POLI the AI asks, "Where can we agree?" It's one thing for a candidate to be conflicted in their views and play up whatever the audiences wants to hear, it's another thing to bald-face lie about basic qualifications for office.
ONE PARROT boasts all's fair in love, war, and politics. If the party, election officials and the media don't care enough to vet candidates for office then it's up to the voters to decide. THE OTHER PARROT roasts those who think lying to get what they want is acceptable, it sets a bad example for children, and encourages our enemies to distrust the US even more. Almost all job applications are subject to background checks, and the people essentially hire their elected officials. Candidates should have to file a public record background affidavit.
Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for the Candidate (Employment) Fraud
:68%: ± 7% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 11/16
Columns of Bias 7/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Ending Candidate Employment Fraud
The people have lost trust in government
Bearing false witness is a sin
Quality lying is a sign of a sociopath
Discourages inauthentic primary challenges
Top Four Key Reasons Against Ending Candidate Employment Fraud
Invasion of the candidate’s privacy
Enables yellow journalism
Win at all costs
Great leaders have serious quirks
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor
Activists & Gun Owners
Urban Part Time & Ag States
Moralist Republicans & Ethicist Democrats
Planet First Democrats & Core Republicans
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Digital Republicans & Rank & File Democrats
Underrepresented & Landlords
Pro-Immigration & Borders and Orders Republicans
Party Favor Democrats & Party Favor Republicans
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) Leadership and Honesty go together
(Yes) Discourage civil unrest
(No) Lying is a job pre-requisite
(No) Governor’s replacement discretion may conflict with voter’s will
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict an 68% vast super-majority of roles in this country to support Ending Candidate Employment Fraud with a slightly higher error margin of ± 7%. Thrift (T) types will that we won’t waste money on failed candidacies. Abundance (A) types will like quality candidates forcing out pretenders. Commerce (C) types will see business people with better resumes running. Governance (G) types will see less disruption from useful idiots.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out Where We Can Agree? takes Guts ::
Add a comment