Hypothetically; let's say that candidates are nameless, faceless champions of various platforms, which platform would get your vote, and why? Would it be protecting the sanctity of marriage? National defense? Balancing the budget? Protecting constitutional rights?

I think that I would choose a balanced budget over anything (and by balanced, I don't mean "it's balanced, as long as we keep borrowing money from China", I mean cutting spending and living within our means). This would result in the cutting of all sorts of programs, and people would probably suffer, in the short term, but I think that America needs its safety net pulled out from onder it. Growing up and making something of yourself and earning a living isn't supposed to be easy. That's why it's called "work", and "working"

_________________

Free and Fair.

I think when people started using clam shells to even out slightly unfair barters, they never had any of this corporate greed shit in mind. I doubt any village told the guy who figured out the way to get the water to the village w/o having to carry a zillion buckets up from the river that he was from then on freed from any labor, and allowed to do anything he wanted at the tribes expense. I'm sure the guy was promoted, and held in high esteem, but they certainly didn't throw 99% of all their wealth at him for it, and beg to cut his grass and clean his mansions toilet to try to get some of it back. I guess my model would be based on the pirate ship. They always divided their plunder by fair shares, and made sure there was extra to take care of the widows and disabled. If they were successful, the group did well. If they weren't successful, they all did poorly. The weren't lazy as some might think this system could promote laziness. They kept their ship nice, and did their jobs, because it was their literal and figurative vehicle to collective success. There are examples of companies that operate like this today, and they do well. That would be the platform I ran on, as foolish as it sounds.

so i'm not the only one up at 430am?

I'd like someone who was environmentally conscious (the kind of politician that defers to scientists) and put a heavy value on preserving freedoms. i would also like to see a candidate who put a very high emphasis on american development, especially those who retrofit old buildings. i'd like to see more regulatory legislation on "green" products, so it isn't a convoluted meaning letting companies take advantage of the environmental conservation movement.

so
-american development of business
-retrofitting buildings rather than wasting space and material
-movement for building trades to be staffed (go mike rowe!)
-legislation to regulate student loans and prices of public colleges
-supporting a movement towards alternative energies, especially solar
-legislation to standardize of eco-friendly terms
-easier for cities/towns to recycle more plastics
-one who doesn't nickel and dime our freedoms
-much more transparency as far as current legislation
-a web page that lists nuts and bolts of each proposed law and its current status in government
-reforming welfare/unemployment to include drug tests/automatic job placement after 6 months (you can shovel sidewalks or something for 20 hours a week to get your check)

Pat, we're a little east of you, so yes, you are the only one up that early

One of the things that I've fallen in love with in IT is the strive for power optimization; FFS, datacenters are able to use waste heat to power their cooling now (obviously not 100%, but still, a great advancement).

_________________

haha, the 40 minutes east, haha

I thought you were in Montana or Wisconsin or something...

_________________

well i live in wyoming, ny

Oh. That's how I got confused then. Fuck you for living in a city with a state's name.

_________________

whatever east sider

hahaahhaa

_________________

I like a lot of what Pat said, but to me the biggest single issue is the cost of healthcare. I know it's an incredibly complex issue, but I see nothing being done about it, and I don't know how one could ever hope to fix so many of the economy's problems without tackling it. 90% of personal bankrupcies are cuased by medical bills in this country.

Freakin Pinko Commie

I agree

Wow. That's a statistic I didn't know, don't care too look up, and will trust your word on it. It doesn't surprise me.

_________________

No, it's a great idea that is impossible.
So off with you to John Lennon dream land with the rest of the idealists...maybe Pirates weren't lazy, but Americans are, and have a penchant for grift.

Oh shit! John Lennon was a 1%er...that bastard was lying to us!

My platform? SInce the pricks in DC can't do right financially unless they're forced, a balanced budget amendment.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I’m gonna go a little Ron Paul here, but how about we slash the military spending? Let’s just get out of almost everywhere we have troops stationed. Not Korea by any means, but damn near everywhere else. If we bring the troops back home in a big enough way, we would reduce a ton of spending. Not only that, but consider all the military personnel and their families currently living abroad. We bring them home, and suddenly all the money that these families were spending abroad, now gets inserted back into the US economy, where it belongs. Real estate, auto dealerships, restaurants, etc., all would benefit.

Stu has an excellent point about healthcare, also. Just to tie the two ideas together, I have relatives in Ontario, and between their federal and provincial income taxes, those rates are pretty much right in line with the federal and state income tax rates here in the US. Canada is able to spend what it needs to on healthcare, because they aren’t spending it on their military. We could, too, if we wanted to.

_________________
This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.
--Emerson

BagBoy, our bases overseas are NOT the leading cause of "military" spending. The greatest expense we've got are the contracts with companies like Booz Allen, BAE, Lockheed Martin, etc.

Not to say I don't agree with you, I just want to point your anger/frustration at the right target

_________________

Unfortunately, I'm sure you're right. But I still want them emptying their wallets here in the US rather than abroad!

_________________
This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.
--Emerson

Seriously, it's like we're Clay Matthews fighting Michael Jackson, but somehow we still feel the need to pay AJ hawk to jump in. News flash, the cold war is over, and that's only because one country was dumb enough to spend all their money on defense only. Why do we feel the need to ruin ours by the same method? I know we waste mad money in other areas, but cuts here are no-brainers. Sure, it hurts American workers in the industry, but the same people who want to keep spending on defense are the ones who cry that we need to cut spending. It seems obvious to everyone that the first cut of the scalpel should be on something ridiculous like landing craft, or a 14th aircraft carrier, or 75th nuclear sub. If China ever poses a real military threat, then ratchet it up, but for now we can afford to make cuts.