Busted

[kochman]

do you think these people actually took the tests?

He does...

i took the test assuming obama's positions and i got this:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59

When I take it, I get on the center left (many here think I'm some far right whack job though)... so, yeah, Obama is more left than I am... but, not according to that dumb graph.
Why did they do that?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

i took the test assuming obama's positions

Well, there's your problem.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59

Proving assumption is indeed the mother of many, many ef-ups.

What you got score wise there is around my position. And I can assure you, without assumption that Mr. O'Bama is quite a lot more to the right and authoritarian than I am.

When I take it, I get on the center left

That explains our many agreements.

 

[bombshoo]

I'm pretty sure they place those people on the graph based on how they have actually governed or voted. Ideologically, they might believe different things, but because of things like compromises, special interests and voting against bills they would otherwise support because of earmarks or something, it skews them to all be more in the conservative-authoritarian sector.

It sort of makes sense. What are some things almost all of our politicians have in common? They are held hostage by corporate lobbyists (making them vote more to the right on economic issues) and they want to seem tough on crime and also increase their own power (making them authoritarian).

 

[Formaldehyde]

Indeed it does make sense. First and foremost, politicians want to get elected so they need a strong base of constituents. Even Miles Teg's assessment of the difference between Obama and Romney shows that Obama isn't a liberal at all, much less a "socialist". Today's Democratic Party politician is essentially a mainstream Republican of the 50s.

 

[kochman]

Today's Democratic Party politician is essentially a mainstream Republican of the 50s.

Please support this statement (and please not with wikipedia).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How's this for an appraisal of Mr. Obama?

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. We list these because many of Obama’s detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse.

 

[kochman]

It is standard practice to have a bipartisan cabinet... like appeasement... Bush did it, etc.

However, my biggest bone to pick with Obama... not Gitmo (his original stance was populist BS), but his power grabbing (ala Bush).

The droning of US Citizens abroad... the ability to indefinitely detain US citizens without trial... this equals loss of rights that is unbelievable... started with the Patriot Act under Bush...
Is it done with good intentions? In both cases (Bush & Obama... I don't think they have secret plots against the USA), I believe it is... Is it the right path? I both cases I don't believe it is.

Next on the list, crony capitalism... but that's something that Bush trademarked.

 

[downtown]

Of course it is. If independents were mostly liberal, Democrats would usually win; if independents were mostly conservative, Republicans would usually win. The winnage is split between Republicans and Democrats because the voters are split between Republicans and Democrats.

Well, over the last 40 years, Republicans *have* usually won the presidential race. We've had 2 Democrats...one was a Southern Dem who campaigned and governed as a "third way" pragmatist who co-oped several Republican ideas, and the other won election after one of the most unpopular presidents in history.

An "independent" voter is just somebody who has not registered for a political party. They are NOT a monolithic group, and their exact political ideologies vary with location and other demographic info. A guy who voted for Nader twice and donates to the ALCU and Sierra Club may show up in a voter database as an independent, but there is no way that guy is a 50-50 Romney voter.

Voter turnout is also an important factor in national elections, as are specific issue positions.

If "centrists" were the largest political block, we'd elect a lot more centrists. There are almost none in Congress, and we've elected very very few to the Presidency.

 

[caketastydelish]

As you can see from the graph he was indeed minutely further to the left than Obama and Biden, so he was indeed the furthest to the left of all the mainstream candidates. He was also the least authoritarian, which to many is even more important.

People seem to forget that only 20% of Americans are liberals so they are essentially not electable at the national level, much like atheists and agnostics. Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich are over there all by themselves. Even John Kerry couldn't win against George Bush.

Ok, then another question I have is how is Ron Paul not a libertarian. Yes I know he's officially in the Republican party, but anyone that sees his stance on the issues would call him a libertarian.

edit: and I think the only reason why he even runs as a republican is so he can be in the debates and therefore get more airtime. If he was running as a libertarian right now his campaign would be even less significant than it is now.

 

[Dachs]

Well, over the last 40 years, Republicans *have* usually won the presidential race. We've had 2 Democrats...one was a Southern Dem who campaigned and governed as a "third way" pragmatist who co-oped several Republican ideas, and the other won election after one of the most unpopular presidents in history.

Three Democrats, surely: Carter, Clinton, Obama.

 

[useless]

Yes I know he's officially in the Republican party, but anyone that sees his stance on the issues would call him a libertarian.

His stance on abortion isn't really libertarian...

 

[caketastydelish]

His stance on abortion isn't really libertarian...

True, but I'm talking about in general. Not just one issue.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Ok, then another question I have is how is Ron Paul not a libertarian. Yes I know he's officially in the Republican party, but anyone that sees his stance on the issues would call him a libertarian.

Ron Paul has many opinions which are not libertarian in the least. For instance, he is very much pro-life as Useless pointed out.

There is a huge difference between libertarianism, which is the opposite of authoritarianism, and the Libertarian Party. That is particularly true with the arch-conservatives who have now largely merged with the Tea Party. Given how right-wing Ron Paul is, he isn't very authoritarian unlike most others who share those views. But he is far from being as libertarian as many moderates and liberals are.

 

[BasketCase]

This ignores the fact that most Americans are quite conservative.

Ummm....no. They're not. Saudis are quite conservative. Indians are quite conservative (meaning both Indians in India AND Indians in the United States). Raj's parents in "The Big Bang Theory" are quite conservative. As are most folks in the Orient.

Many European nations lean in the opposite direction.

Americans, on the other hand, almost all hover very close to the political center. American conservatives are lightweights compared to Saudis and Indians and the Orient; American liberals are lightweights compared to liberals in Europe.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The US is overwhelmingly conservative/moderate:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

And when you compare their views to any other modern country, they are even more conservative.

 

[kochman]

Moderate =/= conservative

 

[caketastydelish]

The US is overwhelmingly conservative/moderate:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

And when you compare their views to any other modern country, they are even more conservative.

With "modern" country being a relative term.

I'm tired of the double standard set by Western europeans that americans are "conservative and backwards" when as the guy pointed out, a lot of middle eastern countries and other countries are far more conservative than the united states. The truth is America is not near as conservative as some of these places. I am aware that America is more conservative than Europe, but is Europe the only standard in the world?

 

[bernie14]

Well, there's your problem.


Proving assumption is indeed the mother of many, many ef-ups.

What you got score wise there is around my position. And I can assure you, without assumption that Mr. O'Bama is quite a lot more to the right and authoritarian than I am.

well, there we go....i am certain obama is left to me, you a certain he is right of you...you can certainly make the assumption that i f'ed up in my interpretation of how obama would answer......which is the exact same reason why i am certain that whom ever assumed his answers in the graph posted by form ALSO f'ed up...

or do you really believe obama sat down and took this test and the graph by form are his actual scores?

 

[Antilogic]

When I take it, I get on the center left (many here think I'm some far right whack job though)... so, yeah, Obama is more left than I am... but, not according to that dumb graph.
Why did they do that?

Half the time, it's probably how you present it. More on the political compass test at the bottom.

The US is overwhelmingly conservative/moderate:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

And when you compare their views to any other modern country, they are even more conservative.

It is important to note this is self-identification, so this is how people compare themselves to each other. It's not an absolute scale, and it shouldn't be used to compare to other nations except if you are analyzing public perceptions of itself in different countries.

well, there we go....i am certain obama is left to me, you a certain he is right of you...you can certainly make the assumption that i f'ed up in my interpretation of how obama would answer......which is the exact same reason why i am certain that whom ever assumed his answers in the graph posted by form ALSO f'ed up...

or do you really believe obama sat down and took this test and the graph by form are his actual scores?

I think most of these scores are done by some guy sitting down and reading the candidate's speeches for stances on particular issues, or looking at actions taken while that individual was in the government. There is often a conflict between promises and action, each site probably has their own procedure for resolving that.

 

[bernie14]

How's this for an appraisal of Mr. Obama?

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. We list these because many of Obama’s detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse.

i did not say he wasnt a lying, two faced, calculating, inexperienced snake oil salesman, campaigner in cheif, we agree 100% there, that's why i would not vote for him.....

i just said his ecomonic views were left to mine