Skip to main content

Who do you side with?

An interesting online political quiz that surprised me in terms of how well it was thought out, how subtle it was, and how accurate it was.

I came out as 89% for Gary Johnson (I was impressed that he was even an option).

Try it here:  I side with . . . ?

Comments

tom said…
95% Ron Paul
94% Gary Johnson

I question the Ron Paul number a bit, because he disagrees with me on abortion and it doesn't appear to have counted that difference.

Project Vote Smart has a similar survey, though theirs is not as flexible in letting you choose more nuanced answers or fill in your own. they also include minor party candidates. try it at http://votesmart.org/voteeasy/

They also claim they will have similar surveys for Congressional candidates soon, and that Delaware's will be available Sept. 25th. We should make sure they have accurate info on Scott Gesty's positions by then.
delacrat said…
79% Jill Stein

72% Gary Johnson
kavips said…
It was very accurate.
pandora said…
90% Barack Obama
87% Jill Stein

LOL! 4% Mitt Romney
Pencademom said…
78% Gary Johnson
77% Jill Stein
John Galt said…
Ron Paul 97%
Gary Johnson 96%
Virgil Goode 80%
Mittens 80%
3rd worst president of all time 33%
tom said…
@John Galt

that's really weird. i had Romney at 60% & Obama 14%

now i have to wonder what answer(s) could possibly make this survey score you 2% closer to Paul & Johnson than me while simultaneously being 20% closer to Obama & Romney.

also, who do you rank as your two worst presidents? my 3 worst would be 1. Obama, 2. Bush II, and 3. Bush I.
John Galt said…
Tom,

I didn't give many, if any yes or no answers. That could explain the differences.

As for my ranking of the worst presidents, I have:

#1 Lincoln
#2 Wilson
#3 Obama
#4 George W
#5 FDR

Lincoln gets the top spot for:

1. Started catastrophic war in order to prevent freedom to secede

2. Murdered 350,000 Americans

3. White supremacist who did not care about slaves and tried to deport all blacks to Liberia

4. Destroyed 10th Amendment

5. Suspended habeas corpus

6. Imprisoned 15,000 political opponents without a trial

7. Shut down/destroyed newspapers

8. Rigged elections

9. Started draft and murdered its protesters

10. Divided Virginia for electoral advantage

11. Ordered destruction, plundering, rape and murder of Southern civilian towns

12. Nationalized railroads

13. Morrill Tariff

14. National Banking Act

15. Dahlgren Affair

I could go on and on.

As for Wilson, I put the lions share of the 65 million dead of WW2at his feet. As well as:

1. Created Federal Reserve
2. Created Federal Income Tax
3. Created Federal Trade Commission
(Read "In Restraint of Trade" by Butler Shaffer on this topic
4.Created League of Nations
5. Sedition Act of 1918
6. Espionage Act of 1917
7. Prohibition
8. Created Federal Farm Loan Act

I could go on and on.
tom said…
I acknowledge your points, and almost agree with you. I am fully aware of and do not excuse the crimes and treasonous acts committed by Lincoln, Wilson & FDR. They all score pretty bad on my list as well.

But most of the acts you cite had full complicity or at least acquiescence of Congress. Many were at least colorably Constitutional, and some were initiated by Congress and merely supported, enacted & enforced by the President.

Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, for example, arguably meets the requirements set forth in the Constitution; whereas both G.W. Bush and Obama have more than adequately demonstrated that they don't give a rat's ass about habeas corpus and are willing to just ignore it. I would judge that more treasonous.

Also each successive President is, at the very least, an accessory after the fact to any crimes committed by his predecessors that he did not correct (like Nixon's revocation of FDR's gold confiscation order) or at least make a feeble effort to do something about (as with Reagan's posturing about eliminating the depts. of Energy & Education, which were unconstitutionally created by his predecessor & Congress)

Lincoln's, Wilson's and FDR's wars were at least legally declared by Congress (admittedly after a lot of meddling and behind the scenes treachery to trick or force the people to support them). Recent President's, again, prefer to just ignore the Constitution completely if it gets in the way of their wars or pogroms

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...