• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How much would could you support a candidate with this platform?

How strongly could you get behind this as a candidates platform

  • Total voters
    20
Zyphlin

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,710
Reaction score
35,488
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How much would the following campaign platform by a candidate appeal to you in either the primary or the upcoming election:

1. I will begin with reform of our 17,000 page tax code. I will eliminate every last loophole, subsidy and carve-out. I will use that revenue to lower rates across the board, for individuals and businesses. I will create a tax code that is flatter and simpler; one that opens up economic opportunities for all our citizens, makes us more competitive, and ends corporate welfare and crony capitalism, once and for all.

2. I will deal honestly with our mounting debt by cutting spending in every corner of government, leaving no sacred cow untouched. I will reform entitlement programs – based on the Ryan Plan – while holding true to our nation’s commitments to those in or near retirement.

3. I will ensure that no financial entity is too-big-to-fail. I will do this by breaking up the big banks on Wall Street, so that never again – never again – are taxpayers held hostage by a Sophie’s Choice: massive bailouts, or economic calamity.

4. I will fulfill a promise presidents have made for six decades, and adopt a comprehensive energy strategy that frees us from foreign oil, that eliminates all energy subsidies, and that levels the playing field for competing fuels and technologies.

5. All too often our regulatory framework becomes another tool for special interests seeking to use the state to protect privileges and insulate themselves from competition. I will systematically streamline regulations in order to create a free, fair and competitive marketplace.

6. I will bring our troops home from Afghanistan, while leaving behind an appropriately-sized counterterrorist presence. And I will set our military strategy and budgets based on long-term threats and vulnerabilities, not on spending patterns developed decades ago and reinforced today by armies of lobbyists.

7. Finally, in order to ensure that government responds to all its citizens with the same level of urgency and fairness, and to lessen the influence of special interests, I will send to Congress a “Citizens Legislature Act.”

I will propose a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on members of Congress: six two-year terms in the House, two six-year terms in the Senate.

I will ban members of Congress and Cabinet officers from lobbying for four years following their departure.

I will seek a lifetime ban on Congress members and Cabinet officers lobbying on any issue where they had significant responsibility.

And I will also require them to publicly release all income for four years following their service.
Click to expand...

.
 
I made it to point 2 and was already totally against such a candidate.
 
Redress said:
I made it to point 2 and was already totally against such a candidate.
Click to expand...

With your views on the Ryan plan, I fully expected to see you be one of the first in here to state that very thing :)
 
As a liberal, I can actually agree with a large portion of those platforms. A few things of note.

1) I am partially in favor of number 1 as worded - but the truth is Huntsman's plans go a bit beyond what's stated there (drastically cutting capital gains, for instance).

2) For overall deficit reduction - I am generally in favor of bipartisan proposals such as Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, and Gang of Six rather than the Ryan plan.

3) I believe some forms of energy subsidies are necessary, esp. with regard to R&D.

4) 100% with him on Afghanistan. In hindsight, counterterrorism appears to have been the smarter strategy vis a vis counterinsurgency and nation-building, given the difficulties we currently face there, and our tenuous relationship with Pakistan.
 
I could support based on presented theologies, but I would want to know more, of course. If those were the only salient topics to the election, I would vote yes and consider a donation.
 
No. 2 is a deal breaker for me. As is No. 1. Our tax structure needs to be simpler (fewer loopholes), but it should be more progressive -- not flatter. And there should absolutely be no move to dismantle housing incentives until the housing crisis is resolved. As far as No. 5, every candidate says that. And I'm against term limits.
 
Zyphlin said:
How much would the following campaign platform by a candidate appeal to you in either the primary or the upcoming election:
Click to expand...

It's not possible without having a congress that will work with you. Until we can get someone that can do that, or a congress willing to do those things, these are just pipedream promises that are the conservative's equivalent to "Hope and Change".
 
TheNextEra said:
It's not possible without having a congress that will work with you. Until we can get someone that can do that, or a congress willing to do those things, these are just pipedream promises that are the conservative's equivalent to "Hope and Change".
Click to expand...

Amen.

1234
 
3, 4, and 6 sound just fine. Number 1 is the complete opposite of what we should be doing. Not the loopholes part, that's fine. But the flat part. 2 and 5 are too vague. I likely would not support this candidate, as it sounds like it comes from a corporate stooge whose agenda is going to be to further gut the middle class, expand the lower class, and make sure that all the money stays with the wealthy. But the anti-war stuff is good.
 
TheNextEra said:
It's not possible without having a congress that will work with you. Until we can get someone that can do that, or a congress willing to do those things, these are just pipedream promises that are the conservative's equivalent to "Hope and Change".
Click to expand...

So to you a three word phrase whose "proposals" are an emotion and an ambiguous action is somehow "equivalent" to over a half-dozen generalized actual policy proposals that includes some specifics within them?

Are they going to be difficult to impliment? Absolutely. And yes it would need a congress to work with you. But I think its a bit ridiclous to suggest that they are the equivilent of stating "hope and change". Not to mention that apparently what you seem to be saying is that what a candidate proposes should happen is irrelevant because it needs a congress to work with you and there's no guarantee that whatever congress is in place will work with the nominee.

Seriously, I have no issue with people hating the proposals and actually full on expect it from stuanch liberals...but this point is just a bit ridiculous.
 
Zyphlin said:
So to you a three word phrase whose "proposals" are an emotion and an ambiguous action is somehow "equivalent" to over a half-dozen generalized actual policy proposals that includes some specifics within them?

Are they going to be difficult to impliment? Absolutely. And yes it would need a congress to work with you. But I think its a bit ridiclous to suggest that they are the equivilent of stating "hope and change". Not to mention that apparently what you seem to be saying is that what a candidate proposes should happen is irrelevant because it needs a congress to work with you and there's no guarantee that whatever congress is in place will work with the nominee.

Seriously, I have no issue with people hating the proposals and actually full on expect it from stuanch liberals...but this point is just a bit ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Well you know that if he's elected and the Congress DOESN'T grant his every wish, that will make him a LIAR.
 
Zyphlin said:
So to you a three word phrase whose "proposals" are an emotion and an ambiguous action is somehow "equivalent" to over a half-dozen generalized actual policy proposals that includes some specifics within them?

Are they going to be difficult to impliment? Absolutely. And yes it would need a congress to work with you. But I think its a bit ridiclous to suggest that they are the equivilent of stating "hope and change". Not to mention that apparently what you seem to be saying is that what a candidate proposes should happen is irrelevant because it needs a congress to work with you and there's no guarantee that whatever congress is in place will work with the nominee.

Seriously, I have no issue with people hating the proposals and actually full on expect it from stuanch liberals...but this point is just a bit ridiculous.
Click to expand...

From your response, I don't think you actually disagree with TNE's point except for the fact that his post may have been somewhat hyperbolic.
 
Zyphlin said:
So to you a three word phrase whose "proposals" are an emotion and an ambiguous action is somehow "equivalent" to over a half-dozen generalized actual policy proposals that includes some specifics within them?

Are they going to be difficult to impliment? Absolutely. And yes it would need a congress to work with you. But I think its a bit ridiclous to suggest that they are the equivilent of stating "hope and change". Not to mention that apparently what you seem to be saying is that what a candidate proposes should happen is irrelevant because it needs a congress to work with you and there's no guarantee that whatever congress is in place will work with the nominee.

Seriously, I have no issue with people hating the proposals and actually full on expect it from stuanch liberals...but this point is just a bit ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are equivalent. Both the "Hope and Change" and these "Proposals" lack the fundamental, HOW? I can say that I will single handedly fix the economoy, but unless I can show "HOW" it is just Hope and Change like these proposals.

These proposals require something that we have not seen in decades, a willingness for both sides to compromise and work together for the better of the nation instead of their own personal interests. Given the political rift we are currently seeing now, I don't think we will ever see that for a long time to come either.

So yes, this is just the conservatives equivalent to "Hope and Change". If you want to believe it, be my guest.

I would rather a candidate say he will "try" to do something instead of promising he will when the candidate knows the decision and act will not be just on his own. Sadly, I haven't seen that of any candidate.
 
StillBallin75 said:
From your response, I don't think you actually disagree with TNE's point except for the fact that his post may have been somewhat hyperbolic.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that it would take a candidate that could find a way to work with a congress to get his goals and agenda passed. EVERY President has to do that. I don't think that fact means we just shouldn't bother judging or caring about the things a Presidential candidate is suggesting as their platform and goals should they be elected. If we did that, all we're basically voting on is charisma, party letter, and personality. Now, to a point, you have to trust that the platform the candidate is saying is actually something they'll persue and not just them pandering...however I figured putting out a platform without a specific candidate attached would be obvious to suggest that the vote is regarding an assumption that the person actually plans on attempting to push said ideas and not just saying them for the sake of being popular.

As to the other ridiculous one liner comment someone tried to throw in to try and turn this into a pointless partisan bickerfest rather than the rather interesting debate thread that it was shaping up to be, no it wouldn't be lying.

Lying would be stating a campaign promise knowing full well you have no intention of following through on it or, even more damning, immedietely doing the exact opposite.

Slightly less than that, but still representing a situation where you don't fulfill the promise, would be reversing stance on an ignorantly made promise. IE once arriving in office new things become revealed to you and you change your stance on an issue at that point. You weren't "lying" during the campaign, you simply recieved new info that changes your outlook.

The next level would simply be that you pandered on an issue. This would be proposing something as a principle of your campaign during the election, getting into office, giving it a quick token effort, and then bowing at the first sign of defeat and moving on. That doesn't make your promise during the campaign a lie, it just means you were less interested in truly getting it passed then you let on during the campaign.

Finally, there's the final level, where you honestly and seriously attempt to fulfill your promise but due to political issues and oppositions you're just not able to. That is not "lying", that is simply being unable to do what you said you were going to try to do. Presidents aren't Kings, they aren't Gods, promises during campaigns aren't edicts of what WILL happen but only what they will strive to do. Failing to do it after giving it a truthfully sincere and forthright attempt isn't lying.
 
TheNextEra said:
I would rather a candidate say he will "try" to do something instead of promising he will when the candidate knows the decision and act will not be just on his own. Sadly, I haven't seen that of any candidate.
Click to expand...

So your issue is a semantic one where if a Presidential Candidate talks in an affirmative about what he will do, rather than saying what he will try to do, that those statements should be ignored rather than assumed that its clearly campaign speak for "...will try to do"?

So you've basically not given a crap about the platform of any President in recent history? You seem to hold that view point across the board and consistently, which I can respect. I just think its a rather nit picky literalistic stance for the sake of stubborness based on your displeasure with politics. Understandable to a point, but somewhat hollow imho.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't disagree that it would take a candidate that could find a way to work with a congress to get his goals and agenda passed. EVERY President has to do that. I don't think that fact means we just shouldn't bother judging or caring about the things a Presidential candidate is suggesting as their platform and goals should they be elected. If we did that, all we're basically voting on is charisma, party letter, and personality. Now, to a point, you have to trust that the platform the candidate is saying is actually something they'll persue and not just them pandering...however I figured putting out a platform without a specific candidate attached would be obvious to suggest that the vote is regarding an assumption that the person actually plans on attempting to push said ideas and not just saying them for the sake of being popular.

As to the other ridiculous one liner comment someone tried to throw in to try and turn this into a pointless partisan bickerfest rather than the rather interesting debate thread that it was shaping up to be, no it wouldn't be lying.

Lying would be stating a campaign promise knowing full well you have no intention of following through on it or, even more damning, immedietely doing the exact opposite.

Slightly less than that, but still representing a situation where you don't fulfill the promise, would be reversing stance on an ignorantly made promise. IE once arriving in office new things become revealed to you and you change your stance on an issue at that point. You weren't "lying" during the campaign, you simply recieved new info that changes your outlook.

The next level would simply be that you pandered on an issue. This would be proposing something as a principle of your campaign during the election, getting into office, giving it a quick token effort, and then bowing at the first sign of defeat and moving on. That doesn't make your promise during the campaign a lie, it just means you were less interested in truly getting it passed then you let on during the campaign.

Finally, there's the final level, where you honestly and seriously attempt to fulfill your promise but due to political issues and oppositions you're just not able to. That is not "lying", that is simply being unable to do what you said you were going to try to do. Presidents aren't Kings, they aren't Gods, promises during campaigns aren't edicts of what WILL happen but only what they will strive to do. Failing to do it after giving it a truthfully sincere and forthright attempt isn't lying.
Click to expand...

Yes, well said. I was (I thought obviously) poking fun at conservatives who call President Obama a liar because he hasn't yet fulfilled all of the 100+ campaign promises he made along the way.
 
Zyphlin said:
So your issue is a semantic one where if a Presidential Candidate talks in an affirmative about what he will do, rather than saying what he will try to do, that those statements should be ignored rather than assumed that its clearly campaign speak for "...will try to do"?

So you've basically not given a crap about the platform of any President in recent history? You seem to hold that view point across the board and consistently, which I can respect. I just think its a rather nit picky literalistic stance for the sake of stubborness based on your displeasure with politics. Understandable to a point, but somewhat hollow imho.
Click to expand...

It's not just semantic, it is a pipedream. Look, I like a lot of his proposals that he is suggesting, but can you honeslty say that you believe (given our current political enviornment right now with congress and how it's looking for the next decade) that you see these getting done? I don't see it happening.

I just think he is pandering to what people want to hear just to get him elected because he knows he will not be able to do any of this and therefore will not have any obligation and can just say "See I tried, now can I get my lifetime check for being president?".

Maybe it's cause I have lost complete faith in our government and politicians, I don't know. So far history in the past decade is proving me right though. I haven't seen a candidate in a very long time that I have had faith could be a real leader instead of just looking after what they can get for themselves first and then America somewhere down far on the list below.
 
TheNextEra said:
unless I can show "HOW" it is just Hope and Change like these proposals.
Click to expand...

Additionally, show me the "HOW" in hope and change that is anywhere near comparable to the following "Hows".


Goal of Number 1: Reform tax code
How: eliminate every loophole, subsidy and carve-out; lower rates across the board; create a tax code that is flatter and simpler;

Goal of Number 2: Deal with our debt
How: cutting spending in every corner of government; I will reform entitlement programs

Goal of Number 3: Prevent the need for Bank Bailouts
How: breaking up the big banks on Wall Street

Goal of Number 4: Create a comprehensive Energy Strategy
How: eliminates all energy subsidies; level the playing field for competing fuels and technologies

Goal of Number 5: Create a fair, free, and competitive marketplace
How: streamline regulations

Goal of Number 6: Re-evaluate our Militaries purpose in the 21st century
How: Bring our troops home from Afghanistan; leavebehind an appropriately-sized counterterrorist presence; set military strategy/budgets based on long-term threats and vulnerabilities

Goal of Number 7: Lessen influence of special interests and improve government response to the citizens
How: Propose a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on members of Congress; ban members of Congress/Cabinet officers from lobbying after departure; seek a lifetime ban on Congress members / Cabinet officers lobbying on any issue where they had significant responsibility; require them to publicly release all income for four years following their service.

Four and Five are rather sparse, the others for what this is...a candidates election platform...are decently specific (relative to the generalized broadness these things are typically). Now, I get completely your notion that the "How" for you is likely as much "How" are they going to get it passed through congress (not really possible to answer since there's no way of knowing how congress will look at that time). But there's at least a HOW as to the way in which they want to push to persue the goal in question. It may have similarities to "Hope and Change" in the fact that neither talk specifically about how to get that passed through congress, but in terms of "pipedream promises" with no substance and no "how" at all I think we're just going to end up having to disagree on that point.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
It's not just semantic, it is a pipedream. Look, I like a lot of his proposals that he is suggesting, but can you honeslty say that you believe (given our current political enviornment right now with congress and how it's looking for the next decade) that you see these getting done? I don't see it happening.

I just think he is pandering to what people want to hear just to get him elected because he knows he will not be able to do any of this and therefore will not have any obligation and can just say "See I tried, now can I get my lifetime check for being president?".

Maybe it's cause I have lost complete faith in our government and politicians, I don't know. So far history in the past decade is proving me right though. I haven't seen a candidate in a very long time that I have had faith could be a real leader instead of just looking after what they can get for themselves first and then America somewhere down far on the list below.
Click to expand...

So would he get your vote if he campaigned on the platform of, "look, Washington is hopelessly gridlocked and, to be perfectly honest, I'm not going to be able to accomplish a goddamned thing."
 
AdamT said:
So would he get your vote if he campaigned on the platform of, "look, Washington is hopelessly gridlocked and, to be perfectly honest, I'm not going to be able to accomplish a goddamned thing."
Click to expand...

No he wouldn't. Which is why the presidency means absolutely nothing right now to me. The main problem right now is with Congress, and that is an area the majority of the country doesn't realize that they need to fix first. The presidency is important don't get me wrong, but as we have seen Congress (regardless of what the president wants) has caused far more major problems in my opinion.
 
TheNextEra said:
Maybe it's cause I have lost complete faith in our government and politicians, I don't know.
Click to expand...

I would say that's probably the answer. As an interesting note, the candidate whose proposals these are absolutely agrees with you on that issue and its actually that lost faith or trust that is becoming, seemingly, the new center piece of his campaign.

So far history in the past decade is proving me right though. I haven't seen a candidate in a very long time that I have had faith could be a real leader instead of just looking after what they can get for themselves first and then America somewhere down far on the list below.
Click to expand...

To a point I agree. Not so much the "get for themselves" but in regards to the past decade and leader. I think for all his faults, Clinton did well as a political leader. I think over the past 3 decades he and Reagan are the only ones I can say that about as far as Presidents go. Both showed the ability to go to a congress held by the opposing party and still get a fair bit of their policies and ideology pushed, compromising where needed but also staying steadfast in other areas and seeking ways to do the most good from their point of view.

Meanwhile, in the past decades we had two Presidents who have not shown near that ability for leadership. Bush, perhaps, showed some early on working with Democrats on NCLB and Medicare Part D, however later had significant issues. However, once control flipped Bush showed little ability to show leadership in actually working with the other side, and the one issue he actually was closer to them on he couldn't show the leadership to bring his OWN side to the table (immigration). Meanwhile, with a significantly controlled congress Barack Obama wasn't able to show the leadership to get even the token Republican support necessary to get his agenda passed and has had extreme difficulty similar to Bush in regards to working with a congress that is opposite him.

I agree with you completely, a candidates ability to potentially be a leader and convince people to come to their message through various means is definitely an important thing. However, unlike you, I think what policies they plan to push and what their platform is is also important. This was slightly less about wanting to know about an entire candidate...thus why I didn't specific a specific name...but rather views regarding the platform ideas themselves. However, I understand that for you the ideas are rather meaningless due to your lack of faith that any President is going to actually be able to effecitvely push thier ideas.
 
TheNextEra said:
No he wouldn't. Which is why the presidency means absolutely nothing right now to me. The main problem right now is with Congress, and that is an area the majority of the country doesn't realize that they need to fix first. The presidency is important don't get me wrong, but as we have seen Congress (regardless of what the president wants) has caused far more major problems in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there. More importantly, something has GOT to be done about the cloture situation in the Senate. No government can function if it takes a super majority to get anything done.
 
Redress said:
I made it to point 2 and was already totally against such a candidate.
Click to expand...

Me too, the Ryan part got me. Though I agree with almost everything else. The Ryan Plan part really hurts my liking of this candidate, though - hence I voted "Mildly".
 
Last edited:
Okay, hoping to at least get a FEW conservatives/republicans/libertarians in here to vote too. LOL. Where are they all.
 
Zyphlin said:
Additionally, show me the "HOW" in hope and change that is anywhere near comparable to the following "Hows".


Goal of Number 1: Reform tax code
How: eliminate every loophole, subsidy and carve-out; lower rates across the board; create a tax code that is flatter and simpler;

Goal of Number 2: Deal with our debt
How: cutting spending in every corner of government; I will reform entitlement programs

Goal of Number 3: Prevent the need for Bank Bailouts
How: breaking up the big banks on Wall Street

Goal of Number 4: Create a comprehensive Energy Strategy
How: eliminates all energy subsidies; level the playing field for competing fuels and technologies

Goal of Number 5: Create a fair, free, and competitive marketplace
How: streamline regulations

Goal of Number 6: Re-evaluate our Militaries purpose in the 21st century
How: Bring our troops home from Afghanistan; leavebehind an appropriately-sized counterterrorist presence; set military strategy/budgets based on long-term threats and vulnerabilities

Goal of Number 7: Lessen influence of special interests and improve government response to the citizens
How: Propose a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on members of Congress; ban members of Congress/Cabinet officers from lobbying after departure; seek a lifetime ban on Congress members / Cabinet officers lobbying on any issue where they had significant responsibility; require them to publicly release all income for four years following their service.

Four and Five are rather sparse, the others for what this is...a candidates election platform...are decently specific (relative to the generalized broadness these things are typically). Now, I get completely your notion that the "How" for you is likely as much "How" are they going to get it passed through congress (not really possible to answer since there's no way of knowing how congress will look at that time). But there's at least a HOW as to the way in which they want to push to persue the goal in question. It may have similarities to "Hope and Change" in the fact that neither talk specifically about how to get that passed through congress, but in terms of "pipedream promises" with no substance and no "how" at all I think we're just going to end up having to disagree on that point.
Click to expand...


It's when the "How" is just as vague as the goal that is the problem. How do you get congress to eliminate all loopholes? Does he even have his party behind him let alone the majority in Congress? Lower rates to what rates? And what is "simple and flatter" - at what rates for each individual income group or just a flat tax a la 999?

That's just the #1 as example.

Obama provided the same general outlines of his platform, but when it comes down to it, his delivery was quite different. To expect that Huntsman will do any better on these "promises" is to be naive. Conservatives like to reduce Obama down to "Hope and Change", but all politicians sell themselves on those empty promises, so what you posted are not different to what Obama offered to the Left in 2008.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom