I found this online and thought it was quite interesting. http://www.politicalcompass.org/ I'll warn you it takes a few minutes to get through, it's fairly detailed.

Normally I'm pretty quiet on this part of the forum, seeing as I'm guessing my views are in the minority. However, views aside I just find this kind of info really interesting (Media Communications Major, go figure...).

If people want to share their results than great, but I'm not asking that. As I said I just think that this is a fascinating tool to compare yourself to the candidates.

Have fun!

 

Almost exactly where I claim to be. Some of those questions didn't leave you any room for a reasonable answer.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...2.12&soc=-0.15

 

I didn't bother with it. On the first page there were too many loaded questions to the point it made it practically impossible to answer them honestly.

 

Got that right. I was expecting the question :
"do you still wear dresses ?" to come up at some point.

that is a "test" designed to get a set of answers, just like the majority of polls.

 

No need for me. I knew who I was voting against on the first Wednesday of November 2008.

 

I just thought it would be interesting to see how people fell on the map. My posting this isn't to try and persuade any voters, it's just fascinating to see how close your views are to whom you are voting for.

 

I think these tests are fun, just for fun.
This one reminds of ......

 

I also reached that point on several questions and eventually blew off some answers just to get to the end.

I found part of the synopsis quite interesting, especially the last paragraph:

"The Political Compass ™ The US Presidential Election 2012

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/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. "

 

Atta boy! Don't vote "for" one guy...vote "against" the other guy.

 

That is what you are doing when you vote for one candidate to win, you are against the opponent winning...... Simple logic shows this....

 

When you completely despise one of the candidates when there's only two viable ones that's how it works. It really comes down to this, in 2008 I took one of these tests. I agreed with about 12% of what obummer's stance on the issues. Since then my opinion of him has only dropped. Right now I would rather go to the sewer and find the biggest, nastiest, turd covered rat and make him the President than see obummer in the Oval Office again.

I design business jets for a living. In 2008 there was well over 3000 people employed where I work. Due to the current administration's class warfare rhetoric there is now about 1300 people employed. I'm sure the 1700 people who lost good paying jobs would appreciate you're flippant eye roll because I want to vote the guy out of office who helped kill off their jobs.

 

As Nancy Pelosi would say, "are you serious?"

How quickly people forget the historic election of 2008, where the first "African American" president was elected because a whole buch of people voted against a guy who wasn't even running.

I understand that there are many people who don't see a problem with Obama. Give him four more years, and I bet they will.

 

Makes perfect sense to me. Romney has tried to run as "not Obama".