The Political Compass (Armed and Dangerous)
Pages
| Author | Topic: The Political Compass (Armed and Dangerous) |
|---|---|
|
Infiltrator
Member # 10578
|
written Saturday, October 13 2007 11:30
Profile
Homepage
I agree, the poll is definitely missing a "Neutral" answer. That would have been nice on one or two questions. -------------------- "We were meant to live for so much more. Have we lost ourselves?" - Switchfoot ---- My poetry Posts: 432 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2007 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, October 13 2007 16:41
Profile
I've taken the test several times recently and don't feel like doing it again, but I'm somewhere around -8.2 economic, -8.7 social. Anyway, two points I'd like to make: 1. The site has an FAQ that adresses many of the questions and complaints posed here. I suggest you all read it. 2. The difference between "Agree" and "Strongly agree" isn't how stubbornly you hold your opinion, but how correct you believe the statement to be. Each question only moves you on one axis (so each answer isn't a different quadrant), a fact among many others given in the FAQ. -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Saturday, October 13 2007 20:58
Profile
Homepage
I was actually using my free time during my absence to whip up a rudimentary census tool for exactly this. Regression and correlation went by on Wednesday afternoon, and I wanted some data to screw around with. quote:Mh. I'm slipping - I had a solid -10.0 on the social scale last time I took this. Batches of cookies to the person with the free time to go through our archived PC topics and graph the movements of people over time. I can't do it for another week at least. -------------------- The Noble and Ancient Order of Polaris - We're Not Yet Dead. Encyclopedia • Archives • Stats • RSS (This Topic / Forum) • Blog • NaNoWriMo Did-chat thentagoespyet jumund fori is jus, hat onlime gly nertan ne gethen Firyoubbit 'obio.' Decorum deserves a whole line of my signature, and an entry in your bookmarks. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 10578
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 11:57
Profile
Homepage
Rush Limbaugh would have so much fun with a Hillary presidency... Just lookin' on the sunny side. ;) -------------------- "We were meant to live for so much more. Have we lost ourselves?" - Switchfoot ---- My poetry Posts: 432 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2007 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 13:43
Profile
If the Democratic Party choses to nominate Hillary, there will be four more years of a Republican president. But that is the downfall of that party, nominating folks that aren't attractive to the moderate or liberal Republicans. The Republican Party figured it out with Bush. Nominate a guy that you can picture beating in darts, and he will be elected. Politics = :confused: + :eek: + :rolleyes: / :mad: -------------------- Vogel - "10% off on all of [our] products for the month of October. ... this discount applies to games, CDs, bundles, and even already discounted products." Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted" Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 14:44
Profile
I think you're misunderestimating Hillary, Salmon. While she certainly won't be contraversial in far-left Democrat fashion, I seriously doubt that you're likely to see further conservative inroads made against abortion or homosexual marriage rights while she's at the helm, not to mention inhumane stances on immigration or child health care. And even if she does make some compromises, in the very least she will be more competent than what we've got right now. Not that that is a very high threshold to surpass, but it's something. My biggest concern with Hillary is that while the role of the EPA will likely return to normal, she won't be aggressive enough on environmental and energy policy issues. Also, I don't know whether she'll be willing to bully Congress into reregulating the banking industry, which is in serious need of a firm hand. “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics.” F.D.R. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 14:49
Profile
I think your misapplicating my confundarisms. Hillary is not electable to the Presidency of the USA. Aside from her relationship with a past President, her policy positions are at odds with what gets people into the White House. Nice gal, got nothing against her, met her once. But she will never (mental note to save this link) become President. -------------------- Vogel - "10% off on all of [our] products for the month of October. ... this discount applies to games, CDs, bundles, and even already discounted products." Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted" Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 15:51
Profile
Well, given that the current crop of Republican candidates can't seem to outd-bag one another enough (all of them suffer from some crippling character flaw, and most of them can be accurately labelled as a John Kerry-style "flip-flopper"; Rudy Giuliani will also forever be labelled "The President of 9/11", thanks to The Onion), I think it's the Democrats' election to lose, and I think Hillary could pull it off, because she'll be able to come across as much, much more credible than the opposition. We'll see though - maybe Obama will make a stronger showing than he has. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 16:12
Profile
Neither would be good choices for the dEmo party. Try Edwards again, he did well last time and is from the south. Where, oh where, is Carville when you need him? -------------------- Vogel - "10% off on all of [our] products for the month of October. ... this discount applies to games, CDs, bundles, and even already discounted products." Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted" Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 16:25
Profile
Yeah, but does he really radiate "Winner" to you? I don't think that Edwards has either (a) the experience necessary in an executive capacity (Obama has this problem as well), or (b) the charisma to pull the election off. He's just not a heavy hitter. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 10578
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 17:02
Profile
Homepage
I am not pleased with the current choice of candidates. Many of them have some good strengths, but nobody really jumps out as The Candidate. Especially among the Republicans. Years ago, Sean Hannity predicted a Hillary vs. Giuliani election. I hope he was wrong, but it could happen. -------------------- "We were meant to live for so much more. Have we lost ourselves?" - Switchfoot ---- My poetry Posts: 432 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2007 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 17:38
Profile
quote:. .. ... What part of George W Bush cries out "I can turn around your country"? The President is a puppet toy of the VP, always has been.[/ludicrous and un-documented statement] We, the people, elect people that we LIKE! I don't like Hillary or Obama. I don't want to sit down and watch a Sox game with them. Edwards seems ... dumber, and more approachable. That is the quality that gets people elected in a country where American Idol is more newsy than Mogadishu or Darfur. -------------------- Vogel - "10% off on all of [our] products for the month of October. ... this discount applies to games, CDs, bundles, and even already discounted products." Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted" Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 10578
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 18:01
Profile
Homepage
We all liked GW back when we elected him (anyway most of us did). But in America, nobody can survive the hatred of the media. The US revolves around "the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment" as Hannity puts it, and which can take various forms, each leaning toward one or the other. I like to call (most of) the American media "the confusion of entertainment and enlightenment." Our culture craves constant entertainment. "Here we are now, entertain us." - Kurt Cobain Come to think of it, the very name "Nirvana" illustrates the confusion of entertainment and enlightenment. Yay. My 100th post. Oh well, whatever, nevermind. :P [ Monday, October 15, 2007 18:03: Message edited by: Taliesin ] -------------------- "We were meant to live for so much more. Have we lost ourselves?" - Switchfoot ---- My poetry Posts: 432 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2007 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 18:16
Profile
Define 'most of us'... -------------------- Lt. Sullust Quaere verum Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 18:16
Profile
quote:False. "Most of us" did not elect him, so it stands to reason that "most of us" liked the other guy more. I think the voting public this time will be wary of the Republican approach. I believe the current crop of Republican candidates resemble G.W.B. far too much for most "moderate" voters to feel comfortable supporting them; most of the dems by contrast have substance and agendas (some better/more thought out than others) and I think this is telling. I think this time around, it will be the candidate who can demonstrate the most competence and "adultness" that will win. The nation has had it's fill of empty calorie leadership; it has seen that all that gets you is a quagmire in Iraq for no justifiable reason and a "heckuva job, Brownie" in New Orleans. Oh, and less health insurance for children. [ Monday, October 15, 2007 18:18: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 10578
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 19:36
Profile
Homepage
quote:Whatever. That was not the point of my post. -------------------- "We were meant to live for so much more. Have we lost ourselves?" - Switchfoot ---- My poetry Posts: 432 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2007 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 19:47
Profile
Homepage
It seems critical, actually. If not many people liked Bush in the first place, then the media didn't play a large role in making people dislike him. Dikiyoba. -------------------- Episode 4: Spiderweb Reloaded Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 20:30
Profile
The ONLY reason that Clinton was elected was because he was a people person. He played the sax, was "cool," and was likable. That is the same reason Bush was elected, except for the sax thing. As far as doing a good job once elected, well we can easily tell the difference between the two. Actually, maybe we can't, since both got us entangled in overseas crapola, faced terrorism and never brought the culprit(s) to justice, and displeased large segments of the American and world population. For me, I want to see the dEmocrats nominate a likable person that has the foresight and intellect to keep their far-reaching agenda under wraps until after the election. I mean, I trust that some goofball won't get elected. But I know how the mind works. Getting elected President is no guarantee that you will do a good job, and a guarantee of a good Presidency won't get you elected. Edit - Leaving out essential words is bad for readers. [ Monday, October 15, 2007 20:32: Message edited by: Jumpin' Salmon ] -------------------- Vogel - "10% off on all of [our] products for the month of October. ... this discount applies to games, CDs, bundles, and even already discounted products." Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted" Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 23:04
Profile
I always took a detached, spectator view of American politics even when I was living in the country. Some canvasser on the street once urged me to get involved in helping the Democratic Party even after I explained I was Canadian. I said that Americans would have to make democracy work for themselves. I wasn't going to get involved in nation-building. But I have the impression there are several different things Americans generally tend to want in their presidents, and other things they generally don't want. If their last president let them down in some respect, they tend to vote next time for a candidate who looks unlikely to let them down in the same way. This is a big part of the explanation for G.W. Bush: Bill Clinton was smart and sophisticated, but Monicagate cemented his long-term shadow image as slick and sleazy. So a lot of people voted against slickness and sleaziness, and intellectuality and sophistication were guilty by association. Maybe this time there is a big bloc of votes to be gained for being an anti-Bush. Hillary would be that. Anyway, the internet is opening up isolated communities all over the world, and someday soon even the American south will join the 21st century. If that process is far enough along next year for a Clinton-Obama ticket to win, it will be a change with long-term consequences. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 23:12
Profile
I just wish Canada would solve that whole "freakishly cold winters" thing. I mean really, you've had enough time. -------------------- Vogel - "10% off on all of [our] products for the month of October. ... this discount applies to games, CDs, bundles, and even already discounted products." Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted" Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, October 15 2007 23:42
Profile
Just give our global warming scheme some time to work. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Tuesday, October 16 2007 00:46
Profile
Homepage
At first I was surpised to see that I'm actually more of a lestist than i thought, but when I looked at this topic, it seems I'm no different then this community, so here goes: Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28 EDIT: Yeah, I have become more of a leftist... 2005: Economic Left/Right: -2.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.97 I guess it comes with the age. [ Tuesday, October 16, 2007 00:49: Message edited by: Thralni ] -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 3442
|
written Tuesday, October 16 2007 02:11
Profile
Homepage
Economic Left/Right: -7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.33 Which I suppose is no great shock.  Posts: 2864 | Registered: Monday, September 8 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Tuesday, October 16 2007 04:43
Profile
Beautiful. Now I just have to understand what the heck does this mean. -------------------- Life is a neverending carneval where everyone has multiple costumes. I just hope mine are pleasing to the eye. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Tuesday, October 16 2007 09:54
Profile
Homepage
I got something like (-5.3, 0.4) this time, which is a bit more extreme than my usual (-4, -1), possibly because I was annoyed when retaking the test and was trying to get the result I wanted, and not the ones test was forsing on me. In general, this test is biased to give more "liberal" results, so if the test shows a surprising result for some people, it might not be quite real. One issue is that "liberal" propositions are less liberal than "conservative" questions are conservative. For example, the question about legalizing drugs asks only about pot, instead of legalizing all drugs. Similarly, the questions about alternative lifestyles ask only about homosexuality, instead of furries, S&M, and other things people might find more objectionable. On the conservative side, however, we have eugenics, outright racism, and other views that are strongly condemned by most of society. What I mean by above paragraph is that acceptance of homosexuality is far more common than acceptance of eugenics. So a liberal person is a lot more likely to accept homosexulity than a conservative person is to accept eugenics, leading to a "liberal" shift in the scores. There are also a lot of completely irrelevant questions like the one about astrology. For some reason saying that you don't believe in astrology gives a more liberal result, despite the fact that it has no relation to social and political views, and neo-pagan rebellious teenagers are more likely to believe in astrology than fundamentalist christians. In general, if the test authors put Hitler at 9.8 on their scale and Gandhi at -4, nobody should be scoring -10 unless they live in a polyamorous commune and think that there should be no traffic rules, product safety rules, or other unreasonable restrictions on people's liberties. -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |