Support NeoGAF

[SteveWinwood]

Whats her attitude towards gitmo?

Couldn't tell ya. I'm assuming she's against it.

But she's against gmos because she's ignorant.

 

[Videoneon]

I side with Jill Stein on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.

Ben Stein 88%
Bama 82%
Paul-la-la-la-Paully 30%
The Mittster 3%

Green 88%
Democrat 82%
Libertarian 46%
Republican 3%

But the real question is, am I a leftist scum

It's designed to be slow and difficult precisely so the government does not adopt laws and policies which are not agreeable to the entire nation. Ignoring your founding document in the name of agility is a sure fire way to corrupt the process and create the political hell we now enjoy.

You should be aware that the American as an informed member of the body politic--an important axiom of democratic operation--is sub par. A highly nuanced issue.

If you just want to reduce democracy to a mechanistic view ("people have the option to vote, that's all we need"), that does little to contribute to the operation of the democracy. You are assuming that if there has been no vote otherwise on any one amendment, the greater American public tacitly supports that one or all Constitutional amendment definitions. Which should be an interesting consideration to you in particular, as you were inclined to assume a sizable population of GAF hasn't read the Constitution. Rightfully or wrongfully.

As for the Constitution, I don't know why you're suggesting the Constitution is the solution to America's problems. That had nothing to do with proposing contextually relevant solutions--you're proposing honoring the Constitution for the sake of doing so. You brought up military budgeting, but your first justification is the Constitution.

 

[Davey Cakes]

This is me:

This is why I have trouble with politics. Nothing is really clear cut with me.

 

[sphagnum]

This is why I have trouble with politics. Nothing is really clear cut with me.

Got any examples?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Yeah, though I like how Ron Paul somehow scored the lowest.

Still this is pretty funny. I think I put my interest in foreign policy up too high, though I also did with science and middle of the road for everything else.

Mitt Romney
76%
on foreign policy, domestic policy, and environmental issues.
73%
Barack Obama
on science, economic, immigration, social, environmental, and healthcare issues.
58%
Jill Stein
on science, economic, and social issues.
12%
Ron Paul
no major issues.




Wow she's just as dumb, but completely the political opposite of Ron Paul. lol

I don't even know Romney's foreign policy stance. Where exactly do you agree with him?

 

[NBtoaster]

I'm not American, but side with Obama 88%.

And Jill Stein 79%, though I've never heard of them before.

 

[speculawyer]

88 Obama
79 Stein
70 Gary Johnson
56 Ron Paul
36 Mitt Romney

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Edit: Tried again and tweaked my answers a bit more . . . pretty much the same results:

86 Obama
76 Stein
66 Johnson
52 Paul
43 Romney

Some details:

Do you believe the theory of Evolution?
Mitt Romney: Yes, and I believe it is a part of Creationism
You: Evolution is a fact, not a theory

LOL. Mitt triangulated on evolution? Shameless.

Should illegal immigrants working in the U.S. be granted temporary amnesty?
Barack Obama: Yes
You: No, fine companies that employ illegal immigrants

Uh, that is not Obama's policy. That is only his policy for people that came over as children.

Should the U.S. end the war in Afghanistan?
Barack Obama: No, not until all U.S. military leaders are confident the mission has been accomplished
You: Yes

Give it up, Obama. That war is going no where. Declare victory and leave.

 

[daycru]

 

[Particle Physicist]

here's mine:

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Also:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/map.php

The National Popular Vote bill is halfway to getting enough electoral votes to pass. If it gains enough momentum, every vote will count. State polls show that a majority of people in almost every state support this.

If the Electoral College stands then I agree it's a tougher call to vote for a third party when you'd also rather have the lesser of two evils. However, if you want to help abolish it, please use the web site to send an email of support to your local pols. www.nationalpopularvote.com

I'd like to encourage everyone in the US to oppose this. It's a knee jerk reaction to the 2000 election and this will not solve the issue you think it will. The whole idea simply shifts the level at which your vote doesn't "count." It's based on the idea that if you're a D in TX or an R in CA, no matter how you vote, it won't sway the result of your state's EC total. By that logic, if you were a D in 2004, or an R in 2008, your vote would have counted even less.

What's really insidious about this proposal is that once enough states pass it, it will flip states based on the voters not in that state. You think Bush v. Gore was messy, you ain't seen nothin' yet. If this passes, in just about every cycle a state will flip from one party to the other, and that state's citizens' vote is completely ignored. That's bad enough, but consider what happens if the traditional EC tally goes one way and the popular vote goes the other. Say you're a D in reliably blue IL, now not only does your state ignore your vote in deference to TX, but that also changes who will become president.

If you really want your "vote to count," mathematically, the best way to do that is to break the electorate in to discrete blocks, like the Electoral College.

 

[Davey Cakes]

Got any examples?

It's a general statement. I don't deal in absolutes most of the time, and I land more towards the middle (e.g. legalization of marijuana but not full decriminalization of all drugs, citizenship for illegal immigrants but with restrictions, etc.) so when I vote it's more of a toss-up, even though this website tells me I'm an Obama supporter.

 

[LizardKing]

I'd like to encourage everyone in the US to oppose this. It's a knee jerk reaction to the 2000 election and this will not solve the issue you think it will. The whole idea simply shifts the level at which your vote doesn't "count." It's based on the idea that if you're a D in TX or an R in CA, no matter how you vote, it won't sway the result of your state's EC total. By that logic, if you were a D in 2004, or an R in 2008, your vote would have counted even less.

What's really insidious about this proposal is that once enough states pass it, it will flip states based on the voters not in that state. You think Bush v. Gore was messy, you ain't seen nothin' yet. If this passes, in just about every cycle a state will flip from one party to the other, and that state's citizens' vote is completely ignored. That's bad enough, but consider what happens if the traditional EC tally goes one way and the popular vote goes the other. Say you're a D in reliably blue IL, now not only does your state ignore your vote in deference to TX, but that also changes who will become president.

If you really want your "vote to count," mathematically, the best way to do that is to break the electorate in to discrete blocks, like the Electoral College.

Ha, good luck with that bullshit here. Nice way to try to spin it though.

 

[speculawyer]

I did the . . . let me pick a bunch of really fucking bad answers things and got:

88 Romney
77 Virgil Goode
67 Ron Paul
57 Gary Johnson
12 Obama
1 Stewart ALexander (Who the fuck is that?)
0 Jill Stein

I can't believe Romney scored higher than Virgil Goode on my idiot answer set. My guess was the "Let's stay in Afghanistan" answer.

 

[Dark_AnNiaLatOr]

I got 87% Jill stein and only 18% mitt Romney lol. I'm not surprised about mitt Romney.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Ha, good luck with that bullshit here. Nice way to try to spin it though.

It's an ill thought out back door way of going to a national popular vote that will spark a legal cluster fuck that will make the Obamacare decision look like a jaywalking ticket. And I have no clue which party it will screw first.

If you want a national popular vote, do it right. I'll still argue against it, but at least if that position wins, it won't spark succession.

 

[Davey Cakes]

I can't decide if my answers were necessarily "bad," but I took this quiz again and answered each question with what I thought was the "wrong" answer (at least IMO), disregarding the weighting mechanism of personal importance.

Romney was the highest with 82%. I guess I could say that voting for him would just be the "wrong" decision, based on my views according to the quiz.

 

[Rentahamster]

It's a knee jerk reaction to the 2000 election and this will not solve the issue you think it will.

Yep.

Sometimes I wish for a Republican popular vote and a Democratic EC victory just to watch the bitter tears and head explosions.

 

[speculawyer]

I'd like to encourage everyone in the US to oppose this. It's a knee jerk reaction to the 2000 election and this will not solve the issue you think it will. The whole idea simply shifts the level at which your vote doesn't "count." It's based on the idea that if you're a D in TX or an R in CA, no matter how you vote, it won't sway the result of your state's EC total. By that logic, if you were a D in 2004, or an R in 2008, your vote would have counted even less.

What's really insidious about this proposal is that once enough states pass it, it will flip states based on the voters not in that state. You think Bush v. Gore was messy, you ain't seen nothin' yet. If this passes, in just about every cycle a state will flip from one party to the other, and that state's citizens' vote is completely ignored. That's bad enough, but consider what happens if the traditional EC tally goes one way and the popular vote goes the other. Say you're a D in reliably blue IL, now not only does your state ignore your vote in deference to TX, but that also changes who will become president.

If you really want your "vote to count," mathematically, the best way to do that is to break the electorate in to discrete blocks, like the Electoral College.

I don't think you understand the way it works.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/faqitem.php?f=11

 

[Monocle]

Here's what I got when I tried to choose all of the most evil options. (No to gay marriage, deport all immigrants, install democracies overseas, preemptively attack any country that appears to pose a threat to us, ignore global warming, ban abortion and stem cell research and the teaching of evolution, etc.)

And here are the results that reflect my true opinions.

 

[Sky Chief]

89 Gary Johnson
88 Ron Paul
78 Mitt Romney
57 Virgil Goode
55 Jimmy McMillan
41 Barack Obama
33 Jill Stein
9 Stewart Alexander

 

[Death Dealer]

LOL. Mitt triangulated on evolution? Shameless.

Seems like the same policy as the Catholic Church. Yes evolution is real, but it was part of God's plan. If you're devoutly religious, that actually sounds like a pretty reasonable position. Hell of a lot better than the fundamentalists who think evolution is a deception perpetrated by Satan.

 

[pigeon]

I'd like to encourage everyone in the US to oppose this. It's a knee jerk reaction to the 2000 election and this will not solve the issue you think it will. The whole idea simply shifts the level at which your vote doesn't "count." It's based on the idea that if you're a D in TX or an R in CA, no matter how you vote, it won't sway the result of your state's EC total. By that logic, if you were a D in 2004, or an R in 2008, your vote would have counted even less.

Wait, wait, wait. While affirmative representation is a problematic aspect of the system, a national vote doesn't address that. The issue is that the Electoral College is specifically designed to advantage lower-population states at the cost of higher-population ones. Your link says that California had the same electoral impact as the 29 smallest states despite casting half as many votes. Now, first off, this analysis is deeply flawed since he considers states with contrasting electoral votes to cancel out -- California's 55 electoral votes are about as many as the bottom 13 states possess. What it doesn't note is that an individual Californian's hypothetical vote is worth about a third of a citizen of Wyoming or the District, because California's electoral representation is not proportional to its actual population. (In other words, although California's 55 electoral votes equal those of the bottom 13 states in terms of population, it actually has significantly MORE population than all those states combined -- so all the Californians are still underrepresented.) It shouldn't be surprising that Californians cast less votes if their votes are intrinsically less meaningful! I don't find your article's argument regarding the coherence of a large state particularly meaningful, but even if I accept it, counting the national vote does, in fact, directly insure that each American's vote will be equally relevant to the election of the President (though Californians, Texans and New Yorkers will remain heavily underrepresented in Congress), and so should be at least as good as his proposal.

What's really insidious about this proposal is that once enough states pass it, it will flip states based on the voters not in that state. You think Bush v. Gore was messy, you ain't seen nothin' yet. If this passes, in just about every cycle a state will flip from one party to the other, and that state's citizens' vote is completely ignored. That's bad enough, but consider what happens if the traditional EC tally goes one way and the popular vote goes the other. Say you're a D in reliably blue IL, now not only does your state ignore your vote in deference to TX, but that also changes who will become president.

Your argument relies on the assumption that most Americans find the electoral college reasonable and intuitive. I would suggest that this is a false perspective and that, in fact, most Americans believe or would prefer to believe that the President is ALREADY elected by national popular vote, especially since, historically, it has almost always been true. This will be a change that will merely simplify the structure of government to match the expectations of the average citizen and thus should pass relatively unnoticed.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Couldn't tell ya. I'm assuming she's against it.

But she's against gmos because she's ignorant.

Gmos? Lol what is?

 

[NullPointer]

85% Jill Stein. Not sure how accurate this is, since it also gave me 71% with Ron Paul... I "kind of" agree with him on a number of issues, but usually for very different reasons or to different extremes.

You can click on each candidate on your final score for a more detailed breakdown by issue.

 

[Kad5]

If I do decide to vote then probably Gary Johnson.

 

[Izayoi]

The federal governments first duty is national defense.

Oh dear.

 

[Lafiel]

I'm not sure why people here are surprised by the jill stein results. This board is really liberal after all!

 

[Nert]

I took the test, but I don't really feel like sharing my results because I wasn't satisfied with the types of questions that were present. For most of the issues that I care about (education, immigration, trade, international diplomacy, reforming/downsizing the prison system, etc.), there were either not enough questions or I didn't care for the way the questions were structured. For example, all of the immigration questions on the test concerned only illegal immigration; I think that the United States should make it easier for many more people to get into the country legally, as the benefits of having a growing population and a younger workforce are substantial.

Another example: it said that I agreed with Jill Stein on economic issues, when much of the Green Party's thinking on trade is anathema to me (they oppose NAFTA, GATT, and even the WTO).

 

[Thoraxes]

I live in Chicago, so it doesn't make much rational sense for me to vote in this election. If I still lived in Michigan, though, I would vote.

It's funny how in the senatorial elections, the entire state voted Repub. except for Chicagoland.

And that was basically at a 49-51 split.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Anyone on the fence between Obama and Stein, I highly recommend reading her interview on the website. http://www.isidewith.com/blog/43316191-interview-with-jill-stein ...

 

[zethren]

Not really surprising.

 

[Kad5]

This is odd considering I hate the GOP.

 

[pigeon]

This is odd considering I hate the GOP.

You know how we keep telling you that your libertarian position is significantly more friendly to corporate interests and the rich than you are arguing?

SCIENCE

 

[berg ark]

People that side with Romney are undoubtedly horrible people.

i'm really preplexed at the huge amount of mittens suporters... at gaf?!

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Registered independent. Never heard of Gary or Jill before last night when I took this.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

I don't think you understand the way it works.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/faqitem.php?f=11

I re-read it just to be sure, and yes, I understand exactly how it works.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

UK Liberal Democrat here, I'm expecting either Greens or Democrats - let's see.

Yup, Greens and Democrats. 88 and 80 respectively. I've got experience with the UK Greens, they're typically forward-thinking but often very unrealistic. I have no real problem with them other than they sometimes compete too hard versus the LDs when we're often fighting for the same broad policies.

I facepalmed hard when the Evolution question came up. Only in the USA would that question ever be relevant. It's like asking whether the sky is blue or Earth goes around Sol.

In any case the correct decision is not to vote. There's no point - you're not going to influence the result. It's a waste of time. If you're interested in politics you should participate rather than just voting occasionally.

 

[Anteater]

Not american but here's mine

Go jill

 

[Pepto]

Eurogaf here:

92% Jill Stein
2% Mitt Romney

 

[demolitio]

People that side with Romney are undoubtedly horrible people.

Yup, those intolerant assholes for disagreeing with you. Still quite ironic that people proclaim how tolerant they are and how intolerant the other side is while you manage to generalize a whole group of people and call them horrible. My other post over this hypocrisy was a little longer and more thought out but it's pointless going over it again on here. But hey, continue feeling superior over those horrible people because there's no good people on that side and there's definitely no bad people on the other side. Literally, the majority rules in each and every community and one side is portrayed as nothing but villains. Same goes for a military site I'm on that goes the other way. I'm pretty sure neither party gives a shit about anyone so it's not like it's mutually exclusive to one side or the other. We already have shitty attack ads that are proven by all big news networks as almost entirely false yet people will ignore those things as well as long as their side is on top. Both sides are stupid and the people in the middle are the ones stuck dealing with the fallout.

Yet we magically expect bipartisanship when the polarization is that bad that others are "undoubtedly horrible people?" Well, I guess as long as the person's side isn't the one caving, then they'll spout that bullshit all they want. But hey, let's go straight for the emotional attacks and have some fun like most people since those always solve big debates. "You suck. I win!"

Both main candidates are letdowns and I'm still waiting for the day where a third party can actually be relevant and strong enough to win if I'm still alive to see that day. People that actually run on their own views and not party interests, people that don't bully others through funding threats, etc. Stop the parties from controlling all the bullshit and we might get some real people with some real moderate views. As for this "test", it's not as good as the more thorough ones out there because you can tell which questions are setting you up for certain results when none of the answers even fit your view necessarily.

 

[Caja 117]

Im going with Obama again.

 

[Palette Swap]

Here's a literally unamerican result:
84%
Green
84%
Democratic
59%
Libertarian
28%
Republican

 

[SteveWinwood]

Gmos? Lol what is?

Oh I thought you were kidding. Geneticly modified organisms. How we're going to feed the world.

 

[Palette Swap]

Oh I thought you were kidding. Geneticly modified organisms. How we're going to feed the world.

Sorry for the derail but as much as I'm all for the science in the name of progress for the whole world, I understand how a poster child for GMOs such as Monsanto would (and should) make everyone nervous.

GMOs have the potential to feed the world but a shitty patenting system could as well just starve it.

 

[Kong Fisso]

Eurogaf here:

92% Jill Stein
2% Mitt Romney

Same results.

Civilized gaf here.

 

[rakhir]

I'm not american also, but still:

I would go with Jill Stein, though, since Gary Johnsons' policy on hun control and abortion rights are highly different then mine.

 

[awm8604]

Either a write-in vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. There is 0% chance I'll vote for Romney or Obama. They're essentially the same, front men for the same machine that has been running America for decades.

 

[Hitokage]

GMOs have the potential to feed the world but a shitty patenting system could as well just starve it.

Exactly. The most unarguably dangerous aspect of GMOs is legal.

 

[metalslimer]

Yup, those intolerant assholes for disagreeing with you. Still quite ironic that people proclaim how tolerant they are and how intolerant the other side is while you manage to generalize a whole group of people and call them horrible. My other post over this hypocrisy was a little longer and more thought out but it's pointless going over it again on here. But hey, continue feeling superior over those horrible people because there's no good people on that side and there's definitely no bad people on the other side. Literally, the majority rules in each and every community and one side is portrayed as nothing but villains. Same goes for a military site I'm on that goes the other way. I'm pretty sure neither party gives a shit about anyone so it's not like it's mutually exclusive to one side or the other. We already have shitty attack ads that are proven by all big news networks as almost entirely false yet people will ignore those things as well as long as their side is on top. Both sides are stupid and the people in the middle are the ones stuck dealing with the fallout.

Yet we magically expect bipartisanship when the polarization is that bad that others are "undoubtedly horrible people?" Well, I guess as long as the person's side isn't the one caving, then they'll spout that bullshit all they want. But hey, let's go straight for the emotional attacks and have some fun like most people since those always solve big debates. "You suck. I win!"

Both main candidates are letdowns and I'm still waiting for the day where a third party can actually be relevant and strong enough to win if I'm still alive to see that day. People that actually run on their own views and not party interests, people that don't bully others through funding threats, etc. Stop the parties from controlling all the bullshit and we might get some real people with some real moderate views. As for this "test", it's not as good as the more thorough ones out there because you can tell which questions are setting you up for certain results when none of the answers even fit your view necessarily.

Considering he never called them intolerant....this feels like post that should have went in the CFA thread.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Ron paul and gary johnson are about tied at 78%