If the US elected the perfect president, what would they do? Would they lower taxes? Increase defense spending? Talk about what you would see in a perfect president here. No trolling or flaming.

Create some kind off incentive for people to bring jobs home instead of in China, get 16 trillion dollars from somewhere and pay off our debt, respect everyone's opinion, not make stupid policies, create a better tax system, come up with a way to maintain our might but decrease spending.

AND REMOVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

~~~Darth Caedus

perfect does not exist.
talking about the subject perfect takes ages because what is perfect for person A isn't perfect for person B and therefor perfect does not exist.

and seriously another usa elections/president topic?
are there not enough atm?

Lengthy Post Alert: Read Only if Courageous Enough

I'll take "US Electing the Perfect President" to mean leader or Prime Minister of the poster's country...

I would have to say the best (this is really mostly subjective) Prime Minister/President ever would do the following on the following stances:

I'm Canadian, so my ideal Prime Minister would take these stances on the following matters:

Taxes:Do not tax charities and non-profit non-hate group organizations who seek to benefit the community. For example keep places like The Salvation Army tax-exempt. After all it doesn't make much sense to tax an organization that sells only donated items from the public at a bargain price when all items sold are meant to be sold to the needed and any profit made goes to the employees/food banks/community etc...

Tax junk food, cigarettes and alcohol the most heavily. This would make sense because all these items (except for cigarettes) are good to a small degree, but in excess are bad for you. Taxing these foods and beverages
and narcotics will help to get people to buy other cheaper, more health oriented foods as an alternative.

Tax electronics moderately/heavily. This would be ideal and would make sense because recycling and getting some of these items out of landfills are expensive and electronics are environmentally unfriendly, so taxing them would help alleviate these costs and cons. After all why should the government have to be solely responsible for the fees of disposing of these items when they didn't use them all?

Tax healthy foods and beverages lightly/moderately. While it is understandable that some foods and beverages should be taxed more heavily because the contents used to make some of those food/beverage wrappers and containers is harder to dispose of, or is bad for the environment, encouraging a healthy generation of Canadians is very important. We want strong, healthy and morally just group of descendants after all do we not? So why make these healthy foods non-taxed?

Tax cars, and any other motor vehicles very heavily. To me this would make sense because if you're already paying tens of thousands for motor vehicles (some times even more) what's an extra few thousand dollars. Sure it's a pain to pay off the payments, but in the end the taxes make sense. Cars are very economically unfriendly, they for the most part damage our eco-system (via pollution and smog). are a leading cause in homicides (culpable and non-culpable), and they're expensive to dispose of.

Tax items like furniture, school items, tables, brooms, utensils (so basically all necessities) etc... Gently. Although they're reasonable difficult to dispose of and are mostly environmentally unfriendly it doesn't make sense to charge people on things they need to survive, it just doesn't seem right at all.

Tax luxury items moderately to heavily. Tax these items on the difficulty it is to dispose of, the level of harmful components in them (environmentally speaking) and how healthy they're.

Marijuana: I'm opinion less on this matter and I'm not a user as well as the fact that I do not know enough about it to offer an educated opinion, so I won't say anything about this.

Prostitution: Legalize prostitution, but strictly regulate and monitor it via bawdy-house and have the Ministry of Health watch it closely.

Why you ask is it that prostitution should be legal? My answer is this: [/i]Proponents of legalizing prostitution believe it would reduce crime, improve public health, increase tax revenue, help people out of poverty, get prostitutes off the streets, and allow consenting adults to make their own choices. They contend that prostitution is a victim-less crime, especially in the 11 Nevada counties where it remains legal. I concur with this statement from this website: Why Prositution should be legal.

[i]- Do not allow anyone with STI (Sexually Transmitted Infections) to become a prostitute and require regular STI testings to guarantee safety to the customers.
- Require any customers to show certification that they're without any type of STIs or STDs, require it so that the certificates are also regularly renewed.
- Require all prostitutes and customers to use protection.
- Obviously make prostitution consensual for the ladies and men.
- Only allow this in bawdy-houses so as to guarantee it is safely and properly conducted, and not in alleys where AIDs can be more easily transmitted without a certificate stating the person is "clean" so to speak, and where the prostitute won't be assaulted.

Keep prostitution on the streets illegal and criminalized

Abortion: I think it would be best if the perfect ruler of a country thought this way: Anti pro-choice with exceptions. Those being:

1. The mother's life is in danger if she continues on with the pregnancy.
2. Mother is ***** (I'm not saying I find it right that a person (the baby) is killed because of how the child was conceived, just that it should be the moms choice in this scenario).
3. The mom is known for being an abusive, alcoholic, smoking, and horrible human being with genetic diseases that are passed down the mom's bloodline (it wouldn't be right for a child to be born with a mother like this, death would be a kinder fate).
4. Mother or partner was using birth control, but it failed.

If the soon to be mother had sex without protection then she knew the inherent risks that goes along with this act. Therefore murdering (this is murder, because a one day year old fetus is still a person in my perspective) this child to take away a burden and a financially difficult situation is wrong. Yes, I've seen all the arguments to and for abortion and I know that some people think it should be purely the mothers choice, because she is the mom after all and that it is her body etc, etc, etc... but I purely disagree.

I know some people think fetus's aren't people because they don't feel or dream until a certain stage in the pregnancy, but I disagree. The immensely large probability of this zygote/fetus to turn into a person should deem it close enough to a person to deem it as a person under the law. Yes I know people could argue with this and dissemble my views with ease and make it look silly, but this is the way I feel and think.

Pollution & The Environment: Attack pollution with any and all resources available to simply eradicate all pollution slowly, but surely. The key to fixing this issue is the one of the most pressing concerns that there is (as long as using any and all resources available doesn't destroy the said countries economy).

We only have one planet, we need to secure this planet, guarantee its well being and protection. Since I've done a poor job illustrating why we need to do so please check out the following sites:

Bad For Our Environment

Bad For Our Health

Types of Abuse:
Criminalize child abuse, but make it legal for a parent or guardian to discipline their children to a reasonable limit. ie, make it illegal to hit a child with any implement save for the hands, and deem disciplination legal so long as it doesn't leave a mark. Criminalize physiological abuse.

Like how I created my own word of disciplination (I could think of no better substitution)?

Criminalize any type of spousal abuse. No spouse should have the legal right to harm the other spouse whatsoever.

I haven't nearly touched every issue or stance a perfect leader would take, but this is a summarization of how I think a perfect president should act and what he should legalize/decriminalize. There are many issues still untouched, for example foreign affairs, health care, religious laws, separating religion from state etc... But those are topics for another day =)

4. Mother or partner was using birth control, but it failed.

If this was so, then couldn't anyone just claim that they took birth control pills?
In my opinion, there is no such thing as a " perefect president". There is always a flaw, no matter how good they are. A good president to me would be one who works mainly on the economy, because, lets be honest, the U.S.A has one of the worst economies in history. And this president would need to be skilled in foreign relations, as in they must be more forceful on iran's nuclear threat, and be good at maintaining good relations with other countries.

I imagine that the perfect president would be acceptable to Republicans, Democrats, and everybody else and would receive one hundred per cent of available votes.

The same can be said for any business. If you own a restaurant, you provide FOOD to other people. You take whatever profits you make and you pay your employees, expand your business (which allows you to hire more people, feed more customers, etc.).

The same cannot be said, these other businesses make a profit for themselves, do no not sell at bargain prices like The Salvation Army Thrift Store does, they do not give back to the community like a charity/non-profit oranization does, and their purpose is not to be pure good like The Salvation Army is, but instead the main goal is to add money into the owners pockets. There are differences, and that is why charities are tax-exempt and restaurants, and groceries stores aren't.

How could you suggest such a horrible, condescending, thing?

Yea, I know right? The shame of I to try and stop people from killing themselves and to stop obesity and to attempt to make people live longer and more fulfulling lives!!! And then to promote these ideologies I would make people pay an extra thirteen sense on a dollar, which is already taxed on most things that would then go to maintaining our streets, schools, hospitals, adolescent soccer fields, cop salaries, unemployment agencies!!! How could I suggest such a thing?!?

That was sarcasm.

You're FORCING your views on other people. You believe soda is bad, therefore you want to PUNISH other people for not making healthier decisions. Do you have ANY idea how wrong that is?

It's hardly forcing to make people pay a few extra pennies on a dollar for a one dollar soda can. The reason is just, and it is for the greater good. I see no wrong. I myself enjoy sodas, I'd be willing to pay more for them, I think others should too.

I see no wrong in this. What you are saying is pure wrong in my opinion and horrible. Allowing people to kill themselves like this and become so unhealthy. That is sick and wrong. What you say is horrible in my perspective (I see your reasoning, I just strongly disagree with it).

I don't go to your house and demand you stop drinking soda, or to stop smoking. I don't tell you to cough up more cash. It's you body, do whatever the hell you want

I wouldn't mind you doing this to me if you were part of the government and the money would be going towards some of the aforementioned things. I would approve of it and suggest you try and get a law passed making it that everyone has to pay, lets say 20% taxes on junk food and such poop instead of 7%. Now instead of $0.99 to consume unhealthy foods/beverages you pay a whole whopping $1.20!!!!!

I shouldn't be allowed to use ANY means of force to "persuade" you to stop. You shouldn't do the same to us.

It isn't any means necessary, it's one reasonable mean that causes you two dimes extra...

You think you know what's best for everyone, better than the individual. You're assuming everyone who buys soda is going to abuse it, therefore you PUNISH those people by taxing them more

Wrong. It isn't a punishment, it's an incentive to be more healthy. The incentive is to save more money.

I do not assume everyone will abuse it, just that many people do abuse it. Thus these laws to pay slightly extra money are reasonable and justified... After all the money does go to good use when not misappropriated by the government...

You want the government to force healthy habits, and that is WRONG.

We have to agree to disagree. I believe it is just, right and admirable.

Value is relative and differs person to person. Some people value certain objects and activity above their own health, why punish them? Why are you forcing your values onto us?

Values that make you live longer? Have to pay extra money to a good cause (street maintenance, school maintenance, cop salaries etc...)? You seriously oppose this? Now that is truly horrible of you to say "just because it's someones body we should let them abuse themselves as they see fit".

Legalizing prostitution is okay, but let's keep people responsible for their own actions. If someone is harmed because a prostitute had STD's, and the prostitute said she was clean, she should be held reliable.

Yea I actually knew that, precedence in court shows that people knowingly lying about STDs can be and have been successfully charged with aggravated assault (assault causing someone to be maimed, disfigured and or threatening someones life). Or if the customer was successfully infected with an STD such as AIDs charges including and up to second degree murder (when the infected dies) and attempted murder have been charged.

We don't need over regulation, we merely need people to be held responsible for their actions.

Certification, bawdy-houses, consent is hardly over regulation in my opinion 0.o

Let's take money out of the equation. We don't have regulations on who we can have sex with (for the most part). We don't have to submit paperwork if we want to sleep at the lady from the bar. We don't have to have the government get involved in any way. The only difference between this and prostitution is whether or not money is being exchanged. When people are getting married, they're going to screw each other and have kids, we don't need the government to step in and say "before you get married, we need the two of you to get tested".

Point taken, but I think for the safety of the general public and the prostitutes bawdy-houses and certification are needed if there is going to be an institution specifically just to have sex... I didn't think what I said was over regulation at all, but I can see how you may think that.

Hopefully I made my point by now.

I mostly agree with what you said about prostitution, but disagree with much of everything else.

Freedom is sacred. Freedom is not the ability to harm others, as people like to misconstrue. Freedom is the ability to act on your own and make your own decisions as long as you aren't infringing on other people's freedoms.

Charging taxes on junk foods to keep people healthy is certainly not unconstitutional or infringing on another person's freedoms. If you were voted into office it is because the people of your country wanted you to be in office. It is then up to said politician to serve the public as she or he sees fit.

You aren't their master, and they aren't your slaves.

Bah, I don't see how this is people in general my slaves or me being their masters by passing a sin tax. You take what I say out of context. Increasing taxes is in no way making or leading a country towards totalitarianism nor is it making people your slaves or supporting slavery.

If you want to help them, talk to them.

This is talking to them. Saying "pay these taxes, to voluntarily harm your well being and aid your community," is a form of communication.

But don't FORCE them to treat themselves better.

Let's be perfectly honest about two things:

1. This isn't forcing people via any means necessary, it's not like I'm proposing we send cops to peoples' homes to raid them for having an excess of junk food and unhealthy choices within the home. When you say the word force, you make it sound like what I'm suggesting is the worst thing ever and to literally physically force people to stop eating unhealthily.

Both of which are untrue.

2. Let's be perfectly honest about another thing, some people are simply to stupid to look after themselves properly and know what is best for themselves (like children). This is especially true with eating habits. Therefore these tax laws would be justified to help these people.

It's not for a greater good, it's for a great evil. That evil is God complex.

Blatantly false. This is nothing like a God complex. Your thinking might be though. "Preserve everyone's freedom, no matter how harmful or foolish this is!"

If you want to pay extra taxes on soda, write a check to your government.

Would I want to? No. Would I be willing to? Yes. Do I think increased taxes would help with this obesity problem? Yes.

I never said it was unconstitutional. However, it IS infringing on people's freedoms. Forcing someone to pay more money for a product is infringement on one's freedoms.

If you're infringing on someones freedom then that is unconstitutional and unlawful. You can't be infringing on someones freedoms meanwhile being constitutional. Infringing on someones freedom is the willful and knowing act to break the law to do so.

No one is forcing them to buy chips or chocolate bars. They can choose a healthier alternative instead, for a cheaper price too.

I had the perfect song to respond to this, but sadly it's no longer on YouTube.

And we all know what's said on youtube should be taken to heart...

A position of power is not justification for tyranny, whether elected by the people or not.

Increasing taxes isn't tyrannical nor abusing a position of power. When you're elected into office by the people they're supposed to know what you represent and what you stand for. If I ran for office I wouldn't tell a poop load of lies and then when I'm in office completely contradict myself and propose these new ludicrous laws no one would know about until it's proposed. Nor would I want my perfect leader to do so, I thought that was a given?

If I ran for office or if this perfect leader did he would say what he wants done and be perfectly honest. He would let the general population know what laws he wants proposed and passed and the people would know his stances.

Why not fine people for being unhealthy? Oh wait, that would be a prejudice, therefore you have to assume everyone is unhealthy and punish everyone equally. Good job!

It's not a punishment, it's an incentive and meant to help rectify this obesity problem.

I'm healthy, but I have to pay more because other people drink too much soda?

1. Life's not fair. That's a proven fact and yes if one person (in this case many) decide to do something wrong generally speaking other people will get impacted by their actions as you would in this scenario.

You should be handcuffed to a person you hate and realize, it's WRONG to bind people with others against their will.

This perfect leader would have made it abundantly clear what he wanted to have done with the country when he was elected. Therefore if he is elected it shows the majority of the people would want this law or would be willing to live with it. Democracies go by what the majority want. If you don't like that, well then that's just to bad because most people voted the leader into office.

@NoName

On the matter of freedom. Freedom is allowed to a reasonable extent as predicated by the law. According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore it stands to reason that if a Prime Minister is elected it is reasonable to take away (can you even consider taxing taking away?) people's freedom to commit gluttony (ummm, I mean to use their "freedoms") via taxes.

Fun Fact: Did you know that Canada and America are both Christian countries that follow the word of God (this is in both the constitutions and anthems), and committing gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins? Therefore reducing the amount of gluttony people commit is also patriotic (even if it is by taxes)?

You are suggesting a sin tax for the freedom of the people to buy something.

I know I'm suggesting a sin tax for items that are bad for peoples health.  Which makes it alright in my view.

You make the population slightly healthier and gain taxes for the good of the country (when not misappropriated). Win/win scenario.

but this is a coverup

What is it covering up???

The better president would let the people buy whatever the hell they want to buy with their own money.

For aforementioned reasons I disagree.

You would achieve these results only in extreme excess, much to the same effect that you would have to consume 55 pounds of marijuana in 15 minutes to kill you. In moderation? Miniscule effects. You would tax people to "encourage" them to buy more expensive, healthier foods for miniscule effects?

Perhaps it is true that it would only achieve those results in extreme excess, maybe not. Nonetheless you have agreed that there would be some positive results (however small). After you agree that there are positive results how can you disapprove of the taxes? If you consider the problems with obesity in America or Canada, or England or even Australia you want to forbid taxes on foods when you know it would help the issue? Just because the effect is small, you decide doing nothing instead to rectify these issues is for the best?

It is both an incentive and a punishment. Taxing these products heightens the total price of these goods, forcing people to shell more of their money to feed their families. It's either that, or shelling out money for more expensive, healthier foods at an unrestricted price. You are driving their food prices higher "for their own good", but hey, at least they'll be healthier malnourished, right?

"Feed their families." You make it sound as if the average person relies on junk food like chocolate bars, potatoe chips, cake and icecream to live off of. Which is certainly not true, people eat these things as luxury foods. They certainly don't eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. They eat it for snacks far to excessively and in-between meals. Saying that raising the taxes on these foods to let's say 20% would starve families and make people go hungry is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. In contrast it would make people richer by saving there money instead of wasting it on these foods.

P.S. You can buy healthier food and beverage alternatives by bulk for cheaper prices then what these junk foods cost today...

I found this whole paragraph to be flawed and valid by you Frankenstein. People do not:
a) live off junk foods for meals
b) would not go poor if the taxes on chocolate bars and sodas rose to 20%
c) a lot of junk food you buy (depending on brands) cost more than healthier alternatives

You are invoking the Red Herring fallacy, a distraction of the real issue at hand by presenting another topic that pushes the original issue into your favor. Taxes *do* go towards public constructs, but taxing *other* things would be more effective than...junk food.

That is false. I am not distracting the real issue at hand. This is all about taxes. How is saying "if you raise the taxes on junk foods, the tax money from it goes to your community" the Red Herring Fallacy? That is hardly an irrelevant topic. They're both inter-related.

There are something like thirty-five million Canadians in Canada  and 300 something million Americans in America. Imagine if all junk foods like sodas and chips and ice cream were taxed more heavily. Can you imagine the income in the millions that would then be put into our community? If not hundreds of millions? That is also another strong argument in favour of implementing this sin tax. Or do you disagree?

I reiterate to make a point: this is not the Red Herring Fallacy. This is a bonus off taxing junk foods...

but taxing *other* things would be more effective than...junk food.

I have talked about taxing other things too. From the way you make it sound it seems like it should be one or the other. Did you not read my whole post, or just ignored the fact that I said that I thought we should tax motor vehicles and electronics moderately heavily as well?

You are putting a strain on the food industry for taxation of these products that "behooves" people to make a choice between this and this, when in the past, they didn't have to do so. Not all people, but most definitely those in poverty. Due to their low income and your taxation of unhealthy foods, you are effectively restricting their choices in arrays of food.

This can hardly be considered a strain on the food industry. How could it even be construed as such.

Bah, you make it sound like things like chips, fudge, cakes and ice cream is all people living in poverty live off of, when they really don't. Some bags of chips can cost five dollars you know, instead of buying that these people living in "poverty" could instead buy margarine and a bag of bread instead or three two litre bags of milk for a cheaper price. So yes the taxes would make the chips more expensive, but it would encourage people to buy the things they need like apples, and bread and butter and milk instead, for a cheaper price too.

Oh yes and by the way using a sin tax is certainly not Authoritarian. It is everything but that. Implementing new sin taxes does not promote absolute submission or obedience to the government... You and NoName are jumping to conclusions far to often =.=

So let's clarify what you are under the false impression of (if I'm not mistaken):
1. That people only buy junk foods for meals.
2. That people would be broke and would starve if taxes on unhealthy foods is raised.
3. That I used a Red Herring Fallacy.
4. That raising taxes is some how leading towards an authoritarian state...