Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[eugene]

i said im not interested in a book because the film that pretty much serves as its commercial/introduction has some serious issues.

 

besides this film chomsky appeared in 3 more films by mark achbar, i think they're pretty tight..there's a very little chance that this particular film distorted/misrepresented chomsky's ideas.

[luke viia]

no one needs to convince you to read a book. "the movie got something wrong, therefore chomsky is wrong" isnt a very good argument though...so you should probably keep looking into the subject instead of being all hand-wavey over a documentary getting something wrong (they all do).

[eugene]

it's not just "something" it's a core evidence to chomsky's argument in the film. and it's not just a simple film, just take a look at director's imdb, more than half of his film deal with chomsky in one way or another, what are the chances that he made something against his consent ?

 

why do i have to repeat myself several times to get the point across ffs..

[goDel]

it's called trolling.

 

also, i'm a bit surprised/disappointed a couple of the political buffs haven't done the presidential candidate test. i guess they didn't like the outcome.

[SR4]

it's called trolling.

 

also, i'm a bit surprised/disappointed a couple of the political buffs haven't done the presidential candidate test. i guess they didn't like the outcome.

 

i did. Got Jill Scott and Obama.

 

I don't think there was a question about assassination of US citizens though, that's worth a lot of weight for me.

[goDel]

it's called trolling.

 

also, i'm a bit surprised/disappointed a couple of the political buffs haven't done the presidential candidate test. i guess they didn't like the outcome.

 

i did. Got Jill Scott and Obama.

 

I don't think there was a question about assassination of US citizens though, that's worth a lot of weight for me.

 

Not directly, but the situation in Afghanistan/Middle-East is related, I guess.

 

Wait, Obama!? You? No way! hahaha

 

What did awe got? (on first try. not after cherry picking the answers to have the wished outcome! - i know he would ;)

[SR4]

it's called trolling.

 

also, i'm a bit surprised/disappointed a couple of the political buffs haven't done the presidential candidate test. i guess they didn't like the outcome.

 

i did. Got Jill Scott and Obama.

 

I don't think there was a question about assassination of US citizens though, that's worth a lot of weight for me.

 

Not directly, but the situation in Afghanistan/Middle-East is related, I guess.

 

Wait, Obama!? You? No way! hahaha

 

What did awe got? (on first try. not after cherry picking the answers to have the wished outcome! - i know he would ;)

 

Im honestly not that surprised after thinking about it. Im probably closest in line to Kucinich's old platform.

[awepittance]

my results:

 

89% Jill Stein

84% Gary Johnson

69% Rocky Anderson

62% Barack Obama

15% Romney

 

but the problem with this website is, zero questions about the war on terror. Zero questions about whistleblowers or wikileaks, zero questions about encroachments of our civil liberties involving surveillance. zero questions about gitmo, zero questions about drones, zero questions about pretty much every single issue that i hold most important. The war in Afghanistan whether you support it or not can be for many different reasons. Most people seem to think it's a waste of money and lives, not that it is morally wrong like i do. There wasn't an answer like that unfortunately. Where are the questions about Libya? Far too much stuff omitted.

 

it says i side 92% with the democratic party, which made me lol. This website is neat on the surface but meaningless overall.

 

It's also depressing to think most of the issues i care about have fallen by the wayside. Nobody even talks about Gitmo anymore, i guess it just doesnt effect people?

[SR4]

my results:

 

89% Jill Stein

84% Gary Johnson

69% Rocky Anderson

62% Barack Obama

15% Romney

 

but the problem with this website is, zero questions about the war on terror. Zero questions about whistleblowers or wikileaks, zero questions about encroachments of our civil liberties involving surveillance. zero questions about gitmo, zero questions about drones, zero questions about pretty much every single issue that i hold most important. The war in Afghanistan whether you support it or not can be for many different reasons. Most people seem to think it's a waste of money and lives, not that it is morally wrong like i do. There wasn't an answer like that unfortunately. Where are the questions about Libya? Far too much stuff omitted.

 

it says i side 92% with the democratic party, which made me lol. This website is neat on the surface but meaningless overall.

 

It's also depressing to think most of the issues i care about have fallen by the wayside. Nobody even talks about Gitmo anymore, i guess it just doesnt effect people?

 

fuck up the economy, people need war to avoid asking who and why.

 

fuck up the war and people start questioning the who and why behind the war, fuck up the economy worse.

[goDel]

Most of the questions in the foreign policy department either directly or indirectly cover a number of issues you say are lacking. (You could substitute War on Terror for Foreign Policy, imo)

 

Gitmo: Should foreign terrorism suspects be given constitutional rights? (even with a Shut down guantanamo answer)

Libya: How should the U.S. handle the genocide in Sudan? (this question functions exactly the same as if it were about Libya: how should the US act in circumstances like these).

 

About Afghanistan: although there isn't a "no, because it's immoral" answer, the focus is on WHAT the US should do. And there are a couple of "No" options. You might want to argue that the "Why" is of equal importance, but I'd argue that the "What" is much more important in politics. Political decisions have an impact in the real world which are mostly independent from the rationale behind those actions. Especially in the context of Afghanistan. Stopping the war whether or not the president thinks the war was immoral is not really relevant for the people and troops in Afganistan. I understand why you want to have the feeling that a president thinks and acts morally similar to what you'd like to see, but it's not specifically a problem of this test that those things are lacking. It'd be impossible to test people for their inner beliefs/morals anyways.

 

I also think the "How" is implicitly covered. Although drones aren't specified, the types of action are implied (diplomacy vs. fighting).

 

I do agree that issues with respect to internet freedom (wikileaks) are missing, though. But on the whole, I'd argue that most of current issues are covered.

[goDel]

nvmnd on the interent freedom thing. it is there as well.

[awepittance]

hmm i didn't get any of those questions.

 

i take issue with your idea on it being impossible to tell if a president thinks a certain war is morally wrong or not. You can extrapolate the concept of not being able to know what any presidential candidate truly thinks to any issue, even on ones they've voted in favor of or against. We aren't psychic and we can't be inside a candidate's head. I don't mean to be condescending i just personally think it's important that we try and zoom out from what's normally thought of as being 'against' the afghanistan or even iraq war. For instance i'd love to hear a politician talk about how regardless of is Iraq had 'wmds' (engineered manipulative word) or not the war is/was wrong on moral grounds. I'd like to hear more politicians talk about how invading and arial bombing a whole country, Afghanistan to capture/kill one man and his rag-tag nearly non existent organization is morally wrong. Even the politicians who are known to be anti war like Ron Paul and Kucinich don't even go this far.

 

And why is it it just a given that the 'war on terror' is a valid concept? It's a war against an idea or tactic, the united states, france, britain and pretty much any other 'big' player will continually characterize any resistant force as 'terrorism', and it helps if they happen to be arab.

[goDel]

There were more questions for most categories than initially shown. Just click the "Show X more questions" at the end of most sections.

 

I think all these questions combined do give a good approximation on where people stand with respect to various candidates. Various issues you mention are tackled. A couple perhaps aren't.

 

The whole moral-debate is an entirely different subject, imo. It deserves an entire thread on its own, because this ventures more into the political philosophy spectrum of things. Personally, I'd shortcut the argument that even people like Kucinich and Paul need to leave some "air" in their political/moral standpoints in order to be able to take part in the political arena. Being politically active requires some pragmatism and some negotiating space in order to get things done. Absolutes in politics hardly ever work. (They only help in making things not work.) Even if it's about morals and ethics. Personally, I don't believe in absolute moral/ethical values, btw. But that's besides the point.

 

I don't agree on your point on how "terrorism" is used. In general, an 'act' would be labelled as such. Not necessarily the ideology behind the act. Although I do admit there's a gray area where certain groups/individuals can be labelled as terrorists even without a proven act of terrorism. And that's the whole pre-emptive strike discussion, of course. The term "war on terrorism" is, imo, something of the past (period after 911). And that's why I believe that "War on terrorism" and "Foreign policy" mean roughly the same at this point in time. But that could be my European point of view. I don't have to deal with the 24/7 fear-crack the media outlets in the US are pushing. (Good riddance!)

 

If I may, I think you're very idealistic. Which is not to say whether that is right or wrong, but it is important to put things into perspective. The rest of the world, in general, just don't have such strong ideals as I believe you have. And that's the arena where politicians have to operate. To a certain extent I'd love more politicians being morally consistent as, say Paul, but in practice even people like Paul need to have some flexibility. I just hope that people who may think like you and might have decided to not vote, could have a % more understanding for all those 'untrustworthy' politicians. The less people vote, the more politicians who are in it for the money will win. It's in the Kochs interests for people not to vote, for instance.

[Rubin Farr]

Looks like Obama is going after the stoner vote:

 

[Hoodie]

most pot smokers know that obama has lied about medicinal marijuana dispenseries. he said he'd tell the dea to focus on other drug-related activity and put a stop to raids, but the raids have become more frequent, even worse than when bush was in office. he'll never get the "stoner" vote but he is going to get some young adults who like harold and kumar i.e. idiots. this pandering is pretty disgusting.

[eugene]

how many dispenseries were in bush years and how many are now ? i think lumps brought the same point here or in some related

thread..without those numbers you can't really conclude anything.

[BobDobalina]

Well as a case in point for what Hoodie said, my state gov't (RI) went full bore ahead with plans to allow & regulate dispensaries, on the silly presumption that the feds would be taking a hands-off approach under Obama. Then, only after they approved 3 separate dispensaries to operate, a DoJ attorney said something to the effect of "oh btw, just thought I'd mention that these still violate federal law, good luck." A few weeks later the guv'nor deep-sixed the whole thing.

[SR4]

does anybody really think stoners will vote for Romney?

[BobDobalina]

I think it's largely to get them out to vote and to try to keep them from straying to a 3rd party. Yeah it's crass, but I find the republican Voter ID "to combat fraud" ploys to disenfranchise minorities, the youth, etc. way more disgusting.

[luke viia]

as a stoner, i am loling at the idea of the democrats pandering to my "stoner vote," but what do i know, im a stoner lol. whatever you say obammer idgaf that u close my herb stores, black and proud broah i supoort you

 

 

 

 

jk dude im voting no weed

[HoA]

...but it is important to put things into perspective.

 

I suggest taking your own advice.

[SR4]

i gotta say, Bubba can still kick out a speech that makes Obama look just as bad as Bush.

 

 

really looking forward to Biden's speech. That man is a badass.

[joshuatxuk]

really looking forward to Biden's speech. That man is a badass.

 

o_0

 

I actually have no idea what the appeal of Biden is - he's a stereotypical, gaffe-prone professional politician imo - may I [sincerely] ask why you look forward to his speech?

[sweepstakes]

I'm surprised we haven't seen any funny gimmicks from the GOP yet. Hadn't they already deployed the Palin ex machina around this time of year in '08? And worked the teabaggers into a froth in '10.

[joshuatxuk]

I'm surprised we haven't seen any funny gimmicks from the GOP yet. Hadn't they already deployed the Palin ex machina around this time of year in '08? And worked the teabaggers into a froth in '10.

 

Palin was a go for broke move - I think subconsciously everyone knew McCain was not going to win. It worked for a week or so before people truly grasped how crazy she is - they lost all the moderates and independents after that.

 

They're still working the "tea party" angle (Palin endorses such candidates all the time) just as much now, only with far more money. There have already been GOP primary elections where more money was donated from out-of-state entities than overall spending in typical regular elections.

 

The whole Tea Party movement doesn't even hide the fact that it's just a right-wing populist movement. It thrives off of ignorant, even contradictory rhetoric - it still caters to libertarians and paleo-conservatives without actually promoting those ideals. Remember - despite the frothing anti-government, anti-tax, and anti-debt concerns the GOP spews, they hammer Obama for cutting Defense and cutting Medicare and Social Security - i.e. 2/3 of the Federal Budget. So instead of actual substantive efforts to eliminate debt, Republicans are dismantling local and state infrastructure and handing out tax breaks for businesses. And they have the social conservatives in the bag - Romney was nominated because the entire GOP campaign is simply "anyone is better than Obama" - they don't have to worry about the Evangelicals and Catholics who, in hilarious irony, think Mormonism is a cult. So no gimmicks this year - just a lot of money and a lot of vague "promises," shitload of false charges, hypocrisy, doublespeak, and outright bullshit. The Dems will be doing the same to a degree, but overall they're just trying to sell the "we're simply more sane" angle - which isn't easy in this country.