I side with Jill Stein: Take the Election Quiz

[Arkie]

This is what the electoral map would look like if people voted based on the results from isidewith.com. (If we voted for our own beliefs instead of the lessor of two evils.)



Red = Barack Obama - 224 Electoral Votes
Yellow - Gary Johnson - 210 Electoral Votes
Green - Ron Paul - 76 Electoral Votes
Blue - Mitt Romney - 18 Electoral Votes
Teal - Jill Stein - 3 Electoral Votes

[houghtam]

http://www.isidewith.com/results/230909093

91% Jill Stein
77% Barack Obama
75% Rocky Anderson
65% Gary Johnson
15% Mitt Romney
5% Virgil Goode

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by Arkie

This is what the electoral map would look like if people voted based on the results from isidewith.com. (If we voted for our own beliefs instead of the lessor of two evils.)



Red = Barack Obama - 224 Electoral Votes
Yellow - Gary Johnson - 210 Electoral Votes
Green - Ron Paul - 76 Electoral Votes
Blue - Mitt Romney - 18 Electoral Votes
Teal - Jill Stein - 3 Electoral Votes

Jill Stein only 3? I am in the minority!! I'll wear it proudly!

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

Jill Stein only 3? I am in the minority!! I'll wear it proudly!

It's still good that she won a state. She probably got a lot of "best matches" in the other states but not enough to take all the electoral votes.

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by Arkie

This is what the electoral map would look like if people voted based on the results from isidewith.com. (If we voted for our own beliefs instead of the lessor of two evils.)



Red = Barack Obama - 224 Electoral Votes
Yellow - Gary Johnson - 210 Electoral Votes
Green - Ron Paul - 76 Electoral Votes
Blue - Mitt Romney - 18 Electoral Votes
Teal - Jill Stein - 3 Electoral Votes

1. First of all I think this is exactly how ELECTIONS should be caste. I doubt it will happen but think about how much happier we would all be if our elections were based on issues instead of advertising? I was surprised by my findings but not "shocked". Imagine if third party candidates were treated as more credible candidates? Would Mitt have run if he knew he was this far out of touch with reality?

2. Isn't a much more beautiful world where there are more than two colors! I love the way this map shows more of the REAL America instead of the one sided crap view we are all taught.

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by baja

One of the better quiz I like the extended options

I loved the extended options. That was an amazing feature to enter into a survey.

[Rohirrim]

I'm glad I voted for Rocky Anderson. I don't trust Obama. I still believe he will sell progressives down the road in exchange for some kind of "grand bargain" with the Right. Yes, I know he met with them the other day and assured them he is on their side. He did that in 2008 too. Right before his COS Rahm Emanuel told progressives (and I quote) to, "...go **** themselves."

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'm glad I voted for Rocky Anderson. I don't trust Obama. I still believe he will sell progressives down the road in exchange for some kind of "grand bargain" with the Right. Yes, I know he met with them the other day and assured them he is on their side. He did that in 2008 too. Right before his COS Rahm Emanuel told progressives (and I quote) to, "...go **** themselves."

Obama is a pragmatist. Principles are great, but governance is about deal making, and that means you have to give ground to get things done. Take the Affordable Health Care Act. Progressives howl because it isn't single-payer. Well, Obama had a choice. Stand his ground on single-payer and suffer the same fate as the Clintons while getting nothing done, or come up with a more conservative proposal that the Blue Dogs would agree to vote for. He chose to comprise to get something done. The AHCA is not perfect, but it's a lot better than the status quo, and I think Obama views it as the first incremental step needed to make towards total reform. That's the problem with the approach you want the President to take. It won't get anything done. Reform will come in ripples, not waves. He's doing the right thing. That's not "selling progressives down the road," it's being a pragmatic realist.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Obama is a pragmatist. Principles are great, but governance is about deal making, and that means you have to give ground to get things done. Take the Affordable Health Care Act. Progressives howl because it isn't single-payer. Well, Obama had a choice. Stand his ground on single-payer and suffer the same fate as the Clintons while getting nothing done, or come up with a more conservative proposal that the Blue Dogs would agree to vote for. He chose to comprise to get something done. The AHCA is not perfect, but it's a lot better than the status quo, and I think Obama views it as the first incremental step needed to make towards total reform. That's the problem with the approach you want the President to take. It won't get anything done. Reform will come in ripples, not waves. He's doing the right thing. That's not "selling progressives down the road," it's being a pragmatic realist.

When you sell social security, medicare, medicaid, labor and everything else off, piece by piece, pretty soon you've got nothing. Over the last thirty years, the Right has given up nothing. Absolutely nothing. Hell, the AHCA is their plan. You either stand for something or you don't. Obama's pragmatism is like Clinton's. And Clinton left office looking like a Republican.

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'm glad I voted for Rocky Anderson. I don't trust Obama. I still believe he will sell progressives down the road in exchange for some kind of "grand bargain" with the Right. Yes, I know he met with them the other day and assured them he is on their side. He did that in 2008 too. Right before his COS Rahm Emanuel told progressives (and I quote) to, "...go **** themselves."

Obama is not a progressive. (Traditional liberal) He never was and never will represent Matt Damon or any REAL liberal cause. He is a national candidate and has done nothing for the special interests as he has been so wrongfully accused. He hasn't erased urban poverty, erased racism, or improved anything for anybody. He has survived. Nobody remembers or completely understands what a serious disaster Bush. He left a crater deeper than 911 and a change in political thinking that has scarred this nation deeply. It is not entirely Bush's fault but the college textbooks haven't completed unraveled what happened in 2008.

The problem with conservatives is they refuse to realize the business opportunity from in-sourcing and the many clever ways a profit can be turned benefiting both the people you scorned as well as your friends and neighbors. Conservatives have a certain blood lust these days.

The problem with liberals is you cannot approach an immoral and greed centered anti social beast and expect it to want to do anything more than breed or consume. If you do not learn business it will continue destroying whatever it touches.

The problem with moderates is they lack imagination to bridge the gap between these two knuckleheads.

I was surprised at how high Rocky Anderson came on my survey. He was right after Jill Stein but Obama came at the top of my choices. I was hoping it would be Jill Stein.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

When you sell social security, medicare, medicaid, labor and everything else off, piece by piece, pretty soon you've got nothing. Over the last thirty years, the Right has given up nothing. Absolutely nothing. Hell, the AHCA is their plan. You either stand for something or you don't. Obama's pragmatism is like Clinton's. And Clinton left office looking like a Republican.

The reality is that unless we return the tax code to the progressive rates pre-Reagan, those programs will have to be reformed. Obviously, that would be my preference, but it ain't happening. Hell, getting a 3% raise on the rich from 36% to 39% has been a nightmare.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Obama is not a progressive. (Traditional liberal) He never was and never will represent Matt Damon or any REAL liberal cause. He is a national candidate and has done nothing for the special interests as he has been so wrongfully accused. He hasn't erased urban poverty, erased racism, or improved anything for anybody. He has survived. Nobody remembers or completely understands what a serious disaster Bush. He left a crater deeper than 911 and a change in political thinking that has scarred this nation deeply. It is not entirely Bush's fault but the college textbooks haven't completed unraveled what happened in 2008.

The problem with conservatives is they refuse to realize the business opportunity from in-sourcing and the many clever ways a profit can be turned benefiting both the people you scorned as well as your friends and neighbors. Conservatives have a certain blood lust these days.

The problem with liberals is you cannot approach an immoral and greed centered anti social beast and expect it to want to do anything more than breed or consume. If you do not learn business it will continue destroying whatever it touches.

The problem with moderates is they lack imagination to bridge the gap between these two knuckleheads.

I was surprised at how high Rocky Anderson came on my survey. He was right after Jill Stein but Obama came at the top of my choices. I was hoping it would be Jill Stein.

I personally believe that progressive solutions are the most pragmatic. Why? Because they have a track record of success on the ground. It's not a philosophy that some drunk, narcissistic, sociopath dreamed up, or a code of economic voodoo written on a napkin. It's a set of applied principles that worked in the past to such a degree that they created the most prosperous era in American history. Since we jettisoned those policies under Reagan we have been on a downward spiral until, once again, we find ourselves in the ruins of a once prosperous economy, which is what has happened every time we have tried this kind of "redistribution to the rich" economics.

Just this morning, I was listening to a report on what is happening to hospitals around the country. They are losing more and more insured patients and costs are rising. Why? Because insurance costs are rising too quickly, people can't afford it, and more and more Americans are dropping health insurance or switching to policies with enormous deductibles that they can't afford either. So what happens? The insurance companies raise rates again on those who can still afford it to make up for those who can't. See the death spiral there? Sticking up for such a system is not pragmatism. It's suicide. When Kaiser first brought up this idea of for-profit health insurance to Nixon he stated it was a "flim flam." Nixon wasn't stupid.

Not standing up for principles in this case means trading in what works for what doesn't. Incrementalism is the statement that we are going to inch our way back, over decades, to what we know actually works and in the meantime, live with what fails. That's neither pragmatic nor sensible.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

The reality is that unless we return the tax code to the progressive rates pre-Reagan, those programs will have to be reformed. Obviously, that would be my preference, but it ain't happening. Hell, getting a 3% raise on the rich from 36% to 39% has been a nightmare.

The difference is you need a leader who can fight. I know it's annoying that I keep going back to TR, but he had that kind of leadership. He went out and pled the case to the American people, over and over again, until they realized he was right. Not only that. He was one of the smartest people to ever occupy the WH. So, why was he a progressive?

This is why I gave up on the Dems. They have lost the ability to fight. They have moderated their positions so much over time in order to hold office that they ended up standing for nothing. Like Lincoln said, "Give the American people the facts and the country will be safe." TR was never afraid to do that. The modern politician triangulates himself right out of his beliefs.

[Rohirrim]

Here's the funny thing: In the real life meanings of the words, progressives are the conservatives and the modern "conservatives" are the radicals.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The difference is you need a leader who can fight. I know it's annoying that I keep going back to TR, but he had that kind of leadership. He went out and pled the case to the American people, over and over again, until they realized he was right. Not only that. He was one of the smartest people to ever occupy the WH. So, why was he a progressive?

This is why I gave up on the Dems. They have lost the ability to fight. They have moderated their positions so much over time in order to hold office that they ended up standing for nothing. Like Lincoln said, "Give the American people the facts and the country will be safe." TR was never afraid to do that. The modern politician triangulates himself right out of his beliefs.

I'm more cynical about it than you. Most people don't think their positions through clearly; they don't work out their philosophies to their logical conclusions. People want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want programs like Social Security, Medicare, etc, but if you try to raise their taxes so you can afford to pay for those programs, they howl that you're a pinko commie. In fact, they want you to lower them further AND still keep their beloved programs in tact. The right loves to trot out polls showing that people want smaller government, but the reality is that what people mean by that is "keep my taxes low, and get rid of things I don't like or use." That's why when the GOP candidates are asked about what they would cut, they mention stuff like Planned Parenthood and PBS, which are a pittance relative to the budget. It's the "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" mentality. It doesn't have anything to do with leadership. That's just where the zeitgeist sits right now, and you aren't going to make it shift in one fell swoop.

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Obama is a pragmatist. Principles are great, but governance is about deal making, and that means you have to give ground to get things done. Take the Affordable Health Care Act. Progressives howl because it isn't single-payer. Well, Obama had a choice. Stand his ground on single-payer and suffer the same fate as the Clintons while getting nothing done, or come up with a more conservative proposal that the Blue Dogs would agree to vote for. He chose to comprise to get something done. The AHCA is not perfect, but it's a lot better than the status quo, and I think Obama views it as the first incremental step needed to make towards total reform. That's the problem with the approach you want the President to take. It won't get anything done. Reform will come in ripples, not waves. He's doing the right thing. That's not "selling progressives down the road," it's being a pragmatic realist.

Right now we live in a nation where the threats to secede the nation and the racist cries of foul play are heard bitterly in red states. Obama is an amazing poker player. What kind of cards you think he has to play when members of his own party betray their best interests?

Obama gets dealt a 2 of clubs, a live grenade, and a bowling ball. Anybody else would call that a bad hand. How he pulls out three twos is amazing to me. How he is still at table with so many unreliable allies is fascinating.

Obama is going to have to completely change a lot of key advisers and try to do this quietly. He is going to have to get smarter about who his enemies are. The problem is now that he knows the game and is experienced what is he really going to accomplish? It should be interesting.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Odysseus

1. First of all I think this is exactly how ELECTIONS should be caste. I doubt it will happen but think about how much happier we would all be if our elections were based on issues instead of advertising? I was surprised by my findings but not "shocked". Imagine if third party candidates were treated as more credible candidates? Would Mitt have run if he knew he was this far out of touch with reality?

2. Isn't a much more beautiful world where there are more than two colors! I love the way this map shows more of the REAL America instead of the one sided crap view we are all taught.

People are taught that there are other parties and ideas, the key is that ballot access for those candidates and parties is much more harder to obtain. Something that the R's and D's worked on for years to make happen so that nobody else could interrupt their political hegemony.

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by Requiem

People are taught that there are other parties and ideas, the key is that ballot access for those candidates and parties is much more harder to obtain. Something that the R's and D's worked on for years to make happen so that nobody else could interrupt their political hegemony.

I wonder if the "common good" and "stability" are the words used to confront the weak kind of like "security" and being "safe".

I don't think it's the RNC and DNC. I really do think it is much more global corporate that most people realize. it's all a smoke a mirrors game over financial real estate. It's like a magic show with pretty light, colors and lies.

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I personally believe that progressive solutions are the most pragmatic. Why? Because they have a track record of success on the ground. It's not a philosophy that some drunk, narcissistic, sociopath dreamed up, or a code of economic voodoo written on a napkin. It's a set of applied principles that worked in the past to such a degree that they created the most prosperous era in American history. Since we jettisoned those policies under Reagan we have been on a downward spiral until, once again, we find ourselves in the ruins of a once prosperous economy, which is what has happened every time we have tried this kind of "redistribution to the rich" economics.

Just this morning, I was listening to a report on what is happening to hospitals around the country. They are losing more and more insured patients and costs are rising. Why? Because insurance costs are rising too quickly, people can't afford it, and more and more Americans are dropping health insurance or switching to policies with enormous deductibles that they can't afford either. So what happens? The insurance companies raise rates again on those who can still afford it to make up for those who can't. See the death spiral there? Sticking up for such a system is not pragmatism. It's suicide. When Kaiser first brought up this idea of for-profit health insurance to Nixon he stated it was a "flim flam." Nixon wasn't stupid.

Not standing up for principles in this case means trading in what works for what doesn't. Incrementalism is the statement that we are going to inch our way back, over decades, to what we know actually works and in the meantime, live with what fails. That's neither pragmatic nor sensible.

The problem is greed. The best ideas often do not have dollar signs pinned on them. Unless someone is getting robbed, raped, or you will have a hard time getting the curiosity of the rich or powerful.

I agree with everything you are saying but we are in dark water. Our thoughts are poisoned and until we learn to communicate the only course will be more selfishness, greed, and retribution for the smallest of slights.

It was never about thick skin. It was always about some basic measure of decency. It was never about pulling yourself up by your own boot straps but making sure your brother had boots he could wear.

We have forgotten our sense of community and reverted to some tribal vengeance where the laws of the feud are more relevant than community.

We have devolved to such an extent where asking an innocent question is considered naive and where thinking aloud is foolishness.