Another compass test

OK, I took the test and here is how I "substantively agree" with the candidates:

McCain - 77%
Romney - 72%
Huckabee - 80%
Thompson - 76%
Paul - 62%
Clinton - 50%
Edwards - 47%
Obama - 42%

Not that I know what it all means but anyway, those were my results. No neat little decimal score that I could find. I know it is pretty much a meaningless test but I like this sort of thing.
 
Dummycrats:


Barack Obama
You are 13% economic right
You are 1% more progressive
You have a substantive agreement of 67%

John Edwards
You are 17% economic right
You are 13% more progressive
You have a substantive agreement of 69%

Bill Richardson
You are 19% economic right
You are 17% more progressive
You have a substantive agreement of 69%

Hillary Clinton
You are 22% economic right
You are 18% more progressive
You have a substantive agreement of 61%



Re-buttlickans:


Ron Paul
You are 31% economic left
You are 34% more progressive
You have a substantive agreement of 63%

Rudy Giuliani
You are 36% economic left
You are 53% more progressive
You have a substantive agreement of 45%

John McCain
You are 28% economic left
You are 66% more progressive
You have a substantive agreement of 45%

Mitt Romney
You are 38% economic left
You are 66% more progressive
You have a substantive agreement of 38%

Mike Huckabee
You are 33% economic left
You are 73% more progressive
You have a substantive agreement of 41%

Fred Thompson
You are 36% economic left
You are 81% more progressive
You have a substantive agreement of 38%
 
Last edited:
Wow - I'm in 100% agreement with Fred Thompson on healthcare. Who woulda thunk it?

Didn't love the way the questions were worded. I had to put "disagree" or "agree" for some issues where I knew the result would be skewed from how I really feel about the overall issue.
 
Onceler said:
Wow - I'm in 100% agreement with Fred Thompson on healthcare. Who woulda thunk it?

Didn't love the way the questions were worded. I had to put "disagree" or "agree" for some issues where I knew the result would be skewed from how I really feel about the overall issue.
Click to expand...


"Wow - I'm in 100% agreement with Fred Thompson on healthcare. Who woulda thunk it?"


You're scaring me, man. :)
 
leaningright said:
OK, I took the test and here is how I "substantively agree" with the candidates:

McCain - 77%
Romney - 72%
Huckabee - 80%
Thompson - 76%
Paul - 62%
Clinton - 50%
Edwards - 47%
Obama - 42%

Not that I know what it all means but anyway, those were my results. No neat little decimal score that I could find. I know it is pretty much a meaningless test but I like this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Um, let me clue you in on what it means. You finally toppled over and aren’t leaning anymore.
 
I was closest to Rudy and furthest from Obama. It's interesting (to me at least) that I do like Obama and I like his rhetoric while I really don't care for his voting record.
 
I ended up with only Ron Paul within my Radar circle with Obama being the next closest, but outside of it. I love to base my politics on these compass tests, they tell me exactly who I should support!
 
Cypress said:
"Wow - I'm in 100% agreement with Fred Thompson on healthcare. Who woulda thunk it?"


You're scaring me, man. :)
Click to expand...


No worries; I still finished furthest from the charismatic Mr. Thompson overall, and closest to Obama.

I knew the healthcare questions would trip me up. They were along the lines of government "running" healthcare, and "providing" healthcare, neither of which I agree with in the slightest. It's how Dano would describe any Dem plan for reducing costs or getting more people covered.
 
Darla said:
Um, let me clue you in on what it means. You finally toppled over and aren’t leaning anymore.
Click to expand...

I know I need to change my name to "rightwingdem" or something but I'm just now getting used to the fact that Lorax is Oncelor.
 
leaningright said:
I know I need to change my name to "rightwingdem" or something but I'm just now getting used to the fact that Lorax is Oncelor.
Click to expand...

Dixie thought I was trying to conceal who I was; I was really just trying to identify true Dr. Seuss fans.

I do tend to think of you as kind of a centrist, leaning; someone who is fairly conservative on the issues, but not happy with the Republican Party in general. I don't really think of you as a Republican, though I'm guessing you tend to vote that way most of the time.

Do you think you would have voted for a Biden or a Richardson if it was either of them again, say, Rudy?
 
Generally speaking the republicans also want to overhaul health care.. just not by making it the third largest bureaucracy outside of our military and the SS system in the budget.
 
Onceler said:
That doesn't logically follow.

As a matter of fact, that's an utterly ridiculous response to the statement you posted.
Click to expand...


Neither do some of the dems "solutions." Like I said, the question does not necessarily say much about ones politics.
 
Onceler said:
That doesn't logically follow.

As a matter of fact, that's an utterly ridiculous response to the statement you posted.
Click to expand...

1. Nukes don't produce greenhouse gas. Every watt of power generated from nukes replaces a watt generated from coal or oil.
2. Much of the methane harvested at natural gas wells would be released into the environment through natural geologic processes, and methane is 5 times worse a greenhouse gas than the CO2 emitted when it is burned.
3. Natural gas simply replaces OPEC oil. This saves transportation fuel as well as lowers the potential for spillage and related environmental issues.

What was that you said about an “utterly ridiculous response”?
 
Southern Man said:
1. Nukes don't produce greenhouse gas. Every watt of power generated from nukes replaces a watt generated from coal or oil.
2. Much of the methane harvested at natural gas wells would be released into the environment through natural geologic processes, and methane is 5 times worse a greenhouse gas than the CO2 emitted when it is burned.
3. Natural gas simply replaces OPEC oil. This saves transportation fuel as well as lowers the potential for spillage and related environmental issues.

What was that you said about an “utterly ridiculous response”?
Click to expand...

You were responding to the idea of there being no right to "destroy the planet." Your response above assumes that greenhouse gases are the ONLY way we can destroy the planet, which is really stupid.

None of the solutions you talk about are sustainable, or very good for the planet. As much as I hate to, I tend to support nukes now as a stop-gap solution while we transition to more renewable forms of energy. But nukes are not a long-term solution, because of the essentially permanent problem of nuclear waste.
 
Onceler said:
You were responding to the idea of there being no right to "destroy the planet." Your response above assumes that greenhouse gases are the ONLY way we can destroy the planet, which is really stupid.

None of the solutions you talk about are sustainable, or very good for the planet. As much as I hate to, I tend to support nukes now as a stop-gap solution while we transition to more renewable forms of energy. But nukes are not a long-term solution, because of the essentially permanent problem of nuclear waste.
Click to expand...

I was responding to one aspect of environmental stewardship. Nuclear technology, with recycling and reprocessing waste (deemed illeagl by Jimminy Carter) reduces the amount that must be interned by a huge amount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top