ALL IN on amnesty.

Face It: Republicans Want Amnesty - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Rush is a freakin' tool

 

[wizards8507]

Rush is a freakin' tool

Ugh, that obviously wasn't the point. Whether you think he's a tool or not, he's a powerful voice in the Republican party and his comments about what the Republican establishment is up to regarding amnesty carries weight. I think Bill Maher is a jackass but if he came out vehemently disagreeing with something congressional Democrats were doing, I'd find it quite interesting.

 

[GATTACA!]

I like how thorough the questions where.

1) Conservative 87%
2) Republican 86%
3) Constitution 85%
4) Libertarian 71%
5) Democrat 37%

 

[GoIrish41]

Ugh, that obviously wasn't the point. Whether you think he's a tool or not, he's a powerful voice in the Republican party and his comments about what the Republican establishment is up to regarding amnesty carries weight. I think Bill Maher is a jackass but if he came out vehemently disagreeing with something congressional Democrats were doing, I'd find it quite interesting.

Didn't mean to say it was the point. Just everytime I am exposed to his nonsense I feel obligated to announce my dislike for him. He is always hovering somewhere on the fringes and I don't really take much he says seriously. It would be amazing to me if there were not some Republicans who had the sense not to make this a big blow-up because even if the GOP gets their way (maybe especially if they get their way) it is going to be at a very high political price in 2016. Rush's take on this issue is that there are a certain percentage of their base that want amnesty so that they have a whole new underclass of people to exploit for their own profit. He's not doing the party any favors by being a blowhard on this issue so he can feel like the guy with superior intellect. Bill Maher often disagrees with the Democrats on his show, and while I wouldn't characterize his a jackass personally, I think he often goes too far in some of his rhetoric.

 

[wizards8507]

Didn't mean to say it was the point. Just everytime I am exposed to his nonsense I feel obligated to announce my dislike for him. He is always hovering somewhere on the fringes and I don't really take much he says seriously. It would be amazing to me if there were not some Republicans who had the sense not to make this a big blow-up because even if the GOP gets their way (maybe especially if they get their way) it is going to be at a very high political price in 2016. Rush's take on this issue is that there are a certain percentage of their base that want amnesty so that they have a whole new underclass of people to exploit for their own profit. He's not doing the party any favors by being a blowhard on this issue so he can feel like the guy with superior intellect. Bill Maher often disagrees with the Democrats on his show, and while I wouldn't characterize his a jackass personally, I think he often goes too far in some of his rhetoric.

It's ironic, because Rush is making some points that you've probably made yourself in the past: the Republican donor base is a bunch of business elitists who don't give a shit about the poor and middle class.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's ironic, because Rush is making some points that you've probably made yourself in the past: the Republican donor base is a bunch of business elitists who don't give a shit about the poor and middle class.

And if I had the stomach to go back through his previous broadcasts I could find many instances where he made the point that that was not the case. He's a shock jock who just likes to hear himself rant. He tries to get under peoples' skin with comments that go against the grain, and thump his chest as if he is being profound. Given that, he's bound to find a point of agreement every now and then with people on the other side (even though he'd never admit that), but he doesn't even believe the words coming out of his own mouth. Within a month, he'll make a 180 degree out point and be every bit as confident and obnoxious about his superior though as when he made this point. Because he accidently got something right for once does not make me think he's any less of a tool.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'll just leave these here for you to ponder:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/rfU3hI8ML30" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZqCFxg2ez44" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Q6h7kZLpWYA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wow. Those are some epically corny and terrible ads. lol

 

[GATTACA!]

And if I had the stomach to go back through his previous broadcasts I could find many instances where he made the point that that was not the case. He's a shock jock who just likes to hear himself rant. He tries to get under peoples' skin with comments that go against the grain, and thump his chest as if he is being profound. Given that, he's bound to find a point of agreement every now and then with people on the other side (even though he'd never admit that), but he doesn't even believe the words coming out of his own mouth. Within a month, he'll make a 180 degree out point and be every bit as confident and obnoxious about his superior though as when he made this point. Because he accidently got something right for once does not make me think he's any less of a tool.

You're describing Bill Maher. You just don't think so bc you agree with him.

 

[DomeX2 eNVy]

I don't think it will. One guy scored highly on both socialism and libertarianism, which is some serious cognitive dissonance in the survey methodology.

I have recently described my political stance as a Social-Libertarian; however my definitions of both socialism and libertarianism are pretty different than the "party stances" of similar named political parties.
* My scores: Socialist = 39%; Libertarian = 36%

I strongly support individual's rights to live how they like, do what they want, go wherever, worship whatever, smoke/drink/eat whatever, etc. as long as it doesn't excessively (relative term, which could be variable to situations) infringe on others rights. If I want to breath fresh air, your right to smoke in my face disappears. Your right to shoot me must succumb to my right to live. Etc.
However, the human race has consistently proven that a minority of people will abuse any situation for their own perceived benefit; so there needs to be regulations to keep things from turning to anarchy and allow for others to have the chance to achieve their dreams.
My socialistic tendencies stem from many of Christ's (and others) teachings of helping others and being self sacrificing for the greater good. I think everyone deserves health care, infrastructure, water, food, education, and security in which there is nothing wrong with those born into privilege, or have benefited the most from the community to give a little extra. To me socialism has very little to do with government ownership, lack of individual rights, diminishing free markets, or "wealth re-distribution"; but rather treating others with dignity and giving a little to help those who need it. This is probably a bit similar to B Sanders definition - but I disagree with him on many other things.

And to be fair to Wizards, many have accused me of cognitive dissonance, so perhaps there is something to this

 

[Buster Bluth]

Lol @ any survey that simultaneously ranks you 80% libertarian and 70% socialist.

It compares the party's platforms. So the proof is there for you to find.

Maybe at a federal level the Socialist Party and the Libertarian Party oppose big government more often than not, albeit for different reasons?

Seriously, find a YouTube clip of Ralph Nader discussing his book Unstoppable.

Even from question one I can tell how messed up this thing will be. It wants to know if I'm pro-choice (which will give me points towards libertarian and democrat) or pro-life (which will give me points towards conservative and republican). There's actually a big intellectual divide within the libertarian community about abortion and it hinges on when life begins. If life begins at birth, then the mother would be free to get an abortion in a libertarian society. However, if life begins at conception, the baby's right to life supersedes the mother's liberty to have an abortion and the libertarian is compelled to be pro-life. For the libertarian, abortion is a scientific, rather than philosophical, issue.

Platform | Libertarian Party

"1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

So while they can't be specific enough to acknowledge disagreements within parties, they can accurately display the platforms with which one agrees.

Ugh, that obviously wasn't the point. Whether you think he's a tool or not, he's a powerful voice in the Republican party and his comments about what the Republican establishment is up to regarding amnesty carries weight. I think Bill Maher is a jackass but if he came out vehemently disagreeing with something congressional Democrats were doing, I'd find it quite interesting.

I watch Bill Maher every week and it's not rare to see him rip on hypocritical and/or inept Democrats. He's one to believe that Republicans are competent but wrong and Democrats are incompetent but right.

 

[Buster Bluth]

looking at the various results people got in your link...either there are no moderates here or that link won't determine anyone to be a moderate

How would you expect a moderate to be shown?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I watch Bill Maher every week and he it's not rare to see him rip on hypocritical and/or inept Democrats. He's one to believe that Republicans are competent but wrong and Democrats are incompetent but right.

He does so constantly, actually.

 

[gkIrish]

86% Libertarian
73% Republican
72% Conservative
66% Constitutional
58% Democrat

 

[DomeX2 eNVy]

Jeb Bush has announced an official exploratory committee.

If elected it would be Bush 3.0; i.e. Iraq invasion; economic recession
Hopefully 3rd time's the charm and he breaks the trend if elected.

Good luck America

 

[wizards8507]

Jeb Bush has announced an official exploratory committee.

This reeks of Karl Rove. That jackass is single-handedly destroying the Republican party and doing his absolute best to destroy the republic itself.

 

[ickythump1225]

Jeb Bush- Because voters are totally going to go for a bland and uninspiring centrist who is as exciting as whole wheat bread with a dynastic last name.

If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate Jeb Bush they deserve to whither away and die as a party.

 

[wizards8507]

If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate Jeb Bush they deserve to whither away and die as a party.

Ditto Romney, Trump, and Huckabee.

 

[GoIrish41]

Ditto Romney, Trump, and Huckabee.

Problem with the GOP is that there is so much internal turmoil. Hard to find cross the board agreement on anything in that party. I know you are going to come back with an appeal for Rand Paul, but his chances of gaining the GOP nomination are not very good. Who else can run through the mine field of Republican primary politics without enough damage to make a legitimate run against a unified Democratic candidate? I don't see anyone in the field adept enough at politics to pull it off. Obama is just keeping the seat warm for Hillary. She's not my first choice, but she is most certainly going to win the nomination unless she shocks everyone and decides not to run.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Problem with the GOP is that there is so much internal turmoil. Hard to find cross the board agreement on anything in that party. I know you are going to come back with an appeal for Rand Paul, but his chances of gaining the GOP nomination are not very good. Who else can run through the mine field of Republican primary politics without enough damage to make a legitimate run against a unified Democratic candidate? I don't see anyone in the field adept enough at politics to pull it off. Obama is just keeping the seat warm for Hillary. She's not my first choice, but she is most certainly going to win the nomination unless she shocks everyone and decides not to run.

The first American presidential candidate to run a genuinely populist campaign is going to win a historic victory. Unfortunately, that would require running against the plutocrats that finance both major parties, so it's not likely to happen.

 

[EddytoNow]

Jeb Bush has announced an official exploratory committee.

If elected it would be Bush 3.0; i.e. Iraq invasion; economic recession
Hopefully 3rd time's the charm and he breaks the trend if elected.

Good luck America

Let's hope that by breaking the trend he fails to run or fails to get elected. Two failed presidents from the same family are quite enough. We don't need a third.

 

[wizards8507]

Problem with the GOP is that there is so much internal turmoil. Hard to find cross the board agreement on anything in that party. I know you are going to come back with an appeal for Rand Paul, but his chances of gaining the GOP nomination are not very good. Who else can run through the mine field of Republican primary politics without enough damage to make a legitimate run against a unified Democratic candidate? I don't see anyone in the field adept enough at politics to pull it off. Obama is just keeping the seat warm for Hillary. She's not my first choice, but she is most certainly going to win the nomination unless she shocks everyone and decides not to run.

Since you brought up Rand...

He has a unique advantage in 2014 because he can run in the primary against 2010 Mitt Romney. Republican voters got burned the last time they listened to the consultants, so maybe they'll turn their back on them this time. Also, I know you don't like talk radio but it's a powerful voice in the Republican party and even Rush, Beck, et al have begun openly attacking Rove and the so-called "consultant class".