Who will you vote for?

by

Fil sent me this link today. It’s pretty neat, a short survey that basically tells you which candidate most accurately reflects your views. The survey isn’t too thorough, but it’s interesting nonetheless. These were my results:

1. Libertarian Candidate (100%)
2. Bush, George W. – US President (66%)
3. Sharpton, Reverend Al – Democrat (47%)
4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT – Democrat (47%)
5. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH – Democrat (43%)
6. Edwards, Senator John, NC – Democrat (40%)
7. Kerry, Senator John, MA – Democrat (39%)
8. Phillips, Howard – Constitution (39%)
9. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO – Democrat (39%)
10. Lieberman Senator Joe CT – Democrat (37%)
11. Graham, Senator Bob, FL – Democrat (32%)
12. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL – Democrat (23%)
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. – Democrat (-8%)

22 thoughts on “Who will you vote for?”

  1. My results:

    1. Libertarian Candidate (100%)
    2. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO – Democrat (84%)
    3. Bush, George W. – US President (76%)
    4. Kerry, Senator John, MA – Democrat (64%)
    5. Lieberman Senator Joe CT – Democrat (59%)
    6. Phillips, Howard – Constitution (56%)
    7. Edwards, Senator John, NC – Democrat (53%)
    8. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH – Democrat (53%)
    9. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT – Democrat (47%)
    10. Sharpton, Reverend Al – Democrat (46%)
    11. Graham, Senator Bob, FL – Democrat (43%)
    12. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL -Democrat (24%)
    13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. – Democrat (-4%)

  2. Wow, I’m surprised you two agree with bush that much (I was 0%).

    Obviously this is because I’m a commie baghdad liberal sodomite bastard.

  3. I’m surprised I agreed with Bush so much too, but it quickly became obvious when I looked at the results. The system seems to have him as the only representitive of the Republican party in there, whereas they have like 20 Democrats.

    I’m more likely to match with any given Republican then a Democrat simply because I’m strongly opposed to government involvement in people’s lives (no subsidies, no handouts, low taxes). Those issues made up a good portion of the questions.

  7. This is a bit of a tangent, but I’d like to pose a question. Today, the U.S. District Court of D.C. awarded over $300 mill in punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, to Gulf War POWs and families from 1991. Who was the suit against? Saddam Hussein.

    Doesn’t this seem quite bizarre? Our country sends our soldiers into war, and no one is allowed to sue the U.S. or the President, but then when our soldiers get captured we sue the guy whose country we attacked? And let’s not EVEN invoke the Geneva Convention defense.

  8. What the hell are you talking about? Why shouldn’t we sue? If you remember correctly, Iraq was the aggressor against our great state of Kuwait, in violation of international law.

  10. 1. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH – Democrat (100%) Click here for info
    2. Kerry, Senator John, MA – Democrat (81%) Click here for info
    3. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO – Democrat (79%) Click here for info
    4. Sharpton, Reverend Al – Democrat (78%) Click here for info
    5. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT – Democrat (76%) Click here for info
    6. Edwards, Senator John, NC – Democrat (75%) Click here for info
    7. Lieberman Senator Joe CT – Democrat (71%) Click here for info
    8. Libertarian Candidate (69%) Click here for info
    9. Graham, Senator Bob, FL – Democrat (60%) Click here for info
    10. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL – Democrat (55%) Click here for info
    11. Bush, George W. – US President (28%) Click here for info
    12. Phillips, Howard – Constitution (14%) Click here for info
    13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. – Democrat (-10%) Click here for info

  11. Since when does a commie-liberal like you, Allison, worry about how things are going to be enforced? Tell me how you feel about that wonderful body known as the UN again . . .

  12. Coon, how’d you hit Kucinich? You in favor of government-sponsored health care (like the incredibly successful plan they have up in Canada)?

  13. I got Kucinich as my top pick too. Hey, Canada is the hip place to be now, no? Decriminalizing marijuana, legalizing gay marriage, (Tom, your libertarian streak SURELY must support that) but perhaps not the 60% income tax or whatever they have…

  14. I’m with the marijuana decriminalization, and gay marriage – yes. 60% income tax? No thank you. Not only does a high income tax discourage hard working people, it also encourages people to work under the table. Oh, but on the plus side they get mediocre medical treatment and have to run across the border to get anything out of the ordinary. Big surprise since the government is known for being both efficient and innovative.

  15. Yes, I’m for universal health care. I view it as a service the government should provide, much like universal military or police protection . . .

  16. The big difference is that both of those services (military/police) are in place to protect us from other people.

    Do you believe the government should provide all citizens with free food and drink? Free shelter? Free clothes?

    Private charities have been much more successful at providing all of those things…

  17. I’m curious as to how the government is de-facto not innovative or efficient, or how private charities are de-facto better for providing food, clothing and medical care. Solely a result of democracy and capitalism? And, if private charities are so good at it, why then do these problems exist at all? It seems as though you hold consistently (which I appreciate and respect, rarely are people consistent in political beliefs) the bright-line rule that government is bad and inefficient, private ownership is good and efficient. What’s the answer to inefficient and/or corrupt private companies? Two examples: United Airlines, Enron. As I’ve stated before, I do not agree that the market will always take care of itself, nor do I believe that a free market meets all human needs. Discuss.

  18. Worth a read on the Enron scandal… also dips into some of the other topics you’re asking about: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26734

    The short of it is, I can drudge up a million articles on how inefficient the government is (I just read today about how we hand out Medicaid dollars and don’t track where they go) and we get new reports every week. It’s one amazing story after another. The government has no one to answer to. The voters choose a president, who gets blamed or credited with anything that happens during his/her term, but in reality the government is a trillion dollar beast that is out of control. George Bush can’t watch where Medicare goes. We’ve got more money and more programs than we know what to do with.

    There is little doubt that charities are more efficient (Economist Thomas Sowell estimates that only about 30% of the welfare dollar gets to the intended beneficiary, versus the Salvation Army where the number is more like 80%). The problem we have is the “I gave at the office” syndrome. For all the taxes we pay, and all the programs we read about, it is not surprising that people aren’t pouring their money into these more efficient charities. It was pretty funny though late last year when Bush was talking about giving funding to the charities… pretty much conceding that the government couldn’t get the job done.

  19. A few thoughts: (1) Allison, I believe that it is generally agreed that the government is inefficient in almost everything it does. This is typically because the government lacks an incentive to compete in the market, since it is usually a monopolist in the service it provides–take the court system (DMV, IRS, etc.), for instance. It’s large and doesn’t solve problems very well (read, it’s too expensive for the service it provides, at least when it comes to private litigants). The reason why we have the government in many marketplaces has to do with market inefficiencies—monopolies, free riding, dealing with externalities, etc. The government faces competition (in terms of complaints about its services) from the voters every couple of years—imagine a company that only put out a report every four years. True, we might be able to track the progress of the government as we track the financial well-being of a company, but the only way to truly change the system is through elections. I believe that this is the largest reason for deficit spending.

    (2) T, as to your comment about military/police being there to protect us from other people, I’d say that you’re partially right. First, I could simply say that diseases and illnesses are analogous to “other people”—they all harm the individual in various ways, and most of the time the individual is without fault. Second, the police also protect people from themselves (the suicidal). Also, I guess I could expand my military/police point to include the fire department/911 system, as well. (Though there is probably a solid argument for a volunteer fire department).

    (3) “Do you believe the government should provide all citizens with free food and drink? Free shelter? Free clothes?”—That’s exactly what the government does now, and to a certain extent, that’s what it should do. Living in a civilized society, I’d like to believe that we all wouldn’t like to see people starving to death on the streets if they’re mentally/physically handicapped and cannot support themselves. The question should rather be: what kinds of free services should the government provide? My answer would be the minimum, which would give people who can work the incentive to do so. I certainly don’t want to see people on welfare starve, but at the same time I don’t think they should be eating lobster every night, either.

    (4) In the US now, we pretty much have universal health care as the current system stands. Poor children are covered under Medicaid, the elderly are covered under Medicare, and the uninsured American can always go to the emergency room free of charge. I think the best way to approach universal health care would be for the government (probably at the state level to increase competition further) to contract with private parties (probably the insurance companies that exist now), as it does now with defense contractors/construction crews/office cleaners/etc. T, I’d probably agree that this would stifle some innovation and lead to inefficiencies, but I would hope that this would be a small price to pay for something I believe to be a basic human right.

  20. A few short comments:
    2) I would agree that we need government for “breakout” scenarios and rampant diseases, although this represents a tiny minority of medical care.

    3) I agree we don’t want to see people starving on the streets. I argue that if the government doesn’t provide it, that *doesn’t* mean it won’t get provided. When we start to see bad things happen, watch the money pour into the charities that fight it. You and I both know we couldn’t sit back and watch that happen, and we’re not unique. Hell, maybe if they gave me 25% of my income tax back, I’d be a little more generous to charity – especially if I saw the devestation (similar to, but not as extreme as, the donations during 9/11) in the streets.

    4) http://harrybrowne.org/articles/HealthCare.htm
    Just crazy enough to work?

  21. I’m not saying that I think the government is efficient. I’m a former state employee myself, and I got the hell outta there. But I don’t think that it’s impossible to be efficient. Even if one advocates for small government, that must mean that the services you would want the government to provide (police, education) must be most effectively done by the government, right?

    And then i agree with what Callahan said.

    But now I offer this link.
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/07/08/goodfella.guide.ap/index.html

Comments are closed.