Your Ideal Candidate

List the policies or stances that a politician needs to have in order for you to support one.

For me, I'd want one that raises taxes back to 50%; closes the foreign bases; ends the wars; slashes the defense budget; audits the Fed; regulates Wall Street; removes the Patriot Act, the NDAA, Citizens United and Buckley v Valeo; ban lobbying; ban campaign contributions; crackdown on private business; private mortgages; private prisons and private contractors; remove the derivatives; remove the subsidies; remove the bonuses; disbands the CIA and the FBI; removes the Departments of Defense, Commerce, Education and Homeland Security; and imposes a single three-year term for Supreme Court Justices;

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You have no goddamn clue how any of those things works, do you?

Well, except the Department of Homeland Security. They can go without all that much trouble.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

I will immediately call fucking bullshit on anyone dipshitted enough to think we need to get rid of the Department of FUCKING EDUCATION. Seriously, anyone advocating that earns my immediate and long lasting scorn. Reform it, yes, but getting rid of it is a disservice to the entire fucking country.

Also, we kind of need the CIA and FBI in one form or another. I'd merge those two, actually, in order to reduce the amount of jurisdiction friction that goes on, and probably merge Homeland security with it or get rid of it. Seems like they all do roughly the same thing anyway. The Department of Commerce is also necessary. Basically, why the fuck would I remove the beauracracies that keep the trains running on time?

Raising taxes, socializing health insurance while at the same time making sure the folks losing those jobs can be re-trained for other jobs, folding Medicare and VA insurance into that, equalizing funding all over the country for education and start teaching less towards tests and more towards innovation, get rid of gerrymandering, get rid of Super PA Cs, and much stricter regulations on what banks can do with the money they hold.

The FBI and CIA, to my knowledge, don't really clash on anything, since technically the CIA isn't lawfully allowed to conduct operations within US borders. So, merging them would probably be bad.

Homeland Security can basically go die, though. Or at least be merged with the FBI.

edited 12th Jan '12 2:40:43 PM by Flyboy

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

It's all supposed to be about American security or whatever. And sometimes the bad guys the CIA is looking for comes here, which is how jurisdiction issues happen. *shrug* It's a matter of them keeping information from each other and stuff; they really need to have access to all of that, without regards to who's in what department.

Meh. Given that, insofar as I know, the President can issue orders to both agencies, that shit shouldn't happen. What should happen is whenever a CIA target enters the US, it becomes an FBI case, and the President just orders them to work together, period...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

That is what should happen, and probably does, but people being people, egos and human error get in the way. I'd merge them in the hopes it would emphasize the whole "we're on the same team, morons. Get your act together." And I think (possibly wrongly) merging the two might save money spent on security? I'm not sure how much gets spent on either organization.

I'll agree to disagree, because I think it's better that the CIA not operate within the US.

And, I doubt it would save a substantial amount of money. The new organization would still have to perform all the same tasks. You might save on administration costs, but...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

• Supports gay marriage (and adoption by same-sex couples), euthanasia, abortion, legalized polygamy and ages of consent no higher than 16.
• Supports legalized drugs and prostitution.
• Supports the labor movement unconditionally.
• Supports universal health care paid for by employers.
• Supports free college education.
• Supports freedom of movement.
• Supports disbanding the DHS, DEA and ATF.
• Supports raising the rich and businessowners' taxes outta the goddamn roof.
• Opposes intellectual property enforcement.
• Opposes both government and corporate encroachment on people's civil liberties.
• Opposes gun control, censorship and mass surveillance.
• Opposes disfranchisement and voter suppression.
• Opposes tax hikes on the working and middle classes.

edited 12th Jan '12 5:51:28 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Well, since Savage and I are vaguely similar, politically, and in theory, I guess I can just tick off boxes on what I agree with and what I don't agree with, in this case.

• Yes, yes, maybe because it's complicated, and 16 is ideal.
• Yes, with the addendum that "legalization" isn't the end of the story.
• ...maybe. I see an implication I don't like here, but the general concept of UHC is good.
• Yes, though free may be pushing it in the immediate future.
• ...no, because I don't like what you have to do to the border to do it.
• ...no, because they still have a purpose in regulating the international drug trade as it relates to the US. They'd be repurposed and reorganized, but not done away with, if I were in charge.
• ...yes, but not to the extent Savage would do it.
• No.
• Yes, contextually.
• Yes, yes, maybe.
• Yes, contextually.
• Yes.

With my own additions of:

• Supports downsizing and specializing the military for defensive (edit:) and multilateral peacekeeping operations.
• Opposes unilateral interventionism.
• Supports doing away with fossil fuels as a mainline fuel source; supports recycling as a pervasive concept and doing away with landfills.
• Opposes unilateral nuclear disarmament, but supports multilateral disarmament.
• Supports the nationalization of most of the military-industrial complex.

...

That's all I got, for now.

edited 12th Jan '12 5:18:46 PM by Flyboy

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

I meant abortion, not adoption. An embarassing typo if there ever was one!

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Well, letting gays adopt seems as important as abortion, if you ask me. Hell, if you're going to be against abortion, you should be for gay adoption so those kids can get a home if the mother can't raise them. But most people against abortion are a bit myopic regarding the gays as well.

Clarification: I'm pro-abortion and pro-gay adoption.

edited 12th Jan '12 5:49:43 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Ideal? Hmm.

• Supports abortion rights, unrestricted distribution of contraceptives, and similar reproductive health issues.
• Supports closing tax loopholes, and is willing to give the IRS more leeway in enforcing and auditing against corporations. Possibly include a measure to prevent employees of the Reserve Board (or similar positions of authority) from leaving to directly work for a company they had oversight of.
• Willing to gradually raise the age limit on Social Security up to 70.*
  most of the plans for this I've heard of would raise the age to draw benefits by one year every two - so for example, were it implemented now, in 2014 the age would be 66, in 2018 67, etc.
• Give better funding to ICE for deporting those here illegally, and especially more funding for approving visas and citizenship applications.
• Willing to put harsher limits on military R&D, especially cutting off ones that are badly overbudget*
  Littoral, I'm looking at you
  and put that money into better support for veteran's health care.
• Return funding to NASA, goddamn it. I want to see a man on Mars before I die.
• Supports the repeal of DOMA, even if that means a Constitutional Amendment.*
  It's probably either that, or 50+ years of very gradual culture shift.

I can't think of anything else that I consider to be super-important.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

@Savage,

~shrug~

I'm anti-abortion, but at the moment the legal status of abortion itself is irrelevant.

This:

Is very important to getting rid of abortion, however.

Yes, but I also think the IRS should be held to the same "innocent until proven guilty" standard as normal law enforcement, since apparently they aren't and that's idiotic.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

I'm not too picky, but I would prefer a candidate that would push for the a no-loophole flat tax designed to hit the high point of the Laffer curve.

Please spay/neuter your pets. Also, defang your copperheads.

Ron Paul, only with the foreign policy of let's-say FDR, and putting more stock in the flaws of human nature and less stock in Bilderberg conspiracies.

(The foreign policy is kind of a deal-breaker for me. I love a politician who cites the Tenth Amendment, but on balance, I'd rather have the government we have now than be responsible for a whole lot of dead Israelis.)

edited 13th Jan '12 7:17:16 PM by DomaDoma

Hail Martin Septim!

For those supporting the Defense Department, they once said that protesting now qualifies as "low-level terrorism." I'm not making up this disclaimer.

edited 13th Jan '12 7:23:44 PM by Serocco

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.

Supports gay and female equality.

Supports a flat tax of 25 percent, but closes any and all tax loopholes.

Pushes heavily for anti-lobbying legislation.

Pushes for federal gun control laws, abolishing the states right to decide gun control issues. Conceal carry is available if you pass a test and demonstrate good judgement on when to use lethal force, but automatics and explosives are illegal. Carbines and handy features like collapsible stocks and pistol grips are acceptable.

Tries to abolish corporate personhood.

Pushes for alternative energy.

Raises tariffs against imports, provides incentives for exporting and home based manufacturing.

Avoids on the ground intervention in other countries, but doesn't hesitate when American interests are threatened severely.

Pro-Universal Healthcare

Slims down on "managers" in government jobs, less chiefs, more Indians.

Doesn't erode military benefits.

Is against the contractor influenced military industrial complex.

Did they qualify it with, like, scattered Molotov cocktails or anything? Happens enough during protests in the Bay Area.

edited 13th Jan '12 7:23:43 PM by DomaDoma

Hail Martin Septim!

Just protesting, ala OWS. Protesting alone is enough for them to consider you a terrorist, hence part of why there was a lot of Occupier crackdowns from riot police.

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.

OWS charged the police lines (which are there for every organized protest) about twice a week. In Oakland, they vandalized the shit out of local businesses. Then there were the attempted rapes, the constant drug presence (not that I approve of drug laws), the Occupy member who was shot and killed maybe fifty paces from the protest, and then a portion of the protesters formed a human chain to stop people filming him being loaded into the ambulance... "Terrorism" might be a bit strong, as their agenda didn't have the focus required for terrorism, but you can't tell me that the police had no excuse to crack down.

Hail Martin Septim!

It puts you in a group that terrorist organizations draw from, which means it is worth their time to investigate you.

They had no excuse: Suppressing left-wing protesters is always unacceptable.

edited 14th Jan '12 4:43:10 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I did qualify that I mean specifically for corporations, not individuals, though I'd support closing more tax loopholes for individuals as well. Ideally, this would be done by removing parts of IRS guidelines rather than adding even more, since usually that simply creates new loopholes.

a tad off-topic

Also off-topic is the Do D/OWS stuff. I'd say take it to a new thread, but that's currently suspended, so find a thread where it's not off-topic please?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw