Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

What Would be Your Platform If You Ran for President

Recommended Posts

Just now, Patine said:

 

 I believe both Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism consider necromancy a high theological crime and have both been know to execute practitioners of such occult arts in the most horrible of ways in the past. :P

http://www.zootorah.com/RationalistJudaism/NoveltyOfOrthodoxy.pdf - the development of halachic Judaism to what's now called Orthodoxy is a rather recent phenomenon.

Share this post


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

http://www.zootorah.com/RationalistJudaism/NoveltyOfOrthodoxy.pdf - the development of halachic Judaism to what's now called Orthodoxy is a rather recent phenomenon.

Once again, you completely missed or tried to deflect or evade the point of my post entirely. This is becoming a bad habit of yours, and can make chatting with you a chore at times.

Share this post


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

Once again, you completely missed or tried to deflect or evade the point of my post entirely. This is becoming a bad habit of yours, and can make chatting with you a chore at times.

Well you in your sarcastic remark equated current orthodox theology and practice with past Judaism for all time. This isn't factual.

Share this post


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

Well you in your sarcastic remark equated current orthodox theology and practice with past Judaism for all time. This isn't factual.

It was a half-serious poking fun at you two resurrecting a long-dead thread. It's not held to the same threshold of historical accuracy as a much more sober, serious, heady conversation or diatribe. You also have a problem with your sense of context and proportion a lot of the time.

Share this post


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

It was a half-serious poking fun at you two resurrecting a long-dead thread. It's not held to the same threshold of historical accuracy as a much more sober, serious, heady conversation or diatribe. You also have a problem with your sense of context and proportion a lot of the time.

Please provide some examples of the last.

Share this post


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

Please provide some examples of the last.

I am not a court prosecutor. I don't have time for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Which political party would you run under? 

Democrats..

2) What is your ideal party platform (I recommend using the issues and answers on https://www.isidewith.com/)



 Equal Pay => Don't push the federal for it, free for states who want to regulate it


 Abortion => For the current federal rule about it


 Gun Control => Oppose massive guns (a lot of balls by minutes) for little guns to ensure protection first with an interdiction to everyone who would have mental dicease which could be prooved dangerous


 Armed Teachers => Idiocy.


 Marital Rape => I consider it can exist so yes


 LGBT Adoption Rights => Completely for


 Religious Freedom Act => I am in favour too


 Planned Parenthood Funding => Yes but limitations for excessive (rare) abuses of the system.


Gun Control => In favor


Gay Marriage => Completely for


Minimum Wage => If I was governor, I would freeze it, essentially where it is too high like California, but in others states where it is really low, I would maybe raise it according to the inflation


Muslim Immigration => Everyone has the right to become a citizen of a foreign country

 

3) Who will you select as VP. Your advisers and party leaders recommend that you select someone within your party that is ideologically, regionally and, preferably, demographically different. They also want you to select someone that makes up for any weaknesses you may have in personality, age, experience, etc.  Lastly, they prefer you select governors or senators, but a governor or senator who will not be replaced by someone from the opposing party if they become your VP. 

 

=> I would choose either a Governor/Senator widely popular from the South for his moderate views on society and economy and who would be loyal to me OR I would choose a Governor/Senator from a Swing State like Sherrod Brown

 

4) Prior to the convention the party establishment and more populist base will force you to make concessions on your ideal platform. Additionally, for the general election, your advisers are recommending that you veer as much to the center as you can to win over independent centrists in what is expected to be a close election. Which issues from your ideal platform are you willing to alter to secure party harmony and to win the general election? (You must select at least three, but name all that you are willing to amend). 

 

I would push jobs first as the main topic of the Democratic party and return my prior default (libertarian societal liberties ideas) as a force.

Why and how?

I am centrist on economy, radical on society.

It takes to push everyday that America wants jobs first, wants a strong economy and real issues, and on the same page, attract libertarians and keep the left democrats with a huge societal revolution project toward more civils liberties, it can make it.

So:

-Simplify administrative codes and reduce defence spending

-Not create more welfare but help the states which could be in difficulty with their own, focus on  a massive economic boost by regulations and TAX CUTS.

-Push for next societal rights to gain (PMA, abortion, medicinal drugs)

 

5) During your campaign in the general election, what will you promise to do in your first 100 days, if elected? (Note: both Houses of Congress are likely to be against you, as are most of the state governors). 

 

-Tax cuts

-Army spending cuts.

-GET BACK THE AMERICAN ARMY FROM AFGHANISTAN.

-Push a national societal movement.

-Cuts unecessaries government's aids to strange programs what the Senate could denounce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sami said:

Everyone has the right to become a citizen of a foreign country

Actually, your wording here is not at all supported in fact, and, as you state, would require unanimous international legal consent for such a "right," as termed, to actually exist - no one nation, or even a majority of nations, could make such a declaration, and make that rule actually true. In fact, some nations in the world have ABSOLUTELY no legal or constitutional process or mechanism to naturalize non-citizens under any circumstances. As an example, the UAE, where the tax exempt status and the big oil dividend payout bill is available to any CITIZEN of the nation (who are now less than a third of the nation's population - the majority are foreign workers or expatriot residents of various sorts who will NEVER EVER be citizens), citizenship requires being a direct descendant of one of the original Bedouin tribes who founded the original nine emirates of the Trucial States that became the seven emirates of the modern UAE back AT LEAST seven generations. There is no other legal method to attain citizenship. Even if a foreign woman marries an Emirati man (a foreign man is legally forbidden to marry Emirati woman except is case of family arranged marriage to members of families in other Persian Gulf Monarchies or other Arab monarchies like Jordan or Morocco), the foreign woman NEVER actually acquires Emirati citizenship herself, or has any chance to - she is legally a "resident foreign spouse," not a citizen - even though her children with that Emirati citizen will be Emirati citizens. So, to conclude, the "right" you state above is not actually a real or extant right that truly exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Patine said:

Actually, your wording here is not at all supported in fact, and, as you state, would require unanimous international legal consent for such a "right," as termed, to actually exist - no one nation, or even a majority of nations, could make such a declaration, and make that rule actually true. In fact, some nations in the world have ABSOLUTELY no legal or constitutional process or mechanism to naturalize non-citizens under any circumstances. As an example, the UAE, where the tax exempt status and the big oil dividend payout bill is available to any CITIZEN of the nation (who are now less than a third of the nation's population - the majority are foreign workers or expatriot residents of various sorts who will NEVER EVER be citizens), citizenship requires being a direct descendant of one of the original Bedouin tribes who founded the original nine emirates of the Trucial States that became the seven emirates of the modern UAE back AT LEAST seven generations. There is no other legal method to attain citizenship. Even if a foreign woman marries an Emirati man (a foreign man is legally forbidden to marry Emirati woman except is case of family arranged marriage to members of families in other Persian Gulf Monarchies or other Arab monarchies like Jordan or Morocco), the foreign woman NEVER actually acquires Emirati citizenship herself, or has any chance to - she is legally a "resident foreign spouse," not a citizen - even though her children with that Emirati citizen will be Emirati citizens. So, to conclude, the "right" you state above is not actually a real or extant right that truly exists.

Legally I'm aware of the totally ignorance of NY conventions and general international law about immigration :)

But for me the North American legislation has lost its logic

And I will take the French and the Canadian law in my RL cupple to comparate

If I want to become a Canadian citizen, I need either to successfully be accepted among the 50 000 economic cases opened in Quebec every year OR to be sponsored by a canadian citizen.

So for example, my boyfriend.

BUT, if I do it, I have to be confident in my future with, because he will have the duty to ensure for 3 years my survivance in Canada, and at the end of this period, he will legally be able to ask me back all the money he spent to me during 3 years.

Let's add that since Harper, it takes 4 YEARS and not 3 to be citizen, even this puts a strange situation where I could have the official residency directly but have a strange last year + the potentiality that I become ruined ^^.

But even if I have this risk, I would be lucky because a Canadian citizen would have offered to me to get direct residency and not to wait for economic open places which are selective in Canada.

Of course, last but not least, I would have to live 75% of the time in Canada every year, if I decide to travel too much, everything is out.

There is the language test but thanks federal bilinguism, even if I could reach the anglophone level for passing it, the french alternative ensures a beautiful mastership in this test ^^.

 

What about France in the opposite side now?

Well, if I marry my bf in example, I would have just to report it to the consulate of France, for example in Montreal, and 4 years after, he will be able to be naturalized as French citizen, even if he did not live in France a single day of the last FOUR YEARS.

 

Canada claims to be an open society but reality is that even France which is not the most open immigration country compared to Germany or UK is far less exclusive than the North American immigration system. (Of course if we talk about numbers, Canada has a relatively good open system, but the target is on economic migrant, not families).

Currently in France, the Right Wing is asking to have the economic selective canadian system.

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

×