Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

What Would be Your Platform If You Ran for President

Recommended Posts

1. GOP

2. My platform would be Tea Party/ Right-wing Libertarian:

-Require all immigrants to learn English.

-Secure the borders and build a wall.

-Ban abortion.

-Lower taxes- Flat tax.

-Abolish Department of Education.

-Abolish EPA.

-Term Limits

-Decrease foreign aid 

-Leave same-sex marriage to the states.

-Require voter ID in all states.

-Bring our troops home and only use if cases of direct threats.

-Support Israel.

-Balanced budget.

-Protect 2nd Amendment.

3. VP- Sarah Palin. Loyal, female, executive and name recognition.

4. I could go more towards the center on making English the official language. Decrease foriegn aid and term limits.

5. Promises:

-Balance budget

-Repeal Obamacare

-Repeal Obama's executive orders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

it is consistent and I dont want the American people to go to HELL

The lives of other Americans are not your lives to legislate.

You do accept personal liberty and accountability, a value hugely ingrained in US culture and history, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

no im here I had a family emergency for the last two days, but I agree with the good reverend and I would not abridge one's freedom to religion or lack thereof

This is unclear. You're presumably in favour of banning homosexuality, which would force the breakup of millions of couples across the US. You're presumably against pre-marital sex, pornography etc. There are ways to inflict on personal liberty that do not involve banning a religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Skavau said:

This is unclear. You're presumably in favour of banning homosexuality, which would force the breakup of millions of couples across the US. You're presumably against pre-marital sex, pornography etc. There are ways to inflict on personal liberty that do not involve banning a religion.

 

I would restrict so-called "personal Liberties" that have sin written on them but would not ban any religions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

I would restrict so-called "personal Liberties" that have sin written on them but would not ban any religions

That is in effect, forcing people to live by Christianity. A quasi-theocracy. You'd also need BIG GOVERNMENT to enforce those kind of morality laws.

You literally have more in common with the mullahs of Iran than you do US politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might I make a few suggestions on "Christian legislation" which you seem to have missed. First, unrestrained, unregulated corporatism and extremely low corporate tax and tax on the wealthy is very un-Christian, as Christ, in his personal ministry eschewed materialism, condemned greed, and showed disdain for the wealthy. Second, militarism and the 2nd Amendment are also very un-Christian, as Christ preached non-violence in his ministry and neither God nor Christ would endorse the 2nd Amendment, as it is just a statement of a right to own implements whose sole purpose is to break the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Also, welfare, Social Security, nationalized healthcare, and such are not originally a Socialist idea but more in line with Christ's teachings, enjoining us to "shelter the homeless, feed the poor, heal the sick," and other such good works, and that being staunchly opposed to such, especially to instead facilitate the enrichment of corporations, is being staunchly against a major pillar of Christ's ministry. And finally, a hard-line judiciary to enforce morality-based legislation (or even what currently exists) goes against what Christ says when he says, "Judgement is for God alone," "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "judge not lest ye be judged," and "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," which very much says that God will judge everyone on Judgement Day and that judging others is not a mortal prerogative, but instead forgiveness is encouraged. I won't even touch upon things like not eating pork, shaving, cutting your hair, wearing tattoos and other things in the Bible many modern Christians also like to ignore conveniently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My religion does not lead my politics (not very religious), but on the majority of things that I agree with when it comes to social issues, I would be considered a Christian. The assault on Christianity I do believe is very real. Christian bakers, florists and the like should be able to deny service based on religion. Here is where I personally differ:

Same-sex marriage- I personally believe that it should be banned through a constitutional amendment. HOWEVER, I will settle for a decision placed upon the voters of each state.

Prayer in schools- should be introduced as an OPTIONAL event. Not mandatory.

Abortion should be banned in most cases, though depending on the case and how heinous it is, other actions would be explores (i.e adoption, foster home etc.)

I am a Tea Partier, and my love for liberty and the Constitution leads my politics- not the bible. Though the latter should not be criticized, as the bible does not call for the kill of anyone that does not conform to the religion. 

Just reading over this, I see a lot of criticism for the latter, and I feel like that it in itself is becoming a norm, on what I and other call the "war on Christianity". 

Think about it- if a state does not legalize same-sex marriage because voters said NO at the ballot box, the Left should not continue to push for it to be legal. 

But anyway, that is what I think.

As Hermain Cains said: 10% was good enough for God, 9% will be good enough for America or something like that (talking about his 9-9-9 plan).

I call myself a Tea Partier, though I very much enjoy the Evangelicals and tea-evangelicals 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, we need to get back on the topic here. The topic is what would your platform would be if you ran for president, based on the 5 questions/guidelines. I think Anthony does not want these debates on the forums (based on feedback I got awhile ago from asking who folks wanted to see as president). Have a good day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

Might I make a few suggestions on "Christian legislation" which you seem to have missed. First, unrestrained, unregulated corporatism and extremely low corporate tax and tax on the wealthy is very un-Christian, as Christ, in his personal ministry eschewed materialism, condemned greed, and showed disdain for the wealthy. Second, militarism and the 2nd Amendment are also very un-Christian, as Christ preached non-violence in his ministry and neither God nor Christ would endorse the 2nd Amendment, as it is just a statement of a right to own implements whose sole purpose is to break the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Also, welfare, Social Security, nationalized healthcare, and such are not originally a Socialist idea but more in line with Christ's teachings, enjoining us to "shelter the homeless, feed the poor, heal the sick," and other such good works, and that being staunchly opposed to such, especially to instead facilitate the enrichment of corporations, is being staunchly against a major pillar of Christ's ministry. And finally, a hard-line judiciary to enforce morality-based legislation (or even what currently exists) goes against what Christ says when he says, "Judgement is for God alone," "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "judge not lest ye be judged," and "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," which very much says that God will judge everyone on Judgement Day and that judging others is not a mortal prerogative, but instead forgiveness is encouraged. I won't even touch upon things like not eating pork, shaving, cutting your hair, wearing tattoos and other things in the Bible many modern Christians also like to ignore conveniently.

 

 

Alright, let's get started, God implemented a flat tax with tithes and gave people free will to succeed on their own. Second, the Commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" The difference is that lawful killing is sanctioned and even supported by the LORD and is needed to keep a stable society. Christ loved everyone as you pointed out in your argument for socialism so to say he showed disdain for the wealthy is self-defeating. Again God emphasized PRIVATE charity and rich people are welcome all the same. And in case you haven't noticed, not all rich people are greedy bastards (the greedy people is who Jesus said would be left behind, and since the Pharisees were pretty much the only rich ones and were really greedy, he needed to apply his teachings to his Apostles who would not understand if talked about the future) as the Left would portray them, and not all homeless are saints. And finally I'm not judging them with these laws I'm applying God's judgments to the law. And Jesus cleared up the Leviticus food and appearance codes, which makes us Christians and not jews. However Tattoos are still sinful, I'll give you that one and as such those who receive them are committing, however minor, sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

 

Alright, let's get started, God implemented a flat tax with tithes and gave people free will to succeed on their own. Second, the Commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" The difference is that lawful killing is sanctioned and even supported by the LORD and is needed to keep a stable society. Christ loved everyone as you pointed out in your argument for socialism so to say he showed disdain for the wealthy is self-defeating. Again God emphasized PRIVATE charity and rich people are welcome all the same. And in case you haven't noticed, not all rich people are greedy bastards (the greedy people is who Jesus said would be left behind, and since the Pharisees were pretty much the only rich ones and were really greedy, he needed to apply his teachings to his Apostles who would not understand if talked about the future) as the Left would portray them, and not all homeless are saints. And finally I'm not judging them with these laws I'm applying God's judgments to the law. And Jesus cleared up the Leviticus food and appearance codes, which makes us Christians and not jews. However Tattoos are still sinful, I'll give you that one and as such those who receive them are committing, however minor, sin.

So are you therefore in favour of banning people from getting tattoos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Skavau said:

So are you therefore in favour of banning people from getting tattoos?

I'm more moderate on that because it's not a sex crime and only a minor sin I think I would have to say no. I would never get one or allow anyone I know to get one though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I'm more moderate on that because it's not a sex crime and only a minor sin I think I would have to say no. I would never get one or allow anyone I know to get one though.

Anyone you know? How does that work? You just control your friends lives?

In any case, that you're hinting again that you'd ban 'sex crimes' suggests that you would impose your religious values on non-Christians.

I have no idea how you can call yourself a defender of freedom with a straight face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's insulting that you compare me to that monster and I phrased it wrong, of course, I wouldn't have over friends, I meant my kids. And freedom isn't defiling the LORD, what you preach isn't freedom, it is slavery to sin and Mephistopheles himself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Well, it's insulting that you compare me to that monster and I phrased it wrong, of course, I wouldn't have over friends, I meant my kids. And freedom isn't defiling the LORD, what you preach isn't freedom, it is slavery to sin and Mephistopheles himself

You do not own the definition of freedom. Freedom is not the ability to just live as you personally think people should live.

Freedom is freedom from, and that includes freedom from people telling you what you may or may not do based on their religious beliefs.

You're certainly free to refrain from 'sin' for yourself. You don't get to impose what you choose to refrain from on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you don't own the definition of freedom either but you are trying to tell me what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reagan04

As a devout Christian myself, I've often had this question to pose:

Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. They had everything perfect, but they were far from perfect robots who only served God. God did not want puppets, he wanted his followers to have choice, otherwise Adam and Eve would have never been able to bite into the apple. 

If even God gave humanity the choice, what authority do we have to restrict one another on non-violent sin? Are we above God to enforce his 'will' when he himself gave the very first creations the choice? 

Note: I am not looking down upon a restrictive viewpoint, but acknowledging this aspect of Christianity is a must if you plan to use Christianity as the basis for different laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

And you don't own the definition of freedom either but you are trying to tell me what it is.

You're actually going to argue that freedom is your freedom to control the lives of other people?

Who are you to own my life, what I can do?

 

I do not wish to control you. You do wish to control me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point however they were perfect until Satan tempted them and I would just like to steer the American people away from sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Skavau said:

You're actually going to argue that freedom is your freedom to control the lives of other people?

Who are you to own my life, what I can do?

 

I do not wish to control you. You do wish to control me.

 

That's not my argument and I only wish to control sexual deviancy that has destroyed our society from the inside out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

That's not my argument and I only wish to control sexual deviancy that has destroyed our society from the inside out.

You controlling "sexual deviancy" would in fact inflict upon the lives of almost all Non-Christians and even many Christians. You would ban premarital sex, ban pornographic content, ban masturbation, ban certain themes in media. This would be highly intrusive to culture and require a big government to enforce and impose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reagan04

Obviously God could have made them free from temptation, and not allowed to go against his will, but as he desired free will in his creations, they were able to make the bite. 

Yes, it was a mistake by the first creations, but God KNEW the mistake would happen, he is omnipotent. And he still did not choose to restrict his creation's free will.

I understand you would like to steer the American people away from sin, as would we all. But are we in a place to override God's authority and the choice he made? Are we really to believe that a choice made by a mortal man is better than that of our Father? Despite having good intentions, we can not have better judgement than He, hence why I don't believe Christianity, and the prospect of sin, can be the basis of behaviour restricting legislature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Skavau said:

You controlling "sexual deviancy" would in fact inflict upon the lives of almost all Non-Christians and even many Christians. You would ban premarital sex, ban pornographic content, ban masturbation, ban certain themes in media. This would be highly intrusive to culture and require a big government to enforce and impose.

 

It would not require big government only more police funding and I would not ban certain themes in media. I would ban fornication, pornography and masturbation. I would not ban nudity as long as those nude aren't committing sexual acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CalebsParadox said:

@Reagan04

Obviously God could have made them free from temptation, and not allowed to go against his will, but as he desired free will in his creations, they were able to make the bite. 

Yes, it was a mistake by the first creations, but God KNEW the mistake would happen, he is omnipotent. And he still did not choose to restrict his creation's free will.

I understand you would like to steer the American people away from sin, as would we all. But are we in a place to override God's authority and the choice he made? Are we really to believe that a choice made by a mortal man is better than that of our Father? Despite having good intentions, we can not have better judgement than He, hence why I don't believe Christianity, and the prospect of sin, can be the basis of behaviour restricting legislature. 

 

Then why I ask, did he give us the restrictions, and I simply would steer the Americans away if they choose to violate it they will go to HELL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

It would not require big government only more police funding and I would not ban certain themes in media. I would ban fornication, pornography and masturbation. I would not ban nudity as long as those nude aren't committing sexual acts.

Pornographic or at least sexualised nudity exists across the media in movies, video games, literature, music, art etc. You would necessarily, if you're consistent have to impose a huge media firewall which would involve the criminalisation of a whole host of things.

You banning fornication and masturbation in itself is highly totalitarian and would take a very highly funded police force that snooped in people's private affairs to enforce. You are not pro-freedom by any stretch of the imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×