A US political discussion....
 

OK - this is actually for the purpose of considering whether or not I should seriously run for president of the US in 4 years. Now - before every Obama supporter has a hernia about how I am not giving him a fair shake - this is simply a conversation - he has 4 years to prove what he can and will do.

So - with that said - I am going to lay a few things out there about where I stand and let you all ask whatever questions you like regarding whatever public policy stance you care to. I will answer as best I can, and while often a fellow community member may disagree with me, I will keep this civil and respectful and would ask all do the same.

Now - just so its clear, I meet all the requirements to run for the office of President.

My political philosphy is not based on any party dogma. One could only call me a Independant. There are many things in both the major parties that I strongly differ with, as well as many things in the minor parties that I also find horribly wrong. Ultimately, I believe the best thing for this country would be to get rid of the letters beside politicians names and make each and every one of them define themselves on the ISSUES to those they serve.

That is why I am here - to start the process and show what true dialog and an informed voting public could do. Who knows what may come of it. I fully expect to learn quite a bit as I hope you all do as well.

Folks from other countries are welcome to participate as well. There is only two rules I ask all to follow. The first is respect and courtesy even if someone disagrees with you. The second is to not try to use the past mistakes of a government I have not been running as a bludgeon to try and make a point. This is intended to discuss where we could go by learning from our rich 200+ year history, instead of bashing those that have led during that time.

Ok - who wants to throw out a topic or a list of them? Again - NO policy or public issue is off limits here.

I have some stock in a biotechnology company about to submit a new product for government approval. If you could push that through I'll hold a fundraiser for you.

Or, for $50 in cash I'll vote for you.

If you want to run for an office, any office, you should probably have a list of issues and your stances on them already prepared.

:rotfl: Beat me to it.

Sorry Mothballs, thats part of one of the problems in Washington politics - the scratch my back and I'll scratch yours mentality.

However - you do bring up an interesting point - and one I will take the opportunity to address. I have posted about it before - money in politics. I think we need a true reform there. So here goes - I would push for the following campaign finance reforms.

#1 If you can't vote for president - you can't donate to the campaign. ONLY individual people can donate. No PAC money, no foreign money, no union money, no big business money. Its nothing more than buying influence - and it needs to stop.

#2 Limit individual monetary contributions to no more than $1000 per person TOTAL. That means you could give $1000 once - or $500 two times - etc - but you can't donate more than a total of $1000.

#3 Individual contributions of time and ability on a volunteer basis would not be limited. Meaning if you wanted to spend hours every day putting out signs you could - but you would volunteer that time. If you were a database person and wanted to volunteer to help administer the necessary record keeping for the contributions - that would also not be limited. People should have the right to give of their time and talents without limit.

#4 No "matching funds" from the US Government. Why should you as a taxpayer have to help fund my campaign (or anyone else's) that you don't agree with???

#5 Full and total disclosure of where campaign funds originate and where they are spent, to be made available to the public at large every thirty days for the month preceeding. (November 30th you get all of the records for the month of October.)

#6 The politician running cannot use moer than $10,000 of his own money for his campaign. This would be his own startup funds and everything else would need to be from supporters.

#7 No organization (since organizations can't vote) should be running adds on behalf of, or against, a candidate. Again - if the GROUP doesn't get a vote, the individuals could better use their energy being involved for the person they support.

These seven simple, common sense steps would go very far to removing the corruption and pay for play workings of Washington. I also am committed to abiding by these standards if I choose to run.

Or, he could just use a single, vague, catchword and some empty rhetoric:p :D
(sorry, sorry, just poking fun dems;) )


This sounds like fun, though, so I'll ask some questions.

Since you didn't post anything to build on, CH, I'd like to start with; "What is the role the Federal government should have in society?" and, "Which issues do you consider the most pressing right now?"

To Aramike - I do have clear ideas on the issues - but this is an opportunity for YOU to be as engaged as a voter. :up:


UnderseaLcpl - I hope it will be fun - and thanks for helping us get started!

Constitutionally the role of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and settle issues between the states. Boy its gone a bit beyond that hasn't it? It needs to get back to that role - though realistically it may never be solely that again. It does need to provide oversight on where it spends its money, but stop using that federal money as a bludgeon to force states to comply with dictates from "on high". The question is actually really deep - which I like. The federal government's role is really to get out of the way of the states whenever possible, and allow the citizenry of each state to govern their lives as they see fit. Instead - DC has mandated everything from how our kids will be educated and on what topics, to what you can put into your own body, how fast you can drive on the highway, even to when life begins or ends. That was never its intended role, and that needs to change. Yes it needs some oversight on things like drugs that will be prescribed throught the nation. It shouldn't be telling you what your children will or won't be taught though.

I know I am opening alot of doors for more topics - I hope someone walks through them.

The most pressing issues right now? Boy - talk about a loaded question. But still - the domestic economt is the very top of the list. That has a lot of sub subjects like tax structure, debt and the world economy, immigration, etc. etc.

In 4 years - who knows.

The second - would be world stability. Right now India and Pakistan have Nukes, Iran is on the way to them. This keeps up and the world will soon be hostage to whichever national leader is the LEAST stable. That doesn't even touch conventional arms and their usage. The biggest areas that concern world security right now are the middle east and the terrorism issue. Both need to be dealt with - but it seems no one wants to make the tough decisions on how to do so. While the middle east has fairly recognized regional borders, terrorism has no such thing. Both issues will need seperate approaches to not only be contained - but truly remedied for the long term welfare of our nation and society.

ok, i'll bite...

i have 2 questions, if i may

1. what's your policy going to be on israel/palestine and the middle east in general? how would you fight the "global war on terrorism?"

2. sort of a follow up, what do you envision the us's role in the world to be?

i'm not a us citizen.

caspofungin - thanks for the questions!

Since your mentioned your not a US Citizen - let me answer question #2 first as it has helps put the next answer in context.

The role of the US in the world SHOULD be much more hands off than what we are currently. At least in the short term. That does not mean abandoning our allies or turning our backs on serious problems, but it also means that we should not be running, guns drawn into every situation. I would by no means support isolationism, but the fact is that the next decade or so the US faces serious internal issues that must be addressed. Our engagment in every problem the rest of the world faces is simply not feasible for this country to continue to do. While we would stand with our allies and continue to be a leading voice for what is right, the US needs to get out of the business of "spreading freedom" and country building. While we do need to remain active in protecting our friends and insuring the safety of our interests, the facts are that past history has required our intervention due to our economic dependence on assets. For example - oil and the middle east. If the US were to focus on removing that dependence - we would be much more free with our ability to exert influence and leadership for the good of mankind - without there being a question as to the motive. We should no longer be the "world policeman" with force, but still be willing to step in when human dignity is thrown aside.

With that said - the Israel/Palestinian question is more than a simple nugget. But the fact is neither side has really had a need to sit down and make real progress. They sit, they talk, they agree, and then neither side follows through and points the finger at the other instead. No peace process is going to work until both sides WANT it to. Look, I am not going to give you some fairy foo foo answer - the fact is it isn't likely to get solved anytime soon. However - recent events really have presented an opportunity that is sadly likely to be missed. With the fracturing of the Palestinian governement between the PLO and Hamas, and the combat actions of Israel, real change could have been effected. The first problem is neither side trusts the other. Since Israel had planned on going in and seriously crippling Hamas, it was the time for the PLO to follow up - with ISRAELI support - to retake Gaza. That would have allowed both to have a common enemy that, upon withdrawel by Israel, they both could have worked together to continue to fight. After all, the PLO wouldn't want Hamas regrouping in the GS, so could work with Israel to stop it. Doing so would not only have devastated Hamas, but opened the door for both the PLO and Israel to begin to find a way to work together on settling the real stumbling block - Jerusalem. Unfortunately - this chance has apparently passed. However, I would look at the situation at the time to see if such opportunities presented themselves, and encouraged and facilitated both sides to find a common goal in which they could work together on - to develop that trust in stages. If any person tells you they could solve the Israel/Palestinian problem - run. What we should do however is show and encourage both sides to develop the trust, and the reasons - to work together to solve these issues. After all - once they can work together, they can begin to see how true peace would benefit them both.

As for the Middle East in general - we need to stop being namby pamby with states that sponsor terrorism. However, we would have to work within the framework of agreements already in place. For example - Lebanon is suffering greatly trying its best to get out from under the bootheel of Syria. While we have no agreements in place with Lebanon - offering to head a multinational contingent to assist them in securing their border with Syria so that it can no longer interfere - allowing Lebanon to govern itself, would be a reasonable act. If they don't accept - ok. But by showing support without taking a HOSTILE action - is the kind of role this country should have in helping to stabilize the Middle East. Such actions would be short term so that each country could establish themselves without interference.

This would also send a message - and yes - dare - sponsors of terrorism to act aggressively to protect their terror tendrils. Either they act and get seen as aggressors by the world, or the car bombings and such that kill innocents stop because there are no more explosives smuggled over and no more training of said terrorists.

This then ties to the answer of fighting global terror. Trying to stamp out or find every car bomb or terror cell isn't going to work. You have to cut off the supplies - let the "terror fruit" wither on the vine. Without the state sponsorship that they rely on, the terrorists have their ability to commit their acts crippled. We cannot be rid of terrorists as you can never know what goes on in the mind of another. But we can limit what resources they have to carry out their deeds. No - I am not saying invade Syria or Iran or anything - but by limiting their ability to export the tools and training of terror, you limit the problem. In addition, it puts those same states under even more internal pressure from their own citizenry since they can no longer trumpet about how many victories they scored based on how many Jews they killed or whatnot. *And yes - they do actually do this....* Not to mention the economic pressure and world view pressure that would accompany such action.

Its time the US stopped preaching from on high like a tv evangilist and started acting more like the old time prairie pastor - approachable and honest, willing to hold wrong up to the light of day.

I'm quite engaged as a voter, thanks.

Fair enough - I wasn't trying to call you out personally - hope you understood that. I meant that in regards to everyone as I simply hope to get people involved. Twas not meant that you were not engaged as a voter.

Wow...you're already sounding like a politician. :p

ROFL Torplexed! Maybe so - but I did capitalize the YOU part so I can see where he might have taken it personal. Unlike those that criticized Bush for being unable to admit a mistake - I shouldn't have capitalized that. Oh well. Live and learn.

Now - Torplexed - throw out a topic or a response to one of the items above! This isn't meant to be only one sided - I hope folks will use this to debate their own ideas or perhaps even poke holes in my own.

It's not so much that ... I'm kind of glib about this entire topic because, to be honest, positions aren't the first questions to ask anyone who seriously considers running for a public office.

So here are my questions:

Why do you think you'd be able to be the first successful modern Presidential Candidate without the backing of either political party?

How do you plan to be able to financially compete in a Presidential race?

What experiences do you have working with Congress?

How would you, as an independant, be able to work with Congress (specifics)?

What government leadership experience do you have?

Being POTUS (or any government head, for that matter) requires a lot more than ideas and positions (even good ones). Thousands of people call talk radio everyday with ideas. But transforming those ideas into public policy is something entirely different. And getting elected leader of a nation of hundreds of millions isn't something one can just jump right into, good ideas or not.

I can entertain the topic if it's about your political viewpoints, as I have and share many as well. But as a serious discussion about a bid for POTUS ... well, that's another thing entirely. And, to be honest, it certainly doesn't engage anyone as a voter anymore than any other political debate.

Capt haplo - its not worth it.

Historically speaking; there are four outcomes to a presidents time in office.

when you have served your term(s) and you are leaving office as president and the game is over for you.

either

1. You're a national hero who could do no wrong. (10% chance)

2. 4 years ago everyone was sure you were the new savior of America... now, you're a dumb SOB that everyone hates. (88% chance)

3. You've been impeached. (1% chance)

4. You've been assassinated *or died in office for some other reason. (1% chance)

But i will tell you this.

Even though i think Abraham Lincoln broke or raped as many laws as Bush could be accused of he nailed it when he said...

"You can make some of the people happy all the time... you can make all the people happy some of the time... but you cant make all the people happy all the time."

as for Yobama

I overheard some early twenties agers talking about how Yobama wants to make it so that any kid in a family which earns less than $60K per year will go to college for free and to top it off he is going to reduce taxes.

now im sorry, but im smarter than that... "there is no such thing as a free lunch" is a quote that comes to mind.

SOMEONE - SOMEWHERE is paying for that individual's college. :nope:

whenever a politician tells you that they will give you more stuff while taking away less money... you are having exorbitant amounts of smoke blown squarely up your ass.

America is shifting away from the mentality that "all men are created to equal" toward a mentality of "all men are subsidized into equality"


long live Harrison Bergeron :rock: