Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » An Ideal Candidate

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: An Ideal Candidate
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lets suspend reality for a moment. If you could choose your ideal candidate what would be the key issues and positions that he/she would promote?

My ideal candidate would promote social justice. This would include a total overhaul of our judical and law enforcement system to insure actual equal treatment for all. Dedicated programs to improve inner city education including job training and technology internships.

My ideal candidate would promote reasonable gun control.

My Ideal candidate would believe that it is not the role of the US to police the world and force would only be used in the case of a clear and present threat (we are not talking about Iran or N. Korea) or in conjunction with the UN in cases of Genocide.

My ideal candidate would promote term limits for all elected offices and members of high office would be banned from lobbying for 10 years post office.

My ideal candidate would consider environmental needs above economic needs. Since economic needs tend to be transient and environmental disasters are both extremely costly in the long run and it is not fair to our children to leave them with a messed up planet.

There is more but those seem like good starters (non-starters but reality is suspended).

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:

My ideal candidate would consider environmental needs above economic needs. Since economic needs tend to be transient and environmental disasters are both extremely costly in the long run and it is not fair to our children to leave them with a messed up planet.

How far would you take this? On the extreme end, if you want to build a house, you are displacing wildlife no matter what you do. Or since carbon emissions are causing global warming we should probably outlaw any fuel combustion engines. So where do you draw the line and how do you decide on the line?
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good question. As far as building goes I think there needs to be a balance. In most places it isn't wildlife being displaced but farm land. We would need to insure that we provide at minimum large representative protected ecosystems to minimize human impact.

During the 70s Jimmy Carter implemented a plan to promote alternative energies. When gas became cheap the plan was dismantled. I believe we have the brain power to pull away from fossil fuels if the proper incentives are placed and the political and corporate obstacles removed. My candidate would work to make that happen.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Justice/Law:
- Stops the war on drugs COMPLETELY. Licensed shops can handle the buying/selling of hard drugs.

- Stops prison rapes by having cameras record every corner of prisons 24/7.

- Puts cameras on every single policeman.

----
Technology/Medicine:
- Supports safety-in-artificial-intelligence research.
- Supports anti-aging research.
- Supports cryonics research.

----
Foreign policy:
- Supports in principle the voluntary and free union of nations (like the European Union).

- Opposes Russian imperialism.

- Creates a NATO-like military organization for opposition to Islamism and religious tyranny in general. Countries joining must allow freedom of religion (including the freedom to blaspheme, and the freedom to be apostates and atheists). As long as such freedoms are maintained, economic and military aid is provided to them.

----
Economy

- Tariffs on Chinese imports, as such imports are unfair competition due to China's lack of worker rights.

- Replaces welfare programs with basic guaranteed income (note: I'm not actually remotely sure about this one, but it's an experiment that ought happen so that we see in practice how it affects everything one way or another)

[ April 22, 2015, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My ideal candidate would be assassinated
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That seems a bit excessive, Fenring.

quote:
'We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they're elected. Don't you?'

'Why?'

'It saves time.'


Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
  • Honest and Straightforward. Speaks clearly and does exactly what he says.
  • Brilliant and a dynamic thinker.
  • Stricter control and oversight of law enforcement agencies.
  • Zero Tolerance for illegal activities by CIA / law enforcement agencies.
  • No more death penalty
  • Deep and wide Prison Reform.
  • Complete move away from the commercialization of prison.
  • Reduce / Repeal the ACA.
  • Net Neutrality
  • Respect for Federalism
  • Restraint and caution in Foreign Policy
  • Decriminalization for possession and use of all drugs
  • Legalization of all drugs which are not highly-addictive.
  • Continued criminalization for the sale and distribution of highly addictive drugs.
  • A move away from federal level testing and standardization in schools.
  • Severe reduction in the amount of money made available for student grants/loans
  • Simplification of the tax code.


[ April 22, 2015, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Aris:(note: I'm not actually remotely sure about this one, but it's an experiment that ought happen so that we see in practice how it affects everything one way or another)
I don't think the federal government isn't the place for these kinds of experiments. The risk of catastrophy is too high.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
That seems a bit excessive, Fenring.

I think he means that his ideal candidate would be assassinated, because people would bug out. Not that he wants all candidates assassinated.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris - given that we are talking about the USA, would "nationalize all prisons, transforming them from profit centres to cost centres" be consistent with your general drift on Justice/Law?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
That seems a bit excessive, Fenring.

I think he means that his ideal candidate would be assassinated, because people would bug out. Not that he wants all candidates assassinated.
I know, but I kinda liked the idea... sorta, but not really, in case the NSA is reading this...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My ideal democracy would not need to worry about ideal candidates.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
My ideal democracy would not need to worry about ideal candidates.

I think "ideal candidate" is just a proxy for "if you just happened to become supreme leader, what would your ideal ideals be".
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll have a partial go, as I don't have all day...

Law:
  • Actively lead to get the ERA passed
  • Promote a focus on rehabilitation rather than on punitive incarceration
  • Nationalize all federal prisons, and promote the same for those run by lower levels of government
  • Legalize possession and personal use of all drugs
  • Continue and strengthen the current policy on asset seizure, whereby federal agencies can no longer participate in such activities absent a conviction of a crime
  • In a related point, promote a strengthening of the concept of innocence prior to conviction, not just as a concept of evidence in the courtroom, but more generally as a societal norm

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Aris - given that we are talking about the USA, would "nationalize all prisons, transforming them from profit centres to cost centres" be consistent with your general drift on Justice/Law?

Yes.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The number one thing would be that he/she would promote the rule of law and be absolutely committed to stamping out corruption and any process based upon the ends justifying the means.

They would be absolutely committed to unwinding federal agencies and enforcing the separation of powers. No more unelected bureaucrats making regulations, enforcing them and trying violations of them.

Civil rights would be protected from further encroachment (Social justice would be restored to just being about civil rights). Note I too want equal treatment, but that's already the law of the land, we need to end the processes that corrupt its implementation not add more corrupt "fixes".

On foreign policy, he or she would understand that we can't pretend anymore. We're either citizens of the world and we do have the right to influence the proper behavior of other countries (ie intervening to prevent human rights abuses), or we're not and we have the absolute right to place our own interests first.

On the environment, the ideal candidate would support stewardship efforts (above and beyond just the minimal scientifically mandated ones, what we should do, not just what we have to do), but not at the expense of all economic considerations. Reasonability would be the watchword.

On science generally, he or she would be committed to understanding the best current thinking and using it to guide policy, but not to ham-handedly use it stamp on those who disagree (particularly not where there are multiple interpretations).

My ideal candidate would be absolutely passionate about convincing voters, rather than imposing solutions from on high. They would be a strong advocate for legislative solutions providing for gay marriage, abortion rights and all the other difficult issues that politicians do everything they can not to resolve, thereby forcing the unelected courts to exceed their own authority to craft solutions.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
My ideal democracy would not need to worry about ideal candidates.

I think "ideal candidate" is just a proxy for "if you just happened to become supreme leader, what would your ideal ideals be".
You're only the Supreme Leader if you can survive. The further from status quo you get the more likely someone has an interest in doing something about it. You can't take away power from certain organizations without them fighting back; they won't take it lying down.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think "ideal candidate" is just a proxy for "if you just happened to become supreme leader, what would your ideal ideals be".
I would put an end to all supreme leaders.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now place your ideal leader in our current Washington DC with Congress, the current Supreme Court, and the current political rules of the game (40% of political donations from top 0.1% of the population with regard to wealth) and what outcomes would you anticipate?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Personally I thought that "Lets suspend reality for a moment." which was the very first sentence in this thread was meant to deliberately avoid objections regarding electability, survivability & so forth.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
quote:
I think "ideal candidate" is just a proxy for "if you just happened to become supreme leader, what would your ideal ideals be".
I would put an end to all supreme leaders.
That would be the sum total of all of your policy positions? That seems to show both a lack of ambition and imagination... [Wink]
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My ideal candidate would be assassinated
Hehe, I initially read your comment to mean that ideally your candidate would be assassinated... [Exploding] Not sure why that was my first interpretation of the comment.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This thread seems to confuse what sort of person you would want for President with what you would like him to accomplish. The latter requires support from Congress and ultimately the voters.

And what if 80% of voters want to keep the death penalty for some crimes, like the Oklahoma City bombing? Do you really want a dictator who can implement policies contrary to the wishes of large majorities of citizens? The Roman Emperor Trajan, brought back to life and educated in modern ways, would be a good enough ruler for anyone. But the system which produced Trajan also produced Nero and Caligula. Our republic may be unjust, but it does place limits on any single person's power. Personally I think that a good thing.

At this time Obama has been quoted as saying he can do something effective about some small proportion of the issues he faces - one in six? George W. Bush had it no better before him. We can expect our leaders to do their best, but not to do the impossible. Too many seem unconsciously to think of elected leaders as gods.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
or devils
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1