What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
Need a Vacation? view!
bing.com - Bing(tm) scans 1 billion+ airfares to locate the ones that meet or beat the record low. Check every day.
497 Comments
- itistoday, on 10/11/2007, -5/+110Anyone else get Kucinich and Gravel as their top two? I think it'd be great if either one of them won the primaries, but unfortunately the chance of that happening seems to approach zero asymptotically...
- goodoldme, on 10/11/2007, -2/+101I wish they'd do this for the UK election. I know more about the US one than my own country's election.
- ElbridgeGerry, on 10/11/2007, -0/+71The candidate I work for came in third in my list...
- 0rion16, on 10/11/2007, -7/+73McCain -27
Thompson -30
Cox -36
Giuliani -42
Huckabee -44
Brownback -44
Tancredo -65
Romney -76
Hunter -82
My Anti-candidates read like a who's who of corrupt blowhards. Its suprising to see Guliani and tancredo not in a tie for dead last though...which means hunter must be a real prick. - Scik, on 10/11/2007, -1/+62Gravel 67 (you have no disagreements with this candidate)
Have we forgotten about Gravel? - Darkhacker, on 10/11/2007, -7/+64I recommend this. It's much better than just watching CNN for 20 minutes and picking a candidate because you like their face. I seriously know people that foam at the mouth for their particular candidate, yet they know nothing about them. I mean literally nothing. It's scary how ignorant the American people are when it comes to politics.
This link has confirmed my worst fears though. That all politicians are stupid. I didn't find a single candidate that supported/opposed all of the key or important issues for me. Reminds me of that episode of South Park where Stan has to vote between a douche and a turd sandwich. That's how I feel right now and sadly most Americans are like Randy. - otakushark, on 10/11/2007, -4/+51Very surprising results. Try it!
- GlobalistShill, on 10/11/2007, -5/+49They also forgot "Eliminate the IRS"
- Urgo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+46I just saw this on reddit. Very interesting.
Compare your results with those of everyone else who took the test here: http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php - GlobalistShill, on 10/11/2007, -3/+46They forgot "Abolish Federal Reserve"
- zombiedepot, on 10/11/2007, -5/+47Where's the drop box for stance on the constitution?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+42Looks like im a Kucinich man, probably cause im Canadian.
- supernovasky, on 10/11/2007, -16/+54Looks like I'm going for Gravel. Seriously, I had no idea about this guy before that chart came out. He matches up with me on almost every issue.
Funnily enough, Ron Paul was nearly in last place.
I could never support a candidate that did not support universal health care. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -3/+40Interesting how they name the bills, for example:
Universal Healthcare
Net Neutrality
No Child Left Behind
When you oppose any one of them it sounds like you are against the actual concept of it, rather than being against the method the bill promotes. For example, if you're against No Child Left Behind it sounds like you don't care about children's education, which is absurd. - InfamousX241, on 10/11/2007, -4/+37Kucinich 68
Gravel 53
Obama 38
Edwards 38
Clinton 34
Biden 32
Richardson 30
Dodd 30
Paul 11
I'm Canadian, anyway. - whatsupimphil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+29I think voting machines should work like this - not voting for people, but for issues.
- harksaw, on 10/11/2007, -3/+32Not one question about taxes? That's kind of key.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+31Ron Paul is vehemently against universal health care!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28Apparently me and Gravel are on the same page.
Are the stats for Paul right? - emjaymj, on 10/11/2007, -12/+37Paul 63
Gravel 33
Kucinich 18
Brownback 10
Thompson 7
Cox 4
Obama -1
Tancredo -5
Biden -7
Edwards -13
Richardson -15
Clinton -16
Dodd -16
McCain -19
Hunter -27
Huckabee -33
Giuliani -33
Romney -36
As much as I love Ron Paul, people should take stuff like this with a major grain of salt. Basing your decision on a quiz is just plain stupid. - iella, on 10/11/2007, -8/+311.Ron Paul is personally anti-abortion. Come on, he's a gynecologist! However, his position is that it is NOT the federal government's job to legislate the issue, it should be left to the states. You can say he's anti-abortion, but that doesn't mean he wants the federal government to make it illegal.
2. Ron Paul is not a strict isolationist/non-interventionist, as many portray him. He believes that the US has a responsibility to be a force of good in the world, he just objects to "good" being thrust down the throats of other countries through the barrel of a gun.
3. Who is going to pay for nationalized health care? Dr. Paul's understanding of economics is that in a free market, stuff works itself out. You can't expect the feds to take care of you - that's a different government system, one that we don't have (yet... the way things are going, we might be there soon).
4. This is an issue of whether or not we should be paying for other peoples' college education, and to make a sweeping statement like "subsidized college loans are good/bad" is taking the issue a little to lightly, in my opinion.
5. Are you kidding? Ron Paul's position on economics is exactly that the government should be making sure that a free market exists for the benefit of the consumer, not trying to legislate benefits for friends of politicians.
6. To call Dr. Paul and advocate of racism is a blatant straw man argument. If you have ever listened to him talk about minorities rights, etc., you know that his position is that EVERY individual - whether white, black, Hispanic, Asian, homosexual, heterosexual, man woman, whatever - has the same rights based purely on the fact that they are people. You don't need the government to tell you that you have special rights because you're different, you inherently have the same rights because you are a person.
I don't necessarily agree with all of Dr. Paul's positions, but your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of his beliefs and an oversimplification of the issues, IMO. - rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26"all politicians are stupid. I didn't find a single candidate that supported/opposed all of the key or important issues for me."
Clearly, two other alternative explanations did not occur to you:
a) you are the one who is stupid, or
b) having differing opinions on policy issues from the ones you hold is not a scientifically valid way to determine intelligence. - Fungo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21Kucinich 65
No Child Left Behind, Border Fence
Gravel 55
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)
Obama 39
Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage
I knew I liked Gravel. - antoniojvr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21Cool. My number one pick was my candidate. This tool is awesome.
- supernovasky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20I REALLY like this guy, but the sad thing is, his campaign is nearly broke. I donated a bit today. Who knows, maybe he could emmerge as a serious candidate.
- Laytonx, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26Kucinich 68
Gravel 55
Edwards 30
Clinton 30
Obama 30 - dema, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21I did, and by a large margin...
Kucinich 56
Gravel 48
Obama 35
Paul 34 - Twoodge, on 10/11/2007, -8/+27When using this tool, people should bear in mind that it assumes state funding and involvement with certain items on the list is as it stands now; i.e., marriage is a state affair. Woo for Kucinich, though!
- smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18net neutrality simply prevents ISPs from creating a tiered internet where essentially only the rich have a voice. it's vital to protect free expression on the internet. way to eat up the telecom/big industry rhetoric that all regulation is bad.
it doesn't open up the door for anything. all it does is closes the door to telecoms exploiting their monopoly. we live in a democracy where the government is supposed to represent the people and protect their best interest. net neutrality is only opposed by the telecom corporations and is vital to protecting the best interest of the people.
there's nothing inherently wrong with government regulations when they are representing the people. in fact, that is one of the most crucial roles of the government. without the FDA regulations on food and drugs, we'd have the same problems facing china with dangerous and poisonous foods. without industry & environmental regulations we'd have even more severe pollution.
the major problems our nation faces, like the lack of medical care for many people, the military industrial complex, corporate irresponsibility & exploitation, etc. are mostly because big business has all but bought out out government and have been lobbying heavily to advance business interests against the good of the people. of course there are idiots like you who buy into their rhetoric that all regulation is bad and the government is evil. but the government wouldn't be evil if they were acting in the interest of the public rather than the businesses that are putting out this rhetoric you seem so happy to regurgitate.
who if not the government will ensure net neutrality in the interest of the public? private industry? the free market? yea, because that's worked so well with health care right? - Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19And re-ratify the Constitution.
- Ugoff, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20Kucinich 38
Gravel 30
Obama 23
Biden 22
Paul 21
Thompson -1
McCain -7
Brownback -7
Cox -16
Giuliani -19
Huckabee -26
Tancredo -32
Romney -36
Hunter -38 - peterpancreas, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21"incorrectly" is the answer that springs to mind
- sephiroth965, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Wow, go Gravel!
- marsbar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17That's how you Americans got stuck with George W. Bush. 'Cause he had charisma! Do yourself a favour and vote for someone based on where they stand on the issues!!!
- Demonmonger, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18Too bad Kucinich looks like Gollum. He'll never win.
- bhowell, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18Why are you digging this guy down for having opposing viewpoints? If you truly believe in your issues, then it's important to have honest discussions with people who disagree with you. Maybe you'll convince them, maybe they'll convince you, maybe neither, but at least you'll be better informed about the issue.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -11/+26Paul does not support the Government regulating the internet. "Net Neutrality" would let the Government get their foot in the door for future regulations. I guess you've failed by not researching before you make up your mind.
- MacArthur, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16I got Kucinich as my #1 but the quiz really is over simplified. Politics are never black and white, its always shades of gray. Why isn't the war on drugs on this quiz?
- insanebrain, on 10/11/2007, -9/+23whow . . I don't see any irritating ron paul spammers . .
- colberrep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14kucinich is against the war on drugs.
- stormgren, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14The candidates on the bottom are negative. They're your anti-candidates, and you disagree with them on lots of stuff.
- JeremyCouch, on 12/22/2008, -1/+14If you had a gun on the plane would you not have used it to stop the hijacking? It's against the law now to bring a gun on the plane. Before that law was put in place I do not believe there were any hijackings. What's so unbelievable again?
- resplence, on 10/11/2007, -10/+23I just realized I'm too lazy to do all that clicking.
- allenthar, on 10/11/2007, -10/+23Paul 35
Gravel 28
Kucinich 26
Richardson 17
Obama 15
Looks like my love of Paul is justified :P - NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15For me:
Kucinich 54, Gravel 50, and poor Paul 13... I've always supported Gravel over Paul anyway...
But the reason I support Gravel over Kucinich... is because of Key issues that were not options on this candidate form... lol - supernovasky, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Wow. Kucinich is getting a lot of love. I think there may be a little skewing in his favor, though, because he was listed higher than gravel for me, even though I disagreed with gravel on no issues.
- JeremyCouch, on 12/22/2008, -12/+24Another completely useless political survey. For instance, I support embryonic stem cell research so I guess I should select support correct? BUT I DO NOT support using tax dollars to fund it. These socialistic surveys do not even consider that someone can support an issue and not believe the government should be involved in forcing it on people.
- emjaymj, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Okay now put yourself into the shoes of someone who is anti-abortion. They want to protect the right of a fetus to live because it is their position that the life of a fetus his just as valuable as any other life .
Stop being so damn short-sighted and you'll see that the issue of abortion has nothing to do with whether or not we preserve the Bill of Rights, it's whether or not we extend these rights to the fetus. Just like somebody in your position believes their stance is protecting the rights of women to choose what they do with their own body, somebody with an anti-abortion position believes their stance is protecting the right of the unborn baby to not be murdered, which in their eyes trumps the woman's right to not be pregnant.
It's ironic that you seem to be implying I'M a bigot when the issue of abortion is really about whether or not we treat humans differently just because they're in the womb. 100 years right now, as we find out more about life pre-birth, it's entirely possible that YOU might be compared with racists because of your position that unborn babies should have less rights.
Again, this has nothing to do with violating women's rights is really about whether or not the fetus should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Don't make it out to be about any more than it really is. - mgags, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12You don't get to decide what your tax dollars go for. Bush's 'logic' to oppose stem cell research is that he doesn't want to force people's taxes to go to something they morally disagree with. Well, I morally disagree with the Iraq war. However, for some reason Bush logic doesn't 'apply' to my case.
- thepotatoman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13I noticed they forgot the drug war too.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 499 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is