Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Elections > PW Presidential Race
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

PW Presidential Race Discuss How the PW vote went down at the Elections; I would like to renew peoples interest in this vote. My stance: A little opening statement to get things going. ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2012, 11:56 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,071
Thanks: 1,599
Thanked 3,068 Times in 2,073 Posts
Default How the PW vote went down

I would like to renew peoples interest in this vote.

My stance:
Quote:
A little opening statement to get things going. I'm going to limit it to very basic ideals for now.

The role of the Federal government is way too broad and has expanded far beyond what we need or should expect it to be. So with that in mind some basics...

1- The Federal government's primary mission is to protect it's borders and citizens. We have far too many military bases around the globe and they don't come cheap. I would begin closing the majority of them beginning with those in countries that don't particularly like us and ones that can get by on their own. This is not to equate with gutting the military necessarily as we would maintain a decent sized force that could mobilize at any time but base them here, mostly on our southern border to help with that mess.

2- The tax system is a disaster. Anyone with basic math skills should be able to do their own taxes at the kitchen table in about 15 minutes. A flat tax with no deductions accomplishes this. It would be graduated by your income beginning at 1% for the lowest earners and maxing out at 12%. And yes, everyone pays at least 1% living here is a priviledge and we all get to participate. We can't have 47% of the pople paying nothing and crying that those that are paying aren't paying their fair share. Nothing isn't a fair share either.

3- The federal government is not adept at running anything at a personal level. That is best left to the state, county or city you live in. This includes healthcare, welfare and education.

3A- The NEA will basically be eliminated and their only function limited to taking what the Feds share per student will be and sending those kids a voucher to be used at any public or private school of their choice, right now that would appear to be about five to seven thousand per child (doesn't include the state or local share). This will extend to children up to 22 years of age with one stipulation. After you turn 18 you must have a high school diploma to continue getting funds, in addition your funding will depend on performance. 4.0 grades get you 100%, 3.0 gets you 80%, 2.0 gets 50% and below that you get nothing. Fail on your own dime or go get a job.

3B- Welfare, a state program. That way they can determine what you need to do to collect. Maybe that would mean 8 hours a week on a cleanup crew or mowing a park...up to them.

3C- Healthcare, you and your doctors know what you need better than the Feds. Federally all insurance companies can cross state lines. If your state does the same insurance rates will come down. This one gets detailed so will stop here.

4- Did I mention the Feds aren't qualified to make an individuals decisions? That includes marriage. With the tax loopholes taken care of you are now free to do whatever you want, the playing field remains level. File as single and pay your rate, file as married and pay your rate. Marriage is between God and you so no you can't sue the Catholics for not marrying gays it's their right, You don't like that find another church if you need one or simply go tell your friends you're married now and have a kegger to celebrate. Nobody else cares.

5- Energy. We need a bunch of it, we have a bunch and we're going to go get it in as safe a manner as we can. But we're going to get it so we aren't screwed if the middle east starts acting like a**holes. LMAO! IF they start? This is a given we should prepare. What we do have with the Feds out of education and schools competing for the students is some damn fine colleges and universities, about two per state to be exact. Let them partner up with the private sector or one another and try to come up with a new energy source, we will have something very promising in pretty short order. The money a school could get for succeeding is too great to pass up. Somebody may even decide to take the student vouchers and start a private University of Alternate Energy. All kinds of possibilities.

6- The Federal government itself is going to shrink out of neccessity. First they won't have anything to do and second we won't be looking for something for them to do. We've had 235 years worth of laws being made. There are laws on the books for f*cking everything. We have enough laws we just need to weed out the garbage ones and enforce the ones we need. So congress isn't needed much really about one month a year would be enough. With that comes term limits and loss of retirement and healthcare for life. Getting voted out of the government is like losing any other job. You need a new one.

That's enough for now. I'm sure the minutia and details will be coming soon enough.
The d-man:
Quote:
As a candidate for PW President, I am not interested in making any grandiose promises that cannot possibly be kept. If you want a candidate that is going to promise to eliminate the national debt, restructure the entire tax system, drastically reduce the size of government, eliminate entitlement programs, close military bases all over the world, end illegal immigration, end poverty, bring peace to the Middle East, or get everything right and cure cancer, I AM NOT YOUR CANDIDATE!

I have absolutely no intention of misleading the voting public by suggesting that the President has the power to unilaterally do any of the above.

Here is what I promise:
1. Each day I spend in the Oval Office will be in service to the nation; not a party, not a special interest, not my “legacy.”
2. Each day I spend in the Oval Office will be focused on bringing common sense to our government and political system through steady incrementalism.
3. Each day I spend in the Oval Office will be focused on eliminating waste and increasing accountability in government spending.
4. Each day I spend in the Oval Office, national security will be the first and last thing I address.
5. If by the third year of my first term, my administration has not achieved measurable success in eliminating waste and increasing accountability, I WILL NOT run for a second term.

If you want a candidate that is going to tell you the truth, no matter how popular it is politically, then I’m your candidate.

If you want a candidate that is going do his best to do the right thing in every situation, no matter how popular it is politically, then I’m your candidate.

If you want a candidate that will actually read every page of a bill he puts his signature to, then I’m your candidate.
Both very right wing stances of limited government, Country first special interests last, let people be themselves stances. This actually is what we are facing next Tuesday only one choice agree's with that. Based on our voting how is Obama even close?

Last edited by AzMike; 11-02-2012 at 12:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-02-2012, 12:14 AM
dabateman's Avatar
Buckle-up Buttercup
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,121
Thanks: 2,113
Thanked 8,454 Times in 4,955 Posts
Default Re: How the PW vote went down

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzMike View Post
I would like to renew peoples interest in this vote.

My stance:


The d-man:


Both very right wing stances of limited government, Country first special interests last, let people be themselves stances. This actually is what we are facing next Tuesday only one choice agree's with that. Based on our voting how is Obama even close?
I disagree with your assertion that my positions are in any way "right wing". Please don't use my campaign ideals with my name/mark on them to attack or support any candidate. It's not a game you want to play with Governor Romney being the alternative to President Obama.

EDIT: I understand, that in your way, your post was at least complimentary of my positions. I appreciate that. Sincerely. However, as a liberal/libertarian I don't like my positions painted as "right wing" when they're anything but. Accountability is not a conservative virtue or liberal vice, it is a human need. That's libertarian pragmatism, not right wing lunacy.
__________________
Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.



You get the respect you give. And if you're a Republican, you b*tch about paybacks being a b*tch. So sorry you're mad your guy is getting the respect you gave ours, Snowflakes.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-02-2012, 12:34 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,071
Thanks: 1,599
Thanked 3,068 Times in 2,073 Posts
Default Re: How the PW vote went down

Quote:
Originally Posted by dabateman View Post
I disagree with your assertion that my positions are in any way "right wing". Please don't use my campaign ideals with my name/mark on them to attack or support any candidate. It's not a game you want to play with Governor Romney being the alternative to President Obama.

EDIT: I understand, that in your way, your post was at least complimentary of my positions. I appreciate that. Sincerely. However, as a liberal/libertarian I don't like my positions painted as "right wing" when they're anything but. Accountability is not a conservative virtue or liberal vice, it is a human need. That's libertarian pragmatism, not right wing lunacy.
It was complimentary. You are a pretty right wing guy. Other than a couple social issues you really are a limited government, low tax, low intervention person.

I'm trying to figure out how you can be polar opposite in liberal and libertarian. Those don't mix any better than oil and water. But it's all good. When it came time to step up with your ideals and vision we were damn close.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-02-2012, 12:45 AM
dabateman's Avatar
Buckle-up Buttercup
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,121
Thanks: 2,113
Thanked 8,454 Times in 4,955 Posts
Default Re: How the PW vote went down

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzMike View Post
It was complimentary. You are a pretty right wing guy. Other than a couple social issues you really are a limited government, low tax, low intervention person.

I'm trying to figure out how you can be polar opposite in liberal and libertarian. Those don't mix any better than oil and water. But it's all good. When it came time to step up with your ideals and vision we were damn close.
I disagree with your assertion that I'm "limited government, low tax, low intervention" as a generalization.

Limited Government: Unlike my friends on the right, I am not interested in a limited government for the sake of limited government. I believe that government plays an important role in our modern society and accordingly, it is imperative that we do what we can to make government more EFFICIENT. Now in some cases, that will create limited government because it will reduce the bloated layers of government we have today. However, that does not necessarily change the role of government which is what many limited government advocates try to assert. It is not for ME, had I been elected, to dictate to the people what the government can and cannot do. As the Executive, it would be my place to determine HOW to do it.

Low Tax: I cannot think of one person who, at the end of the day, wouldn't prefer a lower tax. However, as I have said time and again, that can only happen if we increase accountability and reduce the the level of spending. I will not support a lower tax when our spending outpaces our income unlike the "conservatives" during the GWB administration. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up.

Low Intervention: Again, I'm not for "low" intervention just like I'm not for "limited" government. I'm for efficient intervention just like I'm for efficient government. I think there are areas in which we can reduce intervention, but there are clearly areas to my mind that require greater intervention.

Liberal and Libertarian are NOT polar opposites as you assert. They can be cooperative just like Conservative and Libertarian can be. My position has always been workability. How can we make it work with the least amount of waste as possible?

The government does not have to be the enemy, but it seems that the right can never get to that point.
__________________
Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.



You get the respect you give. And if you're a Republican, you b*tch about paybacks being a b*tch. So sorry you're mad your guy is getting the respect you gave ours, Snowflakes.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-02-2012, 12:52 AM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 81,376
Thanks: 55,461
Thanked 26,288 Times in 18,813 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: How the PW vote went down

since sandy i guess y'all will be addressing global warming?
__________________
Russia planted stories and the GOP believed them.
That's too funnie.
The GOP is a joke.
~DB
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-02-2012, 01:20 AM
dabateman's Avatar
Buckle-up Buttercup
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,121
Thanks: 2,113
Thanked 8,454 Times in 4,955 Posts
Default Re: How the PW vote went down

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
since sandy i guess y'all will be addressing global warming?
Be it good or bad, I get to defer to AZMike on that one. He won so... He's holding the bag.
__________________
Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.



You get the respect you give. And if you're a Republican, you b*tch about paybacks being a b*tch. So sorry you're mad your guy is getting the respect you gave ours, Snowflakes.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-02-2012, 01:27 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,071
Thanks: 1,599
Thanked 3,068 Times in 2,073 Posts
Default Re: How the PW vote went down

Quote:
Originally Posted by dabateman View Post
I disagree with your assertion that I'm "limited government, low tax, low intervention" as a generalization.

Limited Government: Unlike my friends on the right, I am not interested in a limited government for the sake of limited government. I believe that government plays an important role in our modern society and accordingly, it is imperative that we do what we can to make government more EFFICIENT. Now in some cases, that will create limited government because it will reduce the bloated layers of government we have today. However, that does not necessarily change the role of government which is what many limited government advocates try to assert. It is not for ME, had I been elected, to dictate to the people what the government can and cannot do. As the Executive, it would be my place to determine HOW to do it.

Low Tax: I cannot think of one person who, at the end of the day, wouldn't prefer a lower tax. However, as I have said time and again, that can only happen if we increase accountability and reduce the the level of spending. I will not support a lower tax when our spending outpaces our income unlike the "conservatives" during the GWB administration. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up.

Low Intervention: Again, I'm not for "low" intervention just like I'm not for "limited" government. I'm for efficient intervention just like I'm for efficient government. I think there are areas in which we can reduce intervention, but there are clearly areas to my mind that require greater intervention.

Liberal and Libertarian are NOT polar opposites as you assert. They can be cooperative just like Conservative and Libertarian can be. My position has always been workability. How can we make it work with the least amount of waste as possible?

The government does not have to be the enemy, but it seems that the right can never get to that point.
Will pick up tomorrow, bed time but certainly need to address Salty with my limited time.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-02-2012, 01:31 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,071
Thanks: 1,599
Thanked 3,068 Times in 2,073 Posts
Default Re: How the PW vote went down

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
since sandy i guess y'all will be addressing global warming?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dabateman View Post
Be it good or bad, I get to defer to AZMike on that one. He won so... He's holding the bag.
Not a f*cking chance I'm going to try to legislate storms that have happened time and again in our history of being on this continent. Taxes will cure those? Sh*t shoulda thought of taxing weather sooner. I'm sure a charge of taxing every cow fart would have prevented this storm.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11-02-2012, 01:35 AM
dabateman's Avatar
Buckle-up Buttercup
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,121
Thanks: 2,113
Thanked 8,454 Times in 4,955 Posts
Default Re: How the PW vote went down

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzMike View Post
Not a f*cking chance I'm going to try to legislate storms that have happened time and again in our history of being on this continent. Taxes will cure those? Sh*t shoulda thought of taxing weather sooner. I'm sure a charge of taxing every cow fart would have prevented this storm.
You get what you vote for folks.
__________________
Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.



You get the respect you give. And if you're a Republican, you b*tch about paybacks being a b*tch. So sorry you're mad your guy is getting the respect you gave ours, Snowflakes.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2012, 12:27 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,071
Thanks: 1,599
Thanked 3,068 Times in 2,073 Posts
Default Re: How the PW vote went down

Quote:
Originally Posted by dabateman View Post
I disagree with your assertion that I'm "limited government, low tax, low intervention" as a generalization.
You do seem a little shaky on some positions.

Quote:
Limited Government: Unlike my friends on the right, I am not interested in a limited government for the sake of limited government. I believe that government plays an important role in our modern society and accordingly, it is imperative that we do what we can to make government more EFFICIENT. Now in some cases, that will create limited government because it will reduce the bloated layers of government we have today. However, that does not necessarily change the role of government which is what many limited government advocates try to assert.
Limited government is a government controlled by the governed. The best stance is always to make the government do less, the absolute minimum and never let them cross that line. We are so far beyond efficient being the measuring stick today we need to get back to necessary as the criteria.

Quote:
It is not for ME, had I been elected, to dictate to the people what the government can and cannot do. As the Executive, it would be my place to determine HOW to do it.
You're right, it's not up to you as the Constitution has taken care of this question. That document is solely rules of what the government can't do to you. It does not address what you think the government must do on your behalf. Which in the end if we want a free republic is they can't do much.

Quote:
Low Tax: I cannot think of one person who, at the end of the day, wouldn't prefer a lower tax. However, as I have said time and again, that can only happen if we increase accountability and reduce the the level of spending. I will not support a lower tax when our spending outpaces our income unlike the "conservatives" during the GWB administration. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up.
Here's a novel idea, how about we limit government spending to what they bring in. How about we have the same accounting laws and principles apply to government as we require the local quick stop to adhere to.

Quote:
Low Intervention: Again, I'm not for "low" intervention just like I'm not for "limited" government. I'm for efficient intervention just like I'm for efficient government. I think there are areas in which we can reduce intervention, but there are clearly areas to my mind that require greater intervention.
Less is more in almost any circumstance but the government, they choose to micro manage in order to feel useful and will pass a hundred different laws addressing one small area of concern instead of passing one law that is effective. We've now had over 200 years of government passing laws. How in the hell is everything critical to running a country not passed by now? Well it's because they pass new laws to keep their crooks from having to obey the previous laws that are sure to be in court soon due to another new law.

It's bullsh*t. The worst thing we ever did to ourselves is a full time congress and senate and a wage they get paid far more than the average citizen. There is no need for this much government.

Quote:
Liberal and Libertarian are NOT polar opposites as you assert. They can be cooperative just like Conservative and Libertarian can be. My position has always been workability. How can we make it work with the least amount of waste as possible?

The government does not have to be the enemy, but it seems that the right can never get to that point.
The government is always the enemy. That was pretty much the point of the birth of this country.

Sorry to go all f66 on you with the multi quotes I try to avoid that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
down, how, the, vote, went

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0