Thread: Political Compass: Where do you fall?

I'm somewhat new to this forum and am curious about where the members fall on the political spectrum. So I'd like everyone to take the political compass test and post their results.

For those unfamiliar with it, it's a short quiz that asks questions about your opinion on various issues and then plots where you fall on the political spectrum. It only takes a few minutes. Here's the link:

The Political Compass - Test

And here are my results:

Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00

and here are where some famous people would fall on the scale:

Political Compass Printable Graph

c'est moi: A libertarian commie

wow,
I'm really close to the dali llama---just a tad more libertarian
quick, someone pat me on the back before i break my freaking arm

http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...2.00&soc=-2.87

Not sure how well I trust the structure of the test, though.

Considering that I (sometimes) like to present myself as someone who regards Genghis Kahn, Stalin and Hitler as over-compassionate bleeding-heart softies I score fairly consistently each time I take this test:


And, for reference, I do regard the Dalai Lama as a woolly-headed prat and Nelson Mandela as a complete dick.

Oh dear. I have a lot of reservations about this test - far too much emphasis on USA type issues. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get anything like this score on a test designed for European or all-English-speaking political attitudes.

Political Compass Printable Graph

Here's an interesting graph:

I find it hard to believe that President Obama and I are only 1 point apart on the economic right/left scale. It plots Obama at almost the same place as Margaret Thatcher!

Originally Posted by adelady

Oh dear. I have a lot of reservations about this test - far too much emphasis on USA type issues. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get anything like this score on a test designed for European or all-English-speaking political attitudes.

Originally Posted by adelady

Political Compass Printable Graph

Here's an alternative test:

Political test - The great site for testing and comparing your political alignments - free of charge and independent!

and my results:

It says I'm a democratic national liberal, whatever that is. Does this one make any sense to you?

It plots Obama at almost the same place as Margaret Thatcher!

That doesn't surprise me at all.

The graph I'd really like to see would be one showing all the Republican presidents and Democrats, both separately and all together. Just thinking about how a measure like this would line up say Eisenhower v. Reagan, Kennedy v. Clinton, Nixon v. either Bush, Obama v. Johnson. Thinking about how the whole lot of them would scatter/cluster on the graphic seems like an interesting exercise to me.

Originally Posted by adelady

It plots Obama at almost the same place as Margaret Thatcher!

That doesn't surprise me at all.

Seriously? Obama and Thatcher? Come on, that's absurd. Here's another, it shows that Obama and I agree on no major issues:

http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

Candidates you side with...
88%
Mitt Romney ^Republican on immigration, science, environmental, domestic policy, economic, and social issues

77%
Virgil Goode ^Constitutionon economic, environmental, foreign policy, and domestic policy issues

76%
Gary Johnson ^Libertarianon healthcare, economic, domestic policy, foreign policy, and environmental issues

36%
Barack Obama ^Democratno major issues

The graph I'd really like to see would be one showing all the Republican presidents and Democrats, both separately and all together. Just thinking about how a measure like this would line up say Eisenhower v. Reagan, Kennedy v. Clinton, Nixon v. either Bush, Obama v. Johnson. Thinking about how the whole lot of them would scatter/cluster on the graphic seems like an interesting exercise to me.

I did come across this, but I don't agree with the results:


An Update on Political Polarization (through 2011) – Part III: The Presidential Square Wave | voteview blog

What's the 2nd chart on the last post mean?

As for Obama and Thatcher, I'm not surprised at all. Once one actually looks at what he's done, rather than the characterture of him painted by conservative talk radio, he turns out to be tough as nail on foriegn policy, liberal to moderate on social issues and overall pretty center.

I'm a bit left and right of Ghandi on the OP survey, which I actually agree with liberal on social issues, something tougher on economic and foriegn policy issues, and relatively libertarian as many New England Republicans.

ETA: You are a cosmopolitan social democrat.

My compass broke a very long time ago when everything started to change and you couldn't tell who was lying any longer. Now they all do so what good is it to get involved with politics any longer when they are all only looking out for themselves and not the country or its people any longer.

and some wonder why we do not hold our political leaders in high esteem

double post

About The Political Compass™

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18



result from the other test:


You are a cosmopolitan Social Democrat. 15 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 31 percent are more extremist than you.

wow
all but one who have replied are lefty libertarians/libertarians

(singing and dancing)

I've done this before. I always tend to fall into the third quadrant. I'm a weird mix of big government on some policies (environmental protection, public safety, etc) and small on others (mostly social legislation such as drug legalization and gay marriage).

Since all politicians from both the Democrats and Republicans are about as dissimilar from one another as chimps and humans are genetically, I haven't enjoyed a single election since I've been eligible to vote. For that reason, I tend to just stay away from politics.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I've done this before. I always tend to fall into the third quadrant. I'm a weird mix of big government on some policies (environmental protection, public safety, etc) and small on others (mostly social legislation such as drug legalization and gay marriage).

Since all politicians from both the Democrats and Republicans are about as dissimilar from one another as chimps and humans are genetically, I haven't enjoyed a single election since I've been eligible to vote. For that reason, I tend to just stay away from politics.

I consider myself right wing, but was still surprised to see it test that way considering I support environmental protection and such.

I've found that political demarcation has become confusing this as of late. I always thought of conservative, republican, and right wing to mean small government capitalists. People interested in enforcing strong moral values and letting the states govern themselves.

What I've seen is a push toward bigger government. Amendments against gay marriage and abortion, wars on drugs, massive spending on immigration and war, etc. Then, the democrats took the same big government approach. Trying to legislate sweeping environmental reforms and gun control laws, something I sort of expect from democrats. Then, they went small government on social issues and drugs, etc. Meanwhile, our supposedly liberal president comes out strongly against illegal immigration and takes no stance on gay marriage until his vice president puts him in an awkward situation.

Basically, what all that gibberish means, is that I don't see a clear line between the two parties anymore. They just go at each other because they apparently feel obligated to do so.

Which, joy of joys, leaves the rest of us to sit here and suffer the consequences of their political hissyfits. I just vote for whomever is most likely to fund the sciences.

It's also hard to find candidates that stand on their own rather than play mouthpiece for their party.

I'd vote for a candidate from either party if they just stood up for social liberalism, economic conservatism tempered with infrastructure spending, and transfer of power to the states to unencumber the fed. However, those ideologies don't mix with Dems or Reps and even the libertarians have become a little too odd for me.

Originally Posted by sculptor

wow
all but one who have replied are lefty libertarians/libertarians
(singing and dancing)

Yeah, but I'm a doctrinaire fascist lefty libertarian.

and not even a litle bit confused by that

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I'd vote for a candidate from either party if they just stood up for social liberalism, economic conservatism tempered with infrastructure spending, and transfer of power to the states to unencumber the fed. However, those ideologies don't mix with Dems or Reps and even the libertarians have become a little too odd for me.

That sounds reasonable to me.

My views are strongly aligned with those of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Here's their statement of principles:

Statement of Principles | Republican Liberty Caucus

Originally Posted by adelady

It plots Obama at almost the same place as Margaret Thatcher!

That doesn't surprise me at all.

US Moderate = Conservative in most other western countries

Originally Posted by Alec Bing

Originally Posted by adelady

It plots Obama at almost the same place as Margaret Thatcher!

That doesn't surprise me at all.

US Moderate = Conservative in most other western countries

Yeah, I know. But I still am surprised by what I see as absolutely barmy extreme statements from Americans who see themselves as perfectly rational and reasonable conservatives. Nothing conservative to see usually - it's all radical right wing nonsense by non-US standards.

But it still gets me Every. Single. Time.

Political Compass Printable Graph

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

That sounds reasonable to me.

My views are strongly aligned with those of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

I also tend to support federal government oversight, at which most Republicans thumb their nose. I also fight for a more efficient tax code that essentially forces the wealthy to pay the taxes they are constantly finding loophole to get out of paying. I don't resonate well with the Republican party because I only care about money when it is funding research and maintaining economic stability. I don't "understand" the desire to accumulate massive amounts of wealth and I don't understand the desire to cling to that wealth when your country is suffering. Then again, I was not raised to see value in money, but in contribution to the greater good. Getting paid for it is just a bonus to me.

I wasn't really surprised to find myself sitting deep in the libertarian left.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I also tend to support federal government oversight, at which most Republicans thumb their nose.

People make the mistake of thinking that by supporting government regulations they are sticking it to the big corporations and helping out the "little guy" when the exact opposite is true. Large corporations have teams of lawyers and the deep pockets to pay off politicians and see to it that the regulatory climate benefits them and serves primarily to keep upstart companies from competing.

IBM would have loved to have seen stricter regulations prevent those jackasses in their garages from starting Apple and Microsoft. Regulations serve as a barrier to entry and make our economy less dynamic, less efficient. The help see to it that those in power stay there while the rest of us stay where we are as well.

I also fight for a more efficient tax code that essentially forces the wealthy to pay the taxes they are constantly finding loophole to get out of paying.

So long as our tax code is absurdly complex, the wealthy will see to it that loopholes exist that allow them to not pay their taxes. We need a flat tax with no deductions or very few deductions which is certainly supported by the Republican party.

The scumbags in congress love the current system because it allows them to extort money from the private sector. A flat tax with no deductions would do more to clean up Washington than anything else I can think of. If congress no longer had the power to grant special exemptions to the tax codes, there would be a lot less reason to lobby congress. Likewise, fewer regulations would also mean fewer reasons to lobby congress.

I don't resonate well with the Republican party because I only care about money when it is funding research and maintaining economic stability. I don't "understand" the desire to accumulate massive amounts of wealth and I don't understand the desire to cling to that wealth when your country is suffering. Then again, I was not raised to see value in money, but in contribution to the greater good. Getting paid for it is just a bonus to me.

It's not about money, it's about freedom. The freedom to keep the fruit of your labor. The freedom to do what you want without some government bureaucrat telling you what to do. The freedom to help your fellow man in the way you think is best, rather than having your assets seized and used to fund a bloated government that then uses your money in ways that may be offensive to you.

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

IBM would have loved to have seen stricter regulations prevent those jackasses in their garages from starting Apple and Microsoft. Regulations serve as a barrier to entry and make our economy less dynamic, less efficient. The help see to it that those in power stay there while the rest of us stay where we are as well.

That's not the kind of regulation I'm referring to. I mean independent oversight in regards to public safety and health concerns. I work in water quality and I would appreciate better communication between how a company is behaving in regards to the environment and state-employed researchers.

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

So long as our tax code is absurdly complex, the wealthy will see to it that loopholes exist that allow them to not pay their taxes. We need a flat tax with no deductions or very few deductions which is certainly supported by the Republican party.

The scumbags in congress love the current system because it allows them to extort money from the private sector. A flat tax with no deductions would do more to clean up Washington than anything else I can think of. If congress no longer had the power to grant special exemptions to the tax codes, there would be a lot less reason to lobby congress. Likewise, fewer regulations would also mean fewer reasons to lobby congress.

I have yet to see a tax code I support offered up by either side.

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

t's not about money, it's about freedom. The freedom to keep the fruit of your labor. The freedom to do what you want without some government bureaucrat telling you what to do. The freedom to help your fellow man in the way you think is best, rather than having your assets seized and used to fund a bloated government that then uses your money in ways that may be offensive to you.

It's about money AND freedom. We restrict freedoms based upon the public good. If a small percentage of people are holding a vast majority of the wealth at the expense of the national economy, we owe it to ourselves to make changes and adjustments to correct the issue. Again, I have yet to see either side address this in a satisfactory manner.

I also found it disturbing that we have given scant attention to the April 17 explosion at the fertilizer plant in West, Texas, that killed 15 people and injured more than 200.

As the labor writer Mike Elk pointed out in a Washington Post commentary, industrial accidents are far more common than acts of terror. We have more control over how we enforce worker safety laws than we do over random acts of violence. Yet we have allowed the Texas story to be buried beneath all our speculation about the Tsarnaev brothers.

from:
The National Memo » The Culture Of Preconception

and, from the same rag

In most state legislatures today, “off the wall” has become the political center, and bizarre bills are no longer unusual.

Still, it seems strange that legislators in so many states — including Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and Vermont — have simultaneously been pushing “ag-gag” bills that are not merely outrageous, but downright un-American. Each is intended to quash free speech by banning journalists, whistleblowers, workers and other citizens from exposing illegal, abusive or unethical treatment of animals that are incarcerated in the factory-feeding operations of huge corporations.

from:
The National Memo » Gagging On Ag-Gag Laws

on it's face, regulation seems a good thing, but, there will always be those who slip crap into the mix and spoil the pudding

................................
as/re tax code
you will never see a fair and progressive tax code from our millionaire's club that we call congress.

gf.jpg Yay, green is my favorite color.

US Moderate = Conservative in most other western countries

Yes, and the corporate mass media might further distort the picture by portraying society as more right wing than it is (or at least I hope so).

I think Im further left then everyone but Speedfreak
pcgraphpng.jpg

Nuh. I'm much the same on the left scale, but a bit more "libertarian". (Which isn't quite the same meaning as is now commonly attributed to it.)

I guess growing up and as a young adult my views were much more libertarian and left wing, though I do have relatives who are quite comparitevely well off but my immediate family were quite poor and suffered terribly under the Thatcher government, whilst it may have been a time when the country as a whole was getting richer this was most definately not the case for poorer people living in the North of England. My father was disabled and unable to work, my brother also has disabilities and my mother struggled to make ends meet for us, I kind of guess this meant we were brought to be much more left wing especially having wealthy relatives that didn't help us out in any way. I don't why really but I have become more right wing in my thinking over the last few years, kind of believing people should take more responsibility for their own lives and shouldn't be so dependant on state handouts etc...

But I think perhaps looking at the overall situation I have become more detached from the realities of the lives of the poor and disadvantaged, how they often struggle to make ends meet and quite how difficult their lives can indeed be, coupled with the fact the right wing policies of austerity just don't seem to be working, at least here in England, and then there is all the memories brought back by Thatchers death. So again I think I'm beginning to change towards more socialistic and left wing views.

As for the libertarian aspect I would guess it is fair to say that I have always thought of myself to be fairly libertarian, but often can suprise myself when it really comes down to certain issues how in fact my viewpoint can indeed be quite opposite to that of a true libertarian. I guess this is kind of true for alot of people though in reality, they think of their selves as being liberatarians but their actual opinions on specific issues suggest otherwise.

So overall on your scale I'd say proberbly -1 left/right, -3 libertarian/authoritarian.

But I think perhaps looking at the overall situation I have become more detached from the realities of the lives of the poor and disadvantaged, how they often struggle to make ends meet and quite how difficult their lives can indeed be,

That's quite natural. Just look at how often older people sniff and scoff at young parents coping with babies and toddlers. They have genuinely forgotten what the day in day out neverending grind of looking after little ones is like.

I have become more detached from the realities of the lives of the poor and disadvantaged, how they often struggle to make ends meet

I wish I could say the same.

Originally Posted by adelady

But I think perhaps looking at the overall situation I have become more detached from the realities of the lives of the poor and disadvantaged, how they often struggle to make ends meet and quite how difficult their lives can indeed be,

That's quite natural. Just look at how often older people sniff and scoff at young parents coping with babies and toddlers. They have genuinely forgotten what the day in day out neverending grind of looking after little ones is like.

Perhaps It might prove useful if everyone could experience what it is like for different groups in society every so often so as that everyone could a better view of the overall picture and help them all to have empathy for the plight of us others.

I think politically it would be nice to have a party that represents all groups within society equally, rather than what seems often to happen that one party comes in and helps out one particular group, usually at the expense of another, and then the cycle flips around when a different political party gets into government.

I think this depends on your personal situation. As I grow older, meet more people from different backgrounds and gain more life experience - I moved across an ocean on my own when I was 39 years old - I become more aware of the plights of people different from my myself.

My own views, always somewhat libertarian, moved to the liberal side on social issues, as I moved about the country and eventually the world and became exposed to a broad range of cultures. Contrary to popular belief though--people tend to become more liberal with age, not the other way around.

This seems about right.

Political Compass Printable Graph

UK Parties 2010 General Election

Your link does not work dude.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

This seems about right.

Political Compass Printable Graph

I was starting to think everyone on this site was a left winger. Nice to have some company on the right.

Well, well what a lot of liberal lefties we are eh? I feel in good company!

Political chart.jpg

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

This seems about right.

Political Compass Printable Graph

I was starting to think everyone on this site was a left winger. Nice to have some company on the right.

This is purely a guess, but I would imagine the vast majority of those in academia or the sciences are left-leaning.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

This seems about right.

Political Compass Printable Graph

I was starting to think everyone on this site was a left winger. Nice to have some company on the right.

This is purely a guess, but I would imagine the vast majority of those in academia or the sciences are left-leaning.

Thankfully, what you are saying, is just a guess.

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

This seems about right.

Political Compass Printable Graph

I was starting to think everyone on this site was a left winger. Nice to have some company on the right.

Yes, it does look like, that there are a few tree huggers.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

This seems about right.

Political Compass Printable Graph

I was starting to think everyone on this site was a left winger. Nice to have some company on the right.

This is purely a guess, but I would imagine the vast majority of those in academia or the sciences are left-leaning.

Thankfully, what you are saying, is just a guess.

Not quite, most university staff/students favor libertarianism. Not to say it's superior, but I imagine that through studying, an individual is open to more occurrences of when governments infringed upon the rights of the populace, and negative results occurred as a result.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

This seems about right.

Political Compass Printable Graph

I was starting to think everyone on this site was a left winger. Nice to have some company on the right.

This is purely a guess, but I would imagine the vast majority of those in academia or the sciences are left-leaning.

Thankfully, what you are saying, is just a guess.

An educated one; http://people-press.org/http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

55% Dem, 32% Independent, 6% Republican.

Well, that explains why I admire Gandhi . . .

Political Compass Printable Graph

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Contrary to popular belief though--people tend to become more liberal with age, not the other way around.

That's been very true in my case.

I used to be a Democrat in my brainwashed college days.

Gandhi was a failure as a political leader. He could not prevent the partition of India. He did get independence from the British. Big deal, the British empire was coming to an end anyway. The British were pussycats. When he ran up against the Muslims, his nonviolent tactics did not work so well.

I've noticed a lot of Republican legislation seems to be driven by cynicism.

Gandhi's legacy is that of a man of peace in a world of war. However, we're not given the sole options of flaccid inaction or taking on the mentality of our barbaric enemies. Fortunately, there is a middle ground built on common sense, where we understand others and know how to deal with them without being driven to their methods.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I've noticed a lot of Republican legislation seems to be driven by cynicism.


Gandhi's legacy is that of a man of peace in a world of war. However, we're not given the sole options of flaccid inaction or taking on the mentality of our barbaric enemies. Fortunately, there is a middle ground built on common sense, where we understand others and know how to deal with them without being driven to their methods.

I've noticed that a lot of Democrat legislation is driven by a refusal to accept reality.
Gandhi didn't find that happy medium, in that he failed to achieve his political objectives and got a lot of his people killed. His legacy is a mess of a political situation in India and Pakistan.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Gandhi's legacy is that of a man of peace in a world of war. However, we're not given the sole options of flaccid inaction or taking on the mentality of our barbaric enemies. Fortunately, there is a middle ground built on common sense, where we understand others and know how to deal with them without being driven to their methods.

Thank you. Very well said! Even Buddhists speak of the "middle way" being preferable to the extremes.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I've noticed that a lot of Democrat legislation is driven by a refusal to accept reality.

A bit, but it's tempered with massive quantities of whining. Frankly, I think the two parties deserve each other. The problem is, the American people don't. We deserve better.

You think you have it bad in the US, our bunch are AT LEAST as bad....

Originally Posted by Jeaunse23

You think you have it bad in the US, our bunch are AT LEAST as bad....

Where are you currently?

Many nations have it worse than us, but we seem to be REALLY focused on making things worse here in the States. The problem with our government falling into shambles is that so many other nations end up affected. When our administration lies about WMDs, thousands of people die in a pointless war.

Apologies for not making it clear, by 'our bunch' I meant the UK ( I'm a Brit) . Actually I'm currently in India and I'd hesitate even to describe those in power here as politicians; pathetic, corrupt, bureaucrats at best. I generally live in France however and I quite like their politicians although they are most definitely not perfect.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I used to be a Democrat in my brainwashed college days.

If I had to choose between types of "brainwashing" (I'd use the word "education"), I'd choose the college type. It's a whole lot better for the world than believing everything the neo-con chicken-hawk war-mongering Muslim-hating gun-loving no-science GW-denying god-fearing gay-bashing power-loving money-grubbing Repubs are telling us.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

the neo-con chicken-hawk war-mongering Muslim-hating gun-loving no-science GW-denying god-fearing gay-bashing power-loving money-grubbing Repubs

High profile ones like Romney and Palin etc are like that. But the average citizen that identifies as republican doesn't necessarily fall into that crowd.

In the Iraq war, 2003, I was swayed into limited support due to the lies of two powerful people that I trusted: Lieberman and Powell. Both stated that Iraq had WMDs -- no doubt.. Boy was I set up for a very rude awakening when I find out later that Lieberman was a Bush-ass-kisser and Powell felt too much loyalty to the Bush family to stop his lies.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

High profile ones like Romney and Palin etc are like that. But the average citizen that identifies as republican doesn't necessarily fall into that crowd.

Actually, I think G. W. Bush was just stupid. If he had surrounded himself with decent people (instead of Kove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, etc.) maybe, just maybe, he might have done things differently and better. But no, he let Cheney use him like a hand puppet.

"I've noticed that a lot of Democrat legislation is driven by a refusal to accept reality."

As opposed to Sara Palin, WMD-Bush, Creationists, Michele Bachmann, Ted Haggard, and Fox News

(For the uninitiated from the outside, it often appears that many somehow prominent Republicans have escaped from a mental health institution )

Im just teasing you, I dont think the current political system (and economic system for that matter) is as good as can be, both major parties are corrupt (imo) and the problem is more systemic than the fault of this or that individual, imo, and the antagonism between parties along partisan lines distract from this need to change the system itself.

pcgraphpng.jpg

No big surprise there

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Neverfly

High profile ones like Romney and Palin etc are like that. But the average citizen that identifies as republican doesn't necessarily fall into that crowd.

Actually, I think G. W. Bush was just stupid. If he had surrounded himself with decent people (instead of Kove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, etc.) maybe, just maybe, he might have done things differently and better. But no, he let Cheney use him like a hand puppet.

i wonder if he just took for granted what his staff fed him, or he thought things like UN reports, curveball were made up fairy tales.

actually, it was a failure on the part of the cia who had invested their $ in new tech and not in "boots on the ground" so they were left with saudi and israeli intel which was based on their agendas.
we were the 500 pound dummy that would fight their supposed foe for them

umm nope, bush decided years after common knowledge, that curveball was a fake, to make him topnotch.

pcgraphpng.jpg

No surprise.

That must be a good test. Not one single person was surprised or unhappy with their results. Self included.

Not one single person was surprised or unhappy with their results. Self included.

I wasn't surprised given the US orientation of the test questions. But I'm a bit dissatisfied. I'd like to see a test better oriented to EU and other-English-speaking-countries political balances.

I did the test when this was first posted, never got around to sharing my results though. My results were similar to that of the majority. I was situated around -5, -5 -- in fact, my score was almost identical to Dywyddyr's and PhDemon's. I did not expect the results I received but, after thinking about it, I'm not exactly surprised.

I'm a Kenyan Socialist Communist Muslim.

Originally Posted by mikepotter84

I'm a Kenyan Socialist Communist Muslim.

I suppose a guy with a name of Mike Potter can claim anything he want's, but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe it.

I don't really agree with the results, though.