Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

On that scale, Libertarian and Socialist are on different axes, so you could potentially be both.

[mainiac]

Is that the site which tells everyone that they are a libertarian even if they are actually socialists?

Yes, far more objective then DW-nominate.

[sluissa]

Is that the site which tells everyone that they are a libertarian even if they are actually socialists?

Yes, far more objective then DW-nominate.

You can pull random scores of political ideologies out of your ass so can I.

[mainiac]

Yeah political scientists are totally the same as libertarians with an axe to grind.

[mainiac]

See, the problem with this test is that it's rigged to give the answer the authors want:


Notice something about where ALL the democrats are?  But here you are saying that Clinton is a conservative.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

More like where all the everyone is. The political compass is well known as something that just puts all real politicians in the fascist corner and everyone on the internet in the glorious savior corner.

[sluissa]

They were all on the right side, so what I'd gather from that chart is that in 2008 Kucinich and Bonner were the only real liberal candidates.

But that's not the point. Trying to stick someone on a scale or rate them by numbers or whatever have you is complete bullshit. I could say I want to sterilize all the gays and amend the constitution to impose a state religion and if I were still good on welfare and gun control end up solidly in the middle of the democratic party on a lot of scales.

[Egan_BW]

everything would be fixed if we just put the internet in change
meme party 2016

[TempAcc]

I thought the pirate party was the internet party.

[mainiac]

glorious savior corner.

True dat dawg.

[Frumple]

everything would be fixed if we just put the internet in change
meme party 2016

Fixed like a stray dog in an average US kennel :V

[Sheb]

They were all on the right side, so what I'd gather from that chart is that in 2008 Kucinich and Bonner were the only real liberal candidates.

But that's not the point. Trying to stick someone on a scale or rate them by numbers or whatever have you is complete bullshit. I could say I want to sterilize all the gays and amend the constitution to impose a state religion and if I were still good on welfare and gun control end up solidly in the middle of the democratic party on a lot of scales.

So, please tell me how we are supposed to know how a candidate is more or less liberal, oh Smart One?

[mainiac]

Fixed like a stray dog in an average US kennel :V

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja0jS_toKxk

[Shadowlord]

They were all on the right side, so what I'd gather from that chart is that in 2008 Kucinich and Bonner were the only real liberal candidates.

But that's not the point. Trying to stick someone on a scale or rate them by numbers or whatever have you is complete bullshit. I could say I want to sterilize all the gays and amend the constitution to impose a state religion and if I were still good on welfare and gun control end up solidly in the middle of the democratic party on a lot of scales.

So, please tell me how we are supposed to know how a candidate is more or less liberal, oh Smart One?

Ask Cortana?

[sluissa]

They were all on the right side, so what I'd gather from that chart is that in 2008 Kucinich and Bonner were the only real liberal candidates.

But that's not the point. Trying to stick someone on a scale or rate them by numbers or whatever have you is complete bullshit. I could say I want to sterilize all the gays and amend the constitution to impose a state religion and if I were still good on welfare and gun control end up solidly in the middle of the democratic party on a lot of scales.

So, please tell me how we are supposed to know how a candidate is more or less liberal, oh Smart One?

Why do we need to? What actually matters is their stance in individual issues. Look at those rather than some abstracted average. Granted that's a bit too much effort for most voters. Most voters would rather just have someone tell them, "This is the politician that will vote how you want them to... most likely." Like some sort of online dating service rather than taking the effort to look up their history and stances on their own.. I mean yeah, it'll take an hour or so for the big votes, president and such. A few more for the congressional votes... a few days probably to find out state politicians... and hell, weeks if you care enough to figure out if a local judge is worth keeping or not. I don't even know when you get to the fiddly little local positions like... tax collector or coroner... But I think at the very least we should be spending the few hours every 2-4 years to figure out or president and congress votes. Hell, most of the time with congress, if you're happy with your incumbent you can just do a quick scan of the competition.

Instead we're just going "eh, whatever, they're (insert my party name)" they're fine. Or we hear a name on tv some surrounding language and it gets implanted in our heads that they're too liberal or too conservative for our tastes and we'll vote anyone else in to avoid them.