Jump to content

Is the Trumpster a Conservative?

B-Large

By B-Large
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

4merper4mer Hall of Famer

4merper4mer

Posted
Posted (edited)

Any political spectrum not based on the intended purpose of government is bunk. The concept of left and right is absolutely meaningless, because it doesn't speak to the proper role of government involvement, and therefore is open to vaguery. It also doesn't account for many political ideologies, and leaves them undefinable within the model.

 

The axis model accounts for all ideologies and viewpoints, and plots them based on their beliefs about the proper role of government in society.

 

As an example, Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler all fall in the upper left of the frame, Hitler being closest to the axis. They all believed in powerful authoritarian regimes which placed strict controls on both the economic and social aspects of their nations.

 

Conversely, I fall into the lower right box.

 

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Typical crap survey loaded with questions which taken literally beg one answer....usually not on the list.....but taken the way they want you to answer puts you in a corner. On most, you have to answer agree/disagree instead of "strongly"because to do otherwise requires you to use unproven data or make stupid assumptions. More than half of the questions are utter garbage, but I'm sure Econ 102 profs think they're spot on.

 

Examples:

 

 

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

 

 

Well, yes, but it also requires restrictions on the ability of government to define "predator" and to an extent "monopoly". So knowing that, and knowing that the writers of the survey are idiots based on this question alone, how are we to proceed with selecting one of the 4 choices? "Strongly agree" puts us all in for government and "Strongly disagree" makes us evil.

 

 

 

There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.

 

 

If you believe that no one is born civilized or savage but they are shaped by culture, so friggin what? You still have to stifle the individuals acting like savages.

 

 

When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

 

 

Very stupid indeed. Wouldn't it depend on what's troubling you and whether you had control over it? And potential distractions, Why must they be cheerful?

 

 

 

What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

 

 

Obviously this is not true because people do have competing interests. However, the implication of the question is clear and stupid. The best answer to this, regardless of your politics, is to skip it,

 

 

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

 

 

Obviously this is true. Equally obviously this is a bad thing in the long run because centralized power leads to ruin. But to answer the question as an individual data point you must strongly agree. To answer in the broad sense, the selection should be "Strongly agree but it does not come close to making it worth it".

 

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.

 

Of course but so what? It has made me $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

 

 

The first question of all:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

 

is maybe the stupidest. Who defines inevitable? By when? And when we reach that point in time then what happens? Who decides what serves "humanity"? Which generation? Today's? The next? 100/1000/10000 years from now? Who decides which trans national corporations, who likely compete with each other have benefited? How is that measured? Do their tax dollars count toward servitude of humanity? What if there are other potential beneficiaries that are neither humanity nor a trans national corporation? What if it serves me? Or you? Or what if it serves polar bears at the expense of salmon? Is that good or bad?

 

Some people are naturally unlucky.

 

 

 

One look at Greggy or Beerboy just screams the strongly agree answer right off the page but luckiness in truth is not yes/no, rather it is on a scale. In reality how can you be born unlucky? Is it possible? No, it is not possible. Think about it before you object.

 

 

 

I will post results below that I received when I took the test using different methods.

 

 

Raw gut answers based on feelings I allowed the questioner to infuse....ie. acting like I am stupid....

-6.0, -6.26

 

Did my best to interpret what the moron who wrote the test should have written down as the question, if he knew how to write, while cutting him a little slack:

2.25, -2.21

 

Did my best to interpret what the moron who wrote the test should have written down as the question, if he knew how to write, while cutting him no slack:

3.75, -3.03

 

Skipped the insanely stupid questions, cutting the idiot author no slack on the answered questions....oops it won't let you skip.....Why? Because it wants results whether they mean anything or not, Why? Because it wants to portray these meaningless results as meaningful. Why? Because of some dumb agenda pulled together by the idiot or idiots who wrote this. It's almost like they are trying to control a message....you know, like an evil multi-national monopolistic corporation would do. Still, not all that bad for Econ 102.

Edited by 4merper4mer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...