1
   

Now there's a presidential platform I'd sign up for!

 
 
nimh
 
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 10:33 am
"[He] ran on a platform that included:

  • creating a Works Progress Administration-style program to rebuild America's infrastructure and provide jobs to all Americans,
  • reprioritizing the War on Drugs to focus less on mandatory minimum sentences for drug users (which he views as racially biased) and more on harsher punishments for money-laundering bankers and others who are part of the "supply" end of "supply and demand"
  • reversing Reaganomics-inspired tax cuts for the richest ten percent of Americans and using the money to finance social welfare programs
  • supporting family farmers by reviving many of Roosevelt's New Deal-era farm programs
  • creating a single-payer system of universal health care
  • ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment
  • increasing federal funding for lower-level public education and providing free community college to all
  • applying stricter enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and
  • supporting the formation of a Palestinian state.
"
... Way I see it, in a better world, a candidate running on a platform like this would have a place within the mainstream of politics, and an opportunity of scoring, say, a third of at least the Democratic primary vote.

In a better world, I wouldnt catch myself cringing at some of these planks even though I actually agree with them, just because I've been so much conditioned to think of them as sure vote-losers and bait for the opposition, that a kind of self-censorship kicks in abruptly.

In short, in a world that hadnt shifted drastically to the right over the past, say, twenty years.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,460 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 10:35 am
Is there a candidate out there now running on this platform?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 10:36 am
Increase taxes on the few to spend more on the unwilling?

Why would this be needed if your platform gets jobs for everyone?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 10:36 am
mysteryman wrote:
Is there a candidate out there now running on this platform?


Nope... alas, nothing like it.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 10:41 am
Re: Now there's a presidential platform I'd sign up for!
nimh wrote:
... Way I see it, in a better world, a candidate running on a platform like this would have a place within the mainstream of politics, and an opportunity of scoring, say, a third of at least the Democratic primary vote.


Doess't look terrible when written down but the second you mention it's Jessie Jackson's old platform everyone knows it's smoke and mirrors.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 11:01 am
Of course you can get the unworthy to vote themselves a big raise by financing "social welfare programs". It's the doom of the U.S., that some have realized they can vote in laws and lawmakers that take money from those that work and simply give it to those that won't.

That's why I collect guns.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 11:02 am
I proudly voted yes, for the second time (I voted for Jackson in the primary that year).
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 11:25 am
Re: Now there's a presidential platform I'd sign up for!
nimh wrote:
"[He] ran on a platform that included:

  • creating a Works Progress Administration-style program to rebuild America's infrastructure and provide jobs to all Americans,
  • reprioritizing the War on Drugs to focus less on mandatory minimum sentences for drug users (which he views as racially biased) and more on harsher punishments for money-laundering bankers and others who are part of the "supply" end of "supply and demand"
  • reversing Reaganomics-inspired tax cuts for the richest ten percent of Americans and using the money to finance social welfare programs
  • supporting family farmers by reviving many of Roosevelt's New Deal-era farm programs
  • creating a single-payer system of universal health care
  • ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment
  • increasing federal funding for lower-level public education and providing free community college to all
  • applying stricter enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and
  • supporting the formation of a Palestinian state.
"
... Way I see it, in a better world, a candidate running on a platform like this would have a place within the mainstream of politics, and an opportunity of scoring, say, a third of at least the Democratic primary vote.

In a better world, I wouldnt catch myself cringing at some of these planks even though I actually agree with them, just because I've been so much conditioned to think of them as sure vote-losers and bait for the opposition, that a kind of self-censorship kicks in abruptly.

In short, in a world that hadnt shifted drastically to the right over the past, say, twenty years.


Why would you vote for a consolidation of power in Washington?

Responsibilities of local city, county and state gov'ts transferred to federal control are a recipe for waste.

Infrastructure, schools, regulation of health insurance companies are all the responsibility of govt entities OTHER THAN the federal govt.

Presidential candidates like to sound off on things that they will really have no control over if elected (or at least SHOULDN'T have control over if we take separation of powers and the 10th Amendment seriously).

People should demand limited govt on each level. Cities stick to their area, the feds to theirs, the states to theirs, etc.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 11:26 am
nimh wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Is there a candidate out there now running on this platform?


Nope... alas, nothing like it.


That's good, you had me worried.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 01:05 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Of course you can get the unworthy to vote themselves a big raise by financing "social welfare programs". It's the doom of the U.S., that some have realized they can vote in laws and lawmakers that take money from those that work and simply give it to those that won't.

You do realize that you've precisely described most of Washington, D.C.?

cjhsa wrote:
That's why I collect guns.

I assumed it was a male inadequacy support group.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 01:07 pm
woiyo wrote:
Increase taxes on the few to spend more on the unwilling?

Why would this be needed if your platform gets jobs for everyone?


as long as there are holier than thou types who equate needy with unwilling this will never work...
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 03:41 pm
mysterymann
will there be more approved/eligible(allowed) voters of USA cross the streets to make use of thier right like in Afganisthan and Iraq?
I seriously doubt.
The percentage of the valid votes to pick up a resident in White house is far far far lesss than in Kabul or bagdad.
Correct me if I were wrong.
Accept my regards in advance.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Now there's a presidential platform I'd sign up for!
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2022 at 07:42:57