Here's what my platform would be if I ran for President of the United States

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Paper Mario - Social
  3. Here's what my platform would be if I ran for President of the United States

User Info: Kodiologist

Kodiologist
11 months ago#1
Ignoring the question of political viability, how do you like it?

I would run on a pacifist far-left platform with a focus on promoting the common good.

- Pacifism
-- Withdraw all military forces
-- Disband the military
-- Decommission our nuclear weapons
-- Ban the manufacture and sale of military hardware
-- Repeal the Second Amendment
----- Ban firearms that are unsuitable for killing animals, such as pistols
-- Forbid police officers from carrying guns
-- Require police body cameras

- Economy
-- Institute basic income
-- End state lotteries (they constitute regressive taxation)
-- Raise taxes on the rich as necessary
-- Crack down on corporations that suppress unionization (that means you, Walmart)

- Education
-- Make public colleges free
-- Ban public schools (including colleges) from requiring students to buy textbooks
-- Replace the ACT and SAT with a government-administered test that's free for students to take
-- Give universities money to fully fund master's students in STEM
-- Require all research articles by scientists with any public funding to be freely licensed and deposited in PubMed or another government repository, and for the corresponding deidentified data to be deposited likewise

- Health
-- Create universal free healthcare, including coverage for contraception, abortion, and sex reassignment (this should be administered by the federal government, not by the states)
-- Push for the creation of new medical schools, and give foreign physicians incentives to move to the US, in order to ameliorate the shortage of physicians
-- Start a federal needle-exchange program
-- Replace bans on drugs and prostitution with heavy-handed monitoring, regulation, and taxation

- Law
-- End the death penalty (exonerated executed people can't be unkilled)
-- Ban plea bargaining (people shouldn't be incentivized to falsely confess)
-- Redesign the prison system with a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, including substantially shortened sentences for any crime other than murder
-- End the eggshell-skull rule (liability should be based on reasonably foreseeable consequences, not actual consequences)
-- Legalize owning copies of child pornography, but investigate its consumers liberally to help find the people who are abusing children to produce child porn
-- Give suspected terrorists the same rights as arrested citizens, and jail them only on US soil

- Cost-cutting
-- End parties paid for with tax money
-- Cap the wages of highly paid federal employees such as the President and Congressmen, and remove excessive perks

- Transportation
-- Attempt a complete federal takeover of the airlines
-- Encourage states (with money) to expand train and bus service in preference to infrastructure for cars

- International relations
-- Open our borders and make it easy to become a citizen
-- Recognize Palestine and Taiwan
-- Recognize the Armenian genocide
-- Offer incentives to countries with poor human-rights records to clean up their act
-- Prevent American companies (Google, Yahoo, etc.) from cooperating with China's restrictions on political speech

- Miscellany
-- Admit Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico into the union as full-fledged states
-- Form a committee of scientists and engineers to come up with a plan for using public policy to sufficiently ameliorate global warming, then follow the plan
-- Make all bathrooms in government buildings, single-occupancy or not, gender-neutral
-- End the patent system
-- Reduce durations of copyright
-- Undo the 1954 addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance and the 1956 adoption of "In God we trust" as the national motto; remove all religious references on money

---
Have you ever stopped to think and forgotten to start again?

User Info: LinkPrime1

LinkPrime1
11 months ago#2
Just skimming thorough, abs I noticed this point:

Admit Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico into the union as full-fledged states


That's up to those individual territories if they want to apply for statehood, not the other way around. Puerto Rico has voted on our several times, and though recently I think it passed, I doubt it'll ever happen. For the average person, all it means is higher taxes abs a vote in the presidential election (they can vote in primaries though). I'm also pretty sure Puerto Rico is in a tremendous amount of debt, so it would just make a bad situation worse.
Well, there is a new accent of n00b language. It's called: Vet LUEser goes Foreign!-MegaSpy22
Those must be the pants of the gods!-Digitalpython

User Info: Kodiologist

Kodiologist
11 months ago#3
It also means representation in Congress. This is probably why there is very strong support for statehood in DC (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Election-Statehood-Council-Seats-400275901.html).

---
Have you ever stopped to think and forgotten to start again?

User Info: HeyDude

HeyDude
11 months ago#4
- Pacifism In theory I like this
-- Withdraw all military forces I like this
-- Disband the military This seems improbable, but you did say ignore viability, so, it also seems dangerous? Would you still provide for the common defense, and if so, how?
-- Decommission our nuclear weapons ActuallyI feel like "mutually assured destruction" stops othernations from using nukes, so I'm in favor of nuclear proliferation to other nations too. The onlynation you can use them"safely" against is the nation that doesn't have them.
-- Ban the manufacture and sale of military hardwareThis seems vague. The military uses lots of hardware other than weaponry, and anyway even if you only mean weapons, I don't mind people having rifles and handguns and such.
-- Repeal the Second Amendment Really makes me uncomfortable! When I learned that a serial rapist was at large in my hometown about two years ago, I was able to buy a handgun. I feel that my right to self-defense is wholly divorced from some kind of bloodthirstiness like what I'm trying to prevent when I advocate peace principles.
----- Ban firearms that are unsuitable for killing animals, such as pistols See above
-- Forbid police officers from carrying guns Seems to work, generally, in Britain, but I don't know how. Like why don't criminals just shoot the police?
-- Require police body cameras Expensive, and I'm not for it. I'd rather see strong protections for citizens who want to film the police. I find that police body cameras seem to be a gimmick... don't they just turn them off a lot of times?

User Info: Kodiologist

Kodiologist
11 months ago#5
When I said to ignore political viability, I meant you should assume that I'd be electable despite my extreme policies and that Congress, the Supreme Court, and state governments would play along with them.

Would you still provide for the common defense, and if so, how?

No, I wouldn't.

Actually I feel like "mutually assured destruction" stops othernations from using nukes

It can, but only if everybody who commands the nukes is sane. By contrast, imagine if Kim Jong-un had his finger on the button. Or an ISIS leader. Or Donald Trump, for that matter.

By "military hardware", I mean not only military firearms but things like bombs, tanks, and fighter jets, which we currently not only use ourselves but sell or give to other countries.

I feel that my right to self-defense is wholly divorced from some kind of bloodthirstiness like what I'm trying to prevent when I advocate peace principles.

I'm not convinced there should be a right to self-defense. Suppose somebody has a gun and wants to kill you. If you're unarmed, he shoots and kills you. If you're armed, you can shoot and kill him instead. Either way, somebody dies; all you did was change who. Moreover, the fact that you're carrying a gun gives anybody else with a gun a lot of motivation to shoot you (to protect himself!), and in the heat of the moment, it's very easy for people to think they're defending themselves when in reality they're slaying an unarmed or unthreatening person. Logically enough, we tend to think in self-serving and paranoid ways when we think our lives are threatened.

The long and the short of it is, if you want people to not die, you have to be willing to be the innocent victim. This is one of the starkest examples of the general principle that moral goodness tends to require leaving yourself vulnerable to the evil acts of others.

Like why don't criminals just shoot the police?

Presumably because it's a lot harder to get guns, or at least handguns. Like Australia, the UK greatly restricted gun ownership after a notable mass shooting (for the UK, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre ).

I'd rather see strong protections for citizens who want to film the police.

That would be good, but we can't always count on a bystander to be there, notice what's happening, and stick around to film it instead of running away.

I find that police body cameras seem to be a gimmick... don't they just turn them off a lot of times?

Laws that require police to have body cameras but don't hold them accountable for keeping the cameras in operation are indeed toothless.

---
Have you ever stopped to think and forgotten to start again?

User Info: willis5225

willis5225
10 months ago#6
I've voted for worse.
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir

User Info: HeyDude

HeyDude
10 months ago#7
- Economy
-- Institute basic income Sure why not
-- End state lotteries (they constitute regressive taxation) I don't love them that much but it seems like a real father knows best move, which in general I don't care for
-- Raise taxes on the rich as necessary I stand in opposition to income tax, because the government can have a right to the fruits of what it owns, like its property... I am not its property, therefore I morally oppose income tax. I support property tax. I support a tax on the consumption of natural resources.
-- Crack down on corporations that suppress unionization (that means you, Walmart) I don't know enough about unions to have a strong opinion, although my general rule of thumb is that if two parties enter into a voluntary contract it should be able to have almost any parameters imaginable, including a ban on unionization.

- Education
-- Make public colleges free Fine with this
-- Ban public schools (including colleges) from requiring students to buy textbooks Very small issue I feel, but fine with this too.
-- Replace the ACT and SAT with a government-administered test that's free for students to take Same
-- Give universities money to fully fund master's students in STEM Only in STEM? Why not the arts? Is our cultural inheritance and its transmission worthless to you?
-- Require all research articles by scientists with any public funding to be freely licensed and deposited in PubMed or another government repository, and for the corresponding deidentified data to be deposited likewise I like that although it may backfire, i.e. they won't want public funding.

User Info: Kodiologist

Kodiologist
10 months ago#8
it seems like a real father knows best move

I think you're looking for the word "paternalism".

I stand in opposition to income tax, because the government can have a right to the fruits of what it owns, like its property... I am not its property

You're not its property (because people can't be property; that would be slavery), but you are part of it (democracy means government by citizens). Taxing only property and use of natural resources seems that it would mean the rich could escape taxation by not having such things (unless you count cash and securities as property). For example, Wall Street executives can make obscene amounts of money with no direct usage of natural resources and no property beyond an office and office supplies.

if two parties enter into a voluntary contract it should be able to have almost any parameters imaginable

Would you support something like a car company offering for sale cars that don't have seatbelts at a reduced price?

Why not the arts? Is our cultural inheritance and its transmission worthless to you?

It's not clear to me that the production of art is important enough that public money should be spent on it ( http://arfer.net/w/unfulfilled-art ). Besides, the preservation of our cultural inheritence, artistic or otherwise, is really the job of historians, librarians, and archivists (all of whom are scientists or should be scientists, in my view), not artists.

I like that although it may backfire, i.e. they won't want public funding.

I doubt this would happen because most fields of science right now rely on public funding (especially grants from the NIH and NSF) and have nothing to turn to without that.

---
Have you ever stopped to think and forgotten to start again?

User Info: HeyDude

HeyDude
10 months ago#9
Support isn't the opposite of "oppose a law banning". I don't support a car company doing it, but I also don't support a law banning car companies from doing it.

Another example would be, I support charity, but wouldn't support a law forcing me to give to, for example, the church. But I do willingly do that.

User Info: Kodiologist

Kodiologist
10 months ago#10
But if you don't legally require essential safety features of products, like seatbelts, then indeed they won't be universal, and so poor, uneducated, or foolhardly people will buy unsafe products and die needless deaths. If countless needless deaths seems like a fair price to pay for people's freedom to make demonstrably terrible, self-destructive choices, then I don't know what to tell you.

---
Have you ever stopped to think and forgotten to start again?
  1. Boards
  2. Paper Mario - Social
  3. Here's what my platform would be if I ran for President of the United States

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived