Who do you side with?

[Thanatos 2,847]

This is a clever poll that compares your answers over a wide variety of issues to that of the candidates running for office:

 

http://www.isidewith.com

 

My results:

 

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1083892652

 

Bernie Sanders: 82%

Hillary Clinton: 67%

Rand Paul: 63%

Edited July 6, 2015 by Thanatos19

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Wasn't expecting this.

 

Bernie Sanders 85%

Rand Paul 71%

Hilary Clinton 66%

[Cherry 1,302]

I got Bernie incredibly high and Rand #2 last time I did this. Only problem was Bernie had much more extreme answers yet it still compared our picks by concept.

 

I said welfare is okay for a certain time period. He said "workfare is a form of slavery." Big difference.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I got Bernie incredibly high and Rand #2 last time I did this. Only problem was Bernie had much more extreme answers yet it still compared our picks by concept.

 

I said welfare is okay for a certain time period. He said "workfare is a form of slavery." Big difference.

The question is a bit nuanced, though. The question asks whether mentally sound able-bodied people on welfare should be forced to work.

 

These are people who are capable of working, but unable to find a full-time job to pay the bills.

 

I have noticed that on some of the more nuanced answers, other than just a flat yes/no, it doesn't quite line up a lot of the time. It's not a perfect way to look at it, but given that you can compare your answers to the candidates, it's a good tool.

 

And yeah, Bernie Sanders is the democratic version of Ron Paul.

 

This site was helpful for me because I previously was unaware that Rand Paul was in favor of allowing internet companies to give priority traffic to whomever they wish, which is a fucking terrible idea. His reasoning, of course, is "FREEDOM"- i.e. the government can't tell an ISP what they can and can not do, but the idea that someone can throttle Netflix to promote Hulu because they have stock in Hulu is a godawful one.

 

In short- according to this site and the source they linked, which had a direct quote from Paul- Rand is against Net Neutrality: the idea that all ISPs should treat all incoming data as neutral. This is a HUGE thing for me. It may a dealbreaker in terms of voting for him, I haven't thought it all the way through yet.

[BwareDWare94 723]

92% Hillary, 89% Bernie, 63% O'Malley, 43% Paul

All I want is a President who will tax the living shit out of the 1%.

[BJORN 679]

92% Hillary, 89% Bernie, 63% O'Malley, 43% Paul

All I want is a President who will tax the living shit out of the 1%.

Well, O'Malley will find a way to tax the shit out of everyone.

 

I got Marco Rubio...75%

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Bernie Sanders 84%

Hilary Clinton 72%

Rand Paul 65%

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

84% Rand Paul

82% Marco Rubio

Huckabee, Carson, & Walker in the mid 60s.

 

The question is a bit nuanced, though. The question asks whether mentally sound able-bodied people on welfare should be forced to work.

These are people who are capable of working, but unable to find a full-time job to pay the bills.

I have noticed that on some of the more nuanced answers, other than just a flat yes/no, it doesn't quite line up a lot of the time. It's not a perfect way to look at it, but given that you can compare your answers to the candidates, it's a good tool.

And yeah, Bernie Sanders is the democratic version of Ron Paul.

This site was helpful for me because I previously was unaware that Rand Paul was in favor of allowing internet companies to give priority traffic to whomever they wish, which is a fucking terrible idea. His reasoning, of course, is "FREEDOM"- i.e. the government can't tell an ISP what they can and can not do, but the idea that someone can throttle Netflix to promote Hulu because they have stock in Hulu is a godawful one.

In short- according to this site and the source they linked, which had a direct quote from Paul- Rand is against Net Neutrality: the idea that all ISPs should treat all incoming data as neutral. This is a HUGE thing for me. It may a dealbreaker in terms of voting for him, I haven't thought it all the way through yet.

 

Not letting the government get involved creates competition and gives people options. Letting the government regulate the shit out of it leads to it becoming monopolized like the cable industry (which still rips me off every month).

[blotsfan 2,112]

The only reason we don't have one telephone company is because of government intervention

[Thanatos 2,847]

Not letting the government get involved creates competition and gives people options. Letting the government regulate the shit out of it leads to it becoming monopolized like the cable industry (which still rips me off every month).

That... is an incredibly naive point of view.

 

Not letting the government get involved lets your ISP give priority to certain companies who might pay more for the privilege. Fuck that.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

That... is an incredibly naive point of view.

 

Not letting the government get involved lets your ISP give priority to certain companies who might pay more for the privilege. Fuck that.

 

 

Then you go out and get another ISP that offers something better. It's not that complicated of a concept. The government shouldn't be able to put their claws around the ISP of your choice just because you say so. If they are seriously throttling either you as a customer or other companies traffic, those customers and companies will go elsewhere.

 

Welcome to the free market....

 

[theMileHighGuy 656]

Bernie Sanders - 93%

Hillary Clinton - 90%

Martin O'Malley - 69%

Rand Paul - 56%

Scott Walker - 30%

Carly Fiorina -21%

Ted Cruz - 20%

Ben Carson -19%

 

[BwareDWare94 723]

Anybody who sides 60some% with Mike Huckabee has lost all credibility

For the record, I wish Mark Dayton had a big enough platform to run. Turning Minnesota around after the mostly Pawlenty/Partially Ventura fiasco should account for more than it does.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Anybody who sides 60some% with Mike Huckabee has lost all credibility

 

Ha, trust me, I was pretty disgusted with that fact myself.

[theMileHighGuy 656]

 

 

Then you go out and get another ISP that offers something better. It's not that complicated of a concept. The government shouldn't be able to put their claws around the ISP of your choice just because you say so. If they are seriously throttling either you as a customer or other companies traffic, those customers and companies will go elsewhere.

 

Welcome to the free market....

 

 

That's not the point at all. Than's Netflix/Hulu example is the epitome of why this can't happen.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

That's not the point at all. Than's Netflix/Hulu example is the epitome of why this can't happen.

Give me the point then. If Netflix gives ISP A money to throttle Hulu and you don't like it... You go get a different ISP. If Netflix gives ISP A money to throttle Hulu and Hulu doesn't like it, Hulu has every right to do the same thing elsewhere. Let the market sort itself out, when it does, the ISPs that you think (and probably are) crapping on you, will be out of business because they are dirty and sketchy mofo's.

 

Allowing the government to take away your choices or make the choice irrelevant and put like 2 or 3 ISPs on a pedestal throughout the country in the name of "fairness" is bull shit. This isn't a welfare state (or is it?). We don't need the government holding our hands and telling us what's safe and what's not when it comes to the internet.

[Vin+ 3,121]

It occurs to me that Bernie Sanders is the new Ron Paul.

 

 

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1087306619

 

Rubio - 86%

Paul - 79%

Bush - 77%

[SteVo+ 3,702]

I did the questions again without detailed answers (only answering "Yes" or "No" for every question), and my best match was Rubio, 80%. That makes sense.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Here, let me give you an example.

"Cable Neutrality" already pretty much exists. There are a few cable companies that own a monopoly on the industry. There are slight differences in packages they offer, there are slight differences in prices, there are slight differences in UIs... But overall, no matter which of the cable companies I pick, I am getting pretty much the same thing for the same price (within a margin). And I am getting raped for it. No matter which cable company I choose, I am over paying and getting bent over.

Internet is way way different. They haven't pushed it to ridiculous levels, but the system is crumbling. . When I moved to this new place, I looked at a variety of ISPs. I narrowed it down to two and went into both places of business... ISP A told me they only provided their lowest internet speed with their lowest up and down rates for $60 dollars a month which didn't include mandatory "government fees" that I would have to pay. These fees are, from what they told me, separate from the service but include nothing extra. They are just extra money they get to siphon out of you.

I told them I would decide and get back to them. I went and talked to ISP B. ISP offers me speeds close to TEN times faster than ISP A. They promised me I would not see any kind of "government fee" on the bills, and I haven't. You know the great thing? ISP B only charges $44 (with tax) for their internet. This is a drastic difference in not only the utility but price as well. ISP B is CLEARLY so much better that there is no reason to consider ISP A until they offer me more or something better.

The US just pushed heavy Net Neutrality laws at the beginning of the year, so who knows when we will start to see the ripples from that. Up until that point though, competition in the internet sector was skyrocketing and prices were rapidly dropping -- what's wrong with that? Oh nothing? So let's 'fix' it with heavy regulations that will end up taxing small internet providers into oblivion and out of business -- allowing a more firm death grip from the big baddies of the internet world.

[Vin+ 3,121]

I did the questions again without detailed answers (only answering "Yes" or "No" for every question), and my best match was Rubio, 80%. That makes sense.

Pretty much what I did. Went into detail when it was necessary. Didn't touch the care sliders at all.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Pretty much what I did. Went into detail when it was necessary. Didn't touch the care sliders at all.

 

Pretty sure the care sliders only prioritize certain categories when you look at your detailed results. I don't think they affect the overall percentages at all.

[theMileHighGuy 656]

Give me the point then. If Netflix gives ISP A money to throttle Hulu and you don't like it... You go get a different ISP. If Netflix gives ISP A money to throttle Hulu and Hulu doesn't like it, Hulu has every right to do the same thing elsewhere. Let the market sort itself out, when it does, the ISPs that you think (and probably are) crapping on you, will be out of business because they are dirty and sketchy mofo's.

 

Allowing the government to take away your choices or make the choice irrelevant and put like 2 or 3 ISPs on a pedestal throughout the country in the name of "fairness" is bull shit. This isn't a welfare state (or is it?). We don't need the government holding our hands and telling us what's safe and what's not when it comes to the internet.

 

What about the vast majority or people who don't have the option to choose their ISP? Where I live, Comcast is the only option besides dreadful satellite. Paul's plan is the one that's putting ISPs on a pedestal, allowing them to regulate the bandwidth available to the parties that they want. It has nothing to do with internet safety or the government telling the people what they can and can't do.

 

If you really think the market 'will sort itself out' and a company like comcast is just going to end up folding if they do shitty stuff, you're kidding yourself. No one wins when the internet is no longer neutral ground.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Favre if you took Econ 101, you would understand what a "natural monopoly" is, why Internet is an example of one, and why government intervention is required for it. Think about it, when you moved in to your current place, did you get to choose your electric company?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Favre if you took Econ 101, you would understand what a "natural monopoly" is, why Internet is an example of one, and why government intervention is required for it. Think about it, when you moved in to your current place, did you get to choose your electric company?

The internet is not a 'natural monopoly'. The government will tell you that so that they can do with it as they please and choke out the competition, sure... But that doesn't make it so. In natural monopolies, the monopolies do what they do because they are good at it, because they can still offer you the best service at the best price compared to any potential competition.

 

The internet is not like that. As I mentioned in my last post, competition for ISP (while still controlled by a large few) was growing exponentially and the result was internet prices being as low as they have ever been. When competition of the monopolies is forcing prices to plummet, you don't have a natural monopoly -- because the competition has proven to be a reliable and competitive option rather than an unnecessary and unlikely alternative.

 

There is no natural monopoly in a market where you desire the competition because they are the ones with superior service at superior prices.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Favre4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

Naive as fuck lol.

 

There are only two ISPs around here and both of them have done this in the past. ISPs are not like a normal business, there is very little competition.