Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 43

Thread: Quiz: 2012 Presidential Candidate Selector

  1. #1
    eunice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    Ne-INFj
    Posts
    2,955
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Quiz: 2012 Presidential Candidate Selector

    Link: http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

    My results:

    1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
    2. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (73%)
    3. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (67%)
    4. Hillary Clinton (not running) (66%)
    5. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (48%)
    6. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (44%)
    7. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (41%)
    8. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (40%)
    9. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (38%)
    10. John Boehner (not running) (37%)
    11. Mitch Daniels (not running) (37%)
    12. Lindsey Graham (not running) (35%)
    13. Eric Cantor (not running) (34%)
    14. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (33%)
    15. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (33%)
    16. Sarah Palin (32%)
    17. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (31%)
    18. Jeb Bush (not running) (30%)
    19. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (30%)
    20. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (28%)
    21. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (27%)
    22. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (27%)
    23. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (27%)
    24. Wayne Allyn Root (27%)
    25. Rob Portman (24%)
    26. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (21%)
    27. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (20%)
    28. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (18%)
    29. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (11%)

  2. #2

  3. #3
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'll be giving a free vote again to this smart person I know, even though it didn't work in his favor last time. I try to keep my mind as much out of lowly practices as I can.

  4. #4
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
    2. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (70%)
    3. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (65%)
    4. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (51%)
    5. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (50%)
    6. Hillary Clinton (not running) (48%)
    7. Wayne Allyn Root (47%)
    8. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (42%)
    9. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (41%)
    10. Eric Cantor (not running) (38%)
    11. Lindsey Graham (not running) (36%)
    12. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (35%)
    13. Jeb Bush (not running) (33%)
    14. John Boehner (not running) (30%)
    15. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (29%)
    16. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (27%)
    17. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (26%)
    18. Rob Portman (26%)
    19. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (25%)
    20. Sarah Palin (25%)
    21. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (23%)
    22. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (23%)
    23. Mitch Daniels (not running) (23%)
    24. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (17%)
    25. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (17%)
    26. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (11%)
    27. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (11%)
    28. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (10%)
    29. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (5%)
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  5. #5
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    2012 President Selector http://selectsmart.com/president

    Rankings:
    1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100 %)
    2. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (95 %)
    3. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (81 %)
    4. Hillary Clinton (not running) (80 %)
    5. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (55 %)
    6. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (45 %)
    7. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (40 %)
    8. Wayne Allyn Root (30 %)
    9. Jeb Bush (not running) (25 %)
    10. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (18 %)
    11. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (17 %)
    12. Rob Portman (17 %)
    13. Lindsey Graham (not running) (17 %)
    14. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (17 %)
    15. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (16 %)
    16. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (16 %)
    17. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (15 %)
    18. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (13 %)
    19. Eric Cantor (not running) (12 %)
    20. Mitch Daniels (not running) (10 %)
    21. Sarah Palin (9 %) 22. John Boehner (not running) (8 %)
    23. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (8 %)
    24. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (7 %)
    25. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (7 %)
    26. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (7 %)
    27. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (7 %)
    28. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (0 %)
    29. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (0 %)
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anyone who scored high on Obama and/or Biden probably possesses several, if not all, of these attributes:

    Ignorant about economics.

    Ignorant about history.

    Doesn't understand unintended consequences.

    Easily swayed by pretty sounding political rhetoric.

    Thinks conservatives are "big meanies" who don't care about the poor.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)

    2. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (84%)

    3. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (84%)

    4. Wayne Allyn Root (82%)

    5. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (79%)

    6. Eric Cantor (not running) (77%)

    7. John Boehner (not running) (76%)

    8. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (73%)

    9. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (73%)

    10. Sarah Palin (70%)

    11. Lindsey Graham (not running) (69%)

    12. Rob Portman (65%)

    13. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (59%)

    14. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (58%)

    15. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (56%)

    16. Mitch Daniels (not running) (56%)

    17. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (52%)

    18. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (48%)

    19. Jeb Bush (not running) (44%)

    20. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (43%)

    21. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (39%)

    22. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (35%)

    23. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (33%)

    24. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (30%)

    25. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (22%)

    26. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (21%)

    27. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (20%)

    28. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (20%)

    29. Hillary Clinton (not running) (19%)

  8. #8
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
    2. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (74%)
    3. Hillary Clinton (not running) (69%)
    4. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (68%)
    5. Wayne Allyn Root (53%)
    6. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (52%)
    7. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (48%)
    8. Jeb Bush (not running) (39%)
    9. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (39%)
    10. Mitch Daniels (not running) (36%)
    11. Lindsey Graham (not running) (34%)
    12. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (33%)
    13. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (32%)
    14. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (32%)
    15. Rob Portman (31%)
    16. Eric Cantor (not running) (30%)
    17. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (30%)
    18. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (29%)
    19. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (25%)
    20. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (25%)
    21. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (23%)
    22. John Boehner (not running) (22%)
    23. Sarah Palin (22%)
    24. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (20%)
    25. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (20%)
    26. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (18%)
    27. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (16%)
    28. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (13%)
    29. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (6%)

    edit: Did anyone else notice that you can't answer both questions 10 and 12?
    Last edited by munenori2; 06-02-2011 at 05:45 PM.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    Quack
    Oh shit, I got:

    1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100 %)
    2. discojoe (deceased) (95 %)

    Nah, kidding, going to take this after I take a bath.

  10. #10
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default x

    Optimus Prime or Labcoat
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I literally despise those who score high on Obama, etc.

    You are a cancer to Western civilization and one of the primary causes of its decline.

  12. #12
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh noes!

    Quick, everybody study economics and history and suddenly you'll realize discojoe has been right all along, always and forever! lol, it's a twelve question test that isn't even formatted correctly ffs.

  13. #13
    ഗന᎕ᒹ ±ᗉᚔXᙂഗ woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    1,906
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)

    2. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (88%)

    3. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (73%)

    4. Hillary Clinton (not running) (71%)

    5. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (58%)

    6. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (44%)

    7. Wayne Allyn Root (44%)

    8. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (30%)

    9. Lindsey Graham (not running) (28%)

    10. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (26%)

    11. Mitch Daniels (not running) (25%)

    12. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (20%)

    13. Jeb Bush (not running) (19%)

    14. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (19%)

    15. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (19%)

    16. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (17%)

    17. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (17%)

    18. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (17%)

    19. Eric Cantor (not running) (15%)

    20. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (13%)

    21. Rob Portman (11%)

    22. John Boehner (not running) (10%)

    23. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (9%)

    24. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (6%)

    25. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (6%)

    26. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (6%)

    27. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (6%)

    28. Sarah Palin (6%)

    29. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (0%)

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    I literally despise those who score high on Obama, etc.

    You are a cancer to Western civilization and one of the primary causes of its decline.
    bullshit - if a slight and noncommittal preference for fair trade over free trade is enough to make me one of the biggest supervillains to western civilization, then we've got pretty much nothing to worry about anyways

  14. #14
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    I literally despise those who score high on Obama, etc.

    You are a cancer to Western civilization and one of the primary causes of its decline.
    Lol and apparently the liberals are supposed to be the whiners, such bullshit, whining isn't related to a particular ideology, and this is proof.

  15. #15
    ***el X Mercenary Nebuchadnezzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Socionix sleeper cell
    TIM
    Te-ISTp
    Posts
    1,413
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
    2. Wayne Allyn Root (82%)
    3. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (81%)
    4. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (74%)
    5. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (74%)
    6. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (74%)
    7. John Boehner (not running) (70%)
    8. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (69%)
    9. Eric Cantor (not running) (67%)
    10. Sarah Palin (65%)
    11. Lindsey Graham (not running) (61%)
    12. Rob Portman (59%)
    13. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (54%)
    14. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (53%)
    15. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (50%)
    16. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (48%)
    17. Mitch Daniels (not running) (48%)
    18. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (42%)
    19. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (41%)
    20. Jeb Bush (not running) (40%)
    21. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (40%)
    22. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (37%)
    23. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (31%)
    24. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (28%)
    25. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (28%)
    26. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (25%)
    27. Hillary Clinton (not running) (22%)
    28. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (17%)
    29. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (11%)

    "His feeling that this world is not his Fatherland, and that it does not represent his proper condition, so to speak—his feeling that, basically, he 'comes from afar'—will remain a fundamental element which will not give rise to mystical escapism and spiritual weakness, but rather will enable him to minimise, to relativise, to refer to higher concepts of measure and limit, all that can seem important and definitive to others, starting with death itself, and will confer on him calm force and breadth of vision." — Julius Evola

    SLI-Te | 5w6 sp/so
    Oldham Solitary

    Johari
    Nohari

  16. #16
    uniden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    California
    TIM
    SEER
    Posts
    199
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)

    2. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (83%)

    3. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (81%)

    4. Wayne Allyn Root (77%)

    5. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (70%)

    6. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (70%)

    7. Lindsey Graham (not running) (68%)

    8. Eric Cantor (not running) (68%)

    9. John Boehner (not running) (68%)

    10. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (63%)

    11. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (61%)

    12. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (59%)

    13. Sarah Palin (59%)

    14. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (56%)

    15. Jeb Bush (not running) (55%)

    16. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (51%)

    17. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (48%)

    18. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (48%)

    19. Rob Portman (48%)

    20. Mitch Daniels (not running) (45%)

    21. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (44%)

    22. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (40%)

    23. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (33%)

    24. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (32%)

    25. Hillary Clinton (not running) (31%)

    26. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (29%)

    27. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (28%)

    28. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (22%)

    29. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (11%)

  17. #17
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't care enough about politics to take this test lol
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  18. #18
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,388
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
    2. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (90%)
    3. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (76%)
    4. Hillary Clinton (not running) (74%)
    5. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (59%)
    6. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (47%)
    7. Wayne Allyn Root (37%)
    8. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (30%)
    9. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (25%)
    10. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (23%)
    11. Lindsey Graham (not running) (23%)
    12. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (22%)
    13. Rob Portman (19%)
    14. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (18%)
    15. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (17%)
    16. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (17%)
    17. Eric Cantor (not running) (16%)
    18. Jeb Bush (not running) (16%)
    19. Mitch Daniels (not running) (15%)
    20. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (14%)
    21. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (14%)
    22. John Boehner (not running) (12%)
    23. Sarah Palin (11%)
    24. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (10%)
    25. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (10%)
    26. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (10%)
    27. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (5%)
    28. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (0%)
    29. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (0%)
    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    edit: Did anyone else notice that you can't answer both questions 10 and 12?
    yeah - i answered #10.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    OQuick, everybody study economics and history and suddenly you'll realize discojoe has been right all along
    Yeah, you probably would.

    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    bullshit - if a slight and noncommittal preference for fair trade over free trade is enough to make me one of the biggest supervillains to western civilization, then we've got pretty much nothing to worry about anyways
    The fact that you even considered any of those insane answers is more than enough reason to be alarmed.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Lol and apparently the liberals are supposed to be the whiners, such bullshit, whining isn't related to a particular ideology, and this is proof.
    wat

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Lol @ "fair" trade scams. Obviously you dumb motherfuckers haven't done your research.
    Yeah, why do people so easily fall for the pretty name trick?

    *liberal writes a bill that would force all women to cut off their tits and run around in circles until they pass out*

    Dumbass liberal voter: "This bill must be good because it's called the Immortality For Everyone Act. I'm giving it my full support without any further consideration."

  21. #21
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Lol @ "fair" trade scams. Obviously you dumb motherfuckers haven't done your research.
    Some dumb motherfuckers might not consider reading one random source that randomly cites other random sources "doing research." Instead, they might have done more extensive research than that and reached the conclusion that fair trade, despite its pitfalls, has its merits.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  22. #22
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    PS: There are many case studies that confirm the merits of fair trade and many others that don't. Case studies are localized, as are fair trade agreements, so it's complicated to make a case either way. My point is that "you are dumb hahahaha because you haven't read xyz" is so tiresome and pointless.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  23. #23
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let's not go there (at least not in this thread). Just spare us the idiotic "if you haven't read what I have read, you are stupid." As for the extensive research, see examples below (pro and con).

    A sample of some research sources

    Fair trade carbon credits: will certification benefit people and planet? By: Corner, Adam. Ecologist, May2011, Vol. 40 Issue 23, p3-5, 3p, 2 Color Photographs; Abstract: The article discusses carbon emissions trading for control of global carbon emissions, its use in the international fair trade market, and its applicability in developing countries including Uganda that contribute very little to global carbon emissions and would benefit from emissions trading income. The article addresses skepticism about emissions trading markets in Uganda and concerns about who would receive carbon trading income. The Uganda Carbon Bureau (UCB) and its Director Bill Farmer are noted. Policy Officer Rob Elsworth of Great Britain's carbon trading group Sandbag is cited regarding the need for transparency in carbon trading.; (AN 60604735)
    Subjects: EMISSIONS trading; INTERNATIONAL cooperation; CARBON dioxide mitigation; FAIR trade goods; CARBON dioxide -- Environmental aspects; DEVELOPING countries; UGANDA; ECONOMIC conditions; UGANDA -- Economic conditions -- 1979-; FARMER, Bill; ELSWORTH, Rob

    Empowering Women through Fair Trade? Lessons from Asia. By: Hutchens, Anna. Third World Quarterly, Apr2010, Vol. 31 Issue 3, p449-467, 19p, 1 Diagram; Abstract: Fair Trade is promoted as a system of trade that empowers women producers. Yet there is little empirical evidence with which to evaluate this claim. To what extent are women empowered through Fair Trade? While some suggest that focusing on handicrafts would advance the goal of women's empowerment, an analysis of the Fair Trade craft industry from the perspective of Asian craft producer networks reveals two key obstacles: fair trade's 'charity' approach to the craft sector, which reinforces traditional gender hierarchies, and the absence of a policy framework and institutional mechanisms that promote women's empowerment as a rights-based rather than a culture-based issue. The paper identifies two solutions to these discrete problems: a market-oriented craft business model, of which there are several empirical examples; and a human rights-based policy framework and robust regulatory mechanisms to address gender inequality in Fair Trade. The implications of these findings for Fair Trade's approach to empowering women are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2010.488477; (AN 51744083)
    Subjects: POWER (Social sciences); COMPETITION, Unfair; GENDER inequality; WOMEN -- Social conditions; INTERNATIONAL trade; INTERNATIONAL economic relations; LIBERALIZATION (Finance); International Trade Financing

    Narratives and Network Organization: A Comparison of Fair Trade Systems in Two Nations. By: Bennett, W. Lance; Foot, Kirsten; Xenos, Michael. Journal of Communication, Apr2011, Vol. 61 Issue 2, p219-245, 27p; Abstract (English): The narratives that flow through networks can shed light on their organization. This analysis looks at the elaboration of fair trade networks in the United States and the United Kingdom, with a focus on the narrative control exercised by key gatekeeping organizations. Structural properties of the 2 networks reflect differences in centralization as measured through distance, closeness, and betweenness in relations among organizations. The analysis suggests that once a dominant story or entrenched opposing stories become established in a network, structural dynamics involving narrative choices, conflicts, and strategies can lead comparable networks to diverge even as they espouse the same cause. These differences affect the capacities of networks to mobilize for various kinds of activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Abstract (Spanish): Las Narrativas y la Red de la Organización:Una Comparación del Sistema de Comercio Justo entre Dos Naciones W. Lance Bennett, Kirsten Foot, and Michael Xenos Resumen Las narrativas que corren a través de las redes pueden iluminar sobre sus organizaciones. Este análisis considera la elaboración de las redes de comercio justo en los Estados Unidos y el Reino Unido, con un enfoque sobre el control de la narrativa ejercido por las organizaciones de control claves. Las propiedades estructurales de 2 redes reflejan las diferencias en la centralización medidas a través de la distancia, la cercanía y la relación entre las organizaciones. Este análisis sugiere que una vez que una historia dominante o historias opuestas arraigadas fueron establecidas en una red, las dinámicas estructurales que involucran las opciones de narrativas, los conflictos, y las estrategias pueden dirigir a las redes comparables a discrepar aun cuando ellas exponen la misma causa. Las diferencias afectan las capacidades de las redes de movilizar varios tipos de actividades. Palabras claves: redes, narrativas, acción colectiva, comercio justo, análisis de red [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01538.x; (AN 59748589)
    Subjects: NARRATIVES; ASSOCIATIONS, institutions, etc.; GATEKEEPING; COMMUNICATION -- Research; UNITED States; GREAT Britain; FAIR trade associations

    COFFEE, FARMING FAMILIES, AND FAIR TRADE IN COSTA RICA: New Markets, Same Old Problems? By: Sick, Deborah. Latin American Research Review, 2008, Vol. 43 Issue 3, p193-208, 16p; Abstract (English): Fair-trade networks have been working to temper the inequities and uncertainties facing small-scale artisans and farmers and to provide them with more secure and livable incomes. Drawing on earlier research in 1991-1993 and a brief pilot study in 2006, this research note examines farmers' perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of production for fair trade in three coffee-producing regions in Costa Rica. While the fair-trade movement has made significant headway in bringing social and environmental concerns to the marketplace and in providing farmers with guaranteed minimum prices for their coffee, farmers' reactions to production for fair trade indicate a number of problems that farmers and fair-trade cooperatives are facing in their efforts to reap the potential benefits of fair trade. As currently structured, fair-trade markets alone do not adequately address the needs of small farming families in Latin America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Abstract (Spanish): Las redes de comercio justo han trabajado para disminuir las inequidades e incertidumbres que los pequeños artesanos y agricultores enfrentan y asegurarles un ingreso más estable, que les garantice un buen nivel de vida. Utilizando datos de investigaciones previas, realizadas entre 1991 y 1993, y un estudio preliminar, hecho en 2006, este trabajo examina las percepciones de los caficultores en tres regiones de Costa Rica, relacionadas con las ventajas y desventajas de la producción de café para el comercio justo. Aunque este movimiento ha realizado avances, como traer las preocupaciones sociales y ambientales al mercado y proveer a los agricultores con un precio mínimo garantizado por su café, las reacciones de los agricultores indican una serie de problemas que enfrentan, junto con las cooperativas de comercio justo, en sus esfuerzos para alcanzar los beneficios potenciales del comercio justo. Tal como está estructurado actualmente, el comercio justo por sí solo no está en capacidad de satisfacer las necesidades de las pequeñas familias de agricultores en América Latina. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; (AN 34718989)
    Subjects: COFFEE growers; COFFEE; FAIR trade goods; COMPETITION, Unfair; FARMERS; RURAL families; AGRICULTURE; RURAL population; COSTA Rica; ECONOMIC aspects; FAIR trade associations

    The Fair Trade Challenge to Embedded Liberalism. By: Ehrlich, Sean D.. International Studies Quarterly, Dec2010, Vol. 54 Issue 4, p1013-1033, 21p; Abstract: The embedded liberalism thesis, a major component of the trade policy literature in political science, argues that governments can build support for free trade by compensating economically those hurt by trade, usually with welfare or education policies. This strategy depends, though, on opposition to trade being driven by employment factors, such as job or income loss because of increased competition. The current fair trade movement raises many non-employment criticisms of trade such as concerns about the environment and labor standards but the literature tends to treat these concerns as traditional protectionism in disguise. This article argues, instead, that for many, these concerns are sincere and that this presents a growing challenge to the compromise of embedded liberalism. The article demonstrates this by examining survey data in the United States and showing that those who support fair trade tend to have characteristics that are opposite those who support economic protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2010.00624.x; (AN 55595111)
    Subjects: COMMERCIAL policy; POLITICAL science; INTERNATIONAL trade; FREE trade; TRADE regulation; PROTECTIONISM; Administration of General Economic Programs; International Trade Financing

    Development Projects and Life Satisfaction: An Impact Study on Fair Trade Handicraft Producers. By: Becchetti, Leonardo; Castriota, Stefano; Solferino, Nazaria. Journal of Happiness Studies, Mar2011, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p115-138, 24p; Abstract: Is there a correspondence between subjective and objective wellbeing indicators in development programs? We investigate this question by evaluating the impact of Fair Trade affiliation on the subjective wellbeing of a sample of Peruvian (treatment and control) producers from two different Fair Trade projects in two socioeconomic environments, one relatively poorer (Juliaca) and the other relatively more affluent (Chulucanas). We find a direct and an indirect effect. The direct effect acts positively via affiliation years in the poorer project and via trade diversification in both projects. The indirect effect acts through the reduction of poverty and relative income. Consistently with the concave income-happiness assumption, the variables generating the indirect effect have a much weaker impact for producers living in the relatively better-off socioeconomic environment, net of the lower FT economic impact in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; DOI: 10.1007/s10902-009-9179-9; (AN 57676877)
    Subjects: ECONOMIC development projects; SATISFACTION; COMPETITION, Unfair; POVERTY; QUALITY of life; WELL-being; SOCIOECONOMIC factors; PERU; Administration of General Economic Programs

    A confluence of Fair Trade and organic agriculture in southern India. By: Makita, Rie. Development in Practice, Apr2011, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p205-217, 13p; Abstract: Although the confluence of Fair Trade and organic agriculture has become a salient phenomenon, they contradict each other at the production level: Fair Trade focuses on specific products, while organic agriculture targets production units. This article explores how Southern small-scale producers cope with this discrepancy, by observing one farmers' group's attempt to obtain the two certifications in India. This case study identifies stakeholders who react to the two certifications differently under different livelihood strategies. Combining the two initiatives may not always be the best practice for realising poverty reduction and environmental conservation -aims which the initiatives have in common. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2011.543277; (AN 60122830)
    Subjects: COMPETITION, Unfair; AGRICULTURE -- India; RURAL industries; FARMERS; CERTIFICATION; INDIA, South; Administration of General Economic Programs

    Fair-Trade Coffee and Commodity Fetishism: The Limits of Market-Driven Social Justice. By: Fridell, Gavin. Historical Materialism, 2007, Vol. 15 Issue 4, p79-104, 26p; Abstract: This paper explores the claims made by various authors that the fair-trade network provides an initial basis for a challenge to the commodification of goods under global capitalism. Proponents of fair trade generally advance two essential arguments in this regard. First, they claim that fair trade reveals the social and environmental conditions under which goods are produced and brings producers and consumers together through 'ethical consumerism', which challenges the commodification of goods into items with an independent life of their own. Second, they argue that fair trade affirms non-economic values of co-operation and solidarity which challenge the capitalist imperatives of competition, accumulation, and profit-maximisation. Drawing from cases in the fair-trade coffee sector, these assertions are critically examined and it is argued that, while fair trade can provide a symbolic challenge to commodity fetishism, in the end this challenge is strictly limited by the power of global market imperatives and the network's market-driven approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; DOI: 10.1163/156920607X245841; (AN 27921732)
    Subjects: COFFEE industry; CAPITALISM; COMPETITION, Unfair; ECONOMIC structure; CENTRAL economic planning; CONSUMPTION (Economics); MARXIAN economics; CONSUMER protection; SOCIAL movements; FAIR trade goods; Coffee and Tea Manufacturing; Administration of General Economic Programs; Other Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities

    Fair Trade and Organizational Innovation in Nepal: Lessons from 25 Years of Growth of the Association of Craft Producers (ACP). By: Biggs, Stephen; Lewis, David. European Journal of Development Research, Jul2009, Vol. 21 Issue 3, p377-396, 20p, 1 Diagram, 1 Chart, 1 Graph; Abstract: L'histoire de l'Association des Producteurs Artisans (ACP), une organisation de commerce équitable au Népal, illustre un aspect important - mais souvent ignoré - de la recherche sur les organismes de dévelopement : que chaque organisation évolue de manière unique, et ne se prête donc pas nécessairement à des catégorisations standardisées telles que 'la société à but non-lucratif', 'l'entreprise', 'l'oeuvre de bienfaisance', ou 'l'ONG', entre autres. Les structures, les idées, et les cultures de ce genre d'organisation sont construites à travers des pratiques basées sur des logiques diverses et contingentes. Nous argumentons, de ce fait, contre une approche managériale qui considèrerait que de telles organisations ne sont rien d'autre que de simples variantes ou hybrides d'autres organismes. Nous contestons l'idée qu'elles seraient des structures ou des systèmes homogènes qui ne feraient qu'opérer au sein d'un environnement plus large en faveur d'une perspective plus interactive et plus dynamique au sein de laquelle des acteurs auraient le pouvoir de changer leur environnement. Une telle approche met en avant l'idée de la 'deviance positive' en tant que méthode d'apprentissage susceptible d'éviter une pensée stéréotypée.European Journal of Development Research (2009) 21, 377-396. doi:10.1057/ejdr.2009.11 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; DOI: 10.1057/ejdr.2009.11; (AN 53881580)
    Subjects: COMPETITION, Unfair; ORGANIZATIONAL change; ORGANIZATIONAL structure; NONGOVERNMENTAL organizations; NONPROFIT organizations; NEPAL; FAIR trade associations

    Is Fair Trade-Organic Coffee Sustainable in the Face of Migration? Evidence from a Oaxacan Community. By: Lewis, Jessa; Runsten, David. Globalizations, Jun2008, Vol. 5 Issue 2, p275-290, 16p, 3 Charts, 3 Graphs; Abstract: Mexican coffee growers have been negatively affected by low world coffee prices coupled with reduced government support. One response by coffee farmers has been increasing migration to the US. Another response by some cooperatives has been to differentiate their coffee by certifying it as environmentally sustainable, organic, and/or Fair Trade. This paper examines the links among low coffee prices, migration, and certified coffee production and trade, drawing on a 2004 case study conducted in Oaxaca, Mexico. Although remittances from migrants help finance coffee production, increased migration drains human capital out of the region, which raises the opportunity cost of labor and hence local wages. In this sense, coffee growers who migrate to the US, partly to provide operating capital for coffee, undermine coffee production by raising its costs. The findings raise doubts about the sustainability of the Fair Trade-organic coffee model in the face of migration opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; DOI: 10.1080/14747730802057738; (AN 32708094)
    Subjects: COFFEE industry; COMPETITION, Unfair; COFFEE; EMIGRATION & immigration; COFFEE growers; LABOR costs; FAIR trade goods; OAXACA (Mexico : State); MEXICO; ECONOMIC aspects; EXPORT & import trade

    Fair Trade/Organic Coffee, Rural Livelihoods, and the “Agrarian Question”: Southern Mexican Coffee Families in Transition. By: Barham, Bradford L.; Callenes, Mercedez; Gitter, Seth; Lewis, Jessa; Weber, Jeremy. World Development, Jan2011, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p134-145, 12p; Abstract: Summary: We use a random sample of coffee producing households in southern Mexico to compare opportunities associated with government subsidies and migration to the role of Fair Trade/organic coffee in household livelihoods. Although land and labor returns among Fair Trade/organic coffee growers are higher than for conventional growers, differences in yields are more important than price premiums. Moreover, investment in education and labor opportunities outside coffee dominate those in Fair Trade/organic coffee. The results highlight the value of an integrated approach to the agrarian question that improves productivity and prices and supports other pathways for improving incomes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]; DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.08.005; (AN 55213299)
    Subjects: COMPETITION, Unfair; AGRICULTURE -- Economic aspects; EMIGRATION & immigration; COFFEE growers; EDUCATION; SUBSIDIES; LATIN America; MEXICO; Administration of Education Programs; Educational Support Services; All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction

    Fair Trade, Diversification and Structural Change: Towards a Broader Theoretical Framework of Analysis. By: Smith, Alastair M.. Oxford Development Studies, Dec2009, Vol. 37 Issue 4, p457-478, 22p, 1 Diagram, 2 Charts; Abstract: This paper responds to the argument that while Fair Trade governance might increase short-term welfare, it reduces long-term development prospects by discouraging diversification and structural change. Even though it is agreed that lower-value sectors, such as commodity agriculture, are unlikely to offer a long-term solution to global income inequalities, the importance of their short- and medium-term contributions cannot be ignored. Furthermore, critics have evaluated Fair Trade governance against the benchmark of perfect market organization. However, given the realities of the developing world, dismantling Fair Trade abandons poor producers not to theoretical free markets and successful diversification, but to market failures, capability constraints, and risk management issues—all of which present serious obstacles to beneficial change. In light of this, analysis of the Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International is used to argue that, far from being detrimental, Fair Trade might actively contribute to diversification by alleviating some of the real-world obstacles that otherwise retard development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; DOI: 10.1080/13600810903305208; (AN 45020257)
    Subjects: COMPETITION, Unfair; DIVERSIFICATION in industry; INCOME distribution; FREE enterprise; MARKET failure

    Fair Trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua — Sustainable development or a poverty trap? By: Valkila, Joni. Ecological Economics, Oct2009, Vol. 68 Issue 12, p3018-3025, 8p; Abstract: This article assesses the impact of Fair Trade organic coffee production on the well-being of small-scale farmers in Nicaragua. Studying the results of organic management is crucial for evaluating the advantages of Fair Trade because approximately half of all Fair Trade coffee is also organically certified. A wide range of farmers, representatives of cooperatives and export companies in Nicaragua were interviewed during seven months of field work between 2005 and 2008. Fair Trade organic production raises farmer income when low-intensity organic farming is an alternative to low-intensity conventional farming. However, low-intensity farming produces very little coffee in the case of the most marginalized farmers, keeping these farmers in poverty. With higher intensities of management, the economic advantages of Fair Trade organic production largely depend on prices in the mainstream market. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]; DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.002; (AN 44117974)
    Subjects: COFFEE; FAIR trade goods; SUSTAINABLE agriculture; RESEARCH; ORGANIC farming; SURVEYS; INTERVIEWS; NICARAGUA; EXPORT & import trade; ECONOMIC aspects

    Are Sustainable Coffee Certifications Enough to Secure Farmer Livelihoods? The Millenium Development Goals and Nicaragua's Fair Trade Cooperatives. By: Bacon, Christopher M.; Ernesto Mendez, V.; Gomez, Maria Eugenia Flores; Stuart, Douglas; Flores, Sandro Raul Diaz. Globalizations, Jun2008, Vol. 5 Issue 2, p259-274, 16p, 1 Chart, 1 Graph; Abstract: In December 2001, green coffee commodity prices hit a 30-year low. This deepened the livelihood crisis for millions of coffee farmers and rural communities. The specialty coffee industry responded by scaling up several sustainable coffee certification programs, including Fair Trade. This study uses household- and community-level research conducted in Nicaragua from 2000 to 2006 to assess the response to the post-1999 coffee crisis. A participatory action research team surveyed 177 households selling into conventional and Fair Trade markets in 2006. In an effort to dialogue with specialty coffee industry and mainstream development agencies, results are framed within the context of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Findings suggest that households connected to Fair Trade cooperatives experienced several positive impacts in education, infrastructure investment, and monetary savings. However, several important livelihoods insecurities, including low incomes, high emigration, and food insecurity, persisted among all small-scale producers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; DOI: 10.1080/14747730802057688; (AN 32708095)
    Subjects: COFFEE industry; PRICES; COMPETITION, Unfair; CERTIFICATION; HOUSEHOLDS; FAIR trade goods; NICARAGUA; Private Households; ECONOMIC aspects
    Last edited by Kim; 06-03-2011 at 03:56 AM.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  24. #24
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Uh huh. I'd rather just see people making opinions based on sound economic reasoning, not feel-goodisms.
    Since when are you arrogant enough not to see that viewpoints that oppose yours might very well be based on information that is just as relevant as the one you base your opinion on?

    Sorry about thread hijack!
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  25. #25
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    What's arrogance have to do with it? The economic reasoning here is trivial as to why "fair" trade generally doesn't work.
    My point was that you can't claim that someone's viewpoint is based on lack of research when all you cite is a small selection of such research. At the very least, not having read what you deem important doesn't make anyone a "dumb motherfucker," especially when it's very likely that they have a pretty solid knowledge base from which they derive their opinion. I just found it condescending and arrogant, but of course you are entitled to your debating style. Not all that important, really. Just annoying.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  26. #26
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    When I said 'research', I didn't mean just isolated examples of where FT has succeeded vs. failed. I was also implying that one should possess an understanding of the relevant economic processes, how these operate under various conditions, etc. Most people don't possess that, yet choose to gallivant about with ignorant opinions on the matter anyway.

    This is incredibly frustrating from my POV (having a background in the subject and all).
    Fair enough, but I just don't believe that free markets solve everything based on what I know. And I get incredibly annoyed when people have the idea that a theoretical system they understand well and support can be shoved onto everything, but don't have a clue about the specificities of locality, historical and economical histories, etc. In essence, it's a matter of approaching knowledge and drawing conclusions differently, which, again, does not make anyone a "dumb motherfucker." The problem is that instead of throwing different sets of knowledge together and trying to see what can be worked out through that, people insult and belittle each other.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  27. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    On Facebook, I challenged Ezra to accurately paraphrase my statements and opinions about economics and politics. My theory is that everyone who doesn't agree with these positions just doesn't understand them. I've never encountered an opponent who actually understood anything about economics, and it often feels like they're deliberately misinterpreting me.

  28. #28
    ragnar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    635
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eunice View Post
    1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
    2. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (86%)
    3. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (86%)

    4. Eric Cantor (not running) (85%)
    5. John Boehner (not running) (84%)
    6. Lindsey Graham (not running) (84%)

    7. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (84%)
    8. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (80%)
    9. Sarah Palin (80%)

    10. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (73%)
    11. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (66%)
    12. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (66%)

    13. Rob Portman (66%)
    14. Wayne Allyn Root (66%)
    15. Jeb Bush (not running) (64%)

    16. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (60%)
    17. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (60%)
    18. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (53%)

    19. Mitch Daniels (not running) (52%)
    20. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (40%)
    21. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (40%)

    22. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (33%)
    23. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (33%)
    24. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (30%)

    25. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (26%)
    26. Hillary Clinton (not running) (22%)
    27. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (20%)

    28. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (20%)
    29. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (16%)
    Greetings, ragnar
    ILI knowledge-seeker

  29. #29
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    #1 Ideal Theoretical Candidate 100%
    #2 Ron paul 71%
    #3 Mitt Romney 56%
    #4 Barrack Obama 52%
    #5 Rick santorum 47%
    #6 Mike Huckabee 45%
    #7 Eric Cantor 44%
    #8 John Boehner 40%
    #9 Mike Pence 40%
    #10 Lindsey Graham 37%
    #11 Sarah Palin 37%
    #12 Gary Johnson 36%
    #13 michael Bloomberg 36%
    #14 Newt Ginrich 35%
    #15
    Tim Pawlenty 35%
    #16 Bobby jindal 32%
    #17 Michelle Bachmann 32%
    #18 Donald Trump 29%
    #19 Hillary clinton 29%
    #20 Jeb Bush 29%
    #21
    Wayne Allyn Root 29%
    #22
    Joseph Biden 25%
    #23
    Haley Barbour 21%
    #24 Mitch daniels 19%
    #25
    Jon Huntsman 18%
    #26 Rick Perry 16%
    #27 Herman cain 16%
    #28 Buddy Roemer 14%
    #29 Rob Portman 11%



  30. #30
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I still vote for Obama .
    1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
    2. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (80%)
    3. Hillary Clinton (not running) (71%)
    4. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (71%)

    5. Wayne Allyn Root (51%)
    6. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (48%)
    7. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (46%)
    8. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (40%)
    9. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (40%)

    10. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (33%)
    11. Rob Portman (33%)
    12. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (25%)
    13. Lindsey Graham (not running) (25%)
    14. Sarah Palin (24%)
    15. Eric Cantor (not running) (22%)
    16. John Boehner (not running) (22%)
    17. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (22%)
    18. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (22%)
    19. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (21%)
    20. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (20%)
    21. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (18%)
    22. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (18%)
    23. Mitch Daniels (not running) (18%)
    24. Jeb Bush (not running) (17%)

    25. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (11%)
    26. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (8%)
    27. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (7%)
    28. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (7%)

    29. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (0%)
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  31. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
    2. Wayne Allyn Root (71%)
    3. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (61%)
    4. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (58%)
    5. Eric Cantor (not running) (51%)
    6. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (51%)
    7. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (51%)
    8. John Boehner (not running) (48%)
    9. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (48%)
    10. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (48%)
    11. Sarah Palin (48%)
    12. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (44%)
    13. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (44%)
    14. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (44%)
    15. Mitch Daniels (not running) (40%)
    16. Rob Portman (40%)
    17. Lindsey Graham (not running) (36%)
    18. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (34%)
    19. Hillary Clinton (not running) (32%)
    20. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (30%)
    21. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (28%)
    22. Jeb Bush (not running) (24%)
    23. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (20%)
    24. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (20%)
    25. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (14%)
    26. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (12%)
    27. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (12%)
    28. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (10%)
    29. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (0%)

  32. #32
    Valori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I never vote.

  33. #33
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valori View Post
    I never vote.
    "All that is required for evil ignorance to prevail is for good intelligent men to do nothing."

    Do you agree with that?
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  34. #34
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,613
    Mentioned
    632 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
    2. Barack Obama (announced candidacy) (66%)
    3. Wayne Allyn Root (61%)
    4. Joseph Biden (presumed vp candidate) (56%)
    5. Hillary Clinton (not running) (54%)
    6. Ron Paul (announced candidacy) (41%)
    7. Newt Gingrich (announced candidacy) (39%)
    8. Gary Johnson (announced candidacy) (38%)
    9. Mitch Daniels (not running) (38%)
    10. Donald Trump (announced non-candidacy) (34%)
    11. Mitt Romney (announced candidacy) (32%)
    12. John Boehner (not running) (29%)
    13. Rick Santorum (announced candidacy) (29%)
    14. Eric Cantor (not running) (27%)
    15. Michael Bloomberg (announced non-candidacy) (25%)
    16. Rob Portman (25%)
    17. Sarah Palin (24%)
    18. Michele Bachmann (announced candidacy) (22%)
    19. Mike Pence (announced non-candidacy) (22%)
    20. Bobby Jindal (announced non-candidacy) (21%)
    21. Lindsey Graham (not running) (21%)
    22. Mike Huckabee (announced non-candidacy) (21%)
    23. Rick Perry (announced non-candidacy) (17%)
    24. Tim Pawlenty (announced candidacy) (12%)
    25. Haley Barbour (announced non-candidacy) (9%)
    26. Buddy Roemer (announced candidacy) (6%)
    27. Herman Cain (announced candidacy) (6%)
    28. Jon Huntsman (probable candidate) (6%)
    29. Jeb Bush (not running) (3%)

  35. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Good.

  36. #36
    Valori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    "All that is required for evil ignorance to prevail is for good intelligent men to do nothing."

    Do you agree with that?
    Evil is prevailing whether I vote or not, though I'm sure you - like most everyone else - feel that you know best. Save what is undoubtedly a "part of the problem" speech.

  37. #37
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valori View Post
    Evil is prevailing whether I vote or not, though I'm sure you - like most everyone else - feel that you know best.
    No it's just logical. A thoughtful decision takes time and effort.

    Btw, I'm not American, neither I know anything about most of the candidates. I think that principle, because it's logical, applies everywhere, relative to any judicious person - as good and evil are not absolute, it's judiciousness which makes the difference.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  38. #38
    Valori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Of course. I've already made my thoughtful decision; it would be a wasted effort to try to explain it to someone who thinks only within the system itself. I doubt you can say anything to sway me that someone else has not already tried. Cue insults.

  39. #39
    Valori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I wonder where you live where there is democracy.

  40. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valori View Post
    I never vote.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Me either. I think Democracy is tyranny.
    Haha!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •