or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › If you were running for president, what would your platform be?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If you were running for president, what would your platform be?

post #1 of 120
Thread Starter 
Here is mine:

- legalise marajuana, release all non-violent pot smokers and dealers from jail
- civil unions for everyone (gays and straights), marriage is a religious non-legal value-add to a civil union
- close all foreign military bases
- drop out of NATO and all other foreign alliances except for NORAD (the alliances formed before WWI let Austria and Serbia drag the whole world into war when it could have been held to a local conflict)
- finish up in Iraq as we are able
- disable 85% of the nuclear weapons owned by the US, keep just a few ICBMs pointed at Iran and North Korea. Tie this into disarmament of Russia and China.
- re-use the material to make small yield nuclear weapons.
- offer Kim Jong Il (and 1000 of his friends and their families), 100 billion, a fleet of airplanes, immunity to all prosecution, and a tropical island in exchange for giving rulership of North Korea to South Korea. Give South Korea 100 billion to help pay for the cleanup.
- build tons of pebble bed nuclear reactors, solar towers, and other cool electrical power plants
- shut down all coal and natural gas based power plants, starting with the oldest and dirtiest
- build a ocean platform based space elevator
- shut down at least 30% of the federal government
- remove estate tax, lower income tax
- remove immunity to gas guzzler tax that trucks and SUVs now have, unless they are licenced commercially
- stop manufacturing the penny
- reduce copyright to 25 years, retroactively to the beginning of time
- constutional amendment that says that congress can only pass non-retroactive copyright changes in the future
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #2 of 120
Apple Macintosh
post #3 of 120
Quote:
offer Kim Jong Il (and 1000 of his friends and their families), 100 billion, a fleet of airplanes, immunity to all prosecution, and a tropical island in exchange for giving rulership of North Korea to South Korea. Give South Korea 100 billion to help pay for the cleanup.

Mine would be to stop assuming my countries view is the only view in the entire world and for democracy to work it needs different views and opinions

The other one would be Free health care for all.

EDIT: Just a quick point, but exactly what crime has N.Korea done to grant immunity for?
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
post #4 of 120
So many that I am forgetting and some of these would be constitutional amendments:

1)Reduce military spending by 150 billion or so
2)Military spending on research can continue for that day when we have to fight China in 30 years but decrease current troops, hardware etc
3)Close some overseas bases, European particularly. And South Korea, they have the $ and people to handle NK on a standard military basis although we shoudl still be politically involved. No more needed in Saudi Arabia.
4)50 cent per gallon tax on gas to pay for FHTA.
5)Big increase into alt energy research
6)Nuclear power. Imperfect but best available option.
7)Free trade pacts with other first world nations, limited free trage with third world nations
8)Reaffirm and rebuilt the estate tax
9)Up the social security age and lower payouts with post-haste
10)Unemployment compensation tied in with a CCC like organization to do very needed work of fed lands and light construction maintenance for able bodied people.
11)More or less end welfare for adults. Welfare for kids on health care and food with strict programs ala WIC which are tougher to manipulate.
12)Policing shift. Less emphasis on drugs, more emphasis on small property crimes. Willing to give longer sentences and pay for prisons on this.
13)Elementary education and funding needs complete overhaul. So does 7-12 but lets start with lower el and work up.
14)Bye Bye farm subsidies
15)Leadership but not legislation to try to end the cultural glorification of stupidity. OK, this is really absurd but whatever.
16)Overhaul and increase of corporate taxes
17)Stand up and respresent all of the deals made to Indian nations that have been broken.
18)Gay marriage legal
19)Gotta cut medicare. Gotta pay for stuff somehow.
20)Strict haebus corpus for citizens, even in "wartime".
21)Much greater public transparency.

Amendment type stuff:
22)Eliminate the rider option from parliamentarian rules
23)Committee structure can stand but as advisory not voting. Committee chairmen have too much power now
24)Incorporate the filibuster in Amendment rather htan senate rules
25)Various privacy rights. Limits on govt and private selling on the whole CRM marketing database info (aside from name address).
26)End of corporate tax break dealmaking.
27)Corporate political giving verboten
28)Increase congressional/presidential pay by about 5 fold
29)No more freebies for lawmakers
30)Publicly financed campaigns if you get X signatures.
31)Bye Bye electoral college. Straight one man one vote.
32)No more death penalty
33)Affirm Roe v. Wade
34)Secularism and Establishment clause spelled out and expanded
35)Explicit listing of private in home religious rights and among private consenting groups to emphasize hte sillines of those who evoke this boogeyman when church and state seperation comes up.

Quote:
remove immunity to gas guzzler tax that trucks and SUVs now have

disable 85% of the nuclear weapons owned by the US, keep just a few ICBMs pointed at Iran and North Korea. Tie this into disarmament of Russia and China.

- shut down all coal and natural gas based power plants, starting with the oldest and dirtiest

stop manufacturing the penny

Bingo on these given transition time.
post #5 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by cybermonkey
Mine would be to stop assuming my countries view is the only view in the entire world and for democracy to work it needs different views and opinions

The other one would be Free health care for all.

EDIT: Just a quick point, but exactly what crime has N.Korea done to grant immunity for?

Human rights abuses inside their own country - i.e. the murder of millions.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #6 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Human rights abuses inside their own country - i.e. the murder of millions.

Well it is there country Ok bad taste i know

Eddie izzard once pointed out that if you killed 1 person it's manslaughter, Kill 10, your a serial killer, Kill thousands of your own people and it;s fair play to you so long as you don't kill people in another country whcih would then mean war.

Your assuming that N.korea acknowledges human rights and our views and morals, which they don't. If the western world wants respect and understanding from places like china/N.korea they first have to understand and accept them as they are.

And before you ask, no i'm not a communist
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
post #7 of 120
That's quite a list e16. I can tell you don't care if you don't get elected. If you want to get elected your platform has to be something like:

tax cuts for the children
crack down (hard!) on PG-13 movies
put the 10 commandments up in every government building
cut taxes, increase spending, and balance the budget

Promise this, and you'll be the next president.

Quote:
Originally posted by cybermonkey
If the western world wants respect and understanding from places like china/N.korea they first have to understand and accept them as they are.

post #8 of 120
re-open the MS antitrust investigation and follow with a breakup of MS

drill for more oil

give huge tax credits for fuel efficient cars and diesel

follow the constitution as written and described in the federalists papers, and prescibed by the founding fathers

re establish the balance of power between branches of govt

no more unfunded mandates

impeach activist judges--they shouldn't bypass the legislature

secure our borders

harsh on terrorists

vochure system for schools

hold teachers accountable

make mac 0sX the official govt operating system.0

huge tax credits for adoption

simplified tax code keep no thicker than 4ft

diallow pork in spending bills

fix the amount of total tax to a percentage of gnp

break up MS --it's needs to be mentioned twice


8)
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #9 of 120
My platform.

social programs:
universal health care through gov't payments to insurance companies
raise cap on social security taxes

taxes:
remove all deductions and exemptions except mortgage interest and charity
increase progressivity by doubling the standard deduction and raising top rates

election reform:
no more electoral college
increase voting - weekends, automatic registration, instant run-off voting
national voting standards and equipment overhaul

Iraq:
go back in time and don't go to war in Iraq

my opponent:
is an extremist and a liar
post #10 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by cybermonkey
Free health care for all

Uhhh...no such thing. Sorry.
post #11 of 120
I wonder if those interested in abolishing the electoral college know the why's and wherefore's of its existence.
post #12 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I wonder if those interested in abolishing the electoral college know the why's and wherefore's of its existence.

Oh no. Is this going to be the "protect small state" or "so they don´t just campaign is large cities" speech?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #13 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I wonder if those interested in abolishing the electoral college know the why's and wherefore's of its existence.

you mean actually go back and understand what the founding fathers intentions were? actually read some history...oh my no no no...they and the foundations of the constitution don't really matter....do they???
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #14 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I wonder if those interested in abolishing the electoral college know the why's and wherefore's of its existence.

Yup, it was a small group of people who voted for the president, to remove the election from the people at large. It had nothing to with the system we have today, where there is a popular vote and then a state-by-state winner-take-all point system.
post #15 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Yup, it was a small group of people who voted for the president, to remove the election from the people at large. It had nothing to with the system we have today, where there is a popular vote and then a state-by-state winner-take-all point system.

I wouldn't say "nothing to with the system we have today."

Yes it has been modified away from the original form and structure that was created. Mostly because some people got ticked off (and didn't really understand how it was intended to work) and started changing it. Now, they did change it within the boundaries of what the constitution allows/calls for, so that's cool.
post #16 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Oh no. Is this going to be the "protect small state" or "so they don´t just campaign is large cities" speech?

Well the less populous state issue was one of the concerns/issues. But not the only one.

However, since you raise it, do you consider it to be an invalid concern/issue?
post #17 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I wouldn't say "nothing to with the system we have today."

Yes it has been modified away from the original form and structure that was created. Mostly because some people got ticked off (and didn't really understand how it was intended to work) and started changing it. Now, they did change it within the boundaries of what the constitution allows/calls for, so that's cool.

Do you think the electoral college is a good idea? In its original form? As it is today? Better than the one man one vote?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #18 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well the less populous state issue was one of the concerns/issues. But not the only one.

However, since you raise it, do you consider it to be an invalid concern/issue?

Yes since thats not what happens.

Its all about swing states, not the small states.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #19 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Do you think the electoral college is a good idea? In its original form? As it is today? Better than the one man one vote?

Actually, I do think it is a good idea, and while its original form may not be the best, I do get nervous the closer we get to the "one man one" vote model...pushes us closer to pure democracy...which (if you know your history) is a dicey proposition, and one the Founding Fathers were a tad nervous about themselves.

The purposely setup a system that was NOT a pure democracy...though we have moved closer to it over the years. The EC is more democratic than it was originally conceived to be. Senators we not intended to be elected as they are now. So we are moving further in that direction.
post #20 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well the less populous state issue was one of the concerns/issues. But not the only one.

However, since you raise it, do you consider it to be an invalid concern/issue?

It is irrelevent. We currently use a system that biases the electoral college to large key states. You can win the presidency with the 11 big states. Alternatively, you need to win 39 states to win with the least number of votes (on the order of 22 % of voting public). Political fortunes live and die in the big states, the smaller states are side shows.

States also don't get federal dollars according to the number of congress people they have.

All of the concerns that created the electoral college and our congressional setup have been nullified as the US moved toward direct election of Senators and virtual direct election of presidents.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #21 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

Originally posted by cybermonkey: Free health care for all
Uhhh...no such thing. Sorry.

hmm... Got it here in Norway. Not that it's perfect, but hey it... works.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #22 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
...pushes us closer to pure democracy...which (if you know your history) is a dicey proposition

Well I don´t know. I would say that you can´t find more stable countries than the scandinavian countries and they are democracies.

WIth an enlighten population I cannot see any problems with democacy in itself. Democracies can go bad but I cannot imagine a situation where the problems hitting democracies could not hit non democracies as well.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #23 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well the less populous state issue was one of the concerns/issues. But not the only one.

As far as I know, that was never an issue or a reason for the electoral college. It was all about keeping the election in the hands of a few special electors rather than the people or the Congress. Can you find any sources? Here's one of the federalist papers in which Hamilton defends the EC.

The small state/large state issue seems to have only come up more recently as the country has moved to concentrated populations in cities. That hasn't been the case for most of US history.
post #24 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Yes since thats not what happens.

Its all about swing states, not the small states.

Not really true.

The 2000 election is a perfect example. Had only one of the smallest EC states (3 EVs) gone for Gore instead of Bush it would have resulted in a EC tie (269-269). Had one slightly larger (4 EVs) we would have had a different president.

Now 2004 was not as close, but only 17 EVs was the difference. Close enough the a couple of smaller EC states and maybe one "medium sized" EC state and we have a different result.
post #25 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by New
hmm... Got it here in Norway. Not that it's perfect, but hey it... works.

It's not free though.
post #26 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Actually, I do think it is a good idea, and while its original form may not be the best, I do get nervous the closer we get to the "one man one" vote model...pushes us closer to pure democracy...which (if you know your history) is a dicey proposition, and one the Founding Fathers were a tad nervous about themselves.

The purposely setup a system that was NOT a pure democracy...though we have moved closer to it over the years. The EC is more democratic than it was originally conceived to be. Senators we not intended to be elected as they are now. So we are moving further in that direction.

Even if it were one-man-one-vote, the aristocratic fears of our founding fathers was that the uneducated masses would take control of the country. By God! That has already occured.

On a serious note, the uneducated masses are less likely to vote, and are far more subject to influence than their more educated neighbors, so by and large their voices are just reflective of the aristocracy that has and will continue to control this country.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #27 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Not really true.

The 2000 election is a perfect example. Had only one of the smallest EC states (3 EVs) gone for Gore instead of Bush it would have resulted in a EC tie (269-269). Had one slightly larger (4 EVs) we would have had a different president.

Now 2004 was not as close, but only 17 EVs was the difference. Close enough the a couple of smaller EC states and maybe one "medium sized" EC state and we have a different result.

You are assuming that the small states have dynamic voting trends.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #28 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
WIth an enlighten population I cannot see any problems with democacy in itself.

Perhaps...but then we can stop talking about the U.S. ("enlightened population"?)
post #29 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Perhaps...but then we can stop talking about the U.S. ("enlightened population"?)

Logic follows that our lack of enlightenment is due to the desire of those in power to remain in power, no?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #30 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Logic follows that our lack of enlightenment is due to the desire of those in power to remain in power, no?

I don't see that deductive path.
post #31 of 120
I'd suggest everybody go get a cheap, abridged copy of Democracy in America, pretty interesting stuff.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #32 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Not really true.

The 2000 election is a perfect example. Had only one of the smallest EC states (3 EVs) gone for Gore instead of Bush it would have resulted in a EC tie (269-269). Had one slightly larger (4 EVs) we would have had a different president.

Now 2004 was not as close, but only 17 EVs was the difference. Close enough the a couple of smaller EC states and maybe one "medium sized" EC state and we have a different result.

2000: Florida. If Gore had won FLorida he could have made a dump on several smaller states.

2004: Much the same situation.

If you had been Gore and knew that all but Florida and five small states was sure states either for you or Bush and you would have to win all the smaller states or Florida, what would the logic strategy be?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #33 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
As far as I know, that was never an issue or a reason for the electoral college. It was all about keeping the election in the hands of a few special electors rather than the people or the Congress. Can you find any sources? Here's one of the federalist papers in which Hamilton defends the EC.

The small state/large state issue seems to have only come up more recently as the country has moved to concentrated populations in cities. That hasn't been the case for most of US history.

While it certainly wasn't the only issue. It was one.

http://jceb.co.jackson.mo.us/fun_stu...al_college.htm

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATI...ge_history.php

http://www.motherjones.com/commentar...10/10_202.html

http://www.multied.com/elections/Ele...collgewhy.html

For more:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
post #34 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It's not free though.

I saw a statistic that indicated that the amount used by the state on health care per capita was almost the exact in US and Denmark. The "only" difference was the amount used privately. So with an effective bureacracy it would probably be virtually free for you.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #35 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It's not free though.

What do you mean?
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #36 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Well I don´t know. I would say that you can´t find more stable countries than the scandinavian countries and they are democracies.



The UK falls into this area too

Quote:
WIth an enlighten population I cannot see any problems with democacy in itself. Democracies can go bad but I cannot imagine a situation where the problems hitting democracies could not hit non democracies as well.

Was going alright over there till someone decided they wanted to be different

Come on you lot, come back into the fold and join the commonwealth, You know you like our flag

( Hides under a rock untell the dust settles )
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
post #37 of 120
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #38 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
2000: Florida. If Gore had won FLorida he could have made a dump on several smaller states.

It is a simple fact that 2000 could have been flipped by any state with 4 EVs or more.

I am not discounting the the large states. But they are not the whole story.
post #39 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by New
What do you mean?

I mean that doctors, nurses, medical equipment and supplies, hospitals, clinics, etc. cost $. It is paid for some way. In your case probably through your taxes. It is not likely through the generous donation of time, services, supplies and facilities. But...even if that was the case, there is an economic (opportunity) cost associated with it.

Health care is not free.
post #40 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Come on Chris. You can do better than that

Is that your way of saying those sources are all wrong?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › If you were running for president, what would your platform be?