Vote By Issue

Post by **The Beatles** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:05 am

http://votebyissue.org/

My results, for curiosity's sake, were Clinton, then Gravel and Obama/Huckabee. Nevertheless the poll results ought to be weighted: if they were, I'd be Clinton/Obama tied, followed by Gravel. The only candidate I was in the negative with on agreements was Paul, but I was pretty liberal in what I let pass. In truth, I don't agree with any of the candidates on the key issues of healthcare and immigration (plus I don't vote) so it's pretty useless for me. And I frankly don't trust Hillary.

So what are your results?

Post by **Gen. Volkov** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:17 am

Took it, about what I expected.

Agreed with McCain the most, then Huckabee, (A little surprising, but he is fairly moderate once you get past the religion thing), then Clinton/Obama/Gravel, and I agreed with Ron Paul the least.

Funny thing is, I would consider voting for Obama, but not Clinton. But looking at the issues where I agreed with them, I can see why. I agreed more with him on the issues that are important to me than I agreed with Clinton on those issues. Still though, since it looks like McCain is going to win the Republican primary, that's really not an issue for me anymore. I'm just hoping Obama wins the Democratic primary, so we have an interesting race.

Post by **The Beatles** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:54 am

We had a similar experience then (except our obvious differences). I found Huckabee more moderate than I thought, but I certainly wouldn't vote for him because I don't trust him on science. And I came out agreeing with Clinton but I would still vote for Obama. And we both disagreed with Ron Paul.

Well, and I don't really fully agree with either candidate. But yes, it would be nice to have weighting of the issues, and also a sort of trust meter -- how far do I actually trust a given candidate to do A and not B when they promised A?

Post by **Gen. Volkov** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:02 am

and also a sort of trust meter -- how far do I actually trust a given candidate to do A and not B when they promised A?

Yes, that would be a great addition. I don't trust Hillary to do anything but serve her own interests, for example.

Post by **The Beatles** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:42 am

My view too, precisely!

And I just don't know about Obama -- he might be sincere. And I like his views about service.

Shadow I · Post by **Shadow I** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:04 am

http://mightywombat.com/oldtoon.php?year=2008&id=384

Death · Post by **Death** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:41 pm

Even if he's not, better him than Clinton.

"Look, I have a vagina, vote for me I'm (Profanity is a sign of Maturity)ing special!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no&NR=1

Shadow I · Post by **Shadow I** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:36 am

That video made me die a little inside...

Post by **Gen. Volkov** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:49 am

That video was, if possible, even more lame than the "Happy Working Song" from "Enchanted".

Post by **The Beatles** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:49 pm

Seriously, there hasn't been a woman head of government in the Western world in modern times who was getting enough... I mean, who wasn't authoritarian. Thatcher, Merkel, and now possibly, but hopefully not, Clinton.

Frost And Flame Forums

Vote By Issue

Members connected in real time