I found a link to a website that says it's supposed to help you decide who to vote for by asking questions on your political beliefs. It's geared towards students (trying to get them to realize there are people they can/should support), but I thought the link might be helpful/interesting for the rest of us:

http://www.voteforsomething.com/

I went ahead and took that quiz for fun and I was surprised to learn absolutely nothing new. It only told me what I already suspected. I'm a bleeding heart liberal.

Yep, it confirmed my standing as well. Although, I must admit I was amused by Uncle Sam's get up.

It told me to vote for Kerry. I can't stand Bush so if I had a vote I would vote for Kerry anyway.

I took it, and it didn't surprise me either!

Was that really geared for students? Maybe so, but it seemed mostly inclusive.

I'm with the rest. It told me what I already knew (but it was most interesting - and I agree that Uncle Sam was looking at the top of his form ). I am so darned lucky! I live in one of those "swing states" (Ohio). As seems to be the case in the country right now we are looking 50/50. The economy is rough here [but that's not unusual] and the general population cares about that and the health care issues a lot. But there seems to be just as many who obsess with religious issues, war and gun toting. All I can do is vote my heart. The only conflict I have is that I'm not sure that anyone but Bush can finish this mess he has started. I think he is the only one who understands the 'rules' of it now. But I am ultimately a "decided" - and I really think my one little vote counts for something.

If the rest of the world outside the US had a vote in the US election, Bush would lose hands down. Unfortunately, amongst friends and foes, the American reputation has suffered enormously.
I bet this test would be skewed in Kerry's favor for non Americans.

Perhaps some Americans have trouble understanding why others should be concerned about their business, in fact they may resent this, but, unfortunately, Bush's business became other countries' business rather abruptly whether they wanted it or not.
Other people have died for Bush's war in Iraq, so it's not surprising they would like their say, I understand that perfectly.

Perhaps some Americans would find that precisely the reason to vote against Kerry, that Europeans and others found more sympathy with him.
Well time will tell, won't it?

I took the quiz and it said I related to BOTH candidates. I don't know how; maybe it is because I really don't like either of them, but I dislike Kerry more. I wish we could choose a "write-in" candidate for the presidency, and both houses of Congress.

"Perhaps some Americans have trouble understanding why others should be concerned about their business, in fact they may resent this"

As a non American, I know that I am very interested in the US election, and wish I had a say. I live in a Canadian town where the three industries are cattle ranching, oil, and the military. Every aspect of our lives is influenced by US policy, yet we have no say at all in what the US does. It's scary for us, when so much of our lives can be ruled by what is decided by voters in another country. I can't imagine what it must be like to live in the Middle East, say, where it's not just the economy, but life and death.
It is frustrating when we see the voters of the most powerful nation on the earth not seem to care what the impact of their decisions will be on others. Of course, Americans need to vote for whomever they really feel serves their best interests, but some acknowledgement that they will affect others, and some sense of responsibility would go a long way towards calming the fears of the rest of the world. Much of the feeling against Bush in the non American world is because of this seeming disregard for world opinion in the present administration.
I would urge any undecided Americans to take the chance of the next few days to inform yourselves, and make a decision. Please vote!

I've took a bunch like that and I was libertarian. I read their platform, liked it, so i voted for their candidate, michael badnarik. Now i get to complain no matter if bush or kerry wins.

Yep, just as I thought. This little quiz says that I related to a canidate! And as for voting, I already have. Since we're on the road, I was able to send in my absentee ballot last week. And while I'm on the road alot, I listen to a lot of news and talk radio. John Kerry's flip-flopping on issues is very scary. WABC's Mark Simone made a funny commercial that's on the internet using actual soundbites from John Kerry on the campaign trail. Since "he's on both sides of every issue, you'll have to agree with him eventually".

I've thought long and hard, as they say, on who I'm going to vote for. In the quiet dark of the night I think about what I've seen of both candidates in the debates and their vice-president choices.
I've come to the conclusion that John Kerry is a posturing, know-nothing liberal who has no platform except to defeat the incumbent. That's it. Demonize and defeat President Bush.
His effeminate lawyer running mate, John Edwards, echoes the same message: defeat. They offer no reasonable alternative choices or hope for a stable, determined administration because they want to be everything to everyone. A couple of chameleons who change colors at every sign of danger to their liberal core beliefs.
I very much liked and admired the Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher era. Today, it's George Bush and Tony Blair.

Please note that this is not a forum for making unfounded accusations and attacks on someone's masculinity/femininity.

Funny now come to think of it, that original test had some words that were destined to make people go 'ding' and respond. For anyone outside the States, in case you hadn't heard this, 'Liberal' is the label that some folks give the Democrats and it has become an epithet on the internet and there are quite a few derogatory variations in discussion groups. It's generally pronounced with disdain and a curled lip by those who oppose the policies that Democrats often endorse. Whenever you see it in discussion groups, you can bank on it being used by someone who opposes anything they perceive as being interference by govt etc.
I had a look at some of the local groups in my area and was appalled at the insults going around. I mean, once someone said the L word, things got going. So, I looked in this test for what was supposed to trigger the 'other side'.

I found it, when I read the words about the health insurance crisis (and I'm probably being a 'liberal' when I even dare mention this as a crisis, so be it) and the one end of the spectrum said that it should be left to the corporations. Well, hey, Ding ding...
Now, I'm not exactly anti-corporation, but, having just returned from a mad dash to the only health clinic I am allowed to go to for a free TB test to be able to work to hope to even get my own health insurance some day, and seen the devastating crowds there who have no alternative whatsoever to take care of their babies, and the elderly in wheelchairs in there praying for a vaccination for the flu which isn't available, then finding that the nurse was absent that day and many people would lose another day's or a couple hours' wages coming back there to hope she was there, 'corporation' just set my alarm off. Is it having been in a corporate layoff that does it? Or having seen how corporations manage things at a high level in the one I worked in and the others I worked for? Could be. Or having known the ruthless practices that some of them do?
So for me, that word just ticked me off.
As I've experienced 'socialized medicine' in the UK as well as France and been living near the border countries of Germany and Italy and been aware of their systems, I am sure that the word I just typed is perceived as the devil's word incarnate. Another word to avoid if you don't want to be targetted with the 'L' word. And the use of the 'socialized' word, I've probably already added the adjective 'flaming' to my L label.
Well, folks, if you want to call me that, go ahead, I don't think I'm either fish nor fowl here. I have surfed quite a few health programs in the States, had two kids and a family to take care of using them, used the French system and the Monaco system when I was there, and I feel that, there MUST be some way for people to afford a program that covers the bare minimum and it MUST cover some form of well child care. I don't want an enormous burden on employers either. I've been in a position to employ other people and I know how hard it is.
For once, we are NOT talking about goldbrickers and waves of God forbid, welfare recipients getting freebies, we're talking about people like me, you, anyone who's had to forego medical treatment they needed or live without insurance in America though they're working.
So you may apply the bleeding heart flaming l word to me if allowing people who want to pay their own insurance to have this opportunity. Give employers and employees a break.
I personally cannot listen to Bush's words about health care because, has he ever foregone treatment for a family member for financial reasons, does he have any real experience of what it's like in the real world? Has this guy ever had to wait in a public health clinic with a child crying? I have and many of us have. Thank God they are there to help us.
I am not expecting Bush to know the proverbial price of a gallon of milk, but, he has no grasp on the reality of everyday Americans.

So, education, sorry but the "No Child Left Behind act" that Bush is bandying about as the panacea for all ills there has had a profound influence all right and it's going to penalize those schools working against the odds. If their test scores aren't high enough, they'll lose money. So, the Compassionate conservative (which Robin Williams said was like a Volvo with a gun rack) is going to give people the voucher system.
Now, I'm not against private schools, I've worked in them, I've had my kids in a few over the years, but, this will bleed the city schools dry, those who have large immigrant populations who cannot test as high.
Even the suburban schools are hurting because of this act, getting 'highly qualified' teachers sounds like a good idea, but hey, the poorer schools and districts and States are not going to be able to compete with the richer areas, and bingo, they lose money for that as they don't have enough 'highly qualified' on staff.
College loans, honestly, how could a man like Bush who's never had to work his way through anything, secondary school, college or grad school, possibly understand how hard it is for the normal person to finance their kids' studies? He didn't even have to qualify for entrance to the best schools, with his family connections, and I found out recently that he was a history major. Quotation from my kid's schoolbook, 'why do we study history?' Answer: to learn from our mistakes.

I'm hearing over and over that Bush is the best person to clean up the mess as he made it. Now is this the parental rationale when the kid breaks a window with a baseball?
Well, if that's what you're worried about then don't expect any help with the broom or vaccuum cleaner then because he's alienated so many of our US friends, who were all at our side after 911, that it's a wonder we have any left. Or are they being forced to help us replace the broken window, though they were not the ones who decided on the game in the first place?
Once again, I'm undoubtedly reacting like the flaming bleeding heart L, but effeminate, guess that's ok too, I'm a lady after all.
People who are steadfastly voting for Bush as a vote against Liberalism ( I hear the boo hiss, I do that when I read the word corporate like it's Snidely Whiplash in a matinee) and who cannot believe that people out of the States should be concerned about OUR business after all, well, I've got news for you, the leader of the States is very important to them. Their kids might have to go die for his ideas whether they like it or not. And the world economy is affected by things that happen in America. Look at the Canadians who've spoken up here. We're all in this mess together, is it any wonder they're concerned about Bush getting reelected? And wondering how Americans can actually vote for him despite all they've heard and seen with the Iraq war?
People outside of the situation might have understood this because the popular vote wasn't for him and our elections were irregular the last time. But if he's reelected this time, they'll conclude that we don't give a hoot about our leader, or that we are blind to his faults.
I hear the answers, I read them in columns etc, 'If country x y and z's are our friends, then we don't need them.' Sorry folks but we do need them...we're not alone in this world. If you're going to chalk up the anti-Bush opinions to bleeding heart liberals, (boo hiss) then, sorry but you've got just about everyone against you. And they are our friends, they aren't even anti-American for the most part. But will they withstand a Bush reelection, I'm not sure, but I think Americans who buy the Bush package deal, don't care about what other countries think. That is their right I suppose. I just hate to see this reduced to a liberal vs conservative thing, it isn't that at all.


You cannot have your cake and eat it too after all, you can't be isolationist and international leader both.

Now, to Kerry and an honest appraisal of the "Know nothing liberal", new variation on the term that I hadn't seen as of yet. We spoke about the educational level elsewhere.
Funny thing is that Bush and Kerry are both products of similar educations, belong to the same elitist club at Yale, the Skull and Bones club of movers and shakers or those who 'posture' themselves to be. There are only fifteen people admitted per year to that club and they are more often than not, chosen on merit and talent or family connections. Kerry's got both, but, honestly, Bush is talented at disguising his talents I guess.
I think the very nature of a politician is posturing and frankly both of these guys are good at it, but, Bush is better at it because he convinces people he's 'downhome' and close to them, appeals to many's wishes for the US to be the best, the strongest, the most looked up to power.
That our way of life is the best in the world so we're going to give that possiblity to others, whether they've asked for it or not.
Well that sort of 'posturing' has failed miserably...got us into a war because it was carried out without the backup we needed, without the proof, without waiting to get help from others and instead, demanding it in a 'with us or against us' fashion.

So I think Agony's got a point, we all need to vote, no matter who it is, because this is very important and it's not a little schematized liberal vs conservative thing.

One last thing though, flip flopping, if giving the president support when he needed it was going the way of politics, then, questioning the way in which that power was used to accomplish the task was flip flopping then plenty of folks did it.
When Bush asked for support, he was given that, but, when he used that in a different way, not using any alternatives but force and not waiting for proof and support from other countries, he lost that trust.

I feel that despite people's qualms about changing in midstream, that he's better able to deal with this because as he stated 'I know these guys' (which is what scares us L folks I guess, I mean, he does know plenty of the oil nations folks), I understand their fears..because that's the parental reaction to messes your kids make, but this time we need someone with a little more ability to get help with the vacuum cleaner, with an international scope.

Wow, I took that quiz and I was quite surprised with the results. Although I'm not fond of either presidential candidate, I DISLIKE Kerry the most, so I'm not voting for him. However, this little quiz told me I relate more to Kerry. Hmmmm, strange, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Please note that this is not a forum for making unfounded accusations and attacks on someone's masculinity/femininity.

---

Effeminate: weakness, delicacy, soft, decadent. I calls 'em like I sees 'em. There has been enough unfounded accusations and attacks on George Bush's character in this forum, I am just trying to level things out.

it has been stated that George Bush is the most disliked President in US history,villified for his actions in Iraq and being out of touch with reality and yet people queue up to defend him.
Where I grew up in the valleys of South Wales you could put a monkey up for office in the labour party, and he would win over an educated Conservative, it is partisan politics and I feel that fjohn would do the same, vote for the monkey than democrat.

cwm52 that remark about fjohn borders on being a personal attack, please refrain from making remarks like that about other members. Attack ideas but not people please.

Thank you.

I just tried to take the test and it never gave me an answer. I took it again, and still no answer. Did I scare it??

"I just tried to take the test and it never gave me an answer. I took it again, and still no answer."

I had the same problem.

Since you had to nominate which state you were from, I picked California (since I used to live there). Do you think it knew I lied? ( )

dg_dave - I don't care what other sources say, but *this* site is not the place to call people effeminate as a derogatory, etc. term.

There was no derogatory use intended. It is all on one's perception of how something is worded. Perception means everything on what is said. As fjohn said...Bush's character had been attacked and you nor any other moderator said anything.

Has anyone here noticed that Kerry's so-called "flip-flops" (e.g., "I voted for the $87B before I voted against it") on closer examination always turn out to be nuanced responses to complexity (he voted for the $87B once then voted against the bill after it had been riddled with riders which changed its ultimate effect, including authorizing no-bid contracts which ultimately went to, guess who, Halliburton)...

...whereas Bush's so-called flip-flops (oh, for example, "I will uphold the Roadless Area Conservation Rule" "We are repealing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule" or "We will only put troops into harm's way as a last resort" "We are bringing the War on Terror to Iraq") on closer examination turn out to be outright lies?