Your Presidential Personality Type 2.0

[vcczar 1,224]

3 hours ago, TheLiberalKitten said:

ANIA

No presidents, but Kamala Harris is here. 

[Edouard 121]

58 minutes ago, vcczar said:

MPIS: No president, but I have Andrew Yang here. 

MPIM: Thomas Jefferson

Interesting, he's so far my favourite president and Yang is the remaining democrat I am the closest of  

You should try to know if others have presidents they prefer or closest candidates to them, independently of any ideology

[Edouard 121]

@vcczar someone did the test out of this forum and asks what gives IPMM

[vcczar 1,224]

18 minutes ago, Edouard said:

@vcczar someone did the test out of this forum and asks what gives IPMM

Chester A. Arthur

[TheLiberalKitten 273]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

No presidents, but Kamala Harris is here. 

Hmmmmm I don't know how to feel about this.

It's interesting haha.

[vcczar 1,224]

58 minutes ago, TheLiberalKitten said:

Hmmmmm I don't know how to feel about this.

It's interesting haha.

Doesn't mean you're the same. I got Woodrow Wilson, who I don't find the least bit charming.

[Herbert Hoover 199]

MMMA

[vcczar 1,224]

41 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

MMMA

This is the most common type among those I considered, Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Hayes, McKinley, Bush I. Non-presidents include Mondale, Romney, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio. This might be the most standard politician type. Leadership that doesn’t rock the boat and is relatively cautious. 

Pierce and Van Buren are the most likely ones to be moved out if any were moved. Pierce changed by the end of his presidency. Van Buren was a different type prior and after his presidency. 

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

2 hours ago, TheLiberalKitten said:

Hmmmmm I don't know how to feel about this.

It's interesting haha.

It means you're a cop

[TheLiberalKitten 273]

5 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

It means you're a cop

 

[Sean F. Kennedy 14]

On 11/2/2019 at 4:05 PM, vcczar said:

This is an updated, refined version of the test I posted the other day. The definitions are a little more specific. Find your four letters below to discover your presidential type.  Retake this test, even if you took the other test, as I will likely end up moving some of the presidents to different types based off these refined definitions , and I want to add candidates, former nominees, etc. 

1. Executive Activity

 

Instructions, pick the one that most resembles you. 

 

A - Active:  I would be an energetic executive, working over 14 hours most days. Additionally, I am comfortable routinely making decisive decisions in a crunch. I am also comfortable using the full extent of the powers of the presidency if need be. I will be an active leader. 

 

M - Mixed: I am too mixed between active/inactive to certainly determine that I am more A or I. 

 

I - Inactive: I am more likely to not want to work more than 8 hours a day. I am much more cautious and hesitant than decisive, and can be uncomfortable with quick decision making. I am unlikely to use the full extend of my powers unless compelled to do so. I will be more of a behind the scenes leader. 

 

2. Presidential Tone 

 

P - Positive: My overall rhetoric and my writing are likely to be seen as positive, optimistic, and uplifting. My proposals, my policies, and my actions are also likely to be injected with the same positive, optimistic, and uplifting tone. I am likely to avoid rhetoric that could anger or depress voters, even if such rhetoric might be needed. I would feel uncomfortable being openly critical of members of my own party, even if we disagree on things. 

 

M - Mixed:  I am too mixed between positive/negative to certainly determine that I am more P or N. 

 

N - Negative: My overall rhetoric and my writing are likely to avoid positivity or optimism, in place of a realistic picture. If things are dire, then the true threat must be painted accurately, even if people don't want to hear it. My proposals, policies, and actions will follow this same tone, doing what needs to be done, whether popular or not. I am comfortable vetoing legislation and passing executive actions to block legislation or actions I disagree with, even if they are popular and are passed through Congress. I have no problem being openly critical of members of my own party if we disagree on things. 

 

3. Processing Mode

 

I - Intellectual Authority: I think like an academic, considering facts, figures, logic, philosophy, expert opinions, theory when making decisions, responding to debate or media questions, or when responding to voters. I can come off as mildly uncomfortable or unnatural speaking and interacting with some blue collar/working class voters. Experts and evidence move me more than voter support. 

 

M - Mixed:  I am too mixed between Intellectual/Common to certainly determine that I am more I or C. 

 

C - Common Sense: I am more likely to use my gut instinct and popular opinion of my supporters when making decisions, responding to debate or media questions, or when responding to voters. I am more likely to be seen as that guy or girl that you can "have a beer" with, and to interact with voters on a grounded personal, experiential level than focus on ideas, theories, facts, and figures. Voter support moves me more than experts and evidence.

 

4. Social Operation

 

S - Solitary: I tend to know exactly what I want to do, and as president, I might find it difficult to make compromises, or sign/support legislation that my party approves of if I personally disagree with it. I am comfortable supporting members of my own base at the expense of the other wings of my own party. I would have no problem being bipartisan with the other party on legislation, even if my own party strongly opposes the legislation. I am unlikely to seek or require consensus from cabinet members or other advisers to make a decision. I would be viewed more as a loose cannon and/or ideological purist than I would be viewed as a traditional party leader that is leading a coalition. I am more for my ideals than I am for party. 

 

M - Mixed: I am too mixed between Solitary/Accompanied to certainly determine that I am more S or A. 

 

A - Accompanied: Even if I know exactly what I want to do, I am likely to seek consensus from members of my own party, from my cabinet, and from the voters that elected me. I am comfortable making compromises and making concessions with those whose opinions differ from my own, whether from members of my own party or not. I think it is important to keep the party strong and united by making strong efforts to keep the wings harmonious. I am comfortable being bipartisan so long as my party and my voters are supportive of those efforts. I am unlikely to be viewed as a purist or as a loose cannon. I can sacrifice some of my ideals for what my party and my country thinks is best for them. 

 

Epilogue: Your Result

 

Post the four letters that you think best represent your presidential style. At some point, I'll let everyone know which president they are. 

 

@Actinguy @Reagan04 @WVProgressive @Patine @ThePotatoWalrus @jvikings1 @admin_270 @Hestia11 @SilentLiberty @Edouard @Herbert Hoover @Conservative Elector 2 @Rodja @Sunnymentoaddict @Dr. Insano  @TheLiberalKitten @Kingthero @Jayavarman @Harris/Ernst 2020 @RFK/JFKfan @TheMiddlePolitical @MysteryKnight @pilight

 @Agent B @WJBryan @upandaway

 

MPCS

[vcczar 1,224]

30 minutes ago, Dr. Insano said:

MPCS

William Henry Harrison. In the month he served he started to show his independent by shunning and isolating party leader Henry Clay, and then reconsidering several Whig proposals he had promised. His rhetoric was often optimistic and though of high-birth, like Jackson, he fashioned himself a common man. 

[Sean F. Kennedy 14]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

William Henry Harrison. In the month he served he started to show his independent by shunning and isolating party leader Henry Clay, and then reconsidering several Whig proposals he had promised. His rhetoric was often optimistic and though of high-birth, like Jackson, he fashioned himself a common man. 

How do you think history would have changed if he would have served a full term or possibly a second term?

[Patine 444]

18 minutes ago, Dr. Insano said:

How do you think history would have changed if he would have served a full term or possibly a second term?

The whole Texas, Oregon Country, Mexican War issues likely would have played out completely differently, as Harrison showed all intentions to follow the Whig platform and ideals in that regard.

[vcczar 1,224]

16 minutes ago, Dr. Insano said:

How do you think history would have changed if he would have served a full term or possibly a second term?

It would really depend on how popular he was with the country. He was showing signs of potentially fracturing his party. Although, he could have saved it and emerged as a leader by keeping with Daniel Webster, who replaced Clay as his go to Senator. I’d assume Clay would fight Harrison throughout the presidency. I don’t think he showed any signs of potential greatness as a president. He showed more signs of potentially being not great. He agreed to a lot of promises, such as agreeing to act more as a prime minister and let congress lead the country. He said he’d sign everything. This means Clay would have been in charge.  He also said he’s conduction decision by cabinet vote. He broke with that one almost immediately. Clay was supposed to pick the cabinet, but then he let Webster do that. He basically put Clay’s allies against Webster’s allies. It’s also odd because he exerted no energy as a senator or territorial gov, but he did put a lot of energy into his inauguration and rearranging his presidency. All his pre-election promises were designed to make him only a figurehead. This was a reaction to King Andrew (Jackson). 

[Reagan04 658]

@vcczar I've been thinking about it and I have my final answer

APMS

I am fairly certain about the A and the S and they fit together. I wouldn't stop until I knew that I squeezed the best outcome from whatever situation I was tackling. I could easily see myself having a normal day as President stretching from 8-10 if not more filled with the work I wanted to do to get my strategy done. I definetly have a positive tone, it's paramount that I do because a lot of my policies could be spun as bad or negative and I think remaining entirely positive would be absolutely necessary to keep myself seen as a strong leader and uniter even with very strongly conservative policies. If I cannot politically unite the nation I would at least want to morally unite it. And that brings me to the third letter which took me the longest to figure out. I think my indecision on this letter can only point to an M because I possess about half the qualities of both I and C that you lay out in your blurbs.

[vcczar 1,224]

5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

@vcczar I've been thinking about it and I have my final answer

APMS

I am fairly certain about the A and the S and they fit together. I wouldn't stop until I knew that I squeezed the best outcome from whatever situation I was tackling. I could easily see myself having a normal day as President stretching from 8-10 if not more filled with the work I wanted to do to get my strategy done. I definetly have a positive tone, it's paramount that I do because a lot of my policies could be spun as bad or negative and I think remaining entirely positive would be absolutely necessary to keep myself seen as a strong leader and uniter even with very strongly conservative policies. If I cannot politically unite the nation I would at least want to morally unite it. And that brings me to the third letter which took me the longest to figure out. I think my indecision on this letter can only point to an M because I possess about half the qualities of both I and C that you lay out in your blurbs.

Theodore Roosevelt, and possibly Al Smith and RFK if they were ever president. 

[Reagan04 658]

10 hours ago, vcczar said:

Theodore Roosevelt, and possibly Al Smith and RFK if they were ever president. 

What do you think of this type in general.

[vcczar 1,224]

11 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

What do you think of this type in general.

I like it because they’re effective on the offense (country is with them and they’re in a time seeking rapid, innovative change). On the defensive, they can get reactionary, disharmonious, and unhelpful to allies (country is against them and the time doesn’t call for what this kind of leader seeks). 

[Lahbas 4]

IMIS

[vcczar 1,224]

53 minutes ago, Lahbas said:

IMIS

This is the one of the few times that has no president or other representative. Your "cousins" would be: George B McClellan (MMIS), and Alton B. Parker (IMIM), both Democratic nominees.  

[Patine 444]

Just now, vcczar said:

This is the one of the few times that has no president or other representative. Your "cousins" would be: George B McClellan (MMIS), and Alton B. Parker (IMIM), both Democratic nominees.  

I assume your source give absolutely no data on any famous and well-known non-American leaders who match up to any of these?

[vcczar 1,224]

Just now, Patine said:

I assume your source give absolutely no data on any famous and well-known non-American leaders who match up to any of these?

I created this, so the source I'm using is based off what I know of these statesmen as presidents and candidates. 

I wouldn't trust my accuracy in making decisions on non-American leaders. If forced to I could do it for Napoleon, Ivan the Terrible, Elizabeth I, Peter the Great, James I, Henry VIII, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, and several of their ministers as I've read about 30+ books that include a lot about them. I could also add romanticized version of historical figures from novels or plays, such as Macbeth, Hamlet, Liu Bei, Cao Cao, Sun Quan, Zhuge Liang, etc. 

If you are good at estimating Canadian leadership styles, you could make a guess for those. I'm trying only to estimate those that I can make a fairly accurate assumption, and even then, I'll probably miss the mark occasionally. 

[Patine 444]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I created this, so the source I'm using is based off what I know of these statesmen as presidents and candidates. 

I wouldn't trust my accuracy in making decisions on non-American leaders. If forced to I could do it for Napoleon, Ivan the Terrible, Elizabeth I, Peter the Great, James I, Henry VIII, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, and several of their ministers as I've read about 30+ books that include a lot about them. I could also add romanticized version of historical figures from novels or plays, such as Macbeth, Hamlet, Liu Bei, Cao Cao, Sun Quan, Zhuge Liang, etc. 

If you are good at estimating Canadian leadership styles, you could make a guess for those. I'm trying only to estimate those that I can make a fairly accurate assumption, and even then, I'll probably miss the mark occasionally. 

Notable on Henry VIII and his ministers. One can actually divide his reign, and whole style and way and view of governing, in two, largely based on chief ministers. When Thomas More was his chief minister, he was a staunch supporter of the Pope, fought personally in two of the Italian Wars, made a peace with Francois I, King of France (largely in alliance against the Holy Roman Emperor, Archduke of Austria, King of Bohemia, and a bunch of other titles Karl V, who was also Carlos I, King of Spain, and thus had that huge and lucrative colonial empire), and he made a whole book making a retort and rebuke to Martin Luther, defending the Sacraments and Supremacy of the Church. This was also the period his two daughters were born, and he named them Mary and Elizabeth, after the mothers of Christ and John the Baptist, respectively, names previously nearly unheard of among English princesses. During the period Thomas Cromwell (the great uncle of Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell), he divorced or executed five of his six wives (the sixth outlived him), declared himself Sovereign Head of the Church of England, declared Cromwell the first non-Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, had the rites and sacraments changed (largely by Cromwell) and the allowance of divorce under certain circumstances, and fearing his only son Edward might not live long enough to marry, passed the Act of Parliament that enabled a Queen Regnant to be coronated and ascended to the English throne. The periods of More and Cromwell as Henry VIII's chief minister mark a stark line of different periods in his reign.

[Reagan04 658]

19 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Hitler

please do