Would you support a candidate with this platform?

Question

Civil rights modernization and enforcement :Structuring a government with all vested parties in iraq. No public funding for stem cells or abortion. Abolition of the death penalty and a systematic review of current cases for those already sentenced. A government supplemental health coverage for financial and medical circumstances not easily covered in the private sector. Enforcement for the hiring of illegal aliens and demands that mexico act like a responsible country and not starve it's people away. Launch to epic level initiatives to build full size schools and cure top 3 chronic illnesses. Shift current oil support subsidies and dirty technologies to clean ones with a 2 year deadline to have a nationwide network of clean fueling stations. Eliminate affirmative action and create mandatory sentences for civil rights violations against blacks, in education, employment, housing etc. Confederate the americas into an equitable economic union. complex views hurt the 2 party sys.

I do think illegal aliens should be sent back, especially to mexico. I am in canada and nearly constantly have to keep things in order with immigration-so I know it sucks. There is no argument that people come from canada and europe or elsewhere and overstay visas because at least somewhere along the way, they were filtered through the system. What really changed my mind is all the legal visitors and immigrants from mexico, who obey the law and came legally. There is no such thing as work americans won't do--just won't do for free. The affirmative action point was simply to enforce the laws on the books if people really want to do away with it, otherwise getting rid of affirmative action is just to go back to the old racial caste system. I guess the major point is that no party would nominate a candidate with these complex views. It's republican = anti-environment and liberal = pro-baby killer. There's no moderation or real third choice. This is my platform. is it blue or red?

Answer 1

This platform is confused and convoluted. It is also not compatible with the constitution in many areas.

You are talking about a political platform. It is necessary to keep in within the confines of the political system. This depicts a personal version of Utopia. How can you simply order the cure of the top three coronic diseases? Do you think that no one is already putting forth the effort? Do you think resources should be taken away from other disease reasearch and switched to these? That is not for the federal govenment to say.

How can you demand Mexico to do anything? What if they refuse? Will you make life worse for the Mexican people?

Two year deadline for clean fueling stations? You cannot dictate how technology will progress. What should we do in two years? Spend all of our resourses re-tooling to whatever happens to be the cleanest fuel source only to find out in three years that a major breakthrough has just made them obsolete?

Complex views do not hurt the two party system. They only show how little one knows about how America's system is structured. The system is one of compormise and limited government. It is not a winner take all system. The system is specifically designed to protect the minority voter from what the founding fathers called "the Tyranny of the Majority". Very little change is possible without the consent of the minority. That makes compormise the rule of the day.

If there are several political parties instead of two, you can believe that, split more than two ways, a minority of voters will elect every politician. That means most people will not have voted for the person who won. That is not the American way.

.

Answer 2

Sounds like a good platform to be on but there are problem i have with it right now. Do you know how much that is going to cost and how much money and tax's you will be taking from people those changes are to the extreme. Also you can not demand someone from another state that will cause civil unrest all over the country and in the state and will not be good for diplomat reason.

This is another thing that i do not agree on because your now making laws for 1 set of people which will cause other people to want laws for only them self to "Eliminate affirmative action and create mandatory sentences for civil rights violations against blacks, in education, employment, housing etc." Its not a bad its actuality pretty good but you could have word that better so it not for a set of people. In stead you should have said for any race of people regardless of race or color. Though those laws will be hard to pass i do not know if it will help at all.

I don't know if i would myself vote for this Candide because it also sounds like your turning it into a police state with all these new laws that you want to pass though i am not sure. I also do not like the caste system since there is no way for people to advatce there position and that you are stuck were you are no matter what. Even with that said i do like some of your ideas like clean up the oil industry and trying make equality.

Answer 3

Wow... interesting. I would definitely NOT vote for a candidate with this platform. Mainly because many of the things listed simply are not going to happen. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that jazz.

But in a perfect world.... no, still wouldn't vote for 'em!

And why are civil rights violations only to be punished when committed against black Americans? As a white woman, my civil rights being violated isn't important or punishable? What about gays, people of Latino heritage, and... well... ANY American?! Your candidates views on civil rights are a bit skewed.

Answer 4

Hell no, that guy is all over the place. Although, there are a a few things saying he will reduce the size of government, all I see wild promises and more of the status quo. And regulating walstreet is no good and reveals this guy's ignorance, he knows nothing of economics .