Everyone in the US should take this quiz

[herbivor]

I dont understand why Ron Paul is considered a Libertarian. He's not. And since he is a Republican, I also don't understand why he is still running against Romney.

[absolutdog]

78% Mitt Romney, fuck being a waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles ass liberal.

I'm glad you don't get to vote in OUR election :)
Stay in Canada with your socialized health care, no A.R.'s, gay marriage and legal weed

(hope my liberal jealousy comes across in txt)

[mar1t1me]

82% Johnson
81% Libertarian
43% Republican
68% Democratic

[cale]

We need another one of these for past politicians to see if you agree with their actions and not what they sell themselves as.

[nando]

I got Obama, but there's pretty much only really two choices and there's no way in hell Romney will get my vote. Wouldn't neccesarily be against voting for the other non-canidates.

[VinniE30]

I dont understand why Ron Paul is considered a Libertarian. He's not. And since he is a Republican, I also don't understand why he is still running against Romney.

Ron Paul is a libertarian and his views are libertarian. And he has run for president under the libertarian party in the past. He is only running as a republican because people are stupid and won't vote for third party candidates. But now romney is the republican nominee so at this point there isn't much ron paul can do...
Maybe if everyone took polls like this (assuming they are unbiased) they would realize their beliefs align the most with a third party and put their votes to good use instead of just being a sheep.
I've always voted libertarian but I would vote for Ron Paul no matter what party he was running under because I support his views so strongly.


Here's a nice narrative on the subject...

At a September 10, 2008, press conference, Paul announced his general support of four third-party candidates: Cynthia McKinney (Green Party); Bob Barr (Libertarian Party); Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party); and Ralph Nader (independent). He said that each of them had pledged to adhere to a policy of balancing budgets, bringing the troops home, defending privacy and personal liberties, and investigating the Federal Reserve. Paul also said that under no circumstances would he be endorsing either of the two dominant parties' candidates (McCain – Republican Party, or Obama – Democratic Party) because there were no real differences between them, and because neither of them, if elected, would seek to make the fundamental changes in governance that were necessary. He urged instead that, rather than contribute to the “charade” that the two-party election system had become, the voters support the third-party candidates as a protest vote, to force change in the election process.[81][82] Later that same day, Paul gave a televised interview with Nader saying much the same again.

[VinniE30]

I got Obama, but there's pretty much only really two choices and there's no way in hell Romney will get my vote. Wouldn't neccesarily be against voting for the other non-canidates.

Why not? This isn't a game where you vote for who you think is most likely to win. Your vote expresses your opinion. If you don't approve for either of the two main parties then express that with your vote. Otherwise you're saying you support that candidate, when you're actually voting for the lesser of 2 evils. But please explain your logic behind there being only two choices to you.

[slammin.e28]

Ron Paul 92%

Fuck everyone else.

[nando]

Why not? This isn't a game where you vote for who you think is most likely to win. Your vote expresses your opinion. If you don't approve for either of the two main parties then express that with your vote. Otherwise you're saying you support that candidate, when you're actually voting for the lesser of 2 evils. But please explain your logic behind there being only two choices to you.

because I pretty much disagree with everything goons like Romney stand for? who said anything about one being more likely to win?

there's only two choices because we have a 2 party system. sure, you can write in, or vote lib, but you may as well "like" the facebook page of your 3rd canidate. same effect.

[VinniE30]

because I pretty much disagree with everything goons like Romney stand for? who said anything about one being more likely to win?

See, that's what i'm talking about, you sound like you're voting against someone rather than for someone.

there's only two choices because we have a 2 party system. sure, you can write in, or vote lib, but you may as well "like" the facebook page of your 3rd canidate. same effect.

This is where I have a problem with that thought process. What do you mean by "same effect"? How does your vote matter any more voting for one of the 2 main parties as opposed to a third party?
I think the opposite, that your essentially throwing your vote away by voting for them and that it would do a lot more good voting for a third party. The 2 main parties are essentially the same, and both aren't going to change anything that really matters. They both agree on major issues like a huge military budget, it being acceptable to go to war, the war on drugs, and big government being the only option.
If you want to argue about your vote "counting" from a statistics standpoint then it makes even more sense to vote third party, since you would be adding "1" to a smaller number rather than a larger number. If a third party got a significant percentage of votes it would at least send a message the two main parties and also send a message that they have a better chance of winning in the next election. Voting for one of the 2 main parties does nothing to change anything.
If you're truly happy with the way this country is going especially with our civil rights and wars then it makes sense to vote to keep things the way they are, which you will be doing voting for either the rep or dem party.

[nando]

See, that's what i'm talking about, you sound like you're voting against someone rather than for someone.

This is where I have a problem with that thought process. What do you mean by "same effect"? How does your vote matter any more voting for one of the 2 main parties as opposed to a third party?

if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...

maybe that is the way it is? IMO not voting for Obama is effectively a vote for Romney. If I listed everything about Romney I didn't like it would take me all day long.

in 2000 it was lesser of two evils: gore vs bush. It was too close to call so the courts did it for us.

in 2004 it was bush vs kerry. bush was lesser of two evils this time, but only because Kerry was completely incompetent.

2008 it was Obama vs Mcain and Sarah. no contest there. Sarah is like a black hole for intelligence.

[FunfGan]

93% Romney.

[agent]

Don't forget to click on the Show all candidates link... I side 33% with "The Rent Is Too Damned High" party on immigration issues.

http://www.isidewith.com/results/15446320

[z31maniac]

I didn't take the time to rate the importance to me of each issue, but I'm not surprised by the results, with the exception of so much with Romney.

[mrsleeve]

Seems to me that in the last 10 months or so Mitten has been sliding to the libertarian a bit to pander to the tea party and people like us, that he knows he needs to have the support of to win.

I wont hold my breath for him to actually agree and follow though with any of the small govt, lower taxes, less spending, balanced budget, repeal 0 care rhetoric hes been spewing for a while now. Hes a big govt R and we all know it.