Candidates Survey

 

Neat little quiz that aligns your views with the candidates who match them. Since I actually care about politics, it just confirmed my decision, but for those of you out there unsure, its pretty useful.

Candidates Survey

 

Neat little quiz that aligns your views with the candidates who match them. Since I actually care about politics, it just confirmed my decision, but for those of you out there unsure, its pretty useful.

This one is pretty weak. I've seen better ones posted in here before.

 

The only thing brought up about the environment was ethanol, which I'm not in favor of. There's a lot more to it then ethanol.

Yeah, the Select Smart ones are usually more complete. You can google Select Smart to find it.

 

Top three:

 

McCain

Thompson

Romney, Tancredo, Hunter, Guliani (tied)

 

Bottom Three:

 

Richardson

Hillary, Edwards Obama (tied)

Gravel, Dodd, Kucinich (tied) (least amount of pts)

 

 

From Select Smart:

 

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)

2. Duncan Hunter (67%)

3. Alan Keyes (65%)

4. Stephen Colbert (campaign ended) (65%)

5. Tom Tancredo (65%)

6. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (61%)

 

27. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (30%)

28. Bill Richardson (29%)

29. Dennis Kucinich (27%)

30. Elaine Brown (12%)

 

 

Lol, that really scares me that Alan Keyes is so high on that list. And I've never heard of Duncan Hunter. Looks like I'll be waiting for Gingrich to jump into the race.

Edited November 7, 200718 yr by Jenksismybitch

Here is a link to the Select Smart one.

 

McCain on the GOP side.

My results, removing the candidates not running...

 

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)

2. Barack Obama (69%) Information link

5. Dennis Kucinich (60%) Information link

6. Bill Richardson (60%) Information link

7. Christopher Dodd (58%) Information link

8. Joseph Biden (58%) Information link

9. Hillary Clinton (57%) Information link

10. John Edwards (56%) Information link

13. Ron Paul (54%) Information link

14. Mike Gravel (50%) Information link

16. Mike Huckabee (38%) Information link

17. Alan Keyes (36%) Information link

18. John McCain (36%) Information link

19. Mitt Romney (35%) Information link

21. Rudolph Giuliani (32%) Information link

23. Tom Tancredo (29%) Information link

25. Fred Thompson (27%) Information link

26. Duncan Hunter (23%) Information link

 

 

Al Gore was #2 for me, though he isn't running. And I am kind of surprised I have Kucinich that high. Not surprised that Ron Paul is my highest GOP'er.

 

I think I still prefer Richardson and Paul, but Obama is growing on me, as is McCain.

 

This one is pretty weak. I've seen better ones posted in here before.

 

The only thing brought up about the environment was ethanol, which I'm not in favor of. There's a lot more to it then ethanol.

You're not in favor of ethanol? Why? (I'm not either, but I'm curious as to whether or not there's any paralells at all).

You're not in favor of ethanol? Why? (I'm not either, but I'm curious as to whether or not there's any paralells at all).

From everything I've read it's quite inefficient.

You're not in favor of ethanol? Why? (I'm not either, but I'm curious as to whether or not there's any paralells at all).

I can't speak for BS, but from my perspective, ethanol in the current US iteration (which is corn ethanol) is at best a bridge technology, and ultimately shouldn't be the way to go. Corn is just not energetic enough, and by the time you process and create corn-based ethanol suitable for vehicle use, you've used as much oil as you tried to avoid anyway.

 

The better choices are hybrid or electric cars, and as for bio-fuels, they need to advance the use of more energetic substances like switchgrass and sugarcane, and further, setting up greenhouses for things like algae (saw an article about an algae farm, apparently algae is teh awesome for fuel generation and growth cycles).

 

From Select Smart:

 

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)

2. Duncan Hunter (67%)

3. Alan Keyes (65%)

I am officially frightened of you.

I am officially frightened of you.

 

It still comes back to Dodd and Obama for me.

Here is a link to the Select Smart one.

 

 

A lot of those questions were really weighted and doesn't really give good choices to "vote" on.

 

 

 

 

A lot of those questions were really weighted and doesn't really give good choices to "vote" on.

Yeah, it sure isn't perfect. But its the best I've seen. Use the sliders under each question to make it more or less important and you can change the weighting.

 

From everything I've read it's quite inefficient.

 

It's not bad if you've got the right crops for it (Brazil has success with sugar cane), but its very inefficient with corn.

I can't speak for BS, but from my perspective, ethanol in the current US iteration (which is corn ethanol) is at best a bridge technology, and ultimately shouldn't be the way to go. Corn is just not energetic enough, and by the time you process and create corn-based ethanol suitable for vehicle use, you've used as much oil as you tried to avoid anyway.

 

The better choices are hybrid or electric cars, and as for bio-fuels, they need to advance the use of more energetic substances like switchgrass and sugarcane, and further, setting up greenhouses for things like algae (saw an article about an algae farm, apparently algae is teh awesome for fuel generation and growth cycles).

 

I read an article several months back. It described a process for cleaning sulfer out of the emissions from using high sulfer coal. The way it worked was that the smoke from the coal would be filtered through algea before being released into the atmosphere. The algea supposedly thrived under these conditions and and therefore replicated like yeast does. Then the algea was to be used to produce biofuel.

 

I guess it made too much sense for it to get consideration as a possible alternative energy source, because I haven't heard anything about it since.

I read an article several months back. It described a process for cleaning sulfer out of the emissions from using high sulfer coal. The way it worked was that the smoke from the coal would be filtered through algea before being released into the atmosphere. The algea supposedly thrived under these conditions and and therefore replicated like yeast does. Then the algea was to be used to produce biofuel.

 

I guess it made too much sense for it to get consideration as a possible alternative energy source, because I haven't heard anything about it since.

Ain't that the truth.

Honestly, I don't know about the financial aspects of this. But it just seems like every time I hear of a good idea that really makes sense for alternative energy sources, that's the last I ever hear about it. I don't know much about the details of the following, because I was very young or not conceived yet, but I' have heard some of the elders in my life talk about the Tucker car and a carborater the would keep 100 mpg back in WWII. The oil companies and their cronies seem to be able to quash any kind of advancement that would reduce the need for oil out of the equation.

 

Corn based biofuels, wind power, solar power ... those are what they put up as 'alternatives' but realistically they aren't serious alternatives for anything. They use enviromentalists to quash nuclear power alternatives and to also keep use from building refineries and drilling for oil in Alaska or off the Florida coast. So that leaves us with Middle East or Russian oil and natural gas. In other words, stuck in the status quo.

Honestly, I don't know about the financial aspects of this. But it just seems like every time I hear of a good idea that really makes sense for alternative energy sources, that's the last I ever hear about it. I don't know much about the details of the following, because I was very young or not conceived yet, but I' have heard some of the elders in my life talk about the Tucker car and a carborater the would keep 100 mpg back in WWII. The oil companies and their cronies seem to be able to quash any kind of advancement that would reduce the need for oil out of the equation.

 

Corn based biofuels, wind power, solar power ... those are what they put up as 'alternatives' but realistically they aren't serious alternatives for anything. They use enviromentalists to quash nuclear power alternatives and to also keep use from building refineries and drilling for oil in Alaska or off the Florida coast. So that leaves us with Middle East or Russian oil and natural gas. In other words, stuck in the status quo.

I think we WERE stuck in the status quo. Gas was still too cheap, and so was energy, to motivate the markets. Now that is no longer the case, and that to me is the tipping point in all this. Plain old pocket money. People are tired of paying what they are paying.

 

And I think solar, wind and other energies are in fact very realistic. For solar, the big use won't be giant fields of panels - it will be distributed use. People will put them on their homes, which will give them some, most or all their energy needs. Its like the chained super computers. spread it out, the impact is small individually, but as a whole does huge changes.

 

I think we WERE stuck in the status quo. Gas was still too cheap, and so was energy, to motivate the markets. Now that is no longer the case, and that to me is the tipping point in all this. Plain old pocket money. People are tired of paying what they are paying.

 

And I think solar, wind and other energies are in fact very realistic. For solar, the big use won't be giant fields of panels - it will be distributed use. People will put them on their homes, which will give them some, most or all their energy needs. Its like the chained super computers. spread it out, the impact is small individually, but as a whole does huge changes.

 

You have more faith in the open market than I do. Personally, I believe the market is all controlled and if someone comes up with an extremely cheap alternative way of producing energy one of two things happen.

 

1. They sell out to big oil and the new source of energy is quashed due to patent rights.

 

2. Or ... they die.

You have more faith in the open market than I do. Personally, I believe the market is all controlled and if someone comes up with an extremely cheap alternative way of producing energy one of two things happen.

 

1. They sell out to big oil and the new source of energy is quashed due to patent rights.

 

2. Or ... they die.

Then why do hybrid sales double every year (or nearly so)? And why do companies like LG and Kyocera (not American companies, by the way) keep selling more and more solar panels? Shouldn't oil have bought them by now?

 

I do see what you are saying, and I agree that they are doing things like that already. The larger scale, higher cost of entry stuff like wind power, geothermal, etc., they own a lot of the patents for. And those markets have too wide a moat for little guys to get in. But all these other areas, other players are already in it. And not just a few, and in some cases, they are larger corporations, just not oil corporations. I think the market is too big globally even for big oil to effectively squash all these changes. They'll try, no doubt, and that will slow it down, costing us all trillions of dollars and more than a few environmental problems. But ultimately, the market is just too big and too powerful now, in my view, for them to really stop it.

 

Then why do hybrid sales double every year (or nearly so)? And why do companies like LG and Kyocera (not American companies, by the way) keep selling more and more solar panels? Shouldn't oil have bought them by now?

 

I do see what you are saying, and I agree that they are doing things like that already. The larger scale, higher cost of entry stuff like wind power, geothermal, etc., they own a lot of the patents for. And those markets have too wide a moat for little guys to get in. But all these other areas, other players are already in it. And not just a few, and in some cases, they are larger corporations, just not oil corporations. I think the market is too big globally even for big oil to effectively squash all these changes. They'll try, no doubt, and that will slow it down, costing us all trillions of dollars and more than a few environmental problems. But ultimately, the market is just too big and too powerful now, in my view, for them to really stop it.

 

Just wait and see, NSS. It been happening for decades and I don't see it changing soon. You do make very good points, I'll give you that. But history speaks volumes my friend. Don't forget that.

Edited November 8, 200718 yr by YASNY

Just wait and see, NSS. It been happening for decades and I don't see it changing soon. You do make very good points, I'll give you that. But history speaks volumes my friend. Don't forget that.

You may be right. But history also shows us that even those business oligopolies that seem most impenetrable, eventually fall. It may take a long time, and the market forces need to be profound... but it happens. Look at the US auto makers, for example. They didn't let much else in for a long time, and they laughed at the pathetic little Japanese companies who entered the market in the 70's. Now look at where that industry is - Toyota is now the #1 car seller in the United States.

 

Things do change. Just a matter of when and how. And then, of course, they repeat themselves later, in some other industry or place or time.

 

You may be right. But history also shows us that even those business oligopolies that seem most impenetrable, eventually fall. It may take a long time, and the market forces need to be profound... but it happens. Look at the US auto makers, for example. They didn't let much else in for a long time, and they laughed at the pathetic little Japanese companies who entered the market in the 70's. Now look at where that industry is - Toyota is now the #1 car seller in the United States.

 

Things do change. Just a matter of when and how. And then, of course, they repeat themselves later, in some other industry or place or time.

 

Dude, we are in a GLOBAL market. Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.