Until a couple of months ago, I woulda said you yanks are simply too apathetic to care about any of it.

now, I feel that if you were to try and run against big bad barry people would denounce you as some sort of criminal, and you'd be laughed out - no matter how much sense your policies and ideas make.

You'd have to be very careful - people were, for want of a better phrase, sucked in by barry's ideas for "change". Big Bad Bazza has already sailed on that boat! It would be very tough to complete on a platform that is essentially 2008 redux.

One thing I think you mightn't be accounting for, is those on thir entitlements. How many millions turned out to vote for bazza because he was promising tax cuts here and handouts there? And you want to take that away from them again? you lowlife!! They'll turnout in droves to try and keep their not-so-hard-earned cash.

I am enjoying reading the thread though, it is somewhat fascinating :)

Okay, as far as policy goes, here are a couple points:I've noticed a pattern with the way you think. You seem to have this idea that if people just KNOW certain things, that will bring them around to sharing your viewpoint on them. I believe that in the era of the 24-hour newscycle and the Internet, it is hopelessly naive to think that simply informing people will make them agree with you.

Reagan was the "Great Communicator" not only due to the fact that he spoke directly to the people, but also because what he said rang true and was smart policy.
This position idea is one of the more egregiously absurd ones I've come across. You can't destroy an entire city in response to actions made by extremists who do not control that city. Not to mention a city that's a religious icon to millions of Muslims WORLDWIDE who have nothing to do with the perpetuation of terrorist acts...

Let's say you actually did have to destroy the city? What then? You think that would cause terrorist acts to cease? Yeah, right. More likely, there would be a more open intensity of terrorism.

So, then what? Destroy another city? How about out-and-out genocide? I mean, there can't be Islamic terrorists if there aren't any Islamic people left, right?

Or, are you suggesting that you won't have to actually follow through on the threat because the Muslim world would just listen to your reasoning? What happens if you're called on your bluff when some terror cell bombs something because they either don't believe you or would see your response of destroying Mecca their means to inciting an all-out jihad?

I'm not sure you've thought this position all the way through.

Also, did you consider the world fallout from such an act? Personally, I don't care if the US is liked or hated, but I do understand the idea that we must do business with the rest of the world. All it would take is the PERCEPTION that the world will economically respond to such an action to practically bury US international trade.

And what do you think would be left holding, say, Russia back from selling their nuclear weaponry to Islamic nations for use against the US, as we'd have no favor from the world at that point. While the international community may not want a direct war with the US, they probably wouldn't object to someone helping one along.

Next, to even threaten such an action would be to legitimize the extreme, terrorist elements within Islam. In fact, it would probably unite Islamic nations into more direct conflict with the US. Who could blame them? YOU would be threatening THEIR interests DIRECTLY, and be doing so in response to something that they won't be able to completely control.

There are so many negative ramifications to such an action, I could write a fourty-page position piece on it (it's what I do for a living). There are far more tough, pragmatic approaches to the problem of terrorism than to inflame the entire world with the threat of the wholesale destruction of a foreign city.

I don't call that position politically incorrect. I call it politically irresponsible.Again, you have this idea that all you'd have to do is "educate" Americans on your positions and they will agree with them. Yet you've already tried that in a limited scope (here) and this American does not only disagree, but believes that at least on one issue of foreign policy you're irresponsibly wrong.

I mean, you even said that you may have lost a lot of voters with your ideas. Isn't in contradictory to believe that your positions would cost you votes, but then, if elected, those people would come around if you just told them what was going on?

Thanks for taking the time for to respond to my last questions so thoroughly, CH.

So far, so good. I find some of your policies a little less lassiez-faire than I'd like, but also better than most curent policy, with the notable exception of your stance on the War on Terror, which would indubitably be ruthlessly exploited by an opponent for reasons Aramike has pointed out, among others.

But now some questions concerning traditional "hot-button" issues. I'm sure you're aware how radically they can divide opinion, so what would you tell voters about
your stance on abortion/gay rights/gun control/illegal immigration?

Another issue in that realm is environmental policy. What would your preferred policy be?

Yes I am a little harsh on terror - but if your going to call it a war, you better make up your mind - them or us. Besides - sure it might piss of alot of muslims - but remember - they have more than one holy city - you don't have to START with Mecca (that was an illustration - perhaps not the best) - and once you follow through they will get the message. History shows the only thing middle easterners have respect for is strength above their own with the will to use it. Hard yes - but if it saves the lives of US citizens - I could sleep at night.

Now - on to some real button pushers.

Now let me preface this with a rather unheard of statement. I have very strong personal views on some of these, based on my own moral values. However, my PERSONAL views of social issues should not and would not ever be the basis for governmental policy.

Abortion and Gay Rights aren't issues. Well ok - they are issues - but not ones the federal government has any right being involved in. Those should be treated as the Constitution defined - as powers outside the scope of the authority expressely given to the federal government - meaning they are STATE issues. If New Jersey wants to let gays marry - thats within the scope of their rights. If California says no to gay marriage - then the answer there is no. Each state SHOULD have the role of defining its own stand on those issues. Personally - I see abortion as killing a child, and gay marriage as a horrible thing. But as President my DUTY would be to uphold the Constitution - and that means respecting the fact that its not the job of ANY of the three branches of the federal government to dictate to the states the "correct" answer on these issues.

As for gun rights, the Bill of Rights is clear. The citizenry of the US has the right to keep and bear arms. I would do all I could to preserve and strenghten that right within reason. I am a firm believer that gun control = one shot, one kill. However, I do believe that any REASONABLE citizen should be willing to undergo a background check so that we can do the best job possible on keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and convicted violent felons. One thing almost every mature gun owner was taught as a child was to have great care and respect for a firearm. To fail to protect our people from those who cannot or would not treat such a responsibility with the common sense it requires - would be criminal.

Illegal Immigration - oh one of the issues that really gets people stirred up. This idea we need to legislate this issue away is bull - we have laws on the books right now that would solve the problem - if we enforced them. A few might need minor modification. The first order of business is to address the economic side of this problem. Now I know some are going to scream "secure the border" - and that is part of it - but bear with me. First off - stop giving illegals welfare, food stamps, health care and free education for their kids, as well as a job where they get cash under the table. Hold the employers accountable and stop the handouts. You do that, and suddenly the economic reason these people are here is gone. Not to mention it has the significant effect of opening up jobs for American workers at a time when unemployment is nearing 10%. Not only would this stop the influx of illegals who continue to enter this country, it would actually be a motivator for them to leave as there would be no reason to stay. Especially considering part two is enforce current immigration law. You get caught, you sit in a jail cell until your deported. I say give people a 3 month moratorium on deportation enforcement once you remove the economic incentive - and let them return to their country of origin on their own. At that point we secure the borders - and I mean FULLY secure them. Anyone caught inside after that time period - you get deported. As often happens - they currently return. Now here is where the law needs some adjustment. I say if you return and get caught, you get to spend 2 years here as punishment - working in the prison system on things like our infrastructure. Road building, laying train tracks, digging ditches, all kinds of fun things that make you REGRET that you flaunted our laws without being cruel about it. That way - your at least paying for your food, drink and housing while your here, and there are lots of roads across the nation that could use some work. Not to mention - we would be rehabilitating them by teaching them a skill they could use when they finish their time and are deported again. Get caught again - guess you get to enjoy the same for 5 years. You get the picture. Again - I am not being "nice" - this country has to look after its own for once. Now of course people will say "What about the children" or some such. Well, why would a illegal bring his family here knowing he doesnt get a free ride anymore? He won't. The only ones that will be attempting to enter once the economic reasons are gone - are those that mean us harm - either via normal criminal acts, or acts grander in scale. Same for those that would stay when they can no longer have a job or feed their families. And to be honest, we don't want that type (those with a criminal intent) of people here.

On this issue - before someone hollers about "jobs Americans wont do" - last year a manufacturer very close to where I sit was raided - and more than 50 illegals were rounded up by ICE. Do you know that the radio reported the raid and there were American citizens lined up outside the office to apply for the open jobs BEFORE the ICE guys had even left the premises! Will an American do every job out there for what an employer wants to pay? I don't know - I doubt it. But we won't know till those Americans get a shot at it - and if they don't want it - then there is a PROCESS that the employer can use to get seasonal or migrant workers from outside this country as needed. But I think Americans deserve the choice, especially in today's economy.

Please note - these policies wouldn't require us deport the estimated 11-12 Million illegals here. On the contrary - it allows them to leave with some semblance of human dignity - and they can get in line to enter this country legally when they leave.

I'm pretty sure I've demonstrated how your "policy" wouldn't save any lives whatsoever.

That "policy" idea of yours certainly doesn't make you "harsh" on terror. You say it "might piss of alot of muslims" - yet you ignore that it would most definitely piss off the rest of the world as well, in ways that would further compromise our national security.

I will give you one thing, though - you did a pretty interesting job dodging the counterpoints in the debate ... kind of like a typical politician. I've demonstrated clearly how your position would cause severe international problems, and you SPUN it to mean you have a "harsh" position on terror. I thought you didn't want to be a typical politician...

So, I'll submit that your position isn't "harsh" on terror, as you say - it is grossly negligent and irresponsible foreign policy.

Oh, and attacking a religious site has nothing to do with terrorism, by the way.

Aramike - my response was not to you - but to Undersea. I did not dodge a point as I was not responding to you. Thus there is no spin, other than what you choose to see. Thankfully, this great country of ours allows for free discussion - and in this one you and I simply disagree. I respect your opinion even if it is wrong. :rotfl:

Ultimately you have to choose a path when it comes to the war on terror. First choice - do nothing. That's not really going to be very effective now is it? Second choice is treat it as some fringe criminal behavior. The problem there is the criminals tend to already be gone by the time the dust settles as they seem to be part of what gets blown to bits. Kind of hard to hold a criminal trial when the defendants are being scraped off the walls isn't it? Ok - so its fair to say that approach isn't going to work. Then we can admit that this is not some fringe behavior, but rather a systemic problem inherent in the teachings not of religion - but of the perversive hate that is pushed under the guise of religion by certain factions in the world. The fact that these factions are sponsored by recognized governments in the middle east does not make them somehow "untouchable". On the contrary - you seem to ignore the fact that my proposed policy would take much action in exposing them for what they are - thugs and hatemongers. The fact that I would push to utilize world opinion - and the diplomatic and economic tools available to keep terror in check, seems to have escaped you.

However - allow me to be clear - no you cannot attack a religion - and that is not the intent of the policy I have outlined. What you can attack however are the things your enemy holds dear. The fact that it happens to be a religious icon to others is not a negative - but a positive in the fact that such a policy drastically encourages others who hold such things in high regard to finally step up and take action to protect what they hold dear by protecting those things, places or people from the reckless actions of the so called "fringe" within their own collective belief.

This is so similiar in ways to the question of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. Everyone has their view, and people even today debate whether the act was "right". However, I can assure you - that the governments of the middle east have no desire to see their cities and people flattened due to the actions of "extremists" - and when the state sponsors realize that trying to use these terrorists against the US comes at such a heavy price, they will - as Japan did in WW2, determine that the price is too high to justify continuing their current actions.

You can disagree with the policy - but I note you initially approached this as some attempt to "merely discuss" ideas - yet you have yet to discuss other than say "that won't work" or "your not serious". I would be a fool to think I have all the perfect answers - so throw out a better option - help shape the future with input - or continue to simply nay-say and be upset when I no longer respond.

I stand here - I would use every tool available to make terror attacks so costly to those that plan, support and encourage such acts that they become impossible for those parties to ever again contemplate such tactics. That is, historically, the only tactic that has proven to be effective in the long term - and while it could require steps that we all would find difficult and painful - ending the threat of terrorist attacks to insure the safety of our citizens should be paramount for a leader. Again - its them or us at some point in war. The buck stops here - and this President would chose us.

Undersea - I missed the environmental question! Ach! Ok here goes.

The environment is important - we depend on it. No one will dispute that unless they are nuts. Now - are we in danger from global warming? Personally - I say that since top scientists disagree (though the media tells you otherwise) I think its foolish to say. However, I also think its foolish to not act responsibly when it comes to our stewardship of this planet. I don't think any person could drive through the smog of LA and say that the stuff is good for the environment. What is even more important than debating things like global warming is recognizing what we can all agree on and take reasonable steps to address.

The first thing an environmental policy for this country needs to do is realize that WE CANNOT FIX THE WORLD. We could argue about greenhouse gas, carbon emissions and how it all affects the world, or we could look at what WE do and how WE do it and ask - is there a better way? Placing restrictions on things just because they are "bad" is not the way your ever going to get this country to change its habits or actions. On the contrary - show why moving forward in an environmentally friendly way can and would benefit this country - not with some nebulous pie in the sky tree hugging spiel, but with something that every person can relate to. Again I will turn to economics. You want to convince Sally to not drive that gas guzzling Suburban? Don't tax her to death with road and gas tax, license fees and the like. Offer her a cheaper alternative that is reasonable.
Show how, for example - moving away from a petroleum economy to an electric one is cheaper as well as better for nature. Change our energy model to electric without petrol. Yes - hold onto your hats - that means lots and lots of nuclear plants. I have no objection to solar and wind as well if it ever becomes really feasible, though right now what it could do is a drop in the bucket. Clean coal - sorry - no such thing when you look at it from a big picture perspective. Sure its cleaner than current coal use - but is it clean? No.

Since I already broke the egg - lets make an omelet. Nuclear energy is safe - and it can be VERY clean if we would adapt and adopt technology available. The biggest beefs people have with nuclear is safety and waste. Well - if you look at both the designs and history of nuclear power in the US - both civilian and military - you will see it is EXTREMELY safe. Much safer overall than current sources of energy, such as coal. What about waste you ask? Simple - we need to recognize that we don't hold the rights to good ideas, and copy what has been developed in Europe with their new generation of nuclear reactors. Our current reactors produce waste that is stored underground and will be hazardous for centuries and more. Its also a danger as it can be used in the creation of weaponry - from "dirty bombs" to weapons grade material depending on the type of waste. Yet Europe has developed reactors that can use 99.9% of the energy in the reactants, while the half-life of the remaining waste is measured in a mere few YEARS and is so low grade as to present little danger as its totally unsuitable for conversion into weaponry. Why is there no discussion about solving the waste problem by working with our allies overseas and licensing the right to emulate this smart process? Because no one sees the benefit. We currently spend over 312 Million dollars on foreign oil - a DAY! Thats nearly 1.2 TRILLION dollars a year in oil imports alone.

We have the technology to send a robot to mars, have it run 6 months on batteries that get nothing but some charge from solar panels - and we can't make a decent electric car that will run longer than 2 hours at speed? Bullcrap. Just their hasn't been a push for it. But guess what - our current deficit is a bit over 10 Trillion dollars. Get us off oil - pay 1.2 Trillion to that debt and in 20 years this country would be debt free. *** This does not count the fact that the deficit in 4 years is likely going to be nearly 20 trillion due to the current proposed policy.***

Everyone can figure out that being in debt is bad. Everyone can see how being in the black would be good for each citizen. Add to it the idea that you could also get cleaner air - it becomes a win win situation.

Now I am smart enough to know that you can't just flip a switch to make a change like this. But just because it takes time doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. But it has to be done smart. Use what we can see and already know works. Add in what can be shown to be a good way to help. But things like "clean coal" and ethenol - need to be seen for the farces they are.

As for a specific energy policy - I would create a plan to cut through the red tape that is there currently and put forth benchmarks to where - within a 10 year span, the energy needs of this country could be met purely by internal resources of petroleum. This could be done by offering incentives *via the consumption tax :up: to people who move to electric vehicles, companies that move away from coal and other sources of "dirty energy", etc.

Instead of having an energy policy that "punishes" people for their actions of driving an SUV, we need an environmentally friendly energy policy that seeks to balance the needs of our nation and our people with reason.

As for other other environmental issues - if your asking about saving the spotted owl or the red cockheaded woodpecker - I think reason can be applied there. But on the other hand - I don't believe that progress for mankind should be held up because of a rare bug that only lives in like "here" and maybe a few thousand other places that no one wants to mention just because they dont want whatever is getting ready to be built there to be allowed.

Haplo, simply put, your threat to bomb Mecca would cost you the election. It doesn't matter what the rest of your campaign platform is, the nation would never elect a person who advocated such a heinous thing.

I still think it should be declared that if West is attacked by nuclear weapons,
Mecca will be a target of reprisal.
BTW, Pakistans nuclear weapons should be destroyed now, before it comes to this.

you'd want to be bloody certain who set it off though...:dead:

I'm pretty sure my opinion isn't wrong, as it is based upon facts rather than flowery rhetoric.I advocate neither of those approaches.So, if you were in charge of stopping the IRA in the 1980s, you'd advocate destroying Vatican City?That "fact" doesn't escape me as it is hardly a fact.

You keep making this incredible assumption that you'll be able to get world opinion on your side just by explaining things to them, all the while being unable to do so on the Subsim forum...So, again, you would advocate destroying the Vatican in an attempt to keep Catholic terrorists in line?Umm, I've asked very pointed questions which you have YET to answer. Read my initial post regarding this position.

My problem is not that your "answers" aren't perfect, but that they are dangerously irresponsible foreign policies, and I've SPECIFICALLY outlined why that would be so (although you choose to ignore those specifics).

Heck, you've even attempted to define such a tactic as Mutually Assured Destruction, such as in the Cold War era, when the principle is completely different!

What I do for a living helps shapes the future with input, by the way - posting on here just is for hobby.

If you can't handle a little heat on an anonymous message board, you'd have a hard time as a presidential candidate. :doh:

Here's another question for you: why do you think you'd be the best choice for leader of the free world (please answer with specifics regarding your qualifications and plans, and not just ideas)?

Just had a thought - anyone who "wants" to become the US president, or my PM or anything like that, is almost certainly no good for the role.

IMO, what we need across the board are people who have a brain, but who don't want the job. People who know how bad it is to sit there and watch what is going wrong, people who complain at pubs with their mates... people with brains who try to do the right thing by those they govern.

Any person who actively wants the top jobs are inherently no good for the role - they ultimately are self-interested. They do what it takes to retain power as long as possible.

Shame we can't really run this way though...;)

Thanks, August. Just the threat itself is an outrage to me, and makes my skin crawl.

I HATE Islamic-extremists and terrorism. I believe we are in a war against Islamic-extremist and terrorists. I have no problems overtly fighting that war.

But I find it DISGUSTING to suggest that we wipe a city off the face of the planet just because Islamic-extremists choose to associate themselves with that city! Sure, it's a religious icon to them - as it is to millions of peaceful Muslims. To do so would make us no better than our enemies ... in fact, maybe even worse.

Haplo's idea seems, well, Stalinist to me. But just isn't the only issue. The other part is that it wouldn't work. He obviously doesn't understand that one of the objectives behind Islamic terrorists is to incite Jihad. I can think of no better way to get entire Islamic world behind this goal than to destroy their primary holy city, or even a threat to do so.

I'm sure he sees it as a threat he likely wouldn't have to carry out ... but to use that as a basis threatens all credibility the US has worldwide. I personally couldn't care less about international opinion as long as we have the moral high ground. His proposal is, well, indefensible, ineffective, and irresponsible.

Simply, it's wrong.

Funny how some people still think you can negotiate with Islamists.
Go ask the Israelis, only way of controlling is by force, only way to defeat is annihilate.
This ofcourse brings many moral considerations for the western side.
While we ponder these, they continue what they have been doing for decades and centuries.

I'm sure you can find much less biased sources than the Israelis.