The Dream Team - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

08/22/2012 04:15:14 PM · #203

Originally posted by Venser:

Could you imagine the fallout if this ever took place? I'd personally finance a black, lesbian female and make sure her platform lines up with the popular side on every issue.

At least the "will of the people" would be unmistakable. Break campaign promises at your own peril.

Venser

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

08/22/2012 04:20:32 PM · #204

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Venser:
Could you imagine the fallout if this ever took place? I'd personally finance a black, lesbian female and make sure her platform lines up with the popular side on every issue.

At least the "will of the people" would be unmistakable. Break campaign promises at your own peril.

Wouldn't that be the experiment?
I wonder how many people for XYZ because they're of party MNO as opposed to the underlying platform. I think a lot of people would be shocked where they align.

Sony SAL-1855 DT 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

08/22/2012 04:23:11 PM · #205

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I like it. However, we also shouldn't HAVE to place a vote for every item on the ballot. Maybe there should be an option for "I decline to vote on this position/topic"... If I recall, my ballot didn't have that option blatantly outlined.

I'm pretty sure you can leave an item blank. I do it when I don't know enough to make an informed decision.

You might know this, but the other 80% of uninformed voters probably have no clue and vote straight to the R vs D.

If we removed the R and D, people would otherwise vote at complete random. Or could choose just to vote "none of the above" and admit their uninformedness.

Random voting has a very high likelihood of improving our current system. I'd even be in favor of random or blind voting at this point.

JamesDowning

Sony SLT-A33

08/22/2012 04:30:09 PM · #206

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Random voting has a very high likelihood of improving our current system. I'd even be in favor of random or blind voting at this point.

I'm somewhat in favor of a lottery system... just like jury duty.

But then the congress would be full of people that weren't smart enough to get out of "congress duty"...

08/22/2012 04:38:24 PM · #207

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Random voting has a very high likelihood of improving our current system. I'd even be in favor of random or blind voting at this point.

I'm somewhat in favor of a lottery system... just like jury duty.

But then the congress would be full of people that weren't smart enough to get out of "congress duty"...

The difference being $174k/yr vs. $12/day ;-)

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Sony SAL-1855 DT 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

08/22/2012 04:54:04 PM · #208

Sometimes I wonder about the "behind the scenes" agenda for websites like the one with the questions. Does anybody find it strange that I have a 69% match with Romney and a 10% match with Ron Paul? That strikes me as odd.

JamesDowning

Sony SLT-A33

08/22/2012 04:58:58 PM · #209

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I find it odd that I can be in 79% agreement with Romney, and at the same time, 63% with Obama... and at the same time matching 66% with Ron Paul. The numbers don't seem to work out in my head.

Message edited by author 2012-08-22 17:00:04.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/22/2012 05:53:43 PM · #210

Look at the areas of agreement/diagreement listed -- it may well be that for each candidate, there is one major issue on which you strongly disagree, and several where you are in moderate agreement -- the overall impression you'd have would be "I don't agree at all" with that person, but statistically you might rack up enough points from the middle of the scale to attain a decent percentage. No one has found any candidate where they agree 100%.

Also, there will be "error" if you filled-out and of the "phrase your own opinion" options -- this will always disagree with the candidate's position, while some of the other answers allow for a "similar" answer to that chosen by the candidate. If you click on each candidate in your list, you'll see a comparative list of all the answers both of you gave.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/22/2012 06:01:19 PM · #211

IIRC I agreed with Romney on "social issues", but wouldn't you figure Dean would share social issues with him? It said I didn't agree with anything major with Dean. If I have extra time some day I'll do the test over and include the extra questions (did you notice you can click on a link in each section for 4-5 more questions to answer?). Then I'll take a look, but I'm still a bit skeptical about the results making sense.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/22/2012 06:06:49 PM · #212

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

(did you notice you can click on a link in each section for 4-5 more questions to answer?). Then I'll take a look, but I'm still a bit skeptical about the results making sense.

No, I didn't see that. For each question I saw a Yes/No choice and then a few "qualified" choices below. Maybe I'll go through it again and save the results this time ...

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

08/22/2012 06:25:42 PM · #213

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(did you notice you can click on a link in each section for 4-5 more questions to answer?). Then I'll take a look, but I'm still a bit skeptical about the results making sense.

No, I didn't see that. For each question I saw a Yes/No choice and then a few "qualified" choices below. Maybe I'll go through it again and save the results this time ...

Look below the last question for each section. There will be a link to "answer 4-5 more questions on..."

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/22/2012 07:48:44 PM · #214

Some things might surprise people, like Obama could be viewed as much more of a Hawk on intervention in foreign affairs than Romney:

Should the U.S. intervene in the affairs of other countries?

Barack Obama: Only in matters of national security, human rights violations, or specifically asked by the international community

Mitt Romney: Only if there is a direct threat to our national security

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/22/2012 08:43:06 PM · #215

That version of the question doesn't specify military intervention. For example, I don't think sabotaging Iran's centrifuges put any US personnel at personal risk, but it was certainly a (possibly illegal) "intervention" in another country's affairs ...

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

08/22/2012 09:02:00 PM · #216

The problem with the question is that it fails to define the term "Intervention". There exist a myriad of intervention methods, some covert and some overt.

I can only assume that in this context the intervention alluded to was meant to be overt military intervention.

Ray

08/22/2012 09:30:45 PM · #217

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I can only assume that in this context the intervention alluded to was meant to be overt military intervention.

That's how I interpreted it. That said, if Obama's statements/positions on any issue are compared with his actions, none of it matters anyway. Same goes for Romney.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/22/2012 10:18:23 PM · #218

Some of the extra questions are more problematic than military/nonmilitary. For example, one asks if we would cut funding for underperforming schools. It's impossible to fairly answer that question without knowing the REASON for underperformance. If the school doesn't have enough money for decent textbooks and teachers, then I would expect it to underperform and cutting funding will only make the problem worse.

08/22/2012 10:43:00 PM · #219

Originally posted by scalvert:

That's only if you believe that money solves the problems of underperformance. It doesn't.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/22/2012 10:53:58 PM · #220

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by scalvert:
If the school doesn't have enough money for decent textbooks and teachers, then I would expect it to underperform and cutting funding will only make the problem worse.

That's only if you believe that money solves the problems of underperformance. It doesn't.

In the above scenario, it most certainly does.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/23/2012 12:07:07 AM · #221

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by scalvert:
If the school doesn't have enough money for decent textbooks and teachers, then I would expect it to underperform and cutting funding will only make the problem worse.

That's only if you believe that money solves the problems of underperformance. It doesn't.

In the above scenario, it most certainly does.

Fire a useless, overpaid administrator, hire a teacher, buy electronic textbooks. Problem solved.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/23/2012 05:14:22 AM · #222

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by scalvert:
If the school doesn't have enough money for decent textbooks and teachers, then I would expect it to underperform and cutting funding will only make the problem worse.

That's only if you believe that money solves the problems of underperformance. It doesn't.

In the above scenario, it most certainly does.

Fire a useless, overpaid administrator, hire a teacher, buy electronic textbooks. Problem solved.

Yeah, but that's still applying money to the problem, just sourcing it differently...

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/23/2012 06:02:30 AM · #223

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by scalvert:
If the school doesn't have enough money for decent textbooks and teachers, then I would expect it to underperform and cutting funding will only make the problem worse.

That's only if you believe that money solves the problems of underperformance. It doesn't.

In the above scenario, it most certainly does.

Fire a useless, overpaid administrator, hire a teacher, buy electronic textbooks. Problem solved.

Yeah, but that's still applying money to the problem, just sourcing it differently...

No - it's the same amount of money (or potentially less) by firing the administrator. I know for a fact that most schools WASTE money on top-heavy administrations, filled with useless bureaucrats or teachers "warehoused" because they can't teach and can't be fired. I also know how much MY state paid for my older 3 kids to not graduate from public school (~$8700/yr each) vs. how much I paid (in addition to my property taxes) for my younger son to GRADUATE from private school (~$7,500/yr). Less money, MUCH better results. And there are PLENTY of examples of new, non-private education programs that cut costs and OUTPERFORM traditional school programs. Juan Williams just did a special report on it, but I can't find it on the web.

Look at poverty - we have spent over $15 ~~trillion~~ TRILLION on the war on poverty since 1965 and the problem is WORSE. Bottom line: the problem is NOT money. I don't pretend to have all the solutions, nor do I think the GOP has all or even any of them, but I can't ignore the factual reality that I see in front of my face.

Message edited by author 2012-08-23 06:04:32.

blindjustice

Canon EOS-7D

08/23/2012 06:57:16 AM · #224

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by scalvert:
If the school doesn't have enough money for decent textbooks and teachers, then I would expect it to underperform and cutting funding will only make the problem worse.

That's only if you believe that money solves the problems of underperformance. It doesn't.

In the above scenario, it most certainly does.

Fire a useless, overpaid administrator, hire a teacher, buy electronic textbooks. Problem solved.

Yeah, but that's still applying money to the problem, just sourcing it differently...

No - it's the same amount of money (or potentially less) by firing the administrator. I know for a fact that most schools WASTE money on top-heavy administrations, filled with useless bureaucrats or teachers "warehoused" because they can't teach and can't be fired. I also know how much MY state paid for my older 3 kids to not graduate from public school (~$8700/yr each) vs. how much I paid (in addition to my property taxes) for my younger son to GRADUATE from private school (~$7,500/yr). Less money, MUCH better results. And there are PLENTY of examples of new, non-private education programs that cut costs and OUTPERFORM traditional school programs. Juan Williams just did a special report on it, but I can't find it on the web.

Look at poverty - we have spent over $15 ~~trillion~~ TRILLION on the war on poverty since 1965 and the problem is WORSE. Bottom line: the problem is NOT money. I don't pretend to have all the solutions, nor do I think the GOP has all or even any of them, but I can't ignore the factual reality that I see in front of my face.

Similar to the Bain Capital approach.
Let's fire everyone and sell the chairs and books, and then we can afford
Vouchers for those who want to send their kids to boarding school.