Thursday, January 03, 2008

Who the heck is. . .

I got a vote advice for the US president based on my dis-/agreement with 25 statements. The graph shows how much I have in common with the candidates.

Since I don't know anything about the candidates (well, I heard the names of Hilary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani before) can somebody tell me where I stand in the US politic spectrum?


  1. OK, I didn't notice that D stands for Democrat an R for Republicain. But is Edwards extreme or moderate?

  2. Fairly Moderate. I saw him speak at a friends house. being in New Hampshire we vote first in the primary so we get alot of attention for a small state.

  3. You are to the left of (more liberal than) all of them, including:

    John Edwards

    Hillary Clinton

    None of these are actual liberals but they might be called liberals in the U.S. None of these are extreme to the left.

    It would be interesting if they included Dennis Kucinich (an actual liberal) and Ron Paul (a libertarian running as an "R") in the results...

  4. In the Netherlands liberal means right wing/populistic/conservative so it is always a bit confusing.

  5. Yes, the terminology is confusing.

    Politics is all tactics. :)

  6. Tak - Edwards is "fairly moderate"? Maybe you mean he is fairly moderate for an anti-corporate socialist? :)

  7. Just remember boys and girls, politics is all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

  8. Glenn,
    Politics is tactics

    I don't care about left or right, democrat or republicain, as long as the new president don't fall so easy in every trap that is set out for him by Bin Laden I would feel much safer. Does any candidate fit that bill?

  9. The mere fact that most people know/care more who will be president than they do about their own representatives and senators says a lot. Both Obama and Huckabee argued that the presidency is way to strong or (in the case of Obama) needs much more oversight...that is what struck me the most about their stump speeches in Iowa (in the survey I ended up Giuliani, Edwards, Obama, McCain...). I'm not really political so hard to figure what it really means.

    MORE importantly though, I wonder which candidates are 1. d4, 1. e4, 1. Nf3...or are they one of those 1. c4 types???

  10. lets be real clear, and not distracted (and Edwards makes THE most sense to me!):

    Edwards is virtually the only one of them who really says how difficult a situation we are in, never mind liberal, or moderate, or conservative. he says that the game of our society does not better life, such as corporate focus on profits to exclusion of all else.

    now, i am NOT saying edwards was always like this, but this is what he is saying now.

    he has been there, in corporate law, litigation, etc.

    all the others, its seems to me, however much they say that they wish to change things really just want to rearrange the chairs on the titanic. they talk well, and say all the right things, but still the status quo to protect business as usual.

    now, i dont know IF edwards can do it, but he has a clear revelation as to a shift within himself, saying that it is time to take a stand.

    i cannot articulate what that stand is or how it is constituted, but i heard him, and his sincerity in saying what few are saying relative resonated clear and true to me when i heard it.

    no one get too upset please.

    i have voted for Ralph Nadar for as long as i can remember, and edwards is NOT nadar, but the least unrelated to these in radicalism in saying the whole things is a crock of shit.

    that edwards is doing as well as he is is big surprise to me, and i am glad, but i am not invested in this level of global change but still appreciate it. :)


  11. I don't care about left or right, democrat or republicain, as long as the new president don't fall so easy in every trap that is set out for him by Bin Laden I would feel much safer. Does any candidate fit that bill?

    To answer in the spirit of what I think you are asking: Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kucinich (D) fit the bill.

    But, of course, neither of them has any chance of being elected.

    Obama (D) is also in that category and seems to have a real chance of being elected.

    The Democrats generally show greater restraint than the Republicans in this area but even Clinton (D) and Edwards (D) voted to authorize the use of military force against Iraq.

    To paraphrase my understanding of their positions on that since: Edwards says he has learned from that mistake; Clinton claims it was not a mistake.

  12. Educator,

    Thanks for the links.

    good to hear that there are still people in politics who have the greatness of character to admit it when they were wrong. Only such people are potential trustworthy.

  13. I don't really know that much about u.s. politics, but when obama surfaced I thought he appeared like a reasonable guy. but I also thought he'd have a snowball's chance in hell. I'm pretty pleased that he's doing well.

    and talking about reasonable u.s. presidents, I'm constantly amazed how little americans think of (bill) clinton. because even though he did some obvious mistakes, when compared to the other presidents they've had he comes out a head and a shoulder above the rest. nixon, reagan, bush sr. & jr, all look like james bond archvillains compared to clinton. had such characters been the presidents of ANY other country, they would've been deemed criminal thugs in the u.s. - only carter & clinton can survive any scrutiny.

    liberal means right wing/populist/conservative here as well (doesn't it anywhere outside u.s.?), and when I look at u.s. politicians, I can't really see any difference. ALL u.s. liberals would be considered right wing in finland, and many of them extreme right. but I suppose they actually need to at least project that image in u.s. to appear worthwhile, when the society considers success as a human being to be a function of wealth & smiling white teeth.

  14. glen wilson
    you irritate me. dont fucking put words in my mouth, such as putting Osama Bin Ladin's name in a quote worded to sound like me but not be me exactly. i did not mention him.

    you manipulate here, just as you do blogger perception of your rating or skill. good riddens.

    i hope children dont read this because they need protection from you. you piss me off.

  15. transformation:

    I'm not sure what you are responding to. My quote that I think you are referring to is a direct quotation of tempo's (our host) in a comment directed at me.

    you manipulate here, just as you do blogger perception of your rating or skill.
    I am a real person and blog under my real name. My real USCF ratings and results are easy to look up. I'm not sure what it is that you think I am manipulating...