Here are my US Presidential elections of 2016 results from what is possibly the most comprehensive quiz/polling site on the issue:
I have to say that this tool is quite accurate. For instance, in my 2012 results, it identified Barack Obama as the (realistically) best candidate I could support.
If I was 100% American I might have had a small preference for Romney but that was precluded by my Russian ethnic genetic interests. Hence my verdict then: “I for one still favor Obama if with no particular enthusiasm.”
As self-identified Alt Left or #LRx I’m fine with Bernie being fourth, but what is the warmongering hag doing immediately below him?
Ted Cruz is far from the worst option, but he is tainted by his absurd degree of loyalty to a certain lobby. Why opt for him when you can have the real deal with Trump?
This looks about right. Although I might not fully sign up to minor planks of his platform on topics such as science and environment, it is really the Invade/Invite thing that trumps (pardon the pun) everything else.
This is a rational set of political preferences so I have no qualms with being labeled centrist. It is everyone else who’s crazy.
Eek! I side with Donald Trump
http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1614581687
I might do that quiz when I have some free time. I like Rand Paul the most, even though I’m not a libertarian. But he has no chance. Trump has a serious chance to win the nomination and a small chance to win the presidency.
I don’t know if I should take Trump’s campaign as politics or entertainment. Would he try to keep his promises? Is he even being serious? Paul has a track record, as does his father. They obviously sincerely believe in their stuff and I agree with them on foreign policy.
I’ll vote for Trump against Hillary in the general because there’s a chance that he’ll go against the establishment consensus, a chance that he means at least some of what he says. Hillary is a loyal servant of the powers that be.
You could compare Trump with Zhirinovsly. I’d say Zhirik is smarter and funnier. Both have made me think “yes, I wanted to hear that, but not from a clown. When a clown says such things, he’s devaluing them.”
This is not an accurate poll. On global warming, I support a carbon tax, which is quite different than doing nothing, yet the poll says that I agree with Carly on this even though I do not. If you do not answer yes or no, but use other stances the poll gives both false positives and negatives.
My results, as expected: RAND PAUL followed by Trump, with Clinton and Sanders towards the bottom.
On numerous issues, the poll fails to include the option that is consistent with the Tenth Amendment (I know, as if the constitution is even slightly observed): repeal federal statutes in the area, strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue, and let the people of each State decide their own law and policy.
This is also the most practical on hotly contested emotional issues such as abortion and drug policy, as well as speed limits, seat belt or helmet requirements, insurance, drinking age, marriage homosexual or otherwise, etc.
It doesn’t matter that most Americans have no idea what the tenth amendment says or even don’t care. If the tenth amendment option were included and phrased in an articulate fashion. It would command some support. It would also remind poll takers that that approach is an option, since they don’t hear about it at all.
You’re right on that question for sure. I might favor a tax on pollution emissions, but only if it entirely replaces the federal income tax (including the so-called social security and Medicare taxes, which are not saved and are not reserved for their stated purposes) and capital gains tax.
To the extent that we must tax, we should generally strive to tax activities by which people cause physical harm to other people, including the higher rates and risks of cancer, respiratory disorders, heart problems, birth defects, and other painful and life-shortening conditions that come with pollution.
Conversely, we would no longer be directly taxing productive work, savings, and investment / risk-taking.
But obviously in the current political climate, any carbon tax would be imposed on top of our existing unreasonably high, unreasonably numerous, and unreasonably complicated taxes. I’m can’t support a carbon tax without offsetting repeal of other taxes (including the repeal of the Amendment allowing direct federal taxation of income).
My result: Trump, 96%.
Yeah, the science aside, I’m torn about the correct policy approach. In general, I abhor statist solutions to these problems much more than Anatoly, but then one could make a case that environmental protection is a legitimate “general welfare” issue, like common defense, so the federal government should regulate it. Or perhaps we should just learn to live with a warming climate, if the only alternative is massive government intrusion in our lives? I do agree that, if the government imposes some kind of tax on commerce, which it has the constitutional right to do, that should only replace the evil income and payroll taxes, not add to them. And definitely no pollution licenses or green subsidies!
OT: Anatoly, did you see World Order? What’s your opinion on it?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/russia-putin-miroporyadok/422196/
AK: Yes, plan to write something about it soon. But Cologne is in the way today.
I got similar results with Bernie 1st and the Donald a close 2nd and the establishment candidates down towards the bottom. When ever I take those political compass quizzes I always get centrist. The thing is if you are politically incorrect, and oppose mass immigration you always get pigeon holed as a right winger even if you have left wing views on other issues. I like the idea of being a radical centrist by combining the best aspects of the left and right against the establishment.
Ex. Robert Stark interviews Bay Area Guy about the Radical Centre
http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=1762
http://occidentinvicta.com/2015/10/26/the-radical-center/
Yup, makes sense. I get Sanders, Hillary, Trump. (No, I don’t actually like Hillary, and I personally suspect Trump is playing everyone for a fool.) Which makes sense as I’m pretty liberal on non-immigration issues. Social Security? Fine with me. Global warming? Yeah, it’s real, and we better do something about it or we’ll waste the USA’s huge natural advantages being in the middle of the temperate zone. Raise taxes on the rich? Absolutely.
(You know, as a Russophile, do you think global warming could help your homeland? Seems to me Russia’s one of the few countries on earth that would be better off warmer–longer growing season, less money on heating, and less infernal misery in the winter months.)
The white-male-bashing and anti-freedom-of-speech stance of the academic Far Left disgusts me, but it hasn’t really become a campaign issue. Yet!
When did ‘moderate’ get to be a dirty word anyway? Anarchists and Klansmen don’t strike me as great role models.
Yes and no.
I don’t trust Donald Trump. He was known in New York for taking everyone’s money and declaring bankruptcy.
But…he has gotten the media to pay serious attention to the immigration issue and the other candidates to back away from amnesty. Nobody cared about the deficit until Perot got involved (though he was a lot more serious than Trump).
Yeah, I’m kind of the same way. I think there’s an elitist-populist axis that often gets ignored.
You should worry as you are completely out of touch. How do I know? My results were 1-Hillary, 2-Sanders, 3-Trump.
Projections indicate that in the shorter term there could actually be substantial losses because permafrost melting would undermine buildings, but in the long run I think it’s pretty obvious that Russia will benefit a lot in net terms from AGW.
Right now, 70% of its territory is for all intents and purposes uninhabitable (on a large scale), with a rise of a few degrees however it will become equivalent to two USAs.
I’ve actually even done a bit of sci-fi’ish fantasizing on this topic: http://akarlin.com/2011/10/polar-civilizations/
Naturally my outlook would be rather different if I was, say, Bangladeshi.
I’m a regular Unz reader, and agree a lot of the time with the right-leaning opinions of Sailer etc. But I get 98% for both Sanders and Clinton on that test: http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1619051246
I find Sanders old and indecisive, and Clinton’s personality is grating and insincere. Trump is entertaining, as was Berlusconi – and he would be equally disatrous. So not sure who I would vote for. It’s a moot point, I’m a UK resident.
Here we go again. Who are these “rich”? Those who are amassing assets, or those who already have them? Income or asset seizure? And who’s taking it, for what purpose, and is that entity on our side any more than the guy who made the money?
And if this were done on a worldwide basis, would you be included in those rich? After all, you are online, aren’t you?
If Donald Trump is on our side, he can keep his money. If George Soros is not, why is he allowed to walk free?