Political Compass

[AstroProdigy]

http://www.politicalcomp!@#$%^&*.org/

 

...and don't turn this into an argument

[AstroProdigy]

My Political Comp!@#$%^&*

Economic left/right: -3.63

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26

 

That means I am a democrat and partial libertarian.

[MonteZuma]

This is the third time this test has been posted here Astro

 

As per usual, I'm sitting with Ghandi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama.....

 

Economic Left/Right: -5.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44

[»Ducky]

Economic Left/Right: -3.75

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

 

Same deal as the past few times I have taken it.

[Dr.Worthless]

In a sea of liberals could I be any more moderate?

 

Your political comp!@#$%^&*

Economic Left/Right: 0.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87

[AstroProdigy]

If you were moderate you wouldn't support Bush . Did you not see where his point is on the webpage?

[»Ducky]

Why wouldn't you support Bush being a moderate.

Doesn't make sense.

[AstroProdigy]

Because if you are a moderate you should support a moderate. An extreme conservative would have very different views from you. You also wouldn't support an extreme liberal

[LearJett+]

Astro, that might not really be where his point is. That may be some arbitrary action by someone. I doubt that he's that close to Hitler.

[AstroProdigy]

Actually Hitler was much more of a moderate when it came to the economy, but hes somewhat more authoritarian.

[Dr.Worthless]

Yeah, Hitler really didn't give a !@#$%^&* what you did with your money or how you made it..

 

As long as you weren't a Jew.

[Paine]

Economic Left/Right: -2.75

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.77

[»Ducky]

Because if you are a moderate you should support a moderate

That takes the prize for the most ignorant statement of the week.

You support a person because you believe they have the potential to make the changes you yourself desire.

 

To correct your statement.

Because if you are moderate yourself, you are more likely to support a moderate candidate.

 

Maybe that's what is wrong with the world. Supporting people just because they wear the same label you do.

[AstroProdigy]

Yeah, that makes me really ignorant making the foolish claim that you should support the person with views similar to yours rather than someone who will do things you don't want. Tisk tisk for me. Its better to support Bush if you're a super liberal environmentalist because supporting someone with similar views as you is ignorant, eh Ducky? Think about what you say before you say it, Ducky.

[Greased_Lightning]

"Actually Hitler was much more of a moderate when it came to the economy, but hes somewhat more authoritarian."

 

except the part with the jews and the death penalty for having foreign currency on you or taking their currency to another country... real progressive guy that Hitler.

[»Ducky]

I never said one word about supporting someone with similar views as you.

 

Bush could eat adopted babies for lunch, but so long as he could give free healthcare, I wouldn't give two ASSS.

 

That's exactly what's wrong with this country and why you have taken the dumb !@#$%^&* award.

You don't automatically support somone in the same political spectrum as you until you analize what they are about and what they want to do.

 

Why are there even elections. Are you suggesting to register with your politcal party and let everything run it's course. More liberals than conservatives? Looks like a Liberal president?

[AstroProdigy]

Are you a dumb !@#$%^&*? No matter how nice a guy is if his opinions are far off from mine then i can't possible support him. You don't just vote the person into office. You vote the whole executive office because he will pick people with similar views to him.

 

Guess what; if you knew anything about politics you'd know everyone votes for a candidate based on his views and republicans rarely vote for democrats while democrats rarely vote for republicans. That is what the last election was exactly. It wasn't getting people from one camp to change sides. It was getting people on the other camp to feel disenfranchised and not go to vote while getting as many people in your camp to vote.

 

If you had a brain, you would use your common sense to figure this out. This is exactly why voter turnout is so low in the United States. Each side tries to get their people to vote while getting theother half of the country not to vote. That is why only half the country votes in presidential elections. Also, when people go to vote for a particular candidate, they tend to vote for everyone else on in his political party down the board.

 

I'm sorry I had to insult you, but you started it calling me an ignorant and a dumb !@#$%^&*. Good luck eating adopted babies for lunch.

[»Ducky]

You obviously can't be spoken to.

It wouldn't suprise me if the country's majority are moderates/swing. People, who in all reality decide who to vote for over 1 or 2 issues that effect them personally.

 

There are numerous conservatives who believe in pro choice.

If one of the major issues in my life were about abortion and this candidate proposed something outstanding that I liked, I would vote for him.

There aren't any if, ands or buts about it. If I feel the person has a way of making better my daily life or those close to me, I support him no matter his political party.

You are, a complete moron for not understanding that.

I can't even put into words another label to !@#$%^&*le you as.

 

Elections are built towards the indecisive, those that are in the middle like Worthless. There are reletively few ways to discourage people from voting without inciting numerous of them.

The whole first half of elections are based solely on swinging moderates.

Some candidates even try till the very last day.

 

A party doesn't try and get people to not go, that's supers!@#$%^&*ious bull!@#$%^&*.

(One example cited is Florida black prisoners who the liberals took and spun the !@#$%^&* out of to make it seem the election was rigged)

All they do is attempt to get a greater number of people in.

 

People vote down the board because they don't follow politics. That's the simple reality. It's a safe !@#$%^&*umption that their way of life will be upheld no matter thier choice.

 

I agree that alot of people will stick to their own party, as not many are familiar with politics.

To say someone should have voted a certain way however is completely inane.

 

This combo'd in with a few other silly replies in other threads makes it clear to me you haven't half a clue what you are talking about.

[AstroProdigy]

Dude, do you pay attention to elections? Did you hear anything about the last election? If you did it would be staring you in the face that you're being an idiot. Of course a party tries to get people not to vote. What do you think negative campaigning is?

 

There was also a very small window of undecided voters, what you call the "majority". Also, Bush didn't win by getting Democratic support. He won by getting large numbers of evangelical christians to go and vote.

 

By the way, you are only one individual. The Republican Party has plenty of middle class/ working class supporters, yet they are undeniably pro rich. Why is that? It is because of social issues nimrod.

 

Please, post intelligently. You are posting what you yourself would do. I am posting what is a proven fact in past elections and am thinking about what people as a whole would do.

[»Ducky]

When somone posts something Anti-American, does anyone on this board post against it, no matter what the topic was about?

 

Negative campaigning discourages as much as encourages voting.

IT's a reletive equal balance, so much to the point you will have to find another way that has discouraged voters.

 

If someone says, Your candidate is stupid, do you say "Oh, yea.. ok" or "Well no, he isn't, I will vote to spite you because I believe in him."

I didn't vote because of negative campaigning; I didn't vote because I wanted a third party who had no chance to win.

Had that third party not been present, I would have voted liberal just because of some of the things Kerry wanted to do.

Both candidates were bad regardless.

 

A small window of undecided can still make the majority in which is needed to decide the outcome.

45% liberal 45% Conservative. 10% swing.

Let's assume that those number dictate the exact support.

You need the majority of those swings to win.

 

We aren't necessarily talking about Camps tealing, as the main focus was on a Moderate who you claimed should have voted one way "Because that's what I would do."

That claim is complete rubbish.

 

Are you trying to present an arguement that Bush won without using swings?

Are you trying to present an arguement that all middle class and working republicans are all undeniably pro rich?

 

Quit claiming that everyone in Group A should believe in Group A policies and Group B should stick with thier own.

You're promoting segregation without fact because that's how you were brought up.

 

You posted no pure facts, only opinion on who you think should do what.

I stick by my earlier conclusions.

[AstroProdigy]

You are thinking of the swing vote with one giant variable ignored. Only half of eligable voters actually vote. Therefore, its more like 22.5% republican, 22.5% democrat and 5% swing. Then the other big variabe you ignored as that much more people who are unsure of who to vote for don't vote because they get disallusioned from both candidates because of all of the negative campaigning. This would bring the numbers more to about 24% republican, 24% democrat, and 2% swing. Therefore, if you can tap into the large amounts of non voters, like for example the larger amount of evangelical christians bush campaigners got to vote, you win the election. This is a much easier strategy than taking the risk of trying to convince swing voters to vote for your side.

 

I never working and middle c!@#$%^&* republicans are pro rich, they just choose to look at the social issues as more important than the economic issues.

 

Bush did win without the swing votes. He won by getting people on the other side not to vote and getting more of the people on his side to vote.

 

I never told anyone to vote one way. I just questioned why they would vote either way if it's far off from their own beliefs.

 

Now you said I was brought up supporting segregation? When did I ever say it was right? Stop putting words in my mouth. It's not right, but thats the way things work. The fact is a two party system is inevitably flawed.

 

Neither party ever puts up a stupid candidate for election. That argument is worthless.

 

You have a very interesting view of the country. Unfortunately, it isn't the country we actually live in. Maybe when you grow up, you'll see that.

[»Ducky]

You are thinking of the swing vote with one giant variable ignored. Only half of eligable voters actually vote. Therefore, its more like 22.5% republican, 22.5% democrat and 5% swing. Then the other big variabe you ignored as that much more people who are unsure of who to vote for don't vote because they get disallusioned from both candidates because of all of the negative campaigning. This would bring the numbers more to about 24% republican, 24% democrat, and 2% swing. Therefore, if you can tap into the large amounts of non voters, like for example the larger amount of evangelical christians bush campaigners got to vote, you win the election. This is a much easier strategy than taking the risk of trying to convince swing voters to vote for your side.

I never claimed they didn't attempt to tap into the non voting pool.

I simply said that you needed swings and there was a large % of them needed to tip the odds in your favor.

In Elections, they DO cater to swings. It's what most of the effort is for.

They don't show up in random cities where they have majority support multiple times. Look at the places candidates frequently travel, swing states.

 

 

I never working and middle c!@#$%^&* republicans are pro rich, they just choose to look at the social issues as more important than the economic issues.

"""The Republican Party has plenty of middle class/ working class supporters, yet they are undeniably pro rich"""

So what part of the statement is you NOT saying that?

 

Bush did win without the swing votes. He won by getting people on the other side not to vote and getting more of the people on his side to vote.

You have yet to offer proof of how he accomplished the feat of getting others not to vote. I don't know many people who felt that they shouldn't have voted because of negative campaign ads.

 

I never told anyone to vote one way. I just questioned why they would vote either way if it's far off from their own beliefs.

"""""If you were moderate you wouldn't support Bush tongue.gif. Did you not see where his point is on the webpage?""""

 

What part of that is not telling someone who they should have voted for.

 

Now you said I was brought up supporting segregation? When did I ever say it was right? Stop putting words in my mouth. It's not right, but thats the way things work. The fact is a two party system is inevitably flawed.

You were brought up supporting political segregation. Nothing in this statement is false. That's putting no words in your mouth and it is the truth. Thinking someone from the same political spectrum should vote for one specific party is the evidence. Somewhere in your lifetime, this was evident and you found it okay and decided to support the system.

 

Neither party ever puts up a stupid candidate for election. That argument is worthless.

It wasn't an arguement, it was my opinion given after my anecdote about not voting for 1 of two parties. Evaluate the word stupid and get back to me

 

You have a very interesting view of the country. Unfortunately, it isn't the country we actually live in. Maybe when you grow up, you'll see that.

In all reality, it is the country we live in. Being poor has its perks on being able to observe a fic!@#$%^&*ious corrupt system.

The world is often not what people think of it, living in a "basically almost"' ghetto has shown me that.

We battled with different views, but despite it all; You claimed that people should stick to their own plain and simple. That's hilarity at its best.

[AstroProdigy]

Yes. That is how it should be; yet it isn't. They frequently travel to swing states to get their supporters ready to vote. They also use huge amounts of negative campaigning in swing states to get the other side to feel disallusioned and not bother to vote. Is this too difficult to understand?

 

""""The Republican Party has plenty of middle class/ working class supporters, yet they are undeniably pro rich"""

So what part of the statement is you NOT saying that?"

 

Did you learn grammar in school? The Republican Party is undeniably pro rich. My sentence didn't say middle class/ working class supporters are undeniably pro rich. Stop twisting my words when you don't have an argument.

 

How did you think this manifested itself. The disappointing voter turnout of democrats versus the suprisingly high voter turnout of republicans.

 

That is how people vote. How many people do you think look closely at a candidates competency? They vote on party lines and usually vote for one party down the list. You obviously show that you have a naive view of elections that's jaded by what you yourself believe.

 

"You were brought up supporting political segregation. Nothing in this statement is false. That's putting no words in your mouth and it is the truth. Thinking someone from the same political spectrum should vote for one specific party is the evidence. Somewhere in your lifetime, this was evident and you found it okay and decided to support the system."

 

Do you even pay attention to what I say? Just because I know the situation is one way, that doesn't automatically mean that this is what I support. Gay marriage is illegal. I support the right of homosexuals to marry, but under your reasoning, since gay marriage is illegal then I am opposed to gay marriage. Quite the reasoning skills you have here. Using your own mentality to judge you, I would say you would support the sexiest candidate because you seem to care more about how the candidate looks that what he and his administration stand for. I happen to prefer looking at all the issues if I can. Don't automatically assume things about me just because it makes you feel better.

 

No Ducky, you should stick to someone with a completely different opinion that you and will make your life worse because they seem to be a strong person. That is the hilarity. By the way, my dad works as a griller in a restauraunt and my mom is a housewife. I am not the rich "the man" that you are inferring me to be. You are only doing that to make the argument that since I don't agree with you, then I must be corrupted.

[»Ducky]

Yes. That is how it should be; yet it isn't. They frequently travel to swing states to get their supporters ready to vote. They also use huge amounts of negative campaigning in swing states to get the other side to feel disallusioned and not bother to vote. Is this too difficult to understand?

Considering I wasn't disillusioned and knew no one who was, I have a huge difficulty in understanding the situation in which you are attempting to claim.

 

""""The Republican Party has plenty of middle class/ working class supporters, yet they are undeniably pro rich"""

So what part of the statement is you NOT saying that?"

 

Did you learn grammar in school? The Republican Party is undeniably pro rich. My sentence didn't say middle class/ working class supporters are undeniably pro rich. Stop twisting my words when you don't have an argument.

You are correct, I will give you that. Misread on my part.

 

How did you think this manifested itself. The disappointing voter turnout of democrats versus the suprisingly high voter turnout of republicans.

How are you linking this to negative campaigning. I link it to Apathy towards Kerry himself. Just because he came out to be the top Democratic Candidate doesn't mean he was any good.

 

 

That is how people vote. How many people do you think look closely at a candidates competency? They vote on party lines and usually vote for one party down the list. You obviously show that you have a naive view of elections that's jaded by what you yourself believe.

People do vote that way, yes. NOT EVERYONE VOTES THAT WAT.

The whole reason I even posted is because you claimed they should have done this. The fact that people do it, and whether or not they should based on your opinion is the discussion.

 

 

Do you even pay attention to what I say? Just because I know the situation is one way, that doesn't automatically mean that this is what I support.

"""""If you were moderate you wouldn't support Bush tongue.gif. Did you not see where his point is on the webpage?""""

That's support. You said that because he was in a certain political spectrum, he shouldn't have supported who he did.

Later you clarrified that stance with additional arguements and statements.

If you don't support something, you don't advocate it.

 

 

No Ducky, you should stick to someone with a completely different opinion that you and will make your life worse because they seem to be a strong person. That is the hilarity.

You must have missed the grammar boat on that one, or my mind just completely shut down.

 

By the way, my dad works as a griller in a restauraunt and my mom is a housewife. I am not the rich "the man" that you are inferring me to be. You are only doing that to make the argument that since I don't agree with you, then I must be corrupted.

I'm curious as to where I said that you were even a conservative in a non example standpoint.

I use 'the poor' standpoint alot because it works. People can argue politics allday and simply miss the logic behind it.

You seem paranoid and are starting to do some of the things you attempted to call me down for. You know, those !@#$%^&*umptions.

Societys' corruption that you support.

 

 

Back on Track

 

""""If you were moderate you wouldn't support Bush tongue.gif. Did you not see where his point is on the webpage?""""

Why can't he not support Bush.

Now remember, you 'don't' believe in political segregation.

I'm waiting for a real arguement. Everything up until this point has been side tracked rubbish.

 

Last I checked, people could vote anyway they could possibly imagine for any possible reason; But apparently they aren't supposed to. I'm curious as to why.

[Spyed]

I got bored on the third page of questions and came back here :/