Jump to content

Where do you fall on the political compass?


Kevbo_Jones
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BTW, for all you partisan blowhards who think there is such a huge difference between Obama and Romney...

 

 

us2012.php

 

This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.

 

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. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. 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. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.

 

As outrageous as it may appear, civil libertarians and human rights supporters would have actually fared better under a Republican administration. Had a Bush or McCain presidency permitted extrajudicial executions virtually anywhere in the world ( http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/047/2012/en ), expanded drone strikes and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party would have howled from the rooftops. Senator Obama the Constitutional lawyer would have been one of the most vocal objectors. Under a Democratic administration however, these far-reaching developments have received scant opposition and a disgraceful absence of mainstream media coverage.

 

Democratic and, especially, some Republican candidates, will benefit massively from new legislation that permits them to receive unlimited and unaccountable funding. This means a significant shift of political power to the very moneyed interests that earlier elections tried to contain. Super PACs will inevitably reshape the system and undermine democracy. It would be na?ve to suppose that a President Gingrich would feel no obligations towards his generous backer, Sheldon Adelson, one of the country's most influential men. Or a President Santorum towards billionaire mutual fund tycoon, Foster Freiss. (Santorum emerged as the most authoritarian candidate, not the least for his extreme stand against abortion and condom sales.) Or a President Paul, whose largest single donor, billionaire Peter Thiel, founded a controversial defence company contracting to the CIA and the FBI. Last year it was caught operating an illegal spy ring targeting opponents of the US Chamber of Commerce. In our opinion the successful GOP contender, Romney, despite his consistent contempt for the impoverished, was correctly described as the weather vane candidate. He shares another similarity with Obama. His corporate-friendly health care plan for Massachusetts was strikingly similar to the President's "compromise" package. The emergence of the Tea Party enables the 2012 GOP ticket of unprecedented economic extremity to present itself as middle-of-the road — between an ultra right movement with "some good ideas that might go a bit too far" and, on the other side, a dangerous "socialist" president.

The smaller non-Tea parties provide the only substantial electoral diversity — virtually unreported — in their Sisyphean struggle against the two mountainous conservative machines. Identity issues like gay marriage disguise the absence of fundamental differences and any real contrast of vision. Since FDR, the mainstream American "Left" has been much more concerned with the social rather than the economic scale. Identity politics; issues like peace, immigration, gay and women's rights, prayers in school have assumed far greater importance than matters like pensions and minimum wages that preoccupy their counterparts in other democracies. Hence the appeal of Ron Paul to many liberals, despite his far-right economics. Paul, unlike Romney, would have delivered a significant crossover vote from Democrats.

 

If Romney loses the election, it would hardly be devastating for mainstream Republicans. During a second term of Obama, they would no doubt continue to frame the debates.

 

Very large dose of truth there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty good quiz too IMO

 

It also appears we are WAAAAAAAY out of place with America by states too. My oh my' date=' this concerns me...

 

 

[img']http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/statesbysenator.php?sl=al,ak,az,ar,ca,co,ct,de,fl,ga,hi,id,il,in,ia,ks,ky,la,me,md,ma,mi,mn,ms,mo,mt,ne,nv,nh,nj,nm,ny,nc,nd,oh,ok,or,pa,ri,sc,sd,tn,tx,ut,vt,va,wa,wv,wi,wy[/img]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pcgraphpng.php?ec=-1.50&soc=-2.87

 

Here's mine pretty similar to yours actually.

 

I hated those questions by the way. Half of them were laughably racist or having to do with religion and the other half i found myself looking for the "Well it depends" option or the "i disagree with how the question is worded" option. lol

 

Also WFT does an opinion on abstract art have to do with policial views. Ha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pcgraphpng.php?ec=-1.50&soc=-2.87

 

Here's mine pretty similar to yours actually.

 

I hated those questions by the way. Half of them were laughably racist or having to do with religion and the other half i found myself looking for the "Well it depends" option or the "i disagree with how the question is worded" option. lol

 

Also WFT does an opinion on abstract art have to do with policial views. Ha!

 

Those are "issues" many Americans bicker over unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pcgraphpng.png

 

 

So ill admit that I'm very behind on politics but looking at that chart Obama and romney are generally in the same spot. Doesn't seem like they should be on opposite ends?

 

Not at all. They and the media pretend they are soo different but in reality there is not a vast difference between the two on a number of issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So ill admit that I'm very behind on politics but looking at that chart Obama and romney are generally in the same spot. Doesn't seem like they should be on opposite ends?

 

Lobbyists play a factor' date=' we have no clue where any of these parties actually land on the scale.

 

 

 

[img']http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-0.62&soc=-1.95[/img]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pcgraphpng.png

 

 

So ill admit that I'm very behind on politics but looking at that chart Obama and romney are generally in the same spot. Doesn't seem like they should be on opposite ends?

 

Did you skip over the write up? It's very true.

 

This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.

 

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures ? many from previous administrations' date=' 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. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. 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. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.

 

As outrageous as it may appear, civil libertarians and human rights supporters would have actually fared better under a Republican administration. Had a Bush or McCain presidency permitted extrajudicial executions virtually anywhere in the world ( http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/in...51/047/2012/en ), expanded drone strikes and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party would have howled from the rooftops. Senator Obama the Constitutional lawyer would have been one of the most vocal objectors. Under a Democratic administration however, these far-reaching developments have received scant opposition and a disgraceful absence of mainstream media coverage.

 

Democratic and, especially, some Republican candidates, will benefit massively from new legislation that permits them to receive unlimited and unaccountable funding. This means a significant shift of political power to the very moneyed interests that earlier elections tried to contain. Super PACs will inevitably reshape the system and undermine democracy. It would be na?ve to suppose that a President Gingrich would feel no obligations towards his generous backer, Sheldon Adelson, one of the country's most influential men. Or a President Santorum towards billionaire mutual fund tycoon, Foster Freiss. (Santorum emerged as the most authoritarian candidate, not the least for his extreme stand against abortion and condom sales.) Or a President Paul, whose largest single donor, billionaire Peter Thiel, founded a controversial defence company contracting to the CIA and the FBI. Last year it was caught operating an illegal spy ring targeting opponents of the US Chamber of Commerce. In our opinion the successful GOP contender, Romney, despite his consistent contempt for the impoverished, was correctly described as the weather vane candidate. He shares another similarity with Obama. His corporate-friendly health care plan for Massachusetts was strikingly similar to the President's "compromise" package. The emergence of the Tea Party enables the 2012 GOP ticket of unprecedented economic extremity to present itself as middle-of-the road ?between an ultra right movement with "some good ideas that might go a bit too far" and, on the other side, a dangerous "socialist" president. The smaller non-Tea parties provide the only substantial electoral diversity ? virtually unreported ? in their Sisyphean struggle against the two mountainous conservative machines. Identity issues like gay marriage disguise the absence of fundamental differences and any real contrast of vision. Since FDR, the mainstream American "Left" has been much more concerned with the social rather than the economic scale. Identity politics; issues like peace, immigration, gay and women's rights, prayers in school have assumed far greater importance than matters like pensions and minimum wages that preoccupy their counterparts in other democracies. Hence the appeal of Ron Paul to many liberals, despite his far-right economics. Paul, unlike Romney, would have delivered a significant crossover vote from Democrats.

 

If Romney loses the election, it would hardly be devastating for mainstream Republicans. During a second term of Obama, they would no doubt continue to frame the debates.[/quote']

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to that test, I am;

 

pcgraphpng.php?ec=3.88&soc=-2.82

 

However I found several of the questions to be lacking political substance. The questions on modern art, views on mother's in the workforce, etc. - those are more socio-cultural questions that ultimately play very little into assessing the actual scope of a person's political leanings. Never the less, it ultimately placed me roughly where I anticipated a test of this nature would place me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically' date=' we're all Libertarians based on this political compass test. I haven't seen a single person be authoritarian yet.[/quote']

 

Given the average age range of the posters here on this site, that is not surprising at all. Younger people tend to be less authoritarian. In my lifetime I have also witnessed a number of people older than me slowly inch, what I would speculate to be, higher and higher on that chart. Obviously this is based on generalizations (which I felt the entire test was rooted in over simplified, stereotypical frame work) - but I'd say that is to be expected. Especially considering we are all on the younger side, AND this is done in an online community, which for whatever reason, cyberspace seems to either bring out the anti-athority impulses or simply attract people in that category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically' date=' we're all Libertarians based on this political compass test. I haven't seen a single person be authoritarian yet.[/quote']

 

That's because the Red party posters who generally spew their nonsense in politically based threads are avoiding this test. I would guess its probably because of fear of ridicule. Seeing how the blue corner comparable is Hitler, Romney, and Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

honestly I was expecting my results to be in purple but it seems like today i was just in the green. I agree with many things however I also disagree with alot of things so that's why I found myself near the center leaning left and libertarian.

 

**** Obama, **** Romney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I may fall slightly off centered to the left - right on the line between communism and Libertarianism. I am closer to communism because I believe the government has a duty to protect and serve its citizens through universal health care and other assistance programs. This free for all market which is inline with Libertarianism is not exactly working for the United States. The poor is simply getting poorer and the rich is getting richer. With a little bit of restraint on our free for all market, we would be able to help those who are less fortunate and bring the nation to a more balanced state - thus creating more opportunities for the less fortunate and crime rates will decrease. In my perfect world, the wealthiest will be taxed more because I truly believe they have an obligation to help their country and its citizens. Billionaires like Bill Gates would have no problem with paying more in taxes. He has his own charity and he would be more than willing to sacrifice a little to help poor. The reason why this tax proposal has not been passed is because of greedy middle and middle upper class citizens. I'm not talking about the wealthy. I'm talking about the middle to upper class folks. They believe if the proposal passes, someday the tax may affect them down the road. It is this fear and greed which has prevented us from putting a higher tax on the wealthiest to alleviate some pressure from the poor. OK I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I may fall slightly off centered to the left - right on the line between communism and Libertarianism. I am closer to communism because I believe the government has a duty to protect and serve its citizens through universal health care and other assistance programs. This free for all market which is inline with Libertarianism is not exactly working for the United States. The poor is simply getting poorer and the rich is getting richer. With a little bit of restraint on our free for all market' date=' we would be able to help those who are less fortunate and bring the nation to a more balanced state - thus creating more opportunities for the less fortunate and crime rates will decrease. In my perfect world, the wealthiest will be taxed more because I truly believe they have an obligation to help their country and its citizens. Billionaires like Bill Gates would have no problem with paying more in taxes. He has his own charity and he would be more than willing to sacrifice a little to help poor. The reason why this tax proposal has not been passed is because of greedy middle and middle upper class citizens. I'm not talking about the wealthy. I'm talking about the middle to upper class folks. They believe if the proposal passes, someday the tax may affect them down the road. It is this fear and greed which has prevented us from putting a higher tax on the wealthiest to alleviate some pressure from the poor. OK I'm done.[/quote']

 

It seems to me that you're targeting the wrong enemy. My household is what you would consider middle class and we get raped by taxes every 2 weeks. Even a slight increase would seem unreasonable at this point. I pay my fair share and ill be damned if it increases one cent(which would happen if what you suggest is to occur which falls in line with the Romney proposal which is bunk in the first place. He has not even commented on where the cuts would be made up but I have a pretty good guess and it certainly wouldn't come at the expense of him and his buddies). Ever since the Reagan administration the middle class has been getting bent over and screwed without lube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that you're targeting the wrong enemy. My household is what you would consider middle class and we get raped by taxes every 2 weeks. Even a slight increase would seem unreasonable at this point. I pay my fair share and ill be damned if it increases one cent(which would happen if what you suggest is to occur which falls in line with the Romney proposal which is bunk in the first place. He has not even commented on where the cuts would be made up but I have a pretty good guess and it certainly wouldn't come at the expense of him and his buddies). Ever since the Reagan administration the middle class has been getting bent over and screwed without lube.

 

If you are a middle class ( and I am too ), then you have nothing to worry about. My tax increase is for the wealthiest - meaning they make millions a year. Many middle class won't endorse this tax increase because they fear it may open the door for higher taxes on them later down the road.

 

What ever tax bracket you fall in - is not my concern. What I want to put in place is an overall higher tax for the wealthiest of America and unless you make millions, you won't be part of that bracket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually closer to the center than left. It swung me left mainly due to religious questions. I'm far from what one would consider liberal.

 

Im sure we answered religious questions the same way and im to the right.

 

Im assuming it swung you to the left because you are more collectivist than myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...