Which political candidate is right for you?

Which political candidate is right for you?

BruceGod
BruceGod

February 5th, 2004, 12:08 pm #1

Quote
Share

Zed
Zed

February 5th, 2004, 12:49 pm #2

I voted no opinion on everything. When I was done, all the candidates were a 100% match for me. Does that mean none of them hold any firm opinions either?
Quote
Share

Joined: June 8th, 2001, 4:54 am

February 5th, 2004, 8:42 pm #3


In general it's difficult to tell when something is right, but it's easy to spot a mis-fit. If you don't give any opinions to have a bad fit against, then any candidate should do equally well.

-- CH
(who read "Notes on the Synthesis of Form" recently)
Quote
Like
Share

Jester
Jester

February 5th, 2004, 11:03 pm #4

... not that I'm an american, but, filling out the form as if I was, I'm 100% in support of Dennis Kucinich. Gee, that's not at all predictable.

My "bush" rating is a whopping 1%. That's perfectly accurate, as far as I'm concerned.

Jester
Quote
Share

Zed
Zed

February 6th, 2004, 12:11 am #5

In general it's difficult to tell when something is right, but it's easy to spot a mis-fit. If you don't give any opinions to have a bad fit against, then any candidate should do equally well.

-- CH
(who read "Notes on the Synthesis of Form" recently)
Yeah, I figured. I just thought the way it was presented was amusing -- since I don't trust any politician to do anything but sway whichever direction gets him the most votes, having them all show up as 100% in agreement with my non-opinion matched my view of the world.
Quote
Share

Joined: May 22nd, 2002, 7:37 am

February 6th, 2004, 12:36 am #6

Hi,

the last question in the section 'experience' is, "Are you looking for a candidate with political or military service?". I fully understand why it would be good to have a president who has political experience, no problem there. But military service? I know this question seems to be very important for many Americans, and always have seemed to be, but I don't understand why.

"Are you looking for a candidate who has economical experience, who for example had been CEO of a big company?" would be something I'd understand, or any question asking for experience in other fields. But as it stands, it looks like the most important thing an American president has to know is how the military works, and how to wage war. How the tax system works, or education, or anything else seems to be less important - or what am I missing here?

-Kylearan
Quote
Like
Share

Nystul
Nystul

February 6th, 2004, 1:25 am #7

To serve in the military is one of the deepest commitments you can make to your country. So just on face value, many people feel it indicates favorable character.

Then one has to take an honest look at our country's role in the world since World War II. I don't think you can do that without concluding that any President will have to wear the commander-in-chief hat in a very active capacity at some point in his term. Troops will be sent into combat, if they are not indeed already there at the start of the presidency. When the President has to make decisions regarding troops, people like to know that he once went through Basic and committed himself to the possibility of combat.

It doesn't necessarily translate to expert foreign policy, but the issue here is more basic than that.

I think if a candidate was once an educator, or a blue collar worker, or a CEO, these experiences do carry weight as well.
Quote
Share

Lissa
Lissa

February 6th, 2004, 5:07 am #8

Hi,

the last question in the section 'experience' is, "Are you looking for a candidate with political or military service?". I fully understand why it would be good to have a president who has political experience, no problem there. But military service? I know this question seems to be very important for many Americans, and always have seemed to be, but I don't understand why.

"Are you looking for a candidate who has economical experience, who for example had been CEO of a big company?" would be something I'd understand, or any question asking for experience in other fields. But as it stands, it looks like the most important thing an American president has to know is how the military works, and how to wage war. How the tax system works, or education, or anything else seems to be less important - or what am I missing here?

-Kylearan
...with Reagan. Every single President prior to Reagan had been in one branch of the military and had achieved some kind of rank (some low, Carter was only a Lt when he exitted the Navy, some high, Eisenhower was a 5 star general, the highest you can get).

Does it mean that in this day and age someone without military service should be discounted? No. It's just that there is a lot of history and distinction in the office that up to 1980, every President that served had some time in the military (it's almost like the Princes of the English Monarchy, so far all have served in the British military although William may break that tradition). (As a side note on Kennedy, Kennedy had his father pull strings to get him into military as Kennedy surmised at the time that trying to become President without having some time in the military was a no go.)
Quote
Share

Drasca
Drasca

February 6th, 2004, 5:20 am #9

Hi,

the last question in the section 'experience' is, "Are you looking for a candidate with political or military service?". I fully understand why it would be good to have a president who has political experience, no problem there. But military service? I know this question seems to be very important for many Americans, and always have seemed to be, but I don't understand why.

"Are you looking for a candidate who has economical experience, who for example had been CEO of a big company?" would be something I'd understand, or any question asking for experience in other fields. But as it stands, it looks like the most important thing an American president has to know is how the military works, and how to wage war. How the tax system works, or education, or anything else seems to be less important - or what am I missing here?

-Kylearan
Unless you count selective service, one of the biggest waste of finances and technical military 'pre-draft' without the authority. They did a big huff and puff tv-advertising campaign and made threats of legal action---but no one has been prosecuted since 1972? 82? and those were special cases. Every time there is a prosecution, military volunteers go down... so... I was threatened with SS, I did not like it. Personally, I did consider joining up military independently, but kinda wanted to go to college dum dee dum dum (which is not a legal excuse to avoid the draft now-a-days). I did not however, enjoy being threatened.

Ok I rambled too much.

Quick resummary: USA does not absolutely require military service of its citizens. Nystul and Lissa said the rest, the important stuff.
Quote
Share

Joined: May 22nd, 2002, 7:37 am

February 6th, 2004, 10:42 am #10

To serve in the military is one of the deepest commitments you can make to your country. So just on face value, many people feel it indicates favorable character.

Then one has to take an honest look at our country's role in the world since World War II. I don't think you can do that without concluding that any President will have to wear the commander-in-chief hat in a very active capacity at some point in his term. Troops will be sent into combat, if they are not indeed already there at the start of the presidency. When the President has to make decisions regarding troops, people like to know that he once went through Basic and committed himself to the possibility of combat.

It doesn't necessarily translate to expert foreign policy, but the issue here is more basic than that.

I think if a candidate was once an educator, or a blue collar worker, or a CEO, these experiences do carry weight as well.
Hi,

Then one has to take an honest look at our country's role in the world since World War II. I don't think you can do that without concluding that any President will have to wear the commander-in-chief hat in a very active capacity at some point in his term.

Yes, but while he may have to be an active commander-in-chief at some point in his term, meaning it's not guaranteed, it's a sure thing that he will have to make, for example, important economical decisions during his whole term. So in my naive world view, experience in that field looks to be more valuable, yet military experience was singled out in the question.

To serve in the military is one of the deepest commitments you can make to your country. So just on face value, many people feel it indicates favorable character.

Ah okay, didn't think about that one, since this is viewed completely different here because of historical reasons (being a high military guy actually would be a disadvantage for becoming German chancellor).

But given two candidates, one with a military background and one without, and the one without has superior economical knowledge because of past experience, it sounds a bit strange to prefer the military one just because this somehow should indicate he has a more favorable character. Yet that is what the site suggests with this question - you can even exclude candidates without a military background, which you cannot do with other questions.

The same goes for Lissa's point, tradition - is tradition more important than knowledge/experience? (Btw, thanks Lissa for the information about Reagen and Kennedy)

Anyway, thanks for your answers. The selection of the presidential candidate gets a lot of media coverage here, which I'm following with great interest. Let's see where this will lead.

-Kylearan
Quote
Like
Share