What candidate is closest to you?

[OklahomaRed]

Try this link.

Suprised me.




The following is an interesting exercise.... You answer a few questions then click the "find your candidate button" and the program selects the candidate who's position on the issues is most like your own... You may be surprised at what you find... I was.... Click the link below....

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

[Newbomb Turk]

Tom Tancredo

[OklahomaRed]

Mine was Duncan Hunter. I'd never heard of him? Just goes to show that the candidates the media tries to shove down our throats are not necessarily who we should vote for! :D

[soonerhubs]

More time and effort put into making this a reliable and valid test, and I think this could have some great value to voters.

[TUSooner]

Who is the candidate for people who don't know anything and have no opinions?

[Okieflyer]

Who is the candidate for people who don't know anything and have no opinions?

Don't worry, the media will tell them who to vote for.


Oh and mine would be a tie.
Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter

[Newbomb Turk]

It says Hillary is my candidate - just as I had thought

:eek:

[Okieflyer]

:eek:

:mad:

[SoonerBOI]

Rudy G.:confused: :D

[Boarder]

Rudy. Never would have thought.

http://wqad.images.worldnow.com/images/191360_G.jpg
This dude looks like he's doing the Harry Carey impersonation on Saturday night Live

[LosAngelesSooner]

John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich
Bill Richardson

...in a dead heat.

But I disagree with all three on Iraq, my most important issue. Interesting.

[crawfish]

John McCain - 26. However, I'm voting for Paul, who I only scored a 16.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Duncan Hunter..whoever that guy his...Of course I usually vote for the nobody on the ballot anyway..

[NormanPride]

Rudy. Never would have thought.

http://wqad.images.worldnow.com/images/191360_G.jpg
This dude looks like he's doing the Harry Carey impersonation on Saturday night Live

Same here. Even more disconcerting was how high Hillary was on the list. Ugh.

[TexasLidig8r]

Jim Gilmore and Duncan Hunter?

WHO?????

[handcrafted]

Those questions were not discrete enough. Too little detail. Sam Brownback ended up scoring highest for me but I'm voting for Mike Huckabee in the primary.

Fred will probably win the nomination, though.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I got Tancredo, but Duncan Hunter is more electable, and also close to what I want from a POTUS.

[Fugue]

This guy.

http://img.snlarc.jt.org/arc/imptn/PhHa-James%20Stockdale.jpg

[Chuck Bao]

Mike Gravel.

No surprise as every one of these surveys seem to produce the same results. So, I'm pretty tight with his views.

[mynameisjoe]

A tie between Rudy Giuliani and Duncan Hunter followed closely by Tancredo and Thompson.

[OKC-SLC]

1) duncan hunter
2) mccain
3) thompson

[rufnek05]

Dodd then Obama.

But i have a question. What is the deal with SS. What is the concept of privatization? I think I need to know this because by the time I'm retirement age, there isn't going to be much of SS. Luckily for me I've already started an IRA.

[OklahomaTuba]

Rudy. Never would have thought.

http://wqad.images.worldnow.com/images/191360_G.jpg
This dude looks like he's doing the Harry Carey impersonation on Saturday night Live

Oh dear Lord, you best hope that is wrong wrong wrong.

Gravel is one pathetic human being. He actually was gloating about not paying $90,000 in credit card debt at one of the debates. His insults about the military are even worse. Kind of like Ron Paul, this one is. Not sure if the Skinheads and 9/11 "troofers" are behind Gravel like they are Paul though.

[OklahomaTuba]

Dodd then Obama.

But i have a question. What is the deal with SS. What is the concept of privatization? I think I need to know this because by the time I'm retirement age, there isn't going to be much of SS. Luckily for me I've already started an IRA.

Its about turning that big black hole you pay money into everytime you get paid into something that can grow and be around in a few years when you need it.

Problem is, the libz don't want you to have control over YOUR money. They can't control the markets (althought I am sure that is "in the plan" someday.) Private SS would mean you don't need them anymore. It's in THEIR interest for you to be sucking the teet of gubment the rest of your life. Its what we call the Nanny State, and its going to go broke soon, just like it always does, time and time again.

[soonerscuba]

Its about turning that big black hole you pay money into everytime you get paid into something that can grow and be around in a few years when you need it.

Problem is, the libz don't want you to have control over YOUR money. They can't control the markets (althought I am sure that is "in the plan" someday.) Private SS would mean you don't need them anymore. It's in THEIR interest for you to be sucking the teet of gubment the rest of your life. Its what we call the Nanny State, and its going to go broke soon, just like it always does, time and time again.

This is one of two options. The other being the fact that old people vote and have unreal ability to lobby (like energy sector good) and probably won't be voting themselves a benefits cut anytime soon. One way or another gramps ain't giving up the check without a fight.

The massive liberal conspiracy in which we socialize everything, destroy churches and make sure that hot man-on-pumpkin action is taught to school children also makes sense though...

[OUinFLA]

Ghengis Khan
I didnt even know that he was running!

[C&CDean]

Don't worry, the media will tell them who to vote for.


Oh and mine would be a tie.
Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter

Me too. A tie between Thompson and Hunter.

[Harry Beanbag]

1. McCain
2. Giuliani
3. Thompson

I'm still going to write in Toby Keith though.

[Vaevictis]

But i have a question. What is the deal with SS. What is the concept of privatization? I think I need to know this because by the time I'm retirement age, there isn't going to be much of SS. Luckily for me I've already started an IRA.

Basically, with social security as it is now, you pay into the system, and in return, the government guarantees what is effectively a pension when you retire. The government manages the money, and your pension is backed by the full faith and credit of the USA.

The "privatization" notion is basically that they let you direct some (or all) of your own investments -- you can get higher returns, but you also might get lower returns. You will get more or less money when you retire depending on the performance of the investments you select.

Where you fall on this issue is basically dependent on your answers to the following question:

What do you want to do with the people who make bad investment choices in 50 years? If your answer is other than, "let them rot", you're going to go looking for a solution to the problem, and you'll probably find that the solution you find is... well, some kind of social security. This is, after all, why we implemented Social Security in the first place.

IMO, I think the people advocating "privatization" should just come clean and admit that what they really want is to dismantle the thing. They won't do that, of course, because Social Security is the third rail of politics.

[Harry Beanbag]

John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich
Bill Richardson

...in a dead heat.

But I disagree with all three on Iraq, my most important issue. Interesting.


All staunch Republicans...http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/kerry.gif

[MamaMia]

candidates ranked by how much you agree with their stances.

Duncan Hunter - Score: 38 / Tom Tancredo - Score: 37

Sam Brownback - Score: 35 / Fred Thompson - Score: 33

Mike Huckabee - Score: 29 / Mitt Romney - Score: 29

John McCain - Score: 28 / Jim Gilmore - Score: 26

Rudy Giuliani - Score: 22 / Joe Biden - Score: 17

Ron Paul - Score: 17 / Barack Obama - Score: 12

Hillary Clinton - Score: 12 / John Edwards - Score: 12

Bill Richardson - Score: 9 / Chris Dodd - Score: 9

Dennis Kucinich - Score: 6 / Mike Gravel - Score: 1

[Madd Dawg]

Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter in a tie, 10 pts ahead of the next closest.

[PhilTLL]

Those questions were not discrete enough. Too little detail. Sam Brownback ended up scoring highest for me but I'm voting for Mike Huckabee in the primary.

Fred will probably win the nomination, though.

I agree--for example, the one on the tax cuts. In principle and in general, I agree with lower taxes, but not if the idiots are going to keep running gigantic deficits and selling out those of us who will be the tax base for the next 50 years. For the record, I got Kucinich and Giuliani tied at 33, then Biden 31, Richardson, Edwards 30. And I've yet to be entranced by any of those people. Of those, I think Biden would probably be most competent.

[Jerk]

Fred's the closest to my views, and the girly-man Edwards is the furthest.

[OklahomaTuba]

This is one of two options. The other being the fact that old people vote and have unreal ability to lobby (like energy sector good) and probably won't be voting themselves a benefits cut anytime soon. One way or another gramps ain't giving up the check without a fight.

The massive liberal conspiracy in which we socialize everything, destroy churches and make sure that hot man-on-pumpkin action is taught to school children also makes sense though...

Of course, the last effort to privatize didn't take away Gramp's check at all.

But don't tell that to the libz out there scaring the old folks into thinking that it would.

[OklahomaTuba]

What do you want to do with the people who make bad investment choices in 50 years? If your answer is other than, "let them rot", you're going to go looking for a solution to the problem, and you'll probably find that the solution you find is... well, some kind of social security. This is, after all, why we implemented Social Security in the first place.

IMO, I think the people advocating "privatization" should just come clean and admit that what they really want is to dismantle the thing. They won't do that, of course, because Social Security is the third rail of politics.
Ahh, the good ol standard liberal "people are too stupid to take care of their own money" line.

And the people who think "privatization" is another word for "letting old people rot" obviously are clueless to the fact that it will insolvent in the next 30 years and will require massive tax increases to support all the baby boomers set to retire.

But that's ok, I didn't that paycheck anyways I guess. Let the old people who can't manage their money have it all.

Only then can we all suckle off the gubment teet.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

four way tie:

Rudy, Hillary, Joe Biden, and Obama.

I'd vote for Rudy or Hillary. No chance of voting for Windbag Biden or Liberal Obama.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I got Tancredo, but Duncan Hunter is more electable, and also close to what I want from a POTUS.

Sorry, but Duncan Hunter has ZERO chance of winning. nada. zilch.

[Vaevictis]

Ahh, the good ol standard liberal "people are too stupid to take care of their own money" line.
Ah, the good old Tuba straw man argument. So predictable. You've got no argument, so you go with bogus rhetoric.

I didn't say that people are too stupid to manage their own money. I said there will be people who made bad decisions. And there will be. No matter how smart everyone is, investments have risks, and a certain percentage of people are going to run into a string of catastrophic failures that leave them broke.

So, what do you do with those people once you arrive at that point? Do you let them rot? Or do you come up with some system that takes care of them... like, I dunno, social security is supposed to do.


And the people who think "privatization" is another word for "letting old people rot" obviously are clueless to the fact that it will insolvent in the next 30 years and will require massive tax increases to support all the baby boomers set to retire.

Some people predict that Social Security will be insolvent in the next 30 years. That is not the same thing as it being a fact. A lot of things can change between now and then.

As I said, "privatization" is codeword for "scrapping." They just don't want to admit it, because to do so would be to touch the third rail.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sorry, but Duncan Hunter has ZERO chance of winning. nada. zilch.He's more electable than Tancredo, IMO. I believe the repub nominee would likely be Rudy or Thompson, if the primary was today. BTW, why is it you think socialism is good for our beloved United States?

[Chuck Bao]

Oh dear Lord, you best hope that is wrong wrong wrong.

Gravel is one pathetic human being. He actually was gloating about not paying $90,000 in credit card debt at one of the debates. His insults about the military are even worse. Kind of like Ron Paul, this one is. Not sure if the Skinheads and 9/11 "troofers" are behind Gravel like they are Paul though.

That must be the best endorsement ever. If tuba says wrong, wrong, wrong, he must be pretty damn good.

And isn't it strange that many people's views on key issues are closest to Gravel. Could it be that libertarians are starting to see that the religious right is more keen on starting a Bill of Wrongs instead of protecting the Bill of Rights?

[MamaMia]

four way tie:

Rudy, Hillary, Joe Biden, and Obama.

I'd vote for Rudy or Hillary. No chance of voting for Windbag Biden or Liberal Obama.How is it possible for you have a tie between Rudy and Hilary? Thats like having a tie between apple and orange. :confused:

[soonerscuba]

How is it possible for you have a tie between Rudy and Hilary? Thats like having a tie between apple and orange. :confused:

They are closer than they seem. They are both from New York, they are both pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro gay rights, and both love suits, but will sometimes throw on a dress.

Can someone please explain to me how on God's green earth Rudy will ever win the Republican nomination?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Can someone please explain to me how on God's green earth Rudy will ever win the Republican nomination?As I'm sure you well know, Rudy is huge on national defense, and seems to understand the law of supply and demand. So, it's possible.

[r5TPsooner]

Mccain & Hunter. Not surprising.

[r5TPsooner]

Lord help us all if Billary becomes President.

[Stoop Dawg]

1. Duncan Hunter
2. Rudy Giuliani

Why are all the elephants at the top and donkeys at the bottom?

[Stoop Dawg]

Oh dear Lord, you best hope that is wrong wrong wrong.

Gravel is one pathetic human being. He actually was gloating about not paying $90,000 in credit card debt at one of the debates. His insults about the military are even worse. Kind of like Ron Paul, this one is. Not sure if the Skinheads and 9/11 "troofers" are behind Gravel like they are Paul though.

You just don't even read posts, do you? Seriously. You just look at the pictures and the hit the "reply" button. Try reading for once, you might be enlightened by what other people say.


(P.S. His candidate was Rudy. He was simply commenting on Gravel's horrible picture)

[Stoop Dawg]

I didn't say that people are too stupid to manage their own money. I said there will be people who made bad decisions. And there will be. No matter how smart everyone is, investments have risks, and a certain percentage of people are going to run into a string of catastrophic failures that leave them broke.

So why not privatize AND limit risk by setting limits on the types of investments that can be made with "Social Security" funds?

My fear with the current SS system is that it's not MY money. They govt controls it. And what is 100% certainly going to happen is that when funds get tight they'll start reducing benefits to "rich" people (i.e. people who actually saved for retirement instead of just relying on SS).

I want my SS funds in a private account that the govt can't take away from me with the stroke of a pen. If they want to limit my investment options on that money, fine.

[handcrafted]

Ah, the good old Tuba straw man argument. So predictable. You've got no argument, so you go with bogus rhetoric.

I didn't say that people are too stupid to manage their own money. I said there will be people who made bad decisions. And there will be. No matter how smart everyone is, investments have risks, and a certain percentage of people are going to run into a string of catastrophic failures that leave them broke.

So, what do you do with those people once you arrive at that point? Do you let them rot? Or do you come up with some system that takes care of them... like, I dunno, social security is supposed to do.

There are already multiple systems in place. One is called "their family". Another is called "their church".

[Boarder]

Oh dear Lord, you best hope that is wrong wrong wrong.

Gravel is one pathetic human being. He actually was gloating about not paying $90,000 in credit card debt at one of the debates. His insults about the military are even worse. Kind of like Ron Paul, this one is. Not sure if the Skinheads and 9/11 "troofers" are behind Gravel like they are Paul though.
No, Rudy G was the winner. Gravel was last. I just thought he looked like Will Ferrell doing the Harry Carey commercial.

[Boarder]

Oh yeah, SD already said that.