but you answers shows youre "liberal" to economic issues and liberatarin to social.

 

I guess you are correct. Based on their scale, I am more to the left on economic issues: likely stemming from answers displaying a skepticism regarding human nature and behavior of corporations.

Likewise, on social issues - I would think there is a lot of overlap between "liberal" and "libertarian" positions.


From a quick glance, it seems that the "libertarian left" and "libertarian right" quadrants are the most populous and are tied with 9 each?

 

Something's been bothering me about this whole concept.

In the "analysis" page, the authors claim to show data for such people as Josef Stalin, Mohandas Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Pope Benedict XVI, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, Mitt Santorich, etc.

Now, I think we can reasonably assume that Stalin, Ghandi, Benedict et al., did not log onto the website and take the test, and thus assert that their positions on the chart are the result of some form of supposition on the part of the authors of the test.

Thus, how can any credence be lent to their supposed rankings of modern-day political candidates?

A little research suggests that the authors of the political compass, an LA-based news outlet called "Pace News Ltd." is, shall we say, not entirely neutral or unbiased in their leanings.

 

the mere fact he puts all those people in the right quadrant is laughable. See my updated verison.


if left and right is ecomonic, then they really don't belong.




and this: "There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment." I mean, sure some worry. Is this test asking if I worry? I don't.

or the: "its natural for children to keep secrets from their parents"

sure it's natural, I keep secrets form everyone. But that doesn't mean I agree kids such be getting abortions without parental consent before 18yo. Is this what this question is judging me on? I have no idea if saying yes it's natural, because it is, judges me on the spectrum...I don't see it's revleance.

That's like asking is the sky naturally blue. and if I hit stronlgy dissagree I'm an anti-sematic authoritative jew.

 

Yer bias against Obama is showing Brainy. We've never had a president that far left and it's doubtful we ever will. Ron Paul is also not nearly that far right by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I mean, if we are going to arbitraillay plot people on the spectrum, I'm going to call it as I see it.


But you know you're impressed with my plot hacking.

 

Here's mine

 

Something you are forgetting there Brainy - the further right or left someone is on that graph (Also: Up or down), the less they are willing to compromise and the more they have to have X or Y.

My graph explains why some here accuse me of being leftist when I'm slightly right I think - I'm libertarian, no ifs ands or buts on it. There's zero compromise for me with authoritarian aspects.

 

I would have beat Joe to the center if I had answered that pot question differently

 

^Legalize that shiz!

 

Move back to California!

 

I just read an article today that CT is working on it.

My dreamz

 

Wouldn't republicans have a better chance of winning the presidency if they elected a candidate that democrats could agree with? An authoritarian on one side of the spectrum would never get a vote from anyone on the other side of the spectrum, but I would suspect that a libertarian on one side of the spectrum would attract the votes of everyone on his side of the spectrum as well as a strong number of voters in the middle and from the other side of the spectrum.

 

you plotted almost identically with me. I'd consider myself a consitutionalist if anything.

 

Foogy, Santorum is a serious Republican candidate.

Do you expect such common sense and reason to work with them when such a candidate is there?

Constitutionalist isn't a bad moniker. But I would imagine I am much more extremist than you in that respect - as I pointed out in an argument for another thread, I consider violating the constitution absolutely not acceptable no matter the circumstance.

 

How is he a serious candidate?

 

The last I checked, Santorum had finished first and second in numerous states, and was a close second to Romney. Has that changed?

 

doesnt mean he's a serious candiate, it means that america is full of republicans that are found of v-neck sweater vests. a serious candidate wouldn't be such a joke and could easily defeat such a horrible sitting-president, none up for the nod can say that.

 

You got no argument from me there.

 

SHa-zam