Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Perfect President

Posted Nov 7, '12 at 4:26pm

endlessrampage73

endlessrampage73

2,553 posts

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.

 

Posted Nov 7, '12 at 9:40pm

Jacen96

Jacen96

3,114 posts

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

 

Posted Nov 7, '12 at 9:45pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

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?

 

Posted Nov 7, '12 at 9:54pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

379 posts

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.

When and how to allow prostitution. :

[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 =)

 

Posted Nov 7, '12 at 10:32pm

TheGenovesan

TheGenovesan

66 posts

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.
 

Posted Nov 7, '12 at 10:33pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,296 posts

Knight

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...


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.).

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.


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

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?

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

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

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?

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

Prostitution, when legalized, often results in cleaner prostitutes WITHOUT the need of government regulation because, believe it or not, STD's are NOT profitable. Keeping prostitutes clean is. This is why we really don't need government to force regulations. If a person wants to sleep with a shady prostitute when there are better alternatives, it's that person's decision to take such risks, and it's that person who should take responsibility for picking a prostitute that offered no proof of being clean.

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".

Hopefully I made my point by now.

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.
 

Posted Nov 7, '12 at 11:03pm

handlerfan

handlerfan

194 posts

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.

 

Posted Nov 7, '12 at 11:06pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

379 posts

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 &quotersuade" 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.
 

Posted Nov 8, '12 at 12:22am

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,296 posts

Knight

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!!!


You aren't their master, and they aren't your slaves. If you want to help them, talk to them. But don't FORCE them to treat themselves better.

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.


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

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

Charging taxes on junk foods to keep people healthy is certainly not unconstitutional or infringing on another person's freedoms.


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 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.


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

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

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!

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

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

Posted Nov 8, '12 at 12:31am

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

9,286 posts

Moderator

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?!?


You are suggesting a sin tax for the freedom of the people to buy something. If people wish to pay for sugary, unhealthy foods, allow them to unrestricted by extra pay. It is regulating the peoples' right to consumation. We all want to do things "for the good of the people", but this is a coverup. The better president would let the people buy whatever the hell they want to buy with their own money. Tax something else.

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).


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?

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


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?

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".


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.

Charging taxes on junk foods to keep people healthy is certainly not unconstitutional or infringing on another person's freedoms.


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.

Straining or restricting the choices of the people altogether is Authoritarian.
 
Reply to The Perfect President

You must be logged in to post a reply!