Forums → WEPR → I Side With Is Updated!

Apparently I scored an 81% with both Rick Santorum and Marco Rubio. Both Republicans, neither of whom I know anything about, and neither of whom seem worth voting for. Looks like another year of staying at home and wondering why people bother for me.

Looks like another year of staying at home and wondering why people bother for me.

Voter apathy is kinda why the big people are getting away with so much crap and asked to do it again.

I don't really want to take a screenshot because that would require uploading it to Photobucket, and then it would make the page longer...

So I'll just copy the results from the page.

Bernie Sanders 83%
on economic, social, foreign policy, immigration, environmental, and healthcare issues.

Hillary Clinton 75%
on foreign policy, social, environmental, and healthcare issues.

Rand Paul 59%
on immigration issues.

Mike Huckabee 58%
on environmental issues.

Jeb Bush 56%
on immigration and education issues.

Marco Rubio 44%
on environmental issues.

Ted Cruz 41%
on environmental issues.

Chris Christie 33%

Scott Walker 31%
on environmental issues.

Rick Santorum 28%

Ben Carson 24%
on immigration issues.

Carly Fiorina 6%

Not really surprising that I side with the two democrats more than the ten republicans, or even that I side with three republicans over 50%. At least maybe we'll have better candidates than in 2012 so I won't fall asleep during the debates.

Voter apathy is kinda why the big people are getting away with so much crap and asked to do it again.

That has more to do with voters not caring enough to research their congressional representatives before voting. When people do that we wind up with the same incumbents who are already screwing things up or electing new people based on party affiliation. Since Congress creates the laws, controls the budget, chooses the president (thank you electoral college), and decides whether things like Citizens United stay or go the presidential election is largely meaningless.

Face it. As much as you like Bernie Sanders and hate Citizens United, he can't do a thing about it from the president's office. It already exists so he can't veto it. The president doesn't have the power to abolish laws, he can only encourage Congress to do so. And the Supreme Court is the only government office with the authority to declare a law unconstitutional.

Furthermore, to vote for someone they have to be in the race. Without money you can't buy media attention and without media attention people won't vote for you in the primaries. The people most likely to represent the Republican and Democrat parties in 2016 are Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton. Let's say all of the 60% of this countries eligible voters who usually don't vote decided to change their ways in 2016. Even better, let's say they all voted for third party candidates. Not all of those people are going to vote for the same person. And with more third parties to choose from those votes are going to be split across several different candidates lowering the overall number of votes for each third party candidate lower than the main two. Then, the electoral college (which is primarily made up of Republican and Democratic candidates) chooses who they think should be president and have the power to completely ignore public votes. Apathy is the only way to go until the general public is willing to put some effort into electing the right representatives, or at least until the right representatives step up to be elected.

Bernie Sanders - 91%
Domestic, economic, social, foreign, healthcare, immigration, and education policy.

Hillary Clinton - 73%
Foreign and environmental policy.

Martin O'Malley - 54%
Immigration policy.

Rand Paul - 39%
Foreign policy.

Ben Carson - 21%
Foreign policy.

Ted Cruz - 13%
Environmental policy.

Scott Walker - 8%
N/A

Carly Fiorina - 4%
N/A

Bernie for president, apparently.

That has more to do with voters not caring enough to research their congressional representatives before voting. When people do that we wind up with the same incumbents who are already screwing things up or electing new people based on party affiliation. Since Congress creates the laws, controls the budget, chooses the president (thank you electoral college), and decides whether things like Citizens United stay or go the presidential election is largely meaningless.

So you're not going to vote for presidents, but you do vote for Congressmen, right?

And the Supreme Court is the only government office with the authority to declare a law unconstitutional.

The president has the power to appoint justices who will then see that Citizens United is unconstitutional. That is essentially what Bernie Sanders is going to do: no judge he appoints will approve of Citizens United.

Without money you can't buy media attention and without media attention people won't vote for you in the primaries.

Bernie Sanders has quite a bit of media attention already, enough to detract quite a bit of votes from the Hilary Clinton group.

Then, the electoral college (which is primarily made up of Republican and Democratic candidates) chooses who they think should be president and have the power to completely ignore public votes.

While the electoral college is utter crap, it still has to adhere to which candidate got the most votes in an all-or-none policy. It isn't so authoritarian where they literally decide who gets to be president. The people decide, and it's through 1. Electoral votes 2. Popular vote. And I hate how it has to be in that order.

Apathy is the only way to go until the general public is willing to put some effort into electing the right representatives, or at least until the right representatives step up to be elected.

Apathy allows the same people to be announced and elected. Do you really think the higherups care if people don't vote? Because people still will vote, and it's mostly the old folk with Traditionalist twinkles in their eyes who will adamantly vote for their candidate, and their choices are all people who would love more money in their pockets.

got 90% on bernie... i guess he's our man now... =P

So you're not going to vote for presidents, but you do vote for Congressmen, right?

Why would I take the time to elect the person who's going to steal my money to line their own racist pockets? I pay attention to the candidates, but none of them are worth voting for in my state.

The president has the power to appoint justices who will then see that Citizens United is unconstitutional. That is essentially what Bernie Sanders is going to do: no judge he appoints will approve of Citizens United.

Supreme court positions are for life. Presidents rarely get to appoint more than 1 justice. It takes 5 to get a ruling and first a case has to be brought before the court.

Apathy allows the same people to be announced and elected. Do you really think the higherups care if people don't vote?

I don't think anyone truly cares about who doesn't vote. I'm just not interested in wasting my time choosing a candidate, fighting the crowd, dealing with voting (which is often an intentionally confusing and difficult chore) all to elect someone I know can't or won't change anything.

Because people still will vote, and it's mostly the old folk with Traditionalist twinkles in their eyes who will adamantly vote for their candidate

Or the uneducated or the young or racial minorities or the lazy or the poor. Lots of people will vote for someone because of the party they represent, or for even more trivial factors like race or gender. Do you think Obama was elected because he was the best man for the job? No, he offered pleasant lies and won because people wanted to make history by electing a black president. Most of the people who are willing to research candidates realize that politicians are lying to gain votes. If there were any candidates willing to bring about real change there'd be a lot less non-voters. As is, there's no value in electing the same people when someone else is already doing that. I'll make you a deal. Prove to me that Sanders can get rid of Citizens United and I'll vote for him.

This is my first voting election, but more research is required before a decision can be made. I honestly don't know much about the candidates.

This site tells me I side 65% with bush, 63% with christie, 63% with sanders, 61% with Rubio, and 60% with Clinton.

~~~Darth Caedus

Before I take your stupid test I need to know if my man Donald "The hare" Trump is in it.

Before I take your stupid test I need to know if my man Donald "The hare" Trump is in it.

Donald Trump is not in this election (yet), good sir.

Edit: @Pangtongshu Yes, Donald Trump has just now announced his candidacy. I don't know why, but he is. He has just about as much chance of winning the primary as Rick Santorum does.

I'll make you a deal. Prove to me that Sanders can get rid of Citizens United and I'll vote for him.

I cannot prove that he will get rid of Citizens United, but he is our best chance at removing the bill (without calling for a National Convention which is what the people are already doing, so word is spreading). If the other presidential contenders are in the corporations' pockets, but Bernie Sanders isn't, we are talking 0% chance for removal for all of *them*, but an actual, tangible chance for removal with Bernie Sanders. We can wait for the National Convention to remove Citizen's United, or we can get Bernie Sanders to remove it, but both of them are going to take a long, long time.

Donald Trump is not in this election (yet), good sir.

He already had when I made my comment you dodo jesus Frank get ahold of yourself no voting for you this year

It's always about voting for the lesser evil anyway

Got Clinton at 70%, the rest are far far off. Predictable.

He already had when I made my comment you dodo jesus Frank get ahold of yourself no voting for you this year

Whoopsie!

86% B.Sanders
83% H.Clinton
65% J.Bush
60% M.Huckabee