angelicreation wrote:

What?  Am I the furthest right out of all of us?  Granted, I am a Republican, but I'm the good kind of Republican - no religion rules my politics.  I figured being an Utena forum, we'd be populated with mostly left, but still.  I thought there'd at least be one person further right than me.  Dude, the closest one of you to me is Yasha.  Murr.

No need to worry   Here's me: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab … ;soc=-5.18

I think my results were influenced by a conscious desire to stick it to the guys making the test, though; the slant was pretty obvious, and I overcompensated.  Not that they're totally inaccurate.  I identify more with traditional conservatives than with modern liberals, and I am very pro-liberty.  I like the Democrats more than the Republicans, though, merely because of what the Republicans have become.

2008... harumph.  I'm following that stuff pretty closely, and I still haven't found a candidate I really want to get behind.  Clinton can be very pro-censorship, and she inspires this primitive "RUN AWAY!!!" response in me that I don't fully understand.  I really like the pit-bull quote on Giuliani; I just don't trust that guy with my civil liberties.  McCain, sadly, has been blowing with the political winds in a way ill-befitting someone who claims to be an independent-minded moderate; I have no idea what he believes anymore.  Obama is probably my favorite of the top four right now, simply because I don't have any reason not to like him, and his very limited track record has been good.

I would like to see New York mayor Michael Bloomberg run as an independent.  He's a Republican who's managed to keep a strong and conscientious record on civil rights and the like.  He's also a billionaire, which is the criterion you have to meet to be a credible third-party candidate in America.  I want to know more about what this guy believes.

I'd be impressed if independents do more than win one or two congressional seats.  The two established political parties are very strong, and most voters aren't interested in doing the research on other parties/platforms.  Yes/no, good/evil, us/them are all easier and more comfortable than the three dozen party coalition governments that are popular in parliamentary systems.  This may change in the next twenty years as media are transformed by the internet...or maybe not.  Not this soon, anyway.  For the last few years, I was getting worried that we'd become a one-party state, so having two viable parties is a big improvement.  One thing that this administration has taught me is that it is not good for one party to control every branch of government, no matter who they are.  Nobody is that trustworthy, and I don't really want my government to be that efficient, no matter what policy is being pursued.

EDIT:  Senator Clinton is too transparently ambitious, without giving enough of an idea of what she'll actually do with the power once she has it in her hands.  I'm inclined to think she'd make a good president, she's hard-nosed and a tough negotiator, but it'll never happen, because she's got no charisma.  Clinton and Giuliani are the two front runners last I checked, which makes Giuliani a shoe-in.  Maybe after we have an Italian president, we can do away with Columbus day?  It'd be worth it.

Last edited by Stormcrow (05-23-2007 02:24:04 PM)

I really, really need to research the candidates for the 2008 presidential election. Does anyone know of any good un-biased websites? *hopeful*

I don't know much about politics, but I really don't like how the U.S. presidential elections are set up. It's usually one guy who's Republican and one guy who's Democrat, and nothing really moderate. All the Independent or moderate guys don't get much media exposure so no one really votes for them. And then very few of the candidates ever tell you what they want to do because they want to be vague to make as many people see what they want in them, and vote for them..

I think I took one of these before, but I finally found time to take it again, so here's where I am.

Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69

A left-leaning libertarian.


Not news to me is that fact that I'm a blue-blooded liberal.   I have no declared party on my voter registration, though.

SleepDebtFairy wrote:

I really, really need to research the candidates for the 2008 presidential election. emot-frown Does anyone know of any good un-biased websites? *hopeful*

Have you tried factcheck.org?

Last edited by Imaginary Bad Bug (05-23-2007 05:50:41 PM)

Stormcrow wrote:

I'd be impressed if independents do more than win one or two congressional seats.  The two established political parties are very strong, and most voters aren't interested in doing the research on other parties/platforms.  Yes/no, good/evil, us/them are all easier and more comfortable than the three dozen party coalition governments that are popular in parliamentary systems.  This may change in the next twenty years as media are transformed by the internet...or maybe not.  Not this soon, anyway.  For the last few years, I was getting worried that we'd become a one-party state, so having two viable parties is a big improvement.  One thing that this administration has taught me is that it is not good for one party to control every branch of government, no matter who they are.  Nobody is that trustworthy, and I don't really want my government to be that efficient, no matter what policy is being pursued.

It's true that running as an independent is very tough in America, but a huge part of the reason for that is that the Dems and Reps have monster fundraising machines.  The right candidate (i.e. someone already filthy rich) could sidestep that, and even get free media attention for their cheek.  (Remember, Perot got 19% as recently as 1992.)  Ballot access wouldn't be an obstacle either with Bloomberg's kind of money backing the access drive.  Most importantly, an awful lot of Republicans dislike the Republican Party right now, and would look carefully at a GOP-aligned independent who promised a return to traditional small-government conservatism.  Meanwhile, there aren't a whole lot of Democrats who actually love the Democratic Party; mostly, they just hate the Republicans, and align themselves with the opposition.  Bloomberg is liberal-minded, especially for a Republican -- pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control.  He would win a lot of votes from both aisles.

I totally agree with you about one-party control of government.  The Framers were very smart people to make it this hard to get anything done in Washington, and I'd hate to see all their work undone because one party couldn't get its act together.  (I'm not sure which party that would be at this point.  I'm not sure what the Democrats stand for, and based on the behavior of their leaders, I'm pretty sure the Republicans don't stand for anything.)

/overly bitter

Last edited by satyreyes (05-23-2007 09:00:49 PM)

Stormcrow wrote:

EDIT:  Senator Clinton is too transparently ambitious, without giving enough of an idea of what she'll actually do with the power once she has it in her hands.  I'm inclined to think she'd make a good president, she's hard-nosed and a tough negotiator, but it'll never happen, because she's got no charisma.

I think in our hearts, a lot of us wish Hillary was actually Bill in a woman suit (made from real women), and this was all an elaborate trick to get him back in office.

But even in disguise, there's no way he could be that completely unlikeable.

SleepDebtFairy wrote:

I really, really need to research the candidates for the 2008 presidential election. Does anyone know of any good un-biased websites? *hopeful*

I need to be doing my research too, I was thinking of maybe making a thread of it, since posting about the candidates will force me to do my homework. In the meantime, seconding factcheck.org.

satyreyes wrote:

It's true that running as an independent is very tough in America, but a huge part of the reason for that is that the Dems and Reps have monster fundraising machines.  The right candidate (i.e. someone already filthy rich) could sidestep that, and even get free media attention for their cheek.  (Remember, Perot got 19% as recently as 1992.)  Ballot access wouldn't be an obstacle either with Bloomberg's kind of money backing the access drive.  Most importantly, an awful lot of Republicans dislike the Republican Party right now, and would look carefully at a GOP-aligned independent who promised a return to traditional small-government conservatism.  Meanwhile, there aren't a whole lot of Democrats who actually love the Democratic Party; mostly, they just hate the Republicans, and align themselves with the opposition.  Bloomberg is liberal-minded, especially for a Republican -- pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control.  He would win a lot of votes from both aisles.

My dad voted for Perot.

I agree though that it's near pointless for independent candidates to run, but if ever the conditions were going to be favorable... Like you said, a lot of people are just fed up with both Republicans and Democrats. The problem with an independent candidate is a lot of people won't vote for them even if that's who they really want, because they know it's throwing out a vote needed to elect the lesser demon of the major parties. (RAWR NADER LOST GORE THE ELECTION RAWR) At this point I'm wondering if both aisles are going to offer up such uninspiring candidates that no one registers one of them as the lesser demon worth voting for. I doubt an independent will win, but someone should be able to make a mark that'll remind us there are other options. I'd just love to see a good Libertarian candidate.