BookTalk.org

Pick Your Candidate Instructions: Go through each issue listed below and choose the stance you would prefer in a president. If a particular issue is important to you, select a different weight to the right. If an issue is not important to you, leave it as unknown/other. This site will attempt to match your views against the views of the US presidential candidates.

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/

Abortion Rights
Death Penalty
No Child Left Behind
Embryonic Stem Cells
ANWR Drilling
Kyoto
Assault Weapons Ban
Guns - Background Checks
Patriot Act
Guantanamo
Torture
Wiretapping
Citizenship Path for Illegals
Border Fence
Net Neutrality
Iran Sanctions
Iran - Military Action
Iraq War
Iraq Troop Surge
Iraq Withdrawal
Minimum Wage Increase
Same-Sex Marriage
Same-Sex Civil Union
Same-Sex Constitutional Ban
Universal Healthcare

The results are tallied and compared from the data collected here at:

2008 Presidential Election Candidates on the Issues http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

The following is a general guideline to the candidates' positions on some of the top issues. Some of the issues are more complex and usually require more than a 'yes/no' or 'support/oppose' position. Please visit the official campaign site of the candidate in question for more details about each issue.

If this is to be believed, I am a Kucinich man! lol

Mr. P.

Mr. P: If this is to be believed, I am a Kucinich man! lol

Me too! I don't know if that's a surprise to you (lining up with Kucinich), but I've seen Kucinich as the one most willing to tell the truth of all the candidates. I don't agree with all his positions, but I think his basic integrity is in tact and his overall vision worthy of support...even if his chances of winning are very, very slim.

Dissident Heart wrote:

Mr. P: If this is to be believed, I am a Kucinich man! lol

Me too! I don't know if that's a surprise to you (lining up with Kucinich), but I've seen Kucinich as the one most willing to tell the truth of all the candidates. I don't agree with all his positions, but I think his basic integrity is in tact and his overall vision worthy of support...even if his chances of winning are very, very slim.

I guess I was a little surprised...but I took a close look at Kucinich back in...hmm...03-04? I was on e_thepeople.org then and there was a guy who was BIG on Kucinich. I liked alot of what he(Kucinich) had to say and did indeed admire his integrity and point blank manner. No, or very little, BS as I see it.

I also realized that this man would never win an election. Sadly, it is appearance and phoniness that impresses most people nowadays.

Mr. P.

According to the test, I, too, should vote for Kucinich

I just had a look at the site, and cannot find any information about who created it, who finances it, etc. I did a whois search, but couldn't get any information (it was my first attempt at using whois, so that could be the problem).

Forgive me for being cynical, but I think it would be easy for a supporter of a certain candidate (or even worse, a candidate's party) to create such a website, and perhaps skew the results.

Is there anyone experienced at finding out who owns a domain that can do a search, just for the sake of curiousity?

Jan.

jales4 wrote:I just had a look at the site, and cannot find any information about who created it, who finances it, etc. I did a whois search, but couldn't get any information (it was my first attempt at using whois, so that could be the problem).

Forgive me for being cynical, but I think it would be easy for a supporter of a certain candidate (or even worse, a candidate's party) to create such a website, and perhaps skew the results.

Is there anyone experienced at finding out who owns a domain that can do a search, just for the sake of curiousity?

Jan.

You can do a WHOIS search and find the ownership, but of course it could be registered to a company that seemingly has no connection to any candidate or to an individual. I could be masked so to speak.

Here is the listing. No info I can see!



Mr. P.

Registrant:
Registercom
Domain Registrar
575 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10018
US
Email: [email protected]

Registrar Name....: REGISTER.COM, INC.
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: www.register.com

Domain Name: dehp.net

Created on..............: Sun, Dec 24, 2000
Expires on..............: Wed, Dec 24, 2008
Record last updated on..: Wed, Dec 26, 2007

Administrative,Technical Contact:
Registercom
Domain Registrar
575 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10018
US
Phone: +1.9027492701
Email: [email protected]

DNS Servers:

ns2.hostmonster.com
ns1.hostmonster.com

Dissident Heart wrote:

Mr. P: If this is to be believed, I am a Kucinich man! lol

Me too! I don't know if that's a surprise to you (lining up with Kucinich), but I've seen Kucinich as the one most willing to tell the truth of all the candidates. I don't agree with all his positions, but I think his basic integrity is in tact and his overall vision worthy of support...even if his chances of winning are very, very slim.

I am also a Kucinich man.


I have to admit that I know next to nothing about the man. Some chap called Gravel was my no. 2. Then it was Obama and Ron Paul.

Niall001 wrote: I am also a Kucinich man.


I have to admit that I know next to nothing about the man. Some chap called Gravel was my no. 2. Then it was Obama and Ron Paul.

I will say that I kinda like Ron Paul..for the same reason I like Kucinich. They speak their peace and thats it. They honestly seem to believe in their positions and speak from an honest place.

Mr. P.

If you take "/candidate/" out of the url, the site redirects you to http://www.mattwaterman.net/, an apparently individual-run political blog. The September 24, 2007 entry addresses the fact that a great many people are getting Kuninch as their response. If we take Waterman's explanation that he did nothing to intentionally bias the algorithm, I'd say there are to likely answers for why so many people are getting the same response:

1) Kuninch's views are actually a great deal more popular (at least with internet form-fillers) than you might suspect; or

2) the test is unintentionally biased.

My vote is for the second. Unless Waterman was deliberate in his efforts to make the quiz fair, there's a good chance that the very choice of which issues to include, the phrasing of the questions, or the probably very inexact science of weighting issues contributed to some flaw in the algorithm, with the result being that the quiz returns certain candidates more often than others.

At any rate, Waterman's last post on the subject (and on the blog, period) was more than four months ago, and it doesn't look like there's been any attempt in the meantime to figure out exactly what, if anything, is wrong with the quiz.