Cool USA Today Presidential match game

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
militant abolitionists

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

People are still fighting to end slavery in the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrats you caught me doing 2 things at once and mixing words. Does that make you feel smart? Here, have a cookie.

[bluef0x]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
militant abolitionists

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

People are still fighting to end slavery in the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrats you caught me doing 2 things at once and mixing words. Does that make you feel smart? Here, have a cookie.


[/ QUOTE ]

I found it funny, it wasn't an insult. Is getting butthurt over every little mistake worth the time? Generating excuses for errors helps you sleep better at night? Here, have some tissue.

[Taso]

Damn, that is a delicious looking cookie.

I got Paul, Giuliani, and...Tancredo, I think. It was the latin american dude.

That's about right for me - if Paul isn't on the ballot, and Giuliani is, I'll vote for Giuliani. If neither are, I won't vote at all, unless Gore is. Kidding, I'll have to pick the lesser of 18 evils or however many of the same candidate are running.

[jstnrgrs]

1. Paul
2. Kucinich
3. Giuliani

For the idoit version, I got

1. Kucinich
2. Hunter
3. Romney

I think it's wierd that Kucinich was in my top three for both the idot version, and the normal version.

[AlexM]

This quiz was terrible for anyone who doesn't buy into the two party system. The questions were completely either or while ignoring other options. They should have at least included "none of these options fit my beliefs" or something for most of them. But then, that would mean they were encouraging people to think for themselves.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
This quiz was terrible for anyone who doesn't buy into the two party system. The questions were completely either or while ignoring other options. They should have at least included "none of these options fit my beliefs" or something for most of them. But then, that would mean they were encouraging people to think for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

The criticism has been repeated a lot, but it doesn't make much sense. The options they list are the complete universe of options espoused by candidates in the game. Listing options that aren't represented by a candidate wouldn't accomplish anything.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This quiz was terrible for anyone who doesn't buy into the two party system. The questions were completely either or while ignoring other options. They should have at least included "none of these options fit my beliefs" or something for most of them. But then, that would mean they were encouraging people to think for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

The criticism has been repeated a lot, but it doesn't make much sense. The options they list are the complete universe of options espoused by candidates in the game. Listing options that aren't represented by a candidate wouldn't accomplish anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respectfully disagree. There are lots of issues that are important to many people that multiple candidates are discussing, yet because the most well-funded candidates aren't speaking about those issues they get little media attention. Such issues include: the war on drugs, the assault weapons ban, corporate welfare, our relationship with Venezuela, NAFTA & the WTO, farm subsidies, restoring habeas corpus, trade deficits, and many more. The candidates of the two major parties are talking about a lot of varied issues, even though it's hard to tell by the media coverage.

Furthermore, the options listed for the questions that are asked do not fully address all positions. For instance, part of Kucinich's policy toward Iraq would be to create a cabinet position for peace, but there's no mention of that. Tancredo wants to crack down on legal as well as illegal immigration, but there's not an option for that on the immigration question. The options listed do not represent the "complete universe" of opinion of the candidates.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This quiz was terrible for anyone who doesn't buy into the two party system. The questions were completely either or while ignoring other options. They should have at least included "none of these options fit my beliefs" or something for most of them. But then, that would mean they were encouraging people to think for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

The criticism has been repeated a lot, but it doesn't make much sense. The options they list are the complete universe of options espoused by candidates in the game. Listing options that aren't represented by a candidate wouldn't accomplish anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respectfully disagree. There are lots of issues that are important to many people that multiple candidates are discussing, yet because the most well-funded candidates aren't speaking about those issues they get little media attention. Such issues include: the war on drugs, the assault weapons ban, corporate welfare, our relationship with Venezuela, NAFTA & the WTO, farm subsidies, restoring habeas corpus, trade deficits, and many more. The candidates of the two major parties are talking about a lot of varied issues, even though it's hard to tell by the media coverage.

Furthermore, the options listed for the questions that are asked do not fully address all positions. For instance, part of Kucinich's policy toward Iraq would be to create a cabinet position for peace, but there's no mention of that. Tancredo wants to crack down on legal as well as illegal immigration, but there's not an option for that on the immigration question. The options listed do not represent the "complete universe" of opinion of the candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a quiz that did would be 50 pages long and no one would bother with it. They tried to capture the overall intent of policy not the minute details of accomplishing it.

[relativity_x]

1. Giuliani
2. Kucinich
3. Romney

[SNOWBALL]

I got Gravel, Kucinich, and Dodd.
I dunno who Dodd is.