Interesting idea... And based on the phone number, apparently based in my neck of the woods (Oregon - outside Portland.)
I will say, if any of the current crop of Republican nominees gets the nomination, I will almost certainly be voting for Obama - but a GOOD non-D/R candidate could quite easily take my vote away from Obama. (Yes, I was caught up in the whole "Hope" thing. If the D had been anyone but Obama, and McCain hadn't picked Palin, I almost guaranteed would have voted for McCain. And while I didn't vote for Bush, I did have high hopes that he would hold to his bipartisan pledges. Too bad Congress ruins all presidents' pledges...)
Alright, I bit.
HAHAA! In the first two "rounds" of questions, I have been in the majority (plurality, whatever) for every question I answered... Except... The death penalty! Apparently I'm too harsh. And continuing, I noticed a very heavy liberal bias in the answers from other people, but was pleasantly surprised to see that 59% agree that "Any law-abiding citizen should be allowed to have a handgun" (and a further 4% "There should be no restrictions on handgun ownership"... Heh, apparently 4% of the respondents are criminals.)
And... The further I go, the more I disagree with the majority..... And I'm purple-blue-pink.
I'm a Red-Blooded American Patriot who spent 25 yrs of my 70yrs in uniform serving my country, I'm also a Social Conservative, and a dedicated Republican. I looked at the rediculous survey and all they want is a handout... screw them!!!
Really? They didn't ask me for money. I liked the idea that they would match you with candidates based on your views. And since you answer a lot of questions, it's more specific than yes/no on five or six basic principles. It does seem to be a little liberal in areas, and some of the questions don't really have simple answers. For example, there was one where you could choose from a spectrum, from "The US should engage in conversation with other countries when deciding foreign policy," down to "The US should act in its own interests when deciding foreign policy." Well, yes to both, I think. Nothing wrong with conversation.
They are promising that this delegation of individuals who are involved in this project (I think it's already over a million) will see their candidates on the ballot. It's still a beta version, so the conversation and candidate selection apps will be added this fall. It's just a tool, so, like any other tool, use it if you like it, leave it on the shelf if you don't.
:biggrin: Well, I too have 3 pups that I have to fight for every bite. I go to the grocery store and spend $100 on food.....$75 of it is for the pups. Can't just buy one steak for me. Gotta buy 4. I don't eat much steak.
Meaning you are willing to be categorized according to the "will of the survey". I may be mistaken, but the average human SHOULD be a tad bit more complex than to be "depicted" in a simplistic "pie chart".
Bottom line for me? The Government collects my taxes to fund Government Operations, which (as far as I am concerned) are nicely outlined in the Constitution. (Probably why it passed and was ratified in the first place. DOH!) As for the rest, the States (or the People) can take care of according to local desires, needs and wishes.
Other than that, with the stipulation that I act and have the responsibility of a solid and law abiding citizen, I don't want the Government in my life at all. THAT'S my idea of "freedom".
As for providing the "American Dream"...... that's MY job to pursue and attain. Not the Nanny Government's.
No, leave it. To me, that's a big problem with this country, people who WANT to actually discuss things, and be "moderate", are just shouted down by the extremes.
I sincerely doubt that a true majority of the population is "conservative" or "liberal" (note; I mean that a total of 50%+1 consider themselves on EITHER extreme.) The vast majority of the country is either moderate, or just doesn't care about politics. But because the extremists (on both sides) are the ones who speak up, and run for office, and are the voting 'base' of both parties, that's what we end up with in the public sphere. We end up with extremism on both sides.
Non-extremists shouldn't stay quiet. Otherwise, we let the extremists not just dictate what happens, but also continue to cause giant arguments over relatively little. (Do you honestly believe that most Americans give a rats' ass about private vs. public healthcare? Or do you think they want "healthcare" to be readily accessible and affordable, and don't care how that happens... But, talking heads spout off vehement opinions one way or another, demonizing the opposition. "If the government gets involved, it's communism, and communism is EVIL!" "Corporations are evil profit-driven monsters! Letting corporations do whatever they want with healathcare is why we suck!" Neither is the truth, both are misleading, and most Americans don't care that much.)