Political Issues and Positions List

Craven
Craven, why don't you save your energy and create a simpler quiz the average American will understand.

I will vote for George W. Bush because:
I like his smile
I like that he talks like me and my neighbors
I like that he sticks to his guns

I will not vote for Bush because:
I don't like his smirk
I don't like beer and I don't want to sit in a bar with him
I don't like his beady eyes, especially when reading My Pet Goat

I will vote for John F. Kerry because:
I hate George Bush
I like the cut of Kerry's suits
I like his wife

I will not vote for John Kerry because:
I don't like his eyebrows
I don't like his height because it makes me feel inferior
I don't like his rich wife

BBB

I've no problem with doing it all at one time, if others do they can break it down and pick what they want to address (or not).



Because my goal is not to make "a simpler quiz the average American will understand" but rather "the world's most accurate and comprehensive political quiz".

So what your trying to devise is a fool proof poll. Lots of luck.

Craven (I think it was Craven) worked out a two dimensional system a while ago and it was nifty.

Why not keep it simple? I know that most folks around here are at least above average, but that is not true everywhere. In my opinion the best speakers are those who can take a really complicated issue and break it down into easy to understand clear cut language. My problem is that I get so caught up in an issue that completley loose sight of the whole. Not to mention, I am not above average and I don't always understand complicated issues enough to break them down.

But when I go to deciding who I like, what makes me decide is how they feel on social and economic isssues. Maybe now I would pay more attention to how candidates feel on world issues, but in the past I didn't.

On all religion issues, I think common sense should be applied. I don't think it is necessary to remove all traces of religion from every aspect of public property or public activity. (however to phrase it) But I do think that we should not let religion play a role in policies.

On how much time and money should be spent on the millitary. In this day and age since 9/11 it would foolhardy not to spend as much on that as all other things combined. (and that is a leftist talking) But spend it wisely. Not on star wars, but just on the basics and homeland security. (police, fire department...)

On the question of the middle east crises and all that kind of a thing. Right now there is no one really who is what I think of as balanced in that area, so the question is for the future. In the future, I would look for people who are more balanced in those kinds of issues. I think we should be more like a world community rather than a big bully. But all these kinds of issues to me are like an infant stage and I think we as Americans are in the process of changing. At least I hope so; for the better. (In other words, bush way of looking at the world is not for me; Kerry at least seems willing to listen and weigh things before blowing people up)

On taxes, I think more is better because it takes more to do everything we need to do. Pretty simple really. Now if only to get people to see it.

On education, I think we need invest a lot more than we are currently on different things than we are now. Not so much on test as programs desgined to help with different problems and needs.

On the environment, I think we should get back to worrying about it because our enviornment is making everybody sicker and which drives up health cost.

On health care, I think that we should have nation wide free health care and do away with private health insurances all together. (radical, maybe unpractical, but that is the way I lean)

On abortion; I think that if it is medically necessary it should be up to the mother. Otherwise I am against it.

On welfare, I think a whole lot more should be done for the poor and children of the poor. Those who are against abortion should at least be for public assistance for the poor. There is no such thing as too much in this area in my opinion. But I think that there should be people all by themselves who watch for welfare abuses so that those that need help can get it.

Thats all I can think of. How to draft such a quiz, I wouldn't even think of going there.

Because that is the antithesis to the stated (repeatedly) goal.

I'm interested to see what you come up with.

I looked around at other paradigms--you know, all the different attempts at improving the left-right continuum.

The diagram with the x, y lines representing economics and social is about the best people have been able to come up with.

An improvement is beyond me, but I think you may be able to come up with something. Don't give up.

Interesting windmill to choose.

Very cool idea, Craven.

I want this quiz complete and on my desk by November 1, or so help me, heads will roll!

I meant simple as in easy to understand rather than big words that you have to have a phd (or at least a dictionary) to know what it means. But its your project.. its a good idea.

I have not made any references to any "front-facing" verbiage (i.e. the words quiz takers will see) so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Right now, I am just trying to get a handle on what spectrums and metrics to use.

Common ones are financial right/left and authoritarian/libertarian

I am looking for more spectrums first.

tolerance for ambiguity?

Ambiguity is for those who like it. I admit that I don't.

Craven:



Thanks for putting the (ie. the words quiz takers will see) after "front-facing" verbiage. Not only did you teach me a new word causing me to have look up "verbiage" but you put me in my place for thinking that any quiz that someone would do here would be something only an "elitist" would understand and appreciate.

My govt instructor is using the left/right continuum:

<----------------------------------->
left...................................right
Dem.................................GOP
order................................freedom
big govt........................small govt

along with Maslow's Hierarchy of Need, wherein the large, bottom end of the triangle (physiological needs) correspond with the left side of the left/right continuum, and the top part of the hierarchy (self-actualization) corresponds with right, or GOP side.

For those unfamiliar with Maslow's Hierarchy of need, imagine this thing is a triangle, with the big part at the bottom.

self actualization
self esteem
belonging
safety
physiological needs (basic human needs)

He then puts the economic scale below those, showing the few poor to correspond with the bottom of the Hierachy (needing more physiological things (food, shelter...) --the bulk of people in the center (middle class), and the few rich to correspond with more freedom, and self-actualization at the top of Maslow's triangle.

poor>><<<<<middle class>>>>>>><<rich

So, when you look at them transposed, the poor are grappling for physiological needs and safety, and prefer big govt' to supply their needs. The rich are over there with self-esteem and self actualization, therefore not requiring big govt and are more interested in freedoms, because they have all the other stuff.

Simplistic, but maybe Craven can get one or two ideas from this.

I take it your instructor is on the right since he believes that less government automatically means more freedom?

My uncle is a billionare owning several hotels in Nashville Tennessee, yet he is a liberal democrat in favor of the "big" government providing basic needs like better education and better equipped police and more police on the street. I suppose having better equipped police would limit certain folks freedoms.

Big govt does = less freedoms

If anarchy is the absence of govt--

A person is born completely free.

Govt provides degrees of safety and such--good stuff--but does limit freedom.

(I'm sure everyone will agree...<hee>)

(sorry to take over this board, but I am bone tired of swift boat)

Your post reminds me of a janis joplin song.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," Janis Joplin

Sorry craven, didn't mean to kill your board.

I question the certainty of your post Sofia. Why do you believe that big govt automatically translates to less freedom?

It would seem to me that the government's agenda, big or small, would likely be what determines the amount of freedom the citizens will have.

Freedom, well, that's just some people talking. Your prison is walking through this world all alone. - The Eagles, Desperado

Takes on a whole new meaning today, huh?