ISideWith.com Test

[Frog]

I noticed this site that asks you questions regarding various issues.

Depending on your answers, you will be matched with different political candidates with explanations as to why.

I decided to take this test with one major twist:
I answered the opposite of my true opinions for every question.

Whichever answer I felt was morally reprehensible was the answer I purposefully chose.

As a result, the candidate who is least morally reprehensible (to me) would be my ideal choice right?

I found Hillary Clinton to be the least morally reprehensible candidate.

image.jpg

Take the test in reverse and see who you hate least!

[MattZed]

This roughly matches my perception of the candidates.

Screen Shot 2016-02-07 at 7.28.42 PM.png

Frog, you say you chose the opposite of your true opinion and that you chose the answer you found most morally reprehensible. Is it the case, then, that you find any opinion different from yours to be morally reprehensible?

[Orpz]

Spoiler : large image :

Definitely rooting for the Dems but of the top three, I'd take the Donald out of Cruz and Rubio.

[MattZed]

Spoiler : large image :

Definitely rooting for the Dems but of the top three, I'd take the Donald out of Cruz and Rubio.

Orpz, you were supposed to take it with the opposite of your true opinions!

[Orpz]

Orpz, you were supposed to take it with the opposite of your true opinions!

aw shit, I thought that was Frog's self imposed condition

[Frog]

This roughly matches my perception of the candidates.

Screen Shot 2016-02-07 at 7.28.42 PM.png

Frog, you say you chose the opposite of your true opinion and that you chose the answer you found most morally reprehensible. Is it the case, then, that you find any opinion different from yours to be morally reprehensible?

Hahaha, I expected you and Darkness (and possibly YZB) to take issue with my OP. :-D

I thought we were going to debate logical fallacies :-P

Back to your question. Yes. I believe anyone who opposes my opinions are morally reprehensible. I'll explain further this seemingly extreme ridiculous position. Morality is abstract and personal- it's definitely not objective and clear cut. So again "to me" this is a list of candidates I find % morally reprehensible.

Moral and Ethical behavior. Similar and different subjects that are always fun to discuss. But again, I was presenting an obvious fallacy in the OP for shits and giggles. :-D

[Frog]

aw shit, I thought that was Frog's self imposed condition

It's all just for funsies. Obviously the point of the site (and me bringing it up) is figuring out which issues are outstanding and where different candidates stand.

Because Learning is Knowledge and Knowledge is Power!

[MattZed]

One thing I find odd is that my version of the test gave Clinton and Sanders significantly different numbers, while the versions Frog and Orpz had them with virtually identical positions. I wonder, did you two answer all of the questions in the "show X more Y questions," or just the ones initially displayed? I certainly did.

Failing that, perhaps it's simply a difference in priority of issues.

[Sen]

It seems I side 39% with Trump, even if we don't agree in a single important thing, and 86% with Hilary, even when I'd rather have a horse carcass as acting president instead of her.

[Frog]

The premise is flawed by the fallacious logic of:
just because you disagree with an opinion doesn't necessarily mean you agree with the opposite of that opinion.

So the resulting list generated isn't a reverse list of people you agree with, rather it's just a list of people you disagree with to varying degrees.

[Sen]

Also, TIL there's someone called Carly Fiorina running for president.

I also took it normally -as opposed to Frog's method-, and answered all available questions using the best option when available (as in "Other" instead of "Yes" and "No"). Don't know if that makes a difference.

[Frog]

It seems I side 39% with Trump, even if we don't agree in a single important thing, and 86% with Hilary, even when I'd rather have a horse carcass as acting president instead of her.

What about a coyote carcass?
image.jpg

Rather dashing presidential candidate in a smoking tuxedo if I say so myself:
image.jpg

For reference, these are images from the third episode of Idiot Sitter. Which was the most fucking hilarious episode I've possibly ever seen. I almost vomited from laughing so hard.

[Frog]

Also, TIL there's someone called Carly Fiorina running for president.

I also took it normally -as opposed to Frog's method-, and answered all available questions using the best option when available (as in "Other" instead of "Yes" and "No"). Don't know if that makes a difference.

That's the best way to take the test IMO if you actually want to see who you're most 'compatible' with.

Problem is, the majority of these issues don't even matter in the scope and realm of the executive branch in the first place. It's kind of lolzorly. :-D

E.G.
Create new Issue that has nothing to do with executive powers:
Puppies vs. Kittens
Finds out more Americans prefer puppies, bases campaign on puppies.
Is elected president and sets bill discussion topics for congress that have nothing to do with puppies or kittens.
Presidential orders are a real thing now.
Veto power against the legislative branch is a real thing.
Nominating Supreme Court justices is a real thing.
Pretty much everything else is bullshit

Until TPA is reinstituted, international trade negotiations essentially fall outside of the realm of the executive branch. That is a huuuuuge problem.

Oh yeah, and the whole armed forces thing. Someone who has EXPERIENCE in INTERNATIONAL affairs is kind of a big deal. Luckily there's a candidate who was the Secretary of State and is VERY respected internationally.

[Apocist]

And yet Apo's against Hilary...

[MattZed]

Until TPA is reinstituted, international trade negotiations essentially fall outside of the realm of the executive branch. That is a huuuuuge problem.

What?

[Sen]

Rather dashing presidential candidate in a smoking tuxedo if I say so myself:
image.jpg

I'd vote that.

[Frog]

What?

Lol. I haven't been in the states since last year. I blame my ignorance only absence. It also wasn't mentioned at the world economic forum in Davos this year when clearly it should have been...

Anyway, that just made me fucking happy. Thanks for that news Matt :-D

[Frog]

I want to see the electoral college be like:

You guys are too dumb to vote. We're choosing the new leader Mother Flippers!

[Frog]

And yet Apo's against Hilary...

What the... Lol. Appo, your results make no sense at all! Bahahaha!

[Sen]

What the... Lol. Appo, your results make no sense at all! Bahahaha!

Leave him alone. He's Carly Fiorina's only hope.

---

Took the test again -this time with some random answers to save time- in order to use the "compare" function and see how this thing determines results.

The veredict: It's a joke. ie; it considers "send a few hundred troops" a similar answer to "send over 10,000 troops", "expand offshore drilling" similar to "incentivize the development of alternative form of energy", or "legalize and tax marijuana" being partially similar to "only for medical use".

That said, you are correct when saying that these things are meaningless.

[Frog]

Lel. Caaaarleeeyyy. We're going to candy mountain Caaaarrrrley.

[Firebringer]

Leave him alone. He's Carly Fiorina's only hope.

---

Took the test again -this time with some random answers to save time- in order to use the "compare" function and see how this thing determines results.

The veredict: It's a joke. ie; it considers "send a few hundred troops" a similar answer to "send over 10,000 troops", "expand offshore drilling" similar to "incentivize the development of alternative form of energy", or "legalize and tax marijuana" being partially similar to "only for medical use".

That said, you are correct when saying that these things are meaningless.

Very good use of comparison if you ask me. Did you toggle the "How important" function at all?

[Sen]

Very good use of comparison if you ask me. Did you toggle the "How important" function at all?

Yes, I used it on every single question.

As for it being a good comparison, expanding offshore drilling is similar to developing alternate forms of energy just as adding extra bacon is similar to wanting a fruit cocktail.
Even if the general answer is the same (ie; "yes" or "no"), what really matters are the specifics, and these comparisons fail to acknowledge them.
The diference between "a few hundred of troops" and "over 10,000", or that between "only medical marijuana" and "legal weed for everyone" are important enough for said answers to be considered similar.

Using Frog's puppies example:
Q: Do you like puppies?
Your answer: Sure, they're cute.
Candidate's "similar" answer: Yes. Everyone should be forced to own at least 5 puppies.

It works if all you care about is whether they like puppies or not, but the opinion of someone running for one of the most powerful positions in the world is of little importance when compared to their intentions and plan on action rgarding that topic.

[Mugy]

[Cryptonic]

Hullo