Would you want to be the next president?

Seriously...whoever takes over, gets to deal with an ongoing, badly run war....a rediculous amount of budgetary issues...and will absolutely be required to raise taxes.....would you want to take this on?

Sure. I can't imagine I'd do any worse than the current president; in fact I'm pretty sure that I'd do a lot better than anyone else in the country, since my beliefs would coincide perfectly with my beliefs.

My campaign platform:

1. Base our foreign policy on protecting America. That means pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible. That also means taking whatever military action is necessary to eliminate (or at least delay) Iran's nuclear program.

2. Spend a massive amount of money on alternative forms of energy. The sooner we can wean ourselves of oil, the less we have to care about what crazy Muslims do. I'd also increase punitive gasoline taxes to set the proper economic climate for alternative fuels to thrive. We'll invest more in nuclear power, solar power, and hybrid and hydrogen-based automobiles.

3. Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES*. We should balance the budget through spending cuts, not higher taxes.
(* Except gasoline)

4. I promise to appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. And by strict constructionists, I mean strict constructionists. Not conservative activists.

5. I promise to convert most federal education dollars from school-based funding to student-based funding. I would allow students to receive federal aid to attend any school that they and their parents want, whether public or private. This is the single most important thing we can do to improve our education system.

6. Reform our entitlement programs. Privatize or eliminate social security. Turn medicare over to the states to deal with as they wish.

7. I promise to keep church and state separate. This includes removing official phrases like "In God we trust" or "Under God." It includes NOT teaching the idiocy known as intelligent design in biology classes. I promise equal rights under the law for all people regardless of sexual orientation.

8. I promise to pardon every federal drug offender on my first day in office. I promise to end the war on drugs, which has done nothing but devastate our inner cities. I promise to sign any legislation to repeal all federal drug laws.

9. I promise to enact no new federal restrictions on firearms, while allowing states and communities to handle gun control as they wish.

10. I would base my policies on whatever the evidence shows will help our country the best, rather than religious zealotry, lobbyist bribes, or "conventional wisdom." I promise to pursue honest, open, good governance. The results may not always be satisfying in the short-term, but they'll be vital to the long-term health of our nation.

So yeah, vote for me.

I definately wouldn't want to be president. Besides being inadequate for that job, I would be miserable having to give public speeches all the time. It would be like my worst nightmare.

Is this suppose to be a poll?

Sure. I can't imagine I'd do any worse than the current president; in fact I'm pretty sure that I'd do a lot better than anyone else in the country, since my beliefs would coincide perfectly with my beliefs.

My campaign platform:

1. Base our foreign policy on protecting America. That means pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible. That also means taking whatever military action is necessary to eliminate (or at least delay) Iran's nuclear program.

I think this is too narrow of a foreign policy. I think we should soley do that which is virtuous in foreign policy. This would mean never use military might for punishment(such as dropping atomic bomb on Japan) or economic self interest but in certain situations the use of force is the most virtuous option such as defending freedom and life, political assasinations that stop another Hitler before he wrecks much misery on the world, stopping ethnic cleansing, etc. If you believe only self protection is valid, then do you also feel it is not the duty of an individual walking down the street to stop an act of violence against an innocent person?

tecoyah said:

Seriously...whoever takes over, gets to deal with an ongoing, badly run war....a rediculous amount of budgetary issues...and will absolutely be required to raise taxes.....would you want to take this on?

Click to expand...

HELL YEAH! I love a good challenge!!! I especially like those Where's Waldo Books. They entertain me for hours on end.

But seriously. The US situation ain't as bad as you think. The media only reports the bad news; which is sometimes distorted to spin in their idealogical direction. I do believe that $96 billion has been shed off of the deficit. We ARE winning in Iraq, and the elections (successful ones at that) just prove it. There is no need to raise taxes, we have a booming economy, and the Dollar is still worth more than even the Euro and the Yen. And just look at all of the illegals trying to get here. That just shows that America ain't a bad place if people are flocking here, though sometimes they do it illegally.

laska said:

Sure. I can't imagine I'd do any worse than the current president; in fact I'm pretty sure that I'd do a lot better than anyone else in the country, since my beliefs would coincide perfectly with my beliefs.

My campaign platform:

1. Base our foreign policy on protecting America. That means pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible. That also means taking whatever military action is necessary to eliminate (or at least delay) Iran's nuclear program.

2 I think we should soley do that which is virtuous in foreign policy.

3 This would mean never use military might for punishment(such as dropping atomic bomb on Japan)...

4 If you believe only self protection is valid, then do you also feel it is not the duty of an individual walking down the street to stop an act of violence against an innocent person?

Click to expand...

1 Actually we have already had two presidents who thoroughly demonstrated that retreating from our enemies only makes heroes out of them and comes back to bite us in the ass.

Bill Clinton (D) retreated from Bin Laden in Somalia, appeased North Korea, let Al Queda attack us unanswered for a decade, etc. Jimmy Carter (D) also experimented with your idea against the Soviets. In both cases it did nothing but help our enemies and get a lot of Americans killed.

2 I couldn't disagree more. If we start keeping a moralistic foreign policy it will be used against us by everyone else who fights for their own country's interests, as we should do. Defending the country is ugly business and it is no place for boy scouts. No one should be allowed to take the office charged with defending America's interests who advocates pacifism. It is an outrageous betrayal of the people the presidency is beholden to.

3 The deployment of the A-bombs in Japan was not an act of punishment.

4 In an ideal world I would prefer to stay absolutely morally clean in our foreign policy, but the real world doesn't work that way. All we can do is which ever of our options disrupts our sleep least at night and hope for the best.

This reminds me of a movie quote that adequately describes how quickly man (rightly) abandons his own morality to protect his kin:

"I am a parent. I don't have the luxury of principles."-Mel Gibson, The Patriot.

tecoyah said:

Seriously...whoever takes over, gets to deal with an ongoing, badly run war....a rediculous amount of budgetary issues...and will absolutely be required to raise taxes.....would you want to take this on?

Click to expand...

Oh how quick they all are to pre-emptively congratulate themselves on what a great job they would do. Let's just hope the next president doesn't have the extraordinarily enormous problems Bush has had to respond to.

And yes, Bush can blame his challenges on Clinton just like the next president will surely do with Bush. But unlike Clinton (who caused 9/11, North Korea, and the 2000 recession), Bush did things that actually HELP matters. Yes he ran up deficits, but extreme times called for extreme measures. Yes, he reversed Clinton's policy of bending over for our enemies and it has cost lives, but they are military lives now instead of the lives of New Yorkers.

The deployment of the A-bombs in Japan was not an act of punishment.

I do not want to turn this into a long debate on this point as there was a thread on this already, but it is my view there was no need to bring Japan completely to its knees and invade the islands of Japan. I believe this policy was more an act of punishment and created a choice of two evils, invade which would cause much death and suffering or drop the bomb, which did the same.

aquapub said:

1 Actually we have already had two presidents who thoroughly demonstrated that retreating from our enemies only makes heroes out of them and comes back to bite us in the ass.

Bill Clinton (D) retreated from Bin Laden in Somalia, appeased North Korea, let Al Queda attack us unanswered for a decade, etc. Jimmy Carter (D) also experimented with your idea against the Soviets. In both cases it did nothing but help our enemies and get a lot of Americans killed. Patriot.

Click to expand...

I agree with this but you also have to add in Ronald Reagan.

But as for our next Prez...

Norman Scwarzkopf!

Kandahar, your political platform is scary, very scary..

Iraq was a mistake, only a fool would think that the Iraqis should be "set free" and democratized, they are far from ready for any of this..And we should never have been involved, but the UN should, it is their responsibility..It may take ten or a hundred years to rid Iraq of its criminal element....

Bring back the Ottoman Empire...lol.

But, should over one thousand Marines die for nothing ??
Hell no !!

earthworm said:

Kandahar, your political platform is scary, very scary..

Click to expand...

How so?

earthworm said:

Iraq was a mistake, only a fool would think that the Iraqis should be "set free" and democratized, they are far from ready for any of this..

Click to expand...

They've had three years. They're either ready to function on their own or not. And if Iraq ends up being fragmented or under the control of another autocrat, then they've just shown that they can't handle democracy.

The other commitments facing American troops are simply too great to continue to waste time in Iraq.

earthworm said:

And we should never have been involved, but the UN should, it is their responsibility..It may take ten or a hundred years to rid Iraq of its criminal element....

Click to expand...

Well we don't have ten or a hundred years to leave troops in Iraq as babysitters. The UN will never get involved in Iraq; it doesn't have an army of its own, and the countries with veto power have no interest in getting their own troops bogged down in this mess.

earthworm said:

Bring back the Ottoman Empire...lol.

Click to expand...

That's not a bad idea. I've certainly heard a lot of crazier ideas about the Middle East.

earthworm said:

But, should over one thousand Marines die for nothing ??
Hell no !!

Click to expand...

Using past mistakes to justify future mistakes is not a good idea.