I took the USA Today quiz over here: ["Candidate Match Game"]. The order of my choices was 1) Hillary Clinton, 2) Ron Paul, 3) Dennis Kucinich, 4) John Edwards, 5) Duncan Hunter.
Weird. Hillary over the others? Eh, no, I don't think so. I wonder if this test is rigged to give Clinton some numbers. Wouldn't that be funny, if no matter what you answered, it came up Hillary and undecideds thought, Hmm, the test says I should vote for Hillary ... so I will!
Another one at SpeakOut.com gave me even weirder results ["Vote Match"]. All the candidates failed but look at the results:
Alan Keyes and Ron Paul 43 percent.
Mike Huckabee, Dennis Kucinich, and Duncan Hunter 40 percent.
Mike Gravel, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John Cox, and Cynthia McKinney 38 percent.
I know I'm a bit libertarian and all - I prefer to use the term "liberaltarian" - but come on. Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney, John Cox and Hillary Clinton over John Edwards or Barack Obama? That is preposterous! I would never vote for those people.
Well, alright, I admit that I might vote for Keyes only to continue to hear him debate and rail against the empty suits running on the Republican side and with the hope that someone would form a moshpit somewhere so he could dance in it like he did on MTV in 2000. But the vote would be a prank vote at best and not an ideological one. So, it isn't realistic.
Of course, the flip side of this is that maybe I'm just a total weirdo when it comes to political issues and what I believe in. Are peace dividends, fair trade, not being a nation that tortures people, real health care - not just insurance - but health care, protecting the borders, and standing by the Bill of Rights such radical ideas these days that not a single presidential candidate can get more than 70 percent on one of my tests? Is that so weird? I honestly can't fathom that this would be the reason why my testing results are so screwed up and whacky. It's gotta be the test; really. It's not me ... it has got to be the tests!
Weird. Hillary over the others? Eh, no, I don't think so. I wonder if this test is rigged to give Clinton some numbers. Wouldn't that be funny, if no matter what you answered, it came up Hillary and undecideds thought, Hmm, the test says I should vote for Hillary ... so I will!
Another one at SpeakOut.com gave me even weirder results ["Vote Match"]. All the candidates failed but look at the results:
Alan Keyes and Ron Paul 43 percent.
Mike Huckabee, Dennis Kucinich, and Duncan Hunter 40 percent.
Mike Gravel, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John Cox, and Cynthia McKinney 38 percent.
I know I'm a bit libertarian and all - I prefer to use the term "liberaltarian" - but come on. Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney, John Cox and Hillary Clinton over John Edwards or Barack Obama? That is preposterous! I would never vote for those people.
Well, alright, I admit that I might vote for Keyes only to continue to hear him debate and rail against the empty suits running on the Republican side and with the hope that someone would form a moshpit somewhere so he could dance in it like he did on MTV in 2000. But the vote would be a prank vote at best and not an ideological one. So, it isn't realistic.
Of course, the flip side of this is that maybe I'm just a total weirdo when it comes to political issues and what I believe in. Are peace dividends, fair trade, not being a nation that tortures people, real health care - not just insurance - but health care, protecting the borders, and standing by the Bill of Rights such radical ideas these days that not a single presidential candidate can get more than 70 percent on one of my tests? Is that so weird? I honestly can't fathom that this would be the reason why my testing results are so screwed up and whacky. It's gotta be the test; really. It's not me ... it has got to be the tests!
No comments:
Post a Comment