[I] Which Next President Are You?
Sanity
As I know many afpers are fond of all sorts of test, and the president of
the world is to be elected this year, I thought I'd share this test with
you. It's a variant on the dutch political compass, which gives you a
position on a 2-axis system and a "span" of your opinion compared to the
candidates, in this case the presidential candidates. It turns out I'm
nearest Barack Obama, though I'm more social-liberal and more left-wing
economically than him. It also gives a nice insight in which themes are
important for the USA elections, especially from my non-USA point of
view. I'm curious whether there's a big difference between Yuropean and
Merkin afpers, or that we're not so different after all :)
Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
--
TTFN, | AFPChess, L-Files & Discworld Wiki:
| http://www.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
Michel AKA Sanity | Now available on Jabber: michel @ jabber.xs4all.nl
mcv
>
> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
I've always understood that US democrats and republicans weren't
nearly as far apart as the European left and right[1], or that
democrats were somewhere around the European political center,
while republicans tended to the extreme right, but to my surprise,
I ended up right between John Edwards and Barrack Obama.
That's probably because I'm not completely familiar with all
internal US issues, and I voted neutral or no opinion on some
issues on which I probably would have had a strong opinion, had
I known more about them. If I deselect "immigration" and "health
care" as important issues, for example, I immediately move a bit
to the top left. Strangely enough, deselecting "income" and "iraq"
moves me even more to the top left, although I do have strong
left-leaning opinions about those.
I'm also amazed by the huge gap between republicans and democrats.
I thought at least McCain and Guiliani had some progressive tendencies.
Only Ron Paul seems to close the gap a bit, and he quickly jumps
towards the democrats if you deselect "gun control" and "family" and
select "iraq".
mcv.
[1] Although I can imagine the past 8 years have polarized that
situation somewhat.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
Fi...@club.lemonde.fr
wrote:
> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>
> As I know many afpers are fond of all sorts of test, and the president of
> the world is to be elected this year, I thought I'd share this test with
> you. It's a variant on the dutch political compass, which gives you a
> position on a 2-axis system and a "span" of your opinion compared to the
> candidates, in this case the presidential candidates. It turns out I'm
> nearest Barack Obama, though I'm more social-liberal and more left-wing
> economically than him. It also gives a nice insight in which themes are
> important for the USA elections, especially from my non-USA point of
> view. I'm curious whether there's a big difference between Yuropean and
> Merkin afpers, or that we're not so different after all :)
>
> Try it out:http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
I seem to be a social liberal leftist (basically stuck to the top left
corner)... How strange, I would never have guessed ;-P
FiX
FiX
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>
> I've always understood that US democrats and republicans weren't
> nearly as far apart as the European left and right[1], or that
> democrats were somewhere around the European political center,
> while republicans tended to the extreme right, but to my surprise,
> I ended up right between John Edwards and Barrack Obama.
I ended up right next to Mr Obama, dead level on the social axis, but a bit
further left. I also got a standard deviation elipse that encompassed *all*
the Democrat candidates.
--
Dave
"There is no Neils the Bouncing Cat! He's gone!
Now there is only... P-Cat, the Penitent Puss!"
Len Oil
> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>
> As I know many afpers are fond of all sorts of test, and the president of
> the world is to be elected this year, I thought I'd share this test with
> you. It's a variant on the dutch political compass, which gives you a
> position on a 2-axis system and a "span" of your opinion compared to the
> candidates, in this case the presidential candidates. It turns out I'm
> nearest Barack Obama, though I'm more social-liberal and more left-wing
> economically than him. It also gives a nice insight in which themes are
> important for the USA elections, especially from my non-USA point of
> view. I'm curious whether there's a big difference between Yuropean and
> Merkin afpers, or that we're not so different after all :)
>
> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
Had a few "No opinion"s (I don't think what I'd /like/ would work in the
US as it is, whatever its relevance to the UK system) and I /think/ I
mixed up the "tend to agree/disagree" pairing (more used to the scale
being the other way round, or 0-->10 on the "agreement" scale). However...
Closest to Bill Richardson (and not too far from Hillary) on the
'neutral' side of the Democrat camp. Furthest (naturally) from Fred
Thompson.
The biggest influence in my position (unticking each single issue at a
time and seeing what it does to my/their position) is the "Income",
where I appear to be less left-wing, and closer to the vertical axis,
because of it. But note the caveat of mixing things up, above, and
running through again to get things /right/ would also ruin the effect
of providing /instinctive/ answers that is probably necessary. (Without
the economic factor, I'm not far from the centre of the Democratic
cluster. Which is where I generally feel I'd be, in a two-horse race at
the Kentucky Derby.)
Daniel Orner
> Sanity wrote:
>> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>>
>> As I know many afpers are fond of all sorts of test, and the president
>> of the world is to be elected this year, I thought I'd share this test
>> with you. It's a variant on the dutch political compass, which gives
>> you a position on a 2-axis system and a "span" of your opinion
>> compared to the candidates, in this case the presidential candidates.
>> It turns out I'm nearest Barack Obama, though I'm more social-liberal
>> and more left-wing economically than him. It also gives a nice insight
>> in which themes are important for the USA elections, especially from
>> my non-USA point of view. I'm curious whether there's a big difference
>> between Yuropean and Merkin afpers, or that we're not so different
>> after all :)
>>
>> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>
> Had a few "No opinion"s (I don't think what I'd /like/ would work in the
> US as it is, whatever its relevance to the UK system) and I /think/ I
> mixed up the "tend to agree/disagree" pairing (more used to the scale
> being the other way round, or 0-->10 on the "agreement" scale). However...
>
> Closest to Bill Richardson (and not too far from Hillary) on the
> 'neutral' side of the Democrat camp. Furthest (naturally) from Fred
> Thompson.
Me as well. Although to be brutally honest, I'd never heard of either
of them before. 8p I didn't really know what I was answering for the
income and economy questions, though.
I'd always considered myself somewhat of a social conservative, so I'm
surprised to find I'm more liberal than I thought. Maybe I was just
comparing myself with the people around me.
Probably the fact that I very rarely selected "completely agree" or
"completely disagree" had something to do with it as well. I have an
aversion to selecting the extreme of any multiple-choice question.
Kimberley Verburg
Cosy here, isn't it? So, Sanity, seeing as I'm further into the
left-hand corner than you are, does that mean I should be voting for the
Socialistische Partij at the next elections? *runs*
--
Kimberley Verburg, k...@lspace.org
** Discworld Con: 22-25 Aug 2008 **
** Birmingham, UK www.dwcon.org **
Eric Jarvis
19dbf2...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fi...@club.lemonde.fr says...
>
> I seem to be a social liberal leftist (basically stuck to the top left
> corner)... How strange, I would never have guessed ;-P
>
Or as we call it in Europe, normal. :)
By the way, you may be disturbed to learn that I misread that email
address as club.lemonade which seemed singularly inappropriate.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis
sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk says...
I end up just top left of Obama, which is probebly no surprise to anyone.
However what surprises me is that I'm not all that far away, given that
on the UK equivalent I'm closest to Ken Livingstone.
So as far as I'm concerned that's the moderate position and all the other
candidates are from the far right.
Alec Cawley
> I've always understood that US democrats and republicans weren't
> nearly as far apart as the European left and right[1], or that
> democrats were somewhere around the European political center,
> while republicans tended to the extreme right, but to my surprise,
> I ended up right between John Edwards and Barrack Obama.
I think that the US parties are not nearly as homogenous as European
parties, partly because of the size of the country and partly because of
the state system. There is a constant distance between the parties in
each state, but states vary in theit position. Thus a Texas Democrat may
be, in some things, to the right of a Massachusetts Republican. What you
say - that the Democrats would be at the European centre, or even centre
-left, would be true in New England but very wrong in the Deep South.
Lesley Weston
> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>
> As I know many afpers are fond of all sorts of test, and the president of
> the world is to be elected this year, I thought I'd share this test with
> you. It's a variant on the dutch political compass, which gives you a
> position on a 2-axis system and a "span" of your opinion compared to the
> candidates, in this case the presidential candidates. It turns out I'm
> nearest Barack Obama, though I'm more social-liberal and more left-wing
> economically than him. It also gives a nice insight in which themes are
> important for the USA elections, especially from my non-USA point of
> view. I'm curious whether there's a big difference between Yuropean and
> Merkin afpers, or that we're not so different after all :)
>
> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>
grandfather was Bill Richards, so perhaps that means something.
Lesley.
ppint. at IMT
al...@spamspam.co.uk "Alec Cawley" conjectured:
>Deep South.
>
- it's a mistake to think of them as direct equivalents
of [almost] any western european political system, as
differences in policies are not inherent to *any* polit-
ical analysis pertaining to the party per political pro-
fundity - the differences are as politically ad hoc, as
are the assemblages of personalities in each party.
- the best comparison with western european politics i
can make is with the almost two-party system that pre-
vailed in the republic of ireland from ? [certainly by
the end of world war II] through ?? [the mid eighties,
or maybe a bit beyond] (- and which is/has maybe being/
been re-established now; i'm uncertain): fianna fail &
fianna gael might have *no* differences in any of their
declared policies upon which any election was in theory
being fought: what was of deathly importance was not a
matter of policy, but the system of patronage - because
when the people in power change, the people who get the
contracts for absolutely everything within that level of
government's purview also change: whether nationally or
locally, down to the level of which coach company in a
small town on the west coast receives bookings, and so
can afford the latest luxury-bodied touring coaches -
and which cannot. families, clans and entire counties
may traditionally adhere to one party or the other, but
this isn't fundamentally because of a party committment
to any coherent set of policies.
- it isn't an exact equivalence, of course - far more
positions are determined individually by local voting
in merkia, for example - but to a far greater extent
than is common in western europe, the two main merkin
political parties are patchwork blankets of convenience
combined with historical alliances arrived at to achieve
(or prevent) something no longer relevant to anyone, or
lomg since achieved and nowadays accepted by just about
everyone...
- these alliances sometimes unravel down major "fault
lines" (e.g. the democratic party, over the civil rights
[actual enforcement of blacks' constitutional equality
with whites, especially in "the south"] issue); but in
the absence of such a seismic change, seem to continue
pretty well indefinitely.
- love, ppint. (corrections as to matters of fact - and
differences of opinion - welcomed, so long as courteous)
[the address from which this was posted bounces e-mail;
please change the "f" to a "g" and drop the "v" if you
wish to cc. or e-mail me.]
pp.s. - whether or not the uk is headed the same way, and
why, is left as a possible topic for future discussion; but
please, without descent to the level(s) of the sun, mirror,
mail, express, times, and similar tabloids, and we should
decide to debate such exciting prospects?
--
interstellar master traders 33 north road lancaster LA1-1NS england
lancaster's sf/f/horror role-playing game and book shop
http://www.i-m-t.demon.co.uk/ +44-781-344-1539 & +44-1524-382181
usually 10(ish) - 7pm (later by arrangement) monday - saturday
Large Dave
> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
Didn't work with Firefox, either that or MI5 is at it again.
--
Large Dave
This space accidentally left blank
Large Dave
> Sanity wrote:
>> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>
> Didn't work with Firefox, either that or MI5 is at it again.
>
I answered as if the questions were aimed at a Ukian and I ended closest
to John Edward.
Thomas Zahr
> In article <7deb4492-4250-4e57-b715-
> 19dbf2...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Fi...@club.lemonde.fr says...
>>
>> I seem to be a social liberal leftist (basically stuck to
>> the top left corner)... How strange, I would never have
>> guessed ;-P
>>
>
> Or as we call it in Europe, normal. :)
>
It's getting kinda tight up here.
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<what a waste>
Esmeraldus
> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
I don't want to take the test, but on the political compass quiz that floats
around occasionally, I am in the lower left corner. I'm almost exactly where
they place Ghandi--which I like.
steveski
> Large Dave wrote:
>> Sanity wrote:
>>> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>>> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>>
>> Didn't work with Firefox, either that or MI5 is at it again.
>>
> Bugger, for some reason I had cookies switched off.
>
> I answered as if the questions were aimed at a Ukian and I ended closest
> to John Edward.
Me too, but I've never heard of him - I'll google him (fnarr, fnarr).
--
Steveski
peachy ashie passion
> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>
> As I know many afpers are fond of all sorts of test, and the president of
> the world is to be elected this year, I thought I'd share this test with
> you. It's a variant on the dutch political compass, which gives you a
> position on a 2-axis system and a "span" of your opinion compared to the
> candidates, in this case the presidential candidates. It turns out I'm
> nearest Barack Obama, though I'm more social-liberal and more left-wing
> economically than him. It also gives a nice insight in which themes are
> important for the USA elections, especially from my non-USA point of
> view. I'm curious whether there's a big difference between Yuropean and
> Merkin afpers, or that we're not so different after all :)
>
> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>
huh. I'm just above and to the right of Obama.
Gideon
news:477b7899$0$85785$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:
> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>
> As I know many afpers are fond of all sorts of test, and the
> president of the world is to be elected this year, I thought
> I'd share this test with you.
It called me a commie liberal pinko scumbag.
I replied that it was probably understating things somewhat.
(Funnily enough, it only had me as middling left economically, but
I'm on a level with the top of the graph as far as 'progressive'
goes. This should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone at all.)
Gideon.
Esmeraldus
> Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote in
> news:477b7899$0$85785$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:
>
>> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>>
>> As I know many afpers are fond of all sorts of test, and the
>> president of the world is to be elected this year, I thought
>> I'd share this test with you.
>
> It called me a commie liberal pinko scumbag.
Well, now I want to go take the test. You make it sound perversely
appealing.
I want to be called a commie liberal pinko scumbag, too.
Esmeraldus
> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>
>
> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
Left/right, I am aligned with the left edge of Clinton's picture; up/down, I
am just about at the level of Obama's eyebrows.
I appear to be Mitt Romney's polar opposite.
Esmeraldus
> On 02 Jan 2008, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
> I ended up right next to Mr Obama, dead level on the social axis,
> but a bit further left. I also got a standard deviation elipse that
> encompassed *all* the Democrat candidates.
Ah, that's what that is. All the Dems are either in or on the border of
mine.
Esmeraldus
> mcv wrote:
>
>> I've always understood that US democrats and republicans weren't
>> nearly as far apart as the European left and right[1], or that
>> democrats were somewhere around the European political center,
>> while republicans tended to the extreme right, but to my surprise,
>> I ended up right between John Edwards and Barrack Obama.
>
> I think that the US parties are not nearly as homogenous as European
> parties, partly because of the size of the country and partly
> because of the state system.
What I heard on the news a few days ago was that this time around, the
Republicans are all over the place, and the Dems are a more cohesive party.
Whoever the commentator was, s/he said that it would be imaginable for any
of the Democratic candidates to serve in the cabinet of any of the others,
but the Republicans would...I'm paraphrasing, here...scratch each other's
eyes out.
Esmeraldus
> In article <477b7899$0$85785$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk says...
>>
>> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>>
>
> I end up just top left of Obama, which is probebly no surprise to
> anyone.
Get off my foot.
Esmeraldus
> Sanity wrote:
>> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>>
>
> huh. I'm just above and to the right of Obama.
Where'd you think you'd be?
Sabremeister Brian
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> said:
> On 02 Jan 2008, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>>
>> I've always understood that US democrats and republicans weren't
>> nearly as far apart as the European left and right[1], or that
>> democrats were somewhere around the European political center,
>> while republicans tended to the extreme right, but to my surprise,
>> I ended up right between John Edwards and Barrack Obama.
>
> I ended up right next to Mr Obama, dead level on the social axis,
> but
> a bit further left. I also got a standard deviation elipse that
> encompassed *all* the Democrat candidates.
Same here.
I think they should have included an "utterly ridiculous" option for
some of the statements.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"Two wrongs don't make a right, but they make a good excuse."
- Thomas Szasz
peachy ashie passion
> In a speech called Xns9A198BAD2B12Dda...@130.133.1.4,
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> said:
>
>>On 02 Jan 2008, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>>>
>>>I've always understood that US democrats and republicans weren't
>>>nearly as far apart as the European left and right[1], or that
>>>democrats were somewhere around the European political center,
>>>while republicans tended to the extreme right, but to my surprise,
>>>I ended up right between John Edwards and Barrack Obama.
>>
>>I ended up right next to Mr Obama, dead level on the social axis,
>>but
>>a bit further left. I also got a standard deviation elipse that
>>encompassed *all* the Democrat candidates.
>
>
> Same here.
>
> I think they should have included an "utterly ridiculous" option for
> some of the statements.
>
Which would you have chosen that for, if I may ask?
Aggie Angst
"Sanity" <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote in message
news:477b7899$0$85785$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>
> the world is to be elected this year, I thought I'd share this test with
> position on a 2-axis system and a "span" of your opinion compared to the
> candidates, in this case the presidential candidates. It turns out I'm
> nearest Barack Obama, though I'm more social-liberal and more left-wing
> economically than him. It also gives a nice insight in which themes are
> important for the USA elections, especially from my non-USA point of
> view. I'm curious whether there's a big difference between Yuropean and
> Merkin afpers, or that we're not so different after all :)
>
>
Apparently I am nearest aligned to John Edwards and I must say, my hair
looks fabulous.
:)
Aggie
SteveD
<sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
I'm not liking the questions already. Especially those in the format of "X
and Y should be true". What if you agree with Y but not X? There's no
option for that.
Then there's the "All X should be banned / made illegal". How can I
distinguish between "I'm mostly unhappy with this idea" and "I firmly
believe that there are a few cases where it should apply" ?
Not to mention "The best way to do X is Y". Maybe it's a good way, but not
the best. Maybe it would only work if a bunch of other things were aligned
at the same time. Maybe it Just Depends.
Ooh, here's one. "X should be more tightly controlled." How? Define
'controlled'. Regulated? Restricted? Removed? Turned into a bureaucratic
nightmare of red tape?
How about "The federal goverment should do Y"? Where's the option for
"Only in certain circumstances, rather than making it a burning crusade"?
Or "X helps with Y". Well, perhaps, but nuking Washington helps cut down
on political overspending, too. Ends and means, y'know.
The questions just seem, I dunno, very either/or. Not much room for grey
areas. With us or against us, kind of thing.
Hmm. Apparently in the US political landscape, I'd be considered Lefty
McLefterson. The boundary oval for me includes no-one consistently and
only one person occasionally - Obama, at the extreme lower right.
-SteveD
Arthur Hagen
> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>
> As I know many afpers are fond of all sorts of test, and the
> president of the world is to be elected this year, I thought I'd
> share this test with you. It's a variant on the dutch political
> compass, which gives you a position on a 2-axis system and a "span"
> of your opinion compared to the candidates, in this case the
> presidential candidates. It turns out I'm nearest Barack Obama,
> though I'm more social-liberal and more left-wing economically than
> him. It also gives a nice insight in which themes are important for
> the USA elections, especially from my non-USA point of view. I'm
> curious whether there's a big difference between Yuropean and Merkin
> afpers, or that we're not so different after all :)
>
After answering some 30 questions or so, "next" rolled me back to question
#1.
When I clicked the "Your Position" button, it told me I had to answer all
the questions. Sorry, no, I'm not going over all of the questions a second
time just to have the same thing happen. This thing is b0rken.
Regards,
--
*Art
David Chapman
> Fi...@club.lemonde.fr wrote:
>> I seem to be a social liberal leftist (basically stuck to the top left
>> corner)... How strange, I would never have guessed ;-P
>
> Cosy here, isn't it?
No wonder everyone here thinks I'm a far-right fascist. I'm only slightly
left of centre, with the Democrats.
Large Dave
You are a commie liberal pinko scumbag :-)
Good looking too!
paul...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>
> As I know many afpers are fond of all sorts of test, and the president of
> the world is to be elected this year, I thought I'd share this test with
> position on a 2-axis system and a "span" of your opinion compared to the
> candidates, in this case the presidential candidates. It turns out I'm
> nearest Barack Obama, though I'm more social-liberal and more left-wing
> economically than him. It also gives a nice insight in which themes are
> important for the USA elections, especially from my non-USA point of
> view. I'm curious whether there's a big difference between Yuropean and
> Merkin afpers, or that we're not so different after all :)
>
> Try it out:http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>
just fine by me. Keep in mind, I was born and raised in Kansas, which
has somehow drifted to Conservatism. There was a big fuss a few years
ago in which the State Constitution passed an amendment banning gay
marriage. Never mind that there were laws already on the books doing
just that anyway; it's the thought that counts. (There was the whole
ridiculous "Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman" bumper-sticker thing. It was
tempting to make up stickers with "Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman with a
black eye" or "Marriage for Rudy Giuliani = 1 Man + 1 Woman + 1
Mistress", but that invites the Faithful to vandalise autos.)
Paul, wearing his politics on his sleeve again
peachy ashie passion
I suppose I thought.. lower.
Esmeraldus
Along the vertical axis? (Obviously.)
I've always considered you very socially progressive.
Dave Adalian
news:477b7899$0$85785$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
Ditto!
<snip>
> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
I ended up above and to the right of and closest to Obama, but what made me
happy was being farthest from Fred Thompson!
I think I should have been further right economically because a couple of
the answers I gave probably skewed my results. I said I don't think taxes
should be raised to pay off the deficit, but only because I think we should
take the money for that away from defense spending. I also said companies
shouldn't have to provide mandatory insurance for their employees, but only
because I think we should have universal health coverage in the States.
-- Dave
Read my latest astronomy column!
http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
Graycat
>Hi all, & all the best for the new year,
>
>As I know many afpers are fond of all sorts of test, and the president of
>the world is to be elected this year, I thought I'd share this test with
>you. It's a variant on the dutch political compass, which gives you a
>position on a 2-axis system and a "span" of your opinion compared to the
>candidates, in this case the presidential candidates. It turns out I'm
>nearest Barack Obama, though I'm more social-liberal and more left-wing
>economically than him. It also gives a nice insight in which themes are
>important for the USA elections, especially from my non-USA point of
>view. I'm curious whether there's a big difference between Yuropean and
>Merkin afpers, or that we're not so different after all :)
>
>Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
There seems to be a lot of Obama supporters here :o)
I'm basically just below his right lapel. And I vote for the right
here in Sweden...
--
Elin
The world makes perfect sense, as a black comedy
Arthur Hagen
>
> I ended up above and to the right of and closest to Obama, but what
> made me happy was being farthest from Fred Thompson!
In my case, the farther I can get away from Ron Paul, the happier I am.
Populism combined with nationalism is /dangerous/, not the least because it
can ignite the masses and become a power nearly over night.
> I think I should have been further right economically because a
> couple of the answers I gave probably skewed my results. I said I
> don't think taxes should be raised to pay off the deficit, but only
> because I think we should take the money for that away from defense
> spending. I also said companies shouldn't have to provide mandatory
> insurance for their employees, but only because I think we should
> have universal health coverage in the States.
In addition to those, I was also against legalising same-sex marriages,
because I am against government sanctioned marriage because I believe it's
wrong for /anyone/ to obtain special privileges by virtue of their living
arrangements; and I was also against obtaining a license before buying a
gun, because I believe non-hunting firearms shouldn't be allowed to be owned
by private people even with a license.
Regards,
--
*Art
John Duncan Yoyo
Democrats and cohesive are not terms that play well together.
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Save the Cheerleader-
Collect the whole set.
Alec Cawley
> In addition to those, I was also against legalising same-sex marriages,
> because I am against government sanctioned marriage because I believe
> it's wrong for /anyone/ to obtain special privileges by virtue of their
> living arrangements;
To me, the most important facet of marriage, of any sort, is that the
spouse becomes next-of-kin. I entirely agree that people's domestic
arrangements should not affect (for example) thir tax affairs: but that,
as far as I am concerned, is not what marriage is about. But othewise
someone's next-of-kin, the default legatee and the power if they are
unconscious, remains their parents or siblings - and I think that is not
right. So that, IMO, is the function of marriage, and the reason ot
shoud be retained - for all couples.
Sanity
> Fi...@club.lemonde.fr wrote:
>> On 2 jan, 12:42, Sanity <sanityDELETET...@affordable-prawns.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Try it out:http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>>
>> I seem to be a social liberal leftist (basically stuck to the top left
>> corner)... How strange, I would never have guessed ;-P
>
> Cosy here, isn't it?
*snuggles up to the other afpers*
> So, Sanity, seeing as I'm further into the
> left-hand corner than you are, does that mean I should be voting for the
> Socialistische Partij at the next elections? *runs*
*tackles*
The SP are conservative, and surprisingly according to the dutch
electoral compass not alltogether that far from the PvdA (Labour, for you
nondutchies). Groenlinks was both most left-wing as most progressive. So
vote me. Always :)
--
TTFN, | AFPChess, L-Files & Discworld Wiki:
| http://www.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
Michel AKA Sanity | Now available on Jabber: michel @ jabber.xs4all.nl
Sanity
> Sanity wrote:
>
>> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>
> I don't want to take the test, but on the political compass quiz that
> floats around occasionally, I am in the lower left corner. I'm almost
> exactly where they place Ghandi--which I like.
Unfortunately, there's no Ghandi to sit on, so looking at that you'll
have to do with Obama or all the afpers huddled in that corner :)
Sanity
> On 02 Jan 2008 11:42:17 GMT, Sanity
> <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>
> I'm not liking the questions already. Especially those in the format of
> "X and Y should be true". What if you agree with Y but not X? There's no
> option for that.
I don't think I encountered that problem. Do you have an example?
> Then there's the "All X should be banned / made illegal". How can I
> distinguish between "I'm mostly unhappy with this idea" and "I firmly
> believe that there are a few cases where it should apply" ?
"Agree" or "neutral", I'd say, depending on how few/many cases.
> Not to mention "The best way to do X is Y". Maybe it's a good way, but
> not the best. Maybe it would only work if a bunch of other things were
> aligned at the same time. Maybe it Just Depends.
That doesn't matter, because the candidates believe in that being the
best way. If you don't agree because there's a better way, you disagree
with the candidate.
[etc]
> The questions just seem, I dunno, very either/or. Not much room for grey
> areas. With us or against us, kind of thing.
That's logical, because it has to be simple. It's not an all-encompassing
test, it just shows where you are compared to the presidential
candidates. It would be very difficult to place you with room for grey
areas, because those areas don't fit with a candidate. Besides, there is
room to tend to agree or disagree or entirely agree or disagree.
peachy ashie passion
I don't know, exactly. I guess I didn't have an idea exactly where
I'd be, but was mildly surprised to see where it was.
Richard Bos
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:47:44 -0500, "Esmeraldus"
>
> >What I heard on the news a few days ago was that this time around, the
> >Republicans are all over the place, and the Dems are a more cohesive party.
> >Whoever the commentator was, s/he said that it would be imaginable for any
> >of the Democratic candidates to serve in the cabinet of any of the others,
> >but the Republicans would...I'm paraphrasing, here...scratch each other's
> >eyes out.
> >
> Democrats and cohesive are not terms that play well together.
Same as Republicans and coherent, then...
Richard
Julia Jones
<jedit...@hotmail.com> writes
that I'm a Godless commie. Which of course I am by their standards,
being a liberal Anglican[1] and One Nation Tory.
[1] Note to right-wing merkins -- the word "liberal" in that phrase does
not mean what you think it means. In fact, it means something even
worse.
--
Julia Jones
"There are people in the world who believe that Elvis did not die
but was abducted by aliens. Most of these people have the vote
and many own guns." Terry Pratchett
David Sewell
How about "Creationism should be taught in science classes in school"?
--
David Sewell "They that are awake have one world in common,
White Hall, Virginia but of the sleeping each turns aside into
USA a world of his own." --Heraclitus
Richard Bos
> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
Predictably, somewhat left of Obama, although for some reason I'm judged
1% more traditional - don't ask me why. And like most AFPers, closest to
him as well. I'm not sure I like him all that much - he's just a little
too slick for my tastes - but if I had to vote in the USA, I'd go for
the lesser evil, and with a big sigh choose Obama. I don't trust him,
but at least I don't actually _dis_trust him either, like, say, Hilary.
Richard
FiX
wrote:
>In article <477b7899$0$85785$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk says...
>>
>> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>>
>
>I end up just top left of Obama, which is probebly no surprise to anyone.
>However what surprises me is that I'm not all that far away, given that
>on the UK equivalent I'm closest to Ken Livingstone.
>
>So as far as I'm concerned that's the moderate position and all the other
>candidates are from the far right.
I always knew you were on the far right of the normal political
spectrum ;-P
FiX
--
"[afp believes its] sensibilities are so refined that we
appreciate things that leave Joe and Josephine Q.
Public drooling with duh."
-April Goodwin-Smith
peachy ashie passion
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:40:08 +0000, peachy ashie passion wrote:
>
>
>>Sabremeister Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In a speech called Xns9A198BAD2B12Dda...@130.133.1.4,
>>>Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 02 Jan 2008, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>>>>>
>>>>>I've always understood that US democrats and republicans weren't
>>>>>nearly as far apart as the European left and right[1], or that
>>>>>democrats were somewhere around the European political center, while
>>>>>republicans tended to the extreme right, but to my surprise, I ended
>>>>>up right between John Edwards and Barrack Obama.
>>>>
>>>>I ended up right next to Mr Obama, dead level on the social axis, but
>>>>a bit further left. I also got a standard deviation elipse that
>>>>encompassed *all* the Democrat candidates.
>>>
>>>
>>>Same here.
>>>
>>>I think they should have included an "utterly ridiculous" option for
>>>some of the statements.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which would you have chosen that for, if I may ask?
>
>
> How about "Creationism should be taught in science classes in school"?
>
ah, yes. That one was so stupid I'd forgotten it.
John Wilkins
Over in talk.origins, it's still in play.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Lesley Weston
I've just read (somewhat belatedly) the stands of the different
candidates on funding pure science. Hilary Clinton is the only one who
says she'll give specific (large) amounts of money to specific
categories of research, so if I were an American Democrat entitled to
choose a candidate, she would get my vote. All the others Democrats say
that they are vaguely in favour of research, without mentioning
specifics other than stem-cell research, while the Republicans don't
mention research at all except for being agin SCR.
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Arthur Hagen
>
> I've just read (somewhat belatedly) the stands of the different
> candidates on funding pure science. Hilary Clinton is the only one who
> says she'll give specific (large) amounts of money to specific
> categories of research, so if I were an American Democrat entitled to
> choose a candidate, she would get my vote. All the others Democrats
> say that they are vaguely in favour of research, without mentioning
> specifics other than stem-cell research, while the Republicans don't
> mention research at all except for being agin SCR.
I'm quite sure that Ron "Dr. No" Paul has promised that he'll slash all
spending budgets, which would include funding science. Got to finance the
populist tax cuts somehow.
Unfortunately, all the candidates are far too right-wing and protectionist
for me. From my point of view, Obama and Huckabee are two peas in a pod.
It reminds me of the MP spam sketch, where no matter what you order, you
can't avoid spam. Or, in this case, quazi-religious conservativism.
Regards,
--
*Art
peachy ashie passion
Isn't it always in play there?
Aggie Angst
"Lesley Weston" <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BO8gj.18499$uV6.17365@pd7urf1no...
> Richard Bos wrote:
>> Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>>
>> Predictably, somewhat left of Obama, although for some reason I'm judged
>> 1% more traditional - don't ask me why. And like most AFPers, closest to
>> him as well. I'm not sure I like him all that much - he's just a little
>> too slick for my tastes - but if I had to vote in the USA, I'd go for
>> the lesser evil, and with a big sigh choose Obama. I don't trust him,
>> but at least I don't actually _dis_trust him either, like, say, Hilary.
>
> I've just read (somewhat belatedly) the stands of the different candidates
> on funding pure science. Hilary Clinton is the only one who says she'll
> give specific (large) amounts of money to specific categories of research,
> so if I were an American Democrat entitled to choose a candidate, she
> would get my vote. All the others Democrats say that they are vaguely in
> favour of research, without mentioning specifics other than stem-cell
> research, while the Republicans don't mention research at all except for
> being agin SCR.
>
I have an innate mistrust of all political beings, and I take campaign
promises with a large grain of salt, but it's my opinion that she would make
a good president.
Aggie
Aggie Angst
"Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:flr8ma$j76$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
that being liberal became synonymous with communism and all things
anti-American. Liberal became a dirty word, so much so that Liberals have
started calling themselves Progressives to avoid the negativity of the
label. Thus, there are no true liberals in U.S. public office as far as I
know.
As someone without an invisible sky friend, I am thoroughly sick of a
candidate's religious faith being part of their platforms.
Aggie
John Wilkins
That's the thing, isn't it? Pretty well all the three Democrat
candidates would make a good president. But I think that neither Hillary
nor Barack would make a *great* president. John Edwards might, but he
won't be elected as he lacks the presence and eloquence of Obama.
Obama seems to me that he will be very like JFK if elected: strong on
style, but about as likely to achieve much of substance. Remember, JFK
started American (and by implication, Australian) involvement in
Vietnam, and approved the Bay of Pigs. Hillary would be the trim the
sails kind of conservative Democrat Bill was (and he is still the best
American President of the past 50 years IMO). Edwards is running on a
totally different policy platform to either of them, but he can't sell
it.
Dave Adalian
-- Dave
Read my latest astronomy column!
http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
"Aggie Angst" <aggie...@myinvalidway.com> wrote in message
news:fls12h$1364$1...@mud.stack.nl...
There are a few. Dennis Kucinich and Barney Frank come immediately to mind.
Dave Adalian
Chris Zakes
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>Richard Bos wrote:
>> Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Try it out: http://www.kieskompas-usa.nl/language/en/
>>
>> Predictably, somewhat left of Obama, although for some reason I'm judged
>> 1% more traditional - don't ask me why. And like most AFPers, closest to
>> him as well. I'm not sure I like him all that much - he's just a little
>> too slick for my tastes - but if I had to vote in the USA, I'd go for
>> the lesser evil, and with a big sigh choose Obama. I don't trust him,
>> but at least I don't actually _dis_trust him either, like, say, Hilary.
>
>I've just read (somewhat belatedly) the stands of the different
>candidates on funding pure science. Hilary Clinton is the only one who
>says she'll give specific (large) amounts of money to specific
>categories of research, so if I were an American Democrat entitled to
>choose a candidate, she would get my vote. All the others Democrats say
>that they are vaguely in favour of research, without mentioning
>specifics other than stem-cell research, while the Republicans don't
>mention research at all except for being agin SCR.
Don't forget that most campaign promises aren't worth the paper
they're printed on. The Clinton crew were going to reinvent government
and have "the most ethical administration in history." And there's
Bush Sr.'s "no new taxes" speech...
-Chris Zakes
Texas
We do not stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we
stop playing.
-Origin unknown
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I've just read (somewhat belatedly) the stands of the different
>> candidates on funding pure science. Hilary Clinton is the only one who
>> says she'll give specific (large) amounts of money to specific
>> categories of research, so if I were an American Democrat entitled to
>> choose a candidate, she would get my vote. All the others Democrats
>> say that they are vaguely in favour of research, without mentioning
>> specifics other than stem-cell research, while the Republicans don't
>> mention research at all except for being agin SCR.
>
> I'm quite sure that Ron "Dr. No" Paul has promised that he'll slash all
> spending budgets, which would include funding science. Got to finance
> the populist tax cuts somehow.
I don't remember seeing him in the list. Perhaps whichever
scientific-snippets service I was reading doesn't see him as a serious
contender.
>
> Unfortunately, all the candidates are far too right-wing and
> protectionist for me. From my point of view, Obama and Huckabee are two
> peas in a pod. It reminds me of the MP spam sketch, where no matter what
> you order, you can't avoid spam. Or, in this case, quazi-religious
> conservativism.
They have to present that kind of image to get elected. The trick is to
ignore all that stuff and look at rest of what they say to see if you
agree with it.
John Duncan Yoyo
<exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's about fifty-fifty in the US whether you believe that and some
fraction thinks it fits better in social studies. There was a big
article that hit the fan today by a group of science teachers trying
to get Creation Science out of biology classes.
Too many damned literalists over here. Unfortunately the Bible
doesn't really mention metaphor much.
>>> ah, yes. That one was so stupid I'd forgotten it.
>>
>>
>> Over in talk.origins, it's still in play.
>
> Isn't it always in play there?
Yeah and Ed C*nr@d sneaks into any newsgroup where he thinks he can
find someone who might listen. I thought he was in AFP last year at
least once.
Lesley Weston
<snip>
> Obama seems to me that he will be very like JFK if elected: strong on
> style, but about as likely to achieve much of substance. Remember, JFK
> started American (and by implication, Australian) involvement in
> Vietnam, and approved the Bay of Pigs.
And the space programme. The Arts and Sciences flourished under his
administration too.
Hillary would be the trim the
> sails kind of conservative Democrat Bill was (and he is still the best
> American President of the past 50 years IMO). Edwards is running on a
> totally different policy platform to either of them, but he can't sell
> it.
He did in Iowa, apparently.
John Duncan Yoyo
wrote:
No republicans stick to everything. Bad policies and stupid war plans
especially. Can't go changing their minds in face of evidence as that
would make them flip floppers.
Lesley Weston
<snip>
> Don't forget that most campaign promises aren't worth the paper
> they're printed on. The Clinton crew were going to reinvent government
> and have "the most ethical administration in history."
How was his administration unethical? Even if you believe that the
nation does have business in the government's bedrooms, that still
doesn't affect how he ran the country.
And there's
> Bush Sr.'s "no new taxes" speech...
There, I agree with you.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
>
> We do not stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we
> stop playing.
>
> -Origin unknown
There too. One of your better sigs.
Chris Zakes
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>Chris Zakes wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Don't forget that most campaign promises aren't worth the paper
>> they're printed on. The Clinton crew were going to reinvent government
>> and have "the most ethical administration in history."
>
>How was his administration unethical? Even if you believe that the
>nation does have business in the government's bedrooms, that still
>doesn't affect how he ran the country.
Shady campaign financing, selling our missile technology to the
Chinese, missing FBI files that "just happened" to be found in the
residential section of the White House, the Whitewater scandal, the
Travel Office scandal, etc...
And then there's this list...
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/ethical.html
Personally, I don't care *what* the president does in his bedroom with
willing adults. But it begins to bother me when he's doing it in the
Oval Office, or with *unwilling* adults e.g. Kathleen Willey.
Larry Moore
>> We do not stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we
>> stop playing.
>>
>> -Origin unknown
>
> There too. One of your better sigs.
>
Leslie, what is the protocol regarding sigs. Do I covet, say
'boobeegee' and snaffle or should I ask?
--
Cet animal est tres mechant; quand on l'attaque, il se defend"
Sign on Paris Zoo Rhino cage
SteveD
<aggie...@myinvalidway.com> wrote:
>As someone without an invisible sky friend,
I sense a Dibbler marketing opportunity.
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Obama seems to me that he will be very like JFK if elected: strong on
> > style, but about as likely to achieve much of substance. Remember, JFK
> > started American (and by implication, Australian) involvement in
> > Vietnam, and approved the Bay of Pigs.
>
> And the space programme. The Arts and Sciences flourished under his
> administration too.
Sure, wouldn't want to denigrate that.
>
> Hillary would be the trim the
> > sails kind of conservative Democrat Bill was (and he is still the best
> > American President of the past 50 years IMO). Edwards is running on a
> > totally different policy platform to either of them, but he can't sell
> > it.
>
> He did in Iowa, apparently.
No he didn't. He got 30% of the Democrat caucus. He needs to sell it to
more than 50%, much more.
Aggie Angst
"Dave Adalian" <dave.a...@PLZNOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:pmhgj.36738$Pv2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
presidential run which is unfortunate. Is he a true, dyed in the wool
liberal? I'm not sure. I like him though (when he's not singing and seeing
space ships). He was certainly the most liberal of our choices. I had to
google Barney Frank. We don't hear too much about him down this way. ;)
Aggie
Aggie Angst
"Dave Adalian" <dave.a...@PLZNOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> Oops. The bottom one was the final draft.
>
> -- Dave
And there is no edit button on usenet...
:)
Aggie
Aggie Angst
"SteveD" <use...@vo.id.au> wrote in message
news:nl75o396bm59m0ik5...@4ax.com...
He does and he'll have to get his hair styled.[1]
[1] See Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggert, Ernest Angely, Pat Robertson. [2]
[2] *shudder*
Aggie
Aggie Angst
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1iaclm0.1djz8cc4hwy1lN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
Republican party has allowed large multi-national corporations to swallow
our economy. We are rapidly losing our middle class and that's just wrong.
I wish he had a chance at the presidency, for one thing I can see unhappy
Republicans supporting him where they might be unlikely to support Clinton
or Obama and the Democrats are going to need those kinds of numbers so we
aren't facing President (JeebusChrist!) Huckabee or McCain. :p I think the
common person would stand a much better chance with an Edwards presidency
than some of the others, and I like him as well as I am able to like any
politico.
Bill Clinton pulled this country out of a financial morass after the
stinking, horrible, fascist Reagan administration left office and I don't
think four or eight more years of that kind of leadership would be a bad
thing considering how deep and dark our economy is these days. That is why
I could see my way clear to vote for Hillary as well. I think she could
undo some of the Bush legacy. In fact in one of her speeches she said would
immediately remove some of Bush's vetoes as a first order of business. That
was about my favorite thing I heard her say, also that she would trash No
Child Left Behind which needs to be done ASAP.
The only thing I have against Barack Obama is that he is a Junior Senator
and doesn't have that much experience. I don't think it's his time yet.
Lots of money and celebrity has flowed his way and turned his head, but I
think it would have been best for him to spend a few more years in the
Senate and learn the job a bit better, and gained some wisdom. I don't
think he will be in the best position to bring our country out of our
current moral and financial despair. I have no faith in his ability to do
the incredibly HUGE job that will be set before our next president.
As far as any Republican candidates go, I haven't been alive during one
successful Repub presidency so I can't cast my vote in that direction. Not
to mention, they are all so eaten up with their religious faith that it
makes me ill.
Aggie Angstier than Ever
Aggie Angst
"Chris Zakes" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mub4o39v2019uoemv...@4ax.com...
Not to disagree with you overmuch, but the Clinton's couldn't get spit done
because of the steenking Republican congress in power at the time.
Aggie *getting emotional and over-generalizing*
;)
Aggie Angst
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:45:44 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>>Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Don't forget that most campaign promises aren't worth the paper
>>> they're printed on. The Clinton crew were going to reinvent government
>>> and have "the most ethical administration in history."
>>
>>How was his administration unethical? Even if you believe that the
>>nation does have business in the government's bedrooms, that still
>>doesn't affect how he ran the country.
>
> Shady campaign financing, selling our missile technology to the
> Chinese, missing FBI files that "just happened" to be found in the
> residential section of the White House, the Whitewater scandal, the
> Travel Office scandal, etc...
>
> And then there's this list...
> http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/ethical.html
>
> Personally, I don't care *what* the president does in his bedroom with
> willing adults. But it begins to bother me when he's doing it in the
> Oval Office, or with *unwilling* adults e.g. Kathleen Willey.
Were not all the Whitewater charges dismissed?
John Wilkins
> As far as any Republican candidates go, I haven't been alive during one
> successful Repub presidency so I can't cast my vote in that direction. Not
> to mention, they are all so eaten up with their religious faith that it
> makes me ill.
The last successful Republican presidency was, ironically Nixon's.
Peter Ellis
>
> The only thing I have against Barack Obama is that he is a Junior Senator
> and doesn't have that much experience. I don't think it's his time yet.
> Lots of money and celebrity has flowed his way and turned his head, but I
> think it would have been best for him to spend a few more years in the
> Senate and learn the job a bit better, and gained some wisdom.
Point of fact: he's been an elected official longer than Hillary has.
Sure, you can argue that being married to the President constitutes
experience of government - in which case where's your vote for Laura Bush,
Nancy Reagan or Betty Ford?
Peter
Jeff Howell
Just to the left of Obama's head. Not even remotely surprising.
--
Jeff
Sabremeister Brian
After reading that, I've decided that, should the next PotUS be a
Republican, I will turn from Euro-sceptic to pro-Euro. Because, like
it or not, Britain cannot survive economically without a larger close
trading partner, and if there's a third Republican term in the USA,
anyone sensible will both want and need to get as far away from the
country as possible.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
The problem with being in the rat-race is:
Even if you win, you're still a rat.
Eric Jarvis
pj...@cam.ac.uk says...
Also note that Cheney came to the office of VP with far more experience
than most. Yet he seems to have lost wisdom as he's gained experience
(though I suspect it's more a matter of having lost scruples).
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis
says...
Beside the point. They were proven to be a smear campaign started by a
Republican activist, and thus to many on the right are therefore true
whilst the Whitewater charges have been dimissed by politicians, judges,
civil servants, and lawywers, which of course means the dismissal of the
charges must be false. For some reason it seems easier for these people
to believe in a conspiracy of large numbers of people with differing
vested interest than to believe that an activist with an axe to grind
might be telling the truth when eventually confessing to making false
accusations.
As for Kathleen Willey, the best that can be said in her favour is that
she may believe what she says at the time she says it, even when she
contradicts herself at other times. A favourable judgement would be to
see her as somebody with an extremely unreliable memory.
It doesn't alter the fact that Clinton was/is a philanderer. However to
suggest that her accusations show Clinton to have harrassed an unwilling
victim is somewhat dubious.
Unfortunately with the current extremely partisan nature of US politics
there's no shortage of people willing to endlessly repeat any false
accusation about politicians on either side, no matter how often those
allegations are debunked.
--
eric
Eric Jarvis
says...
>
> After reading that, I've decided that, should the next PotUS be a
> Republican, I will turn from Euro-sceptic to pro-Euro. Because, like
> it or not, Britain cannot survive economically without a larger close
> trading partner, and if there's a third Republican term in the USA,
> anyone sensible will both want and need to get as far away from the
> country as possible.
>
Welcome brother. Just remember this. Reagan. Bush. Bush. Then think of
some of the unsuccesful candidates. Pat Buchanan? Barry Goldwater? Look
at some of the current options. Then embrace our European brothers and
sisters. In that context even Sarkozy looks like a model of sensible
moderation.
We are part of Europe. We may share a language with the USA, but when it
comes to politics they are completely alien to us. Europe may not make
sense all the time, but it tends to be nonsensical without the foaming at
the mouth and the funny sidewise glances.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
Nigel Stapley
> In article <5uhbgcF...@mid.individual.net>, bpwak...@hotmail.com
> says...
>> After reading that, I've decided that, should the next PotUS be a
>> Republican, I will turn from Euro-sceptic to pro-Euro. Because, like
>> it or not, Britain cannot survive economically without a larger close
>> trading partner, and if there's a third Republican term in the USA,
>> anyone sensible will both want and need to get as far away from the
>> country as possible.
>>
>
> Welcome brother. Just remember this. Reagan. Bush. Bush. Then think of
> some of the unsuccesful candidates. Pat Buchanan? Barry Goldwater?
It is a measure of how things have gone that, compared to Reagan and the
Bushes, Goldwater appeared to be a model of moderation by comparison.
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
Lesley Weston
<snip>
>> Hillary would be the trim the
>>> sails kind of conservative Democrat Bill was (and he is still the best
>>> American President of the past 50 years IMO). Edwards is running on a
>>> totally different policy platform to either of them, but he can't sell
>>> it.
>> He did in Iowa, apparently.
>
> No he didn't. He got 30% of the Democrat caucus. He needs to sell it to
> more than 50%, much more.
But he did better than Hillary.
Lesley Weston
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:45:44 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>> Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Don't forget that most campaign promises aren't worth the paper
>>> they're printed on. The Clinton crew were going to reinvent government
>>> and have "the most ethical administration in history."
>> How was his administration unethical? Even if you believe that the
>> nation does have business in the government's bedrooms, that still
>> doesn't affect how he ran the country.
>
> Shady campaign financing,
No-one ever denied that he's a politician.
selling our missile technology to the
> Chinese,
Since when was America at war with China?
missing FBI files that "just happened" to be found in the
> residential section of the White House,
See above.
the Whitewater scandal,
That was dismissed as nonsense in the end.
the
> Travel Office scandal, etc...
I don't know about that one.
>
> And then there's this list...
> http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/ethical.html
That URL just gives me stuff about Adsense. It's possible that I haven't
quite mastered Thunderbird and Firefox yet.
>
> Personally, I don't care *what* the president does in his bedroom with
> willing adults. But it begins to bother me when he's doing it in the
> Oval Office,
Why?
or with *unwilling* adults e.g. Kathleen Willey.
She never had much credibility, IMO.
Lesley Weston
> On 2008-01-07, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> We do not stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we
>>> stop playing.
>>>
>>> -Origin unknown
>> There too. One of your better sigs.
>>
>
> Leslie, what is the protocol regarding sigs. Do I covet, say
> 'boobeegee' and snaffle or should I ask?
>
>
Larry Moore
> Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2008-01-07, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> We do not stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we
>>>> stop playing.
>>>>
>>>> -Origin unknown
>>> There too. One of your better sigs.
>>>
>>
>> Leslie, what is the protocol regarding sigs. Do I covet, say
>> 'boobeegee' and snaffle or should I ask?
>>
>>
> People seem to ask, usually. I've never seen a refusal.
>
Thanks! I assume then google search for attribution, if
possible; else anon or poster/NG.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
The Stainless Steel Cat
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Obama seems to me that he will be very like JFK if elected: strong on
>> > style, but about as likely to achieve much of substance. Remember, JFK
>> > started American (and by implication, Australian) involvement in
>> > Vietnam, and approved the Bay of Pigs.
>>
>> And the space programme.
Though he stomped hard on the Orion programme, which would have given NASA
superheavy lift capability (100s or 1000s of tons per flight compared to
the maximum 20 or so tons of the space shuttle), in favour of the political
stunt that was Apollo.
Of course if he hadn't, we'd now be blaming global warming on four decades
of nuclear take-offs. (But then we'd probably be colonising Mars by now, so
swings and roundabouts.)
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them." - Isaac Asimov
Larry Moore
> Though he stomped hard on the Orion programme, which would have given NASA
> superheavy lift capability (100s or 1000s of tons per flight compared to
> the maximum 20 or so tons of the space shuttle), in favour of the political
> stunt that was Apollo.
>
> Of course if he hadn't, we'd now be blaming global warming on four decades
> of nuclear take-offs. (But then we'd probably be colonising Mars by now, so
> swings and roundabouts.)
>
> Cat.
What's the odds on Clark's Elevator being technically possible?
Orion always sounded like a good lunar based technology - less
atmospheric disturbance.
--
Writing, to me, is simply thinking through my fingers.
Isaac Asimov
steveski
> On 2008-01-08, The Stainless Steel Cat <stee...@atuin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Though he stomped hard on the Orion programme, which would have given
>> NASA superheavy lift capability (100s or 1000s of tons per flight
>> compared to the maximum 20 or so tons of the space shuttle), in favour of
>> the political stunt that was Apollo.
>>
>> Of course if he hadn't, we'd now be blaming global warming on four
>> decades of nuclear take-offs. (But then we'd probably be colonising Mars
>> by now, so swings and roundabouts.)
>>
>> Cat.
>
> What's the odds on Clark's Elevator being technically possible?
Other than making a suitable cable, it is. And a working cable isn't that
far away, I believe.
--
Steveski
Arthur Hagen
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 08:10 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > He did in Iowa, apparently.
>
> No he didn't. He got 30% of the Democrat caucus. He needs to sell it
> to more than 50%, much more.
No, he doesn't. He only need to gain more electoral votes than anyone
else. That doesn't require a majority.
Regards,
--
*Art
John Wilkins
Dave Adalian
> Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 08:10 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
>> > Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> [Edwards]
>> > >
>> > > He did in Iowa, apparently.
>> >
>> > No he didn't. He got 30% of the Democrat caucus. He needs to sell it
>> > to more than 50%, much more.
>>
>> No, he doesn't. He only need to gain more electoral votes than anyone
>> else. That doesn't require a majority.
>>
> To get the nomination, yes. To win the Presidency, no.
Unfortunately, he's right. A candidate can win the presidency without a
plurality in the popular vote provided they gain enough votes in the
electoral college. The founding fathers ultimately didn't trust the
unwashed masses to choose their own leader directly.
Larry Moore
> Larry Moore wrote:
>
>> What's the odds on Clark's Elevator being technically possible?
>
> Other than making a suitable cable, it is. And a working cable isn't that
> far away, I believe.
>
> --
> Steveski
Oh the opportunities for the equitorial contries hosting
bases - entrepot from space-based manufacturing and the financing
for new infrastructure for a start.
--
Philosophy is not a theory but an activity.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
SteveD
The last I heard, someone had managed to produce non-microscopic lengths
of a substance that had a strength within an order of magnitude of what
would be needed.
I haven't been following it for a while, though.
-SteveD
Free Lunch
SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote in
<k898o3d7sce1quqpu...@4ax.com>:
Carbon tubes?
steveski
Yes, research into this sort of thing is based around nanotubes. Clarke
envisaged a mono-filament but nanotubes (perhaps as a mixed matrix with
other Fullerenes or homologous molecules) would be the thing with todays
technology - and possibly less 'slicingly' dangerous :-)
--
Steveski
Aggie Angst
"Peter Ellis" <pj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.08...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk...
Well no because none of them have a Yale law degree and carry the history of
advocacy that Hillary Clinton has especially in the field of women's rights
and Children's Defense Fund. Nancy Reagan was an actress and Laura Bush was
a librarian who accidentally killed a boyfriend in a car accident where
alcohol was involved. To me comparing Clinton to her predecessors is apples
to oranges, but that's me. I don't know much about Betty Ford and I'm not
in the mood to google it. :) (We're having a storm here and I may have to
be brief, dunno yet.) I think of Hillary as the a First Lady who was more
than just a presidential decoration.
I suppose in reflection I might have said life experience rather than just
experience, but then it would sound like I'm whinging. :) Unless I'm
mistaken, Obama's been in office about eight years to Hillary's seven. But
I do count her eight years as first lady. She wasn't like Laura 'round
heels' Bush. She was a vital part of her husband's administration, he's
said that himself. She was very much a presidential advisor and I am sure
she advised him as well as when Bill Clinton was governor. I compare her
more to Eleanor Roosevelt than I do more recent first ladies and for the
record had I been around and given the opportunity, I'd have voted for
Eleanor Roosevelt for president too.
:)
She's ahead in New Hampshire at the moment if anyone is interested.
Aggie
Aggie Angst
"Eric Jarvis" <a...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.21ed90d92...@news.aqxs.net...
Very well said. :)
If you go to
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
it says, "During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S.
enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history.
"
I think that backs the notion that Clinton is easily the best U.S. president
in the past 50 years if not more.
Aggie
Aggie Angst
Aggie