Here are your answers compared to this voter’s answers.
Social › Abortion
4>4 Personal answerPro-choice |
Social › Gay Marriage
4>4 Personal answerYes |
the Economy › Equal Pay
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Domestic Policy › Gun Control
4>4 Personal answerI'm a bit of an odd-duck on this. I'm pro-gun but anti-lunatic and think that stockpiling guns because you think they are about to be banned is prima-facia evidence of being a nut-job. I also believe there should be a clear delineation between a military weapon and a civilian weapon. If you aren't the military, you shouldn't be acquiring military weaponry. Two caveats here. 1 - An AR-15 is NOT a military weapon in-and-of itself though if sufficiently augmented could step over that line. 2 - Civilian police are NOT THE MILITARY. If I can't buy that gun, my police department should not get to have one either. I do not want them to get into an arms race with the drug lords. Civilian grade weapons give them more than sufficient fire-power and if they cannot handle a situation with what I could legally own, then they should call the governor and get help from the local National Guard. They ARE the military and can show up with whatever firepower needed to get the job done. |
Social › Religious Freedom Act
4>4 Personal answerNo |
Immigration › Muslim Immigrant Ban
4>4 Personal answerNo, banning immigrants based on their religion is unconstitutional |
Social › Planned Parenthood Funding
4>4 Personal answerYes |
the Environment › Climate Change
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Domestic Policy › Drug Policy
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Domestic Policy › Term Limits
4>4 Personal answerInstead of electing them, we should select them at lottery like we select juries. Your name comes up you are drafted for one term. Then you are done and can go back to whatever you were doing before getting conscripted. |
Foreign Policy › Mandatory Military Service
4>4 Personal answerThe military doesn't really want EVERYONE, but some sort of federal service, if the program was done well, could be very good for both the individuals and the state. |
Education › Student Loans
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Immigration › Immigration
4>4 Personal answerDo we REALLY want to go fight World War One again? Are people really so stupid as to not remember that widespread failure to grant citizenship rights ethnic minorities was why Ferdinand was shot and ignited a world war? Yeah, unfortunately, we probably are that stupid. |
Healthcare › Marijuana
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Social › Death Penalty
4>4 Personal answerThe the prisons are not run by the department of punishment, it is the department of corrections. If you do not expect the inmate to EVER be able to be released even somewhat under even very controlled circumstances, then all you are doing is maintaining an extremely expensive menagerie of extremely dangerous animals. A very odd zoo indeed. All while we aren't funding after school programs, descent education, public health, etc. Either rehabilitate and release or push the flush lever. |
Social › Government Mandates
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Social › Confederate Flag
4>4 Personal answerPresumably you are referring to the Confederate Battle Flag not the Flag of the Confederacy... There is a significant heraldic difference between "Display" and "Fly". To "display a flag" means it would be affixed, no-moving, to something such as a plaque or under glass in a museum. To "fly a flag" means it is on a pole, flapping in the wind or affixed to an active service piece of military equipment. One simply cannot have the right to fly a flag that is attached to a sovereign entity that no longer exists. May 5, 1865, President Davis held the last meeting of his cabinet. At that meeting, the Confederacy was declared dissolved. Anyone flying a flag of the Confederacy after that time should be considered guilty of sedition. |
Domestic Policy › No-Fly List Gun Control
4>4 Personal answerJust how is the no-fly list even constitutional? If there is sufficient evidence against someone, get an indictment and issue a warrant for their arrest. Otherwise, screen them like everyone else and load the plane. This whole nonsense is sort of like worrying about the registered sex offender in your neighbourhood. They are just the one you know about. There's probably several more that just haven't been caught yet. Far better to teach your kids how to be safe. |
Domestic Policy › Gerrymandering
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Domestic Policy › NSA Domestic Surveillance
4>4 Personal answerYes, but a WHOLE LOT OF TRANSPARENCY needs to be injected. When secret courts are involved, we need to push the reset button. Also, the data vault needs to have dual factor encryption and the keys kept out of the reach of anyone who answers to the administrative branch. |
Social › Women in Combat
4>4 Personal answerNo |
Immigration › Illegal Immigrant Detainment
4>4 Personal answerNo |
Immigration › Border Security
4>4 Personal answerNo, make it easier for immigrants to access temporary work visas |
Social › Gender Workplace Diversity
4>4 Personal answerBeing stupid is not against the law. If a corporation is seeking a new board member and decides to exclude everyone who has a vagina or everyone who has dark skin or everyone who fill in the blank that has no bearing on the qualifications needed for the job, they are most likely going to be settling for inferior leadership. The market will soon sort it out in the harshest of ways. That said, as consumers, we should decide if we want to do business with that sort of corporation. I would support an executive order to use our collective purchasing power to express our displeasure with badly behave companies. |
Immigration › Immigration Healthcare
4>4 Personal answerThe UK will provide health care and then bill for the service. This is a reasonable compromise. It allows the individual to get health care but does not give it away free. |
the Environment › Alternative Energy
4>4 Personal answerAll we really need to do is recognize that continuing to use fossil fuels is eventually going to kill us all. If you subsidize alternatives, then like squabbling children, the alternative energy players will fight over the spoils. Much simpler to just tax that which is harmful. This is not a new concept. We tax cigarettes, they become expensive and it cuts down on smoking. Tax carbon and like water running down hill, people will find alternatives. |
Elections › Voter Fraud
4>4 Personal answerNo |
Immigration › Immigrant Laborers
4>4 Personal answerUntil there is a reasonable path for someone to immigrate legally, we cannot reasonably criminalize them coming anyway, especially when they are fleeing violence. Both issues need to be addressed. |
Domestic Policy › Patriot Act
4>4 Personal answerNo |
Foreign Policy › Israel
4>4 Personal answerIsrael is an ally and we should support our allies but that does not mean we should enable bad behavior. |
Immigration › Immigrant Assimilation
4>4 Personal answerWe should neither require English nor coddle those whom do not learn it. If I were to emigrate to country X, those that live there would expect me to learn the local language. We have immigrants from nearly every corner of the globe and do not provide translations for most of their languages. We help them, providing ELL classes in schools but for most of these cultures, we respect them sufficiently to presume they can learn English -- unless they come from Mexico. Are we really saying that people from Mexico have to have special assistance? Oh Dios mío! |
Domestic Policy › Net Neutrality
4>4 Personal answerNo |
Domestic Policy › Gun Liability
4>4 Personal answerThe strategy of suing the gun industry is really no different than trying to shut down abortion clinics by passing bizarre restrictions designed to skirt around Roe. I'm all for reasonable restrictions on the gun industry to keep firearms out of the hands of the irresponsible but suing a gun dealer because they engaged in lawful commerce is also not right. |
Social › First Amendment
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Crime › Solitary Confinement for Juveniles
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Social › Euthanasia
4>4 Personal answerEnding one's own life is generally a serious mistake but if one removes religious beliefs from the issue, the right to do so should be the most fundamental of civil rights. Is it YOUR life? "YOUR" implies ownership. Ownership implies right of eminent domain. If you do not have the right to terminate your life, you do not control your own life and therefore do not own yourself but are no more than a slave of the state. Yeah, chew on that for a while. |
Immigration › Skilled Immigrants
4>4 Personal answerDecrease, companies are currently taking advantage of this program to decrease wages |
Domestic Policy › Affirmative Action
4>4 Personal answerI'm against it because it fundamentally does not solve the problem. The folks in Ferguson have had affirmative action for decades. How'd it work for them? |
the Environment › Oil Drilling
4>4 Personal answerNo |
Education › Common Core
4>4 Personal answerNo |
Immigration › In-State Tuition
4>4 Personal answerMost of the people in this situation were brought here as minors by their parents. It is against our values to hold children responsible for the actions of their ancestors. If they themselves are law-abiding members of the community, they should be dealt with as law-abiding members of the community. |
Foreign Policy › United Nations
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Healthcare › Obamacare
4>4 Personal answerYes |
the Environment › Fracking
4>4 Personal answerNo, we should pursue more sustainable energy resources instead |
Domestic Policy › Eminent Domain
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Foreign Policy › North Korea Military Strikes
4>4 Personal answerLegally, the UN forces (including the US) and North Korea are still belligerent nations. There is a cease-fire agreement but not an armistice. They are in violation of the cease fire. If China doesn't want them destroyed, then China needs to solve the problem first. With a little encouragement, China would probably do so. |
Foreign Policy › Foreign Aid
4>4 Personal answerDecrease |
Foreign Policy › ISIS Ground Troops
4>4 Personal answerThe term is Infantry. Infantry capture and control land, depriving it from the enemy. Infantry are not cops. Infantry are not social workers. Infantry prosecute total war AND THEY ARE VERY GOOD AT IT. If we go to a state of total war, then yes, send in the infantry and deny the enemy control of that land but make sure that EVERYONE understands it will result in a very high body count. And then do or do not. There is no try. |
Foreign Policy › Drones
4>4 Personal answerWe do have a declaration of war. It doesn't feel like we are at war but we are. We should either act more like we are at war or call it off. |
Domestic Policy › Social Security
4>4 Personal answerNo, eliminate the income cap on taxable earnings and stop spending current funds on other programs instead |
Foreign Policy › Terrorism
4>4 Personal answerNo, they should be tried in military tribunals but not subject to torture |
Foreign Policy › War on ISIS
4>4 Personal answerMixed. You cannot declare war on them without recognizing they are a state but doing so would allow you to directly confront them and any who support them instead of dancing around and pretending they aren't real. |
Science › Space Exploration
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Foreign Policy › NSA Surveillance
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Foreign Policy › Cuba
4>4 Personal answerYes |
Foreign Policy › Russian Airstrikes in Syria
4>4 Personal answerJust hand out free stingers and let the locals take care of the problem. Of course that means we would also not want to fly there either... Oh, unintended consequences. Damn. |
Here is how you compare to this voter on popular political themes.
You side slightly towards “security”, meaning you more often believe the government should do everything within its power to ensure the security of its citizens. This theme is most important to you.
You are a centrist on left wing and right wing issues. This theme is more important to you.
You are a centrist on authoritarian and libertarian issues. This theme is more important to you.
You are a centrist on democratic socialism and capitalism issues. This theme is more important to you.
You side slightly towards “nationalism”, meaning you more often support policies that prioritize the interests of our nation above others. This theme is more important to you.
You are a centrist on politically incorrect and politically correct issues. This theme is more important to you.
You are a centrist on unilateralism and multilateralism issues. This theme is more important to you.
You side slightly towards “religious”, meaning you more often support policies that reflect religious values and principles. This theme is more important to you.
You side moderately towards “protectionism”, meaning you believe globalization is detrimental to the safety, compensation, environment, and standard of living of workers. This theme is somewhat important to you.
You side slightly towards “deregulation”, meaning you more often believe that government regulation stifles innovation and economic prosperity. This theme is somewhat important to you.
You are a centrist on assimilation and multiculturalism issues. This theme is somewhat important to you.
You are a centrist on pacifism and militarism issues. This theme is somewhat important to you.
You are a centrist on traditional and progressive issues. This theme is somewhat important to you.
You are a centrist on isolationism and imperialism issues. This theme is somewhat important to you.
You are a centrist on individualism and collectivism issues. This theme is somewhat important to you.
You side slightly towards “decentralization”, meaning you more often believe that administrative power and decision making should be handled at the local level and serve the best interests of the local community. This theme is only less important to you.
You are a centrist on tender and tough issues. This theme is only less important to you.
You are a centrist on small government and big government issues. This theme is only less important to you.
You are a centrist on keynesian and laissez-faire issues. This theme is only less important to you.
You are a centrist on anthropocentrism and environmentalism issues. This theme is only less important to you.
You are a centrist on meritocracy and democracy issues. This theme is only less important to you.
Based on 11 questions that are ranked more important to you.
Based on 2 questions that are ranked more important to you.
Based on 9 questions that are ranked somewhat important to you.
Based on 1 question that is ranked somewhat important to you.
Based on 12 questions that are ranked somewhat important to you.
Based on 1 question that is ranked somewhat important to you.
Based on 2 questions that are ranked somewhat important to you.
Based on 1 question that is ranked somewhat important to you.
Based on 4 questions that are ranked somewhat important to you.
Based on 12 questions that are ranked somewhat important to you.
Based on 1 question that is ranked somewhat important to you.
Here is how you compare to this voter on the traditional ideological axis.
iSideWith.com is the world’s most popular voting guide for citizens to find information about elections, political parties, candidates, voting districts and popular political issues in their country. We are independent and not affiliated with any investors, shareholders, political parties or interest groups.
I understand that submitting my email address allows iSideWith.com to send me important notifications via email. Read our privacy policy for more information.
© 2024 iSideWith.com. All rights reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our user agreement and privacy policy. iSideWith.com may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our affiliate partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of iSideWith.com.