www.isidewith.com which presidential candidate do you agree with?

Akrasia

I dunno if this has already been posted, but http://www.isidewith.com/ is s pretty cool site that asks you a bunch of questions and compares your answers to the answers the U.S presidential candidates have been giving in their campaign so far.

I did the quiz and I agree with Bernie Sanders 98% of the time apparently and only 16% of the time with Donald Trump

Poor old Ted Cruz only gets 8% agreement with me

Here are my results
http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1173603553?from=2wabrGhak

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

I got 92% with Sanders and 77% with Clinton. I scored 57% with Rand Paul and 21% or less with the other republicans.

zielarz

>80% with Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum & Scott Walker.
Never heard about them before, thought it's just Clinton vs Trump

But let's be honest, majority doesn't care about candidate views. It's much more about appearance and promises rather than well though out decision.

strelok

rand paul 84, bernie sanders 75

not all that surprised. i like a lot of what i hear from sanders, I just don't trust that anything he proposes as a solution would actually make things better. i'd imagine it's how a lot of the young progressive left felt about ron paul.

Manach

Not that I have a vote but if so : Cruz Santorum and Rubio in top 3 with a chap called O'Malley at the bottom. Personally I though I would be more in line with Rand Paul. Oddly, agreeing with Sanders on many Enviromental issues

Overheal

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I got 92% with Sanders and 77% with Clinton. I scored 57% with Rand Paul and 21% or less with the other republicans.

Pretty much where I was at but a little lower with sanders

efb

Bernie Sanders 94%
Hilary Clinton 86%
Martin O Malley 79%
Jeb Bush 54%
Donald Trump 18%
Ted Cruz 3%

Ludo

Bernie Sanders 92%
Hilary Clinton 82%
Martin O Malley 75%
Rand Paul 58%
Jeb Bush 36%
Donald Trump 36% (WTF!!!!!!!!!!)

Brian?

97% with Sanders, not a surprise. 93% with Clinton, that's higher than I thought it would be. O'Malley is next at 78%.

Highest GOP candidate is Rand Paul at 20%, thought that would have been higher. 2% with Cruz, I'm happy with that.

Amerika

I got 95% with Rick Santorum. The website is utterly useless.

Zascar

This is a great website. If only all of America were forced to us it. I bet a massive amount do not realise that the people/party they support don't necessarily align with their personal beliefs.

I got 95% with Bernie - I think he's brilliant. He's a rare commodity among the bought and sold politicians of today. His grassroots movement is gaining massive strength - especially with younger generations. He's been getting a lot of "He's great, but he can't win" - but that is certainly changing..

Tugboats

Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum 93%

jobbridge4life

85% - Bernie Saunders
81% - Hillary Clinton
63% - Chris Christie

and only 30% with Trump... which is way too much for comfort.

matthew8

I'd massively question this thing's credibility given everyone is getting Bernie Sanders. Lots of these sorts of quizzes are full of loaded questions.

FatherTed

95% Sanders
88% Clinton
67% O'Malley
57% Paul
.
.
13% Walker

BoJack Horseman

Hill-dog
Sanders
Rubio...
Then Huckabee, sadly..

..... Lastly came Rand.
Sorry Rand.

BoJack Horseman

matthew8 wrote: »

I'd massively question this thing's credibility given everyone is getting Bernie Sanders. Lots of these sorts of quizzes are full of loaded questions.

Seems to be all things to all people.

Which in the real world, is usually a bad thing.

strelok

matthew8 wrote: »

I'd massively question this thing's credibility given everyone is getting Bernie Sanders. Lots of these sorts of quizzes are full of loaded questions.

you're surprised that the majority of people on an irish website are matching highly with a socialist?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Haven't tried the site yet but isn't Sanders very liberal on the social side pro gay marriage, legalisation etc prob would have a lot in common that side of things.

20Cent

Sanders 97% Scott Walker 1%

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are links that allow you to directly compare which answers you agree and disagree on

Some of the questions are a bit vague so you might agree with the question but have very different reasons for doing so, and would have a very different idea about what the solution to that problem would be

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Gay marriage may be we toed but it is still divisive.

From what I've read his problem with Illegal immigration is the exploitation of the immigrants, working for below minimum wage etc. He wants them to be made legal so they have workers rights. Far from xenophobic nationalism which sounds like all the republican candidates.

20Cent

Clicked on the show all candidates button but it's only showing Democratic and republicans.

Here's some more.

libertarians
http://2016.libertarian-party.org
Joy Waymire sounds especially interesting.

Greens
http://2016.green-party.info

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jaymcg91

95% Hillary Clinton. I knew I liked her.

zielarz

Amerika wrote: »

I got 95% with Rick Santorum. The website is utterly useless.

Why? You must be pro life and pro family then.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No country in the world has fully open borders are they all xenophobic?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jobbridge4life

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is isn't entirely fair. His argument is significantly more nuanced than that and to attempt to essentially boil it down to one quotation is not accurate. He has indeed said that open borders are a big business idea, but this is true. Big business in America typically favours lax immigration rules precisely because it does reduce pressure on wages. Whole industries including agriculture are virtually dependent on it.


At the same time he does raise the issues that mass migration is not exactly flawlessly beneficial from net contributor nations. Something that is also true.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dollar_king

Bernie sanders 85%

Hillary Clinton 71%

chris Christie 64%


I vote FG in Ireland

wonder how accurate these tests are

Amerika

zielarz wrote: »

Why? You must be pro life and pro family then.

I know Rick (from back when he was my Senator) and I like some of his views, but I wouldn't vote for him as President.

I chose no abortion after first trimester. And yes, I'm pro family (whatever that means) because I feel single parent households are a major factor contributing to the downfall of the country... But I don't remember that being one of the questions.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I know Rick (from back when he was my Senator) and I like some of his views, but I wouldn't vote for him as President.

I chose no abortion after first trimester. And yes, I'm pro family (whatever that means) because I feel single parent households are a major factor contributing to the downfall of the country... But I don't remember that being one of the questions.

I'd be interested to know what you think the solution is? I'm pro family as well by the way, I'm not sure how one can be anti-family.

Brian?

dollar_king wrote: »

Bernie sanders 85%

Hillary Clinton 71%

chris Christie 64%


I vote FG in Ireland

wonder how accurate these tests are

They're pretty accurate. Bernie wouldn't been classed as left wing by Irish standards.

Subcomandante Marcos

97% with Bernie Saunders
90% with Hilary Clinton

Seems about right.

Celly Smunt

78% Bobby Jindal.

Guess I'm Republican, gimme my guns.

Subcomandante Marcos

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This entire argument came about because some young lad with history of previous idiocy who runs a blog and tweets a lot took a paragraph of a VOX interview completely out of context.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-latest-smear-campaign-against-bernie-sanders-collapsed-it-started

Valmont

Brian? wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what you think the solution is? I'm pro family as well by the way, I'm not sure how one can be anti-family.

I think there is a fringe of the hard-hard-left who would view the family unit itself as a great source of inequality. The idea is that children from functioning and supportive families have an 'unfair' advantage over children whose families may not instil certain advantageous values and habits. That said, I'm not sure there are many of these anti-family types around any more.

dollar_king

Brian? wrote: »

They're pretty accurate. Bernie wouldn't been classed as left wing by Irish standards.

I know next to nothing about him , I think I ended up with him due to the fact that I answered in a nuanced way to most of the question , I wasn't absolutist about many of them

dollar_king

Valmont wrote: »

I think there is a fringe of the hard-hard-left who would view the family unit itself as a great source of inequality. The idea is that children from functioning and supportive families have an 'unfair' advantage over children whose families may not instil certain advantageous values and habits. That said, I'm not sure there are many of these anti-family types around any more.

its only really a sub section of the hard left who are in favour of dismantling the family unit as a key part of society , mostly the hardcore feminist subset but they are still quite small

Agent Smith

I side with Hillary Clinton on 94% of issues in the 2016 Presidential election

jobbridge4life

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Great. I'd suggest the keyword there is is overall. Other studies have findings at variance from the one you have cited in particular I'd like to highlight this 2007 stuy http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537106000674
which found significant affects on blue collar incomes and lower skilled 'native' workers.

alan partridge aha

Jeb Bush 85% most other Reps in the 70s so all good.

dwayneshintzy

Bernie Sanders - 98%
Hillary Clinton - 84%
Martin O'Malley - 79%

Brian?

Valmont wrote: »

I think there is a fringe of the hard-hard-left who would view the family unit itself as a great source of inequality. The idea is that children from functioning and supportive families have an 'unfair' advantage over children whose families may not instil certain advantageous values and habits. That said, I'm not sure there are many of these anti-family types around any more.

That's a fringe I have never heard of. By the sound if things we can agree that all of the candidates listed here are "pro family".

I believe the term is mostly used disengenuously to have a swipe at people who support rights like marriage equality. The optics are always better when you're "pro" something and not part of an "anti" group. The prime example being "pro-life", there's no actual "anti-life" group there's a "pro-choice" group.

dollar_king

Brian? wrote: »

That's a fringe I have never heard of. By the sound if things we can agree that all of the candidates listed here are "pro family".

I believe the term is mostly used disengenuously to have a swipe at people who support rights like marriage equality. The optics are always better when you're "pro" something and not part of an "anti" group. The prime example being "pro-life", there's no actual "anti-life" group there's a "pro-choice" group.

the term " pro choice " is no less political and loaded than " pro life "

Akrasia

Valmont wrote: »

I think there is a fringe of the hard-hard-left who would view the family unit itself as a great source of inequality. The idea is that children from functioning and supportive families have an 'unfair' advantage over children whose families may not instil certain advantageous values and habits. That said, I'm not sure there are many of these anti-family types around any more.

Yeah, there are nutters in every aspect of human endeavour.

What I don't like about the 'pro family' description is that it is basically a euphemism for Anti gay, anti divorce, patriarchy.

They're pro nuclear family, and anti everything else. There are some 'good' single parent families (ie: widows or widowers where the family was broken up by tragic circumstances) but every other kind of alternative family arrangement is unethical.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I read through that study and I have a few issues with it

1. It looks at wages, not employment rates
If someone on low wages gets replaced by an immigrant, this study completely ignores this

2. The study itself shows that while American born workers saw wages increase by .4% (about 3 dollars per week) the wages of immigrants declined by 4% or about 33 dollars a week.

3. The period of this study was in an economic recovery, where the economy was ramping up to the big economic crash of 2008.

The actual picture I get from this study was that low skilled Americans were being pushed out of employment in favour of immigrant workers who were hired on lower wages

The professional classes benefit from open borders knowing that there are legal restrictions on immigrants threatening their job. Many professional bodies require recognised qualifications for example. I know nurses, psychologists and teachers from other countries who work in petrol stations because they could not get work in their own profession because their qualifications are not recognised.

There is a lot of hysteria about immigrants coming in to take everyone's jobs, but to operate an open borders policy is lunacy. Every functioning economy works on a visa basis. Where there are labour shortages, more visas are issued. Free market policies do not work on labour markets. People are not as mobile as capital. Economies are meant to function for the benefits of the citizens, citizens are not just raw materials for the economy.

The E.U. has open borders within the free travel areas, but these are balanced by entitlements to welfare services for E.U. citizens and entrants to the E.U. are entitled to structural funds to develop their own economies and provide opportunities for their own citizens to remain at home where they want to.