It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My Little Dictator

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

maybe turn those bases in to a guarded embassy, I dont that would be somthing to disscuss with a informed group of experts.




posted on May, 1 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

Well, part of the game is to try and make stuff that wouldn't be overturned by the united public after the end of your terms. If you put something ridiculous and random in place like "all marriages must be consummated on the night of the full moon, as three randomly picked sex offenders watch from behind one way mirrors" it's just going to go away as soon as you do, and it might even drag some of your more practical stuff with it.

There actually several practical reasons I execute myself at the end of my first term, and it's vaguely related to this.
1) It's a massive moment in history, to hopefully keep my words fresh in the minds of the people.
2) Whatever major powers I've upset with my actions, I certainly don't want getting their hands on a living-me.
3) It (hopefully) shows to the people that I was truly committed to my cause of making the country better.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

The US already has embassies, though. And Dictator-me isn't exactly a war-hawk so I don't care about my military presence. Though truthfully, if it weren't for the longer term consequences I'd depose the Sauds and stop them spreading Wahhabism.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

or you could just declare yourself emperor and have absolute power, but use it for good not evil.


call me a romantic, but i do think there can be such thing a good emperor that the people love. unlikely, but possible.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I'd do pretty much the exact opposite of what OP would do. But either way they are flights of fancy. It may be nice as an exercise, but it can't be done--and that's a good thing.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

So... Keep all the current people in power, for as long as possible.
Then hypercharge NSA power.
Focus even more on military.
Keep Obamacare.
Strengthen the drug war, militarize the police even further...

I suppose it's our difference of perspective that makes these things that seem so stupendously obvious to me awful ideas to you, but surely you wouldn't want to keep the same lobotomized goldfish in charge, would you?



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

You missed the most obvious detriment to the American way of life.

Money....without changing the way money is controlled by a few elites banking interest; nothing can or will be done to affect our culture, society or the infrastructure.

Speculation and insider info on the exchange of money is the ultimate culprit.

real power is in the hands of those that control $$$$, not the voters that are kept in debt and working at BS jobs for BS wages, while the majority of this countries wealth is in the hands of a few powerful families.

Vegatarianism.....really?



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

True, I didn't deal with the problem directly but I was expecting those issues to be dealt with by the tax reform and the anti-government-corruption measures. While I could have done something, I don't think all the necessary changes could have been properly completed in my eight years of term. Adjustment would need to be... Slower.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: schuyler

So... Keep all the current people in power, for as long as possible.
Then hypercharge NSA power.
Focus even more on military.
Keep Obamacare.
Strengthen the drug war, militarize the police even further...

I suppose it's our difference of perspective that makes these things that seem so stupendously obvious to me awful ideas to you, but surely you wouldn't want to keep the same lobotomized goldfish in charge, would you?


It's not so much your disdain for the people in charge, but your solutions that trouble me. You seem to feel you've got it all figured out. I just happen to think you're clueless. No offense, but I don't want a dictator like you. Everything you have mentioned is much more complex than you make it out to be. Fortunately, this is just a fanciful exercise. We can be thankful for that.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I'm sure an impressively intelligent and cognizant person such as yourself would realise that a small bucket list of issues and solutions written in ten minutes wouldn't be the final product in the situation where I actually miraculously became supreme dictator of the United States.

You happen to think I'm clueless. I happen to think that you should probably put forward your own solutions before stating that. ^_^
Of course, what either of us put forward are unlikely to be the "correct" or "best" actions, but it's certainly nice to think of what might be done to forge a better tomorrow, is it not?

Some of the things are more complicated, to be sure, such as the issue with the trade deals. However, in other cases, such as the tax changes or shutting down the NSA, it really isn't any more complicated than "I say it. It happens."
Dictator, remember? Not legitimate president. And after all, the thread title is "My Little Dictator" not "An Accurate and Factual Thesis on the Probable and Attainable Action Necessary to Divert the United States from the Path to Economic and Moral Failure it Currently Appears to be Heading Towards."



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

edit on 1-5-2016 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I would increase military spending ridiculously then invade, occupy and economically enslave the OP's country.

Wow, this is easy!



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Not really. Whatever gains you may somehow make by doing that (assuming the rest of the world doesn't immediately turn on you) would be fairly quickly dismantled after your eight years. And if they weren't dismantled, then I suppose the US would either end up as the last remaining country on the planet, or it would be destroyed.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
First Term Prime Directives:


- Repeal trade deals, they're stupid.


Renegotiate trade deals. They are not stupid, but they have been badly negotiated.


- Overturn Citizens United, it's stupid.


Only if you also admit that unions and similar also are not people. I don’t care that you think they are purporting to represent the interests of people, they are still money-making, money-laundering schemes playing politics for their own gain just as much as any corporation. If you let half the big boys pay to play, you should also let the other half.

Also, what about the small group of small time citizens who band together to buy an ad for their candidate? Currently, they incorporate to do this. So they are an evil corporation or PAC at this point. What about them? Or are they not allowed to broadcast their POV to everyone else?


- Purge Government of the vast majority of "elected" officials. Might keep a few like Sanders, but not Clintons, Cruz's or Kasichs. Definitely no DWS's.
First testing intelligence/competence (don't want any drooling imbeciles) and morals (don't want more corrupt people to replace the jackasses I just fired,) replace with random-sampled set of Civilian advisors (offer job but don't force them to take it.)


No go here. You cannot fire everyone you don’t like and then keep a few you do. Let’s put the show on the other foot and suppose I wrote this and said we’d fire everyone, but maybe keep a few like Cruz … but get rid of all those other idiots like Sanders or Warren. Face it, not everyone thinks or believes like you do and that is why those people are where they are. And just because you think a thing is “right” doesn’t necessarily make it so. It only make it your opinion, something we all have.

If we’re replacing everyone with random civilians, why are we testing them and why bother to reform elections?


- Shift half the military budget into scientific advancement of things like food production and cleaner energy. Shut down a lot overseas military bases that have no real reason to exist, preferably selling the infrastructure to the country they reside in if possible. (The United States is not an empire.) Probably leave bases in allied countries. (Such as Australia.)


You do understand that it is our allies who need to start taking care of themselves? We need to shift out bases out of our allies’ territory. I’d renegotiate for use rights and sell the bases back to them. We don’t need to be based there all the time, but if necessary, it’s good to know we can shift our men and material there at a moment’s notice. We need to keep our ability to project force which is what those bases are all about.


- Call in ten or so of the best economists I can get my hand on who I know aren't in the pocket of corporations or special interests, ask them for the best tax plan for citizens and country. After doing so, send out plan to a further 500 or so economists to get a broader sweep of opinions and minor adjustments.


Again, this boils down to economists you approve of and not necessarily the best economists. IMO, in order to get a really good idea of what a plan should be, you need a broad mix of economists from a broad mix of economic thought, not just ones you approve of because you don’t think they’re “shills.”


- End pointless war on drugs. Legalize Marijuana at federal level.


Only when you decouple the welfare state from substance abuse entirely. You can have your party, but I refuse to subsidize it.


- Demilitarize police force, make cameras mandatory.


With PCP, meth, flakka and the rest now legal, you want to disarm the cops?


- Downsize or shut down NSA. It's useless.


Not useless, but out of control.


- Revise tax code so it's no longer 100 pages of code and 73,900 pages of loopholes. Make it comprehensible by normal humans if possible.


Why spend all that time with all those economists if you are simplifying the tax code this much? It’s pretty easy to do, and wouldn’t take a committee. The real problem, in fact, is the spending, not the taxing.


- Fix retarded election system (no longer all-or-nothing, people vote for preferences.) Destroy two-party ideology. Delete electoral college.


I get it. You hate Republicans and conservatives, so you think the world would be Utopia is you abolished parties and instituted direct democracy, but why bother with this if we are being ruled by random citizens who are being intelligence and morality tested? Btw, I forgot to ask … whose morals are we using? The left keeps telling me that all morals are relative and we shouldn’t judge but if you have a test, aren’t you doing just that?



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

But getting back to this election reform, if you abolish the EC and party system, aren’t you making the single popular vote system a one-time all or nothing election?


- Remove/Morph Obamacare and use Single-Payer, since it's better. Offer to do so in first term, but leave it until second if the people don't want it.


You think single payer is better, but what if it isn’t? If it’s so good why do so many Canadians jump the border to the US to get their treatments in a timely manner? There are in fact significant issues to single payer that are never addressed and I have my doubts that your vastly simplified tax system would address the costs.


- Improve public education since it's awful. Instate tuition-free college. Same as above.


1.) How are you planning on improving public education? It seems to me that pretty much every president for past two or three have tried and failed miserably. Again, if you throw money at it, isn’t that shooting your simple tax system in the foot? And since throwing money at it has been the popular approach and has done jack squat to fix anything about it, what is your real solution to it?
2.) Free college has the same problem as free health care. How are you going to pay for it?

Try George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, possibly Obama, Clinton, so on and so forth, for War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, Fraud, so on and so forth. (Depends on what information I uncover within the system about their actions.)


And when the next person takes power after you, they try you. Pretty soon, no one takes power anymore because everyone in power commits some kind of crime according to other side and the next guy to come along spends his or her entire term trying to put them in prison in an effort to assuage the people.


- Try to convince a decent portion of the country (almost certainly unsuccessfully, but worth the attempt) to become Vegetarian. Meat
production damages land and is highly inefficient in terms of resources.


Oh, c’mon! You are a dictator being dictatorial. You’ve waved you wand and forced us into all kinds of other silliness, but you’re being persuasive here?


- Change guns laws. Mostly leave as-is. Anyone who commits a crime with a gun, or has a gun stolen which is then used in a crime, is permanently barred from ownership. (Appeals possible for latter.) Immediate family of person who commits gun-crime restricted to non-concealable weapons.


Cool! So if someone steals your car and then robs a bank and uses your car as the getaway, can we prosecute you for accessory, aiding and abetting? You should take better care with your vehicles, you know.


- Huge national elections to choose my successor, and other such things. I'll be telling the citizens often throughout the process that "It's important to pick someone whose ideology and ideas you agree with, but it's also very important to pick someone with decent morals who won't screw over the country and all of you for their own personal gain. Pay attention. Don't let them off the hook for flip-flopping repeatedly. If their reason for running is "I want to be in government" or "I want to be powerful", they aren't the right choice for your future."


How do you get candidates to run who don’t want the job? Is this when we go back to picking random civilians again?


- And finally, at end of final term, execute self on live national television with final words akin to "I fixed everything for you. Don't f**k it up again. Pay attention this time."


Um, so that’s how you avoid being prosecuted for treason or taking any of the accountability for your actions.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
People seem to be under the illusion that a large part of the US military is overseas. About 97% of US forces are within US territory.

Yah, we get others to do our dirty work.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   


- Overturn Citizens United, it's stupid.


How about people actually bother to read what citizen united really said?

I know it's asking a lot.



The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States.[2][3


en.wikipedia.org...

It's thanks to CU that PEOPLE, and those things that are NOT people like corporations, and unions get to try to buy politicians.

Even if CU went the way of the do do bird. Still doesn't stop politicians from buying the PEOPLE.

Insert 'free' something here aka social programs.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Renegotiate trade deals. They are not stupid, but they have been badly negotiated.


Kindly note that I'm not putting an eternal ban on them, and that I'm talking about the current trade deals. Which are, yes, stupid, because they've been badly negotiated. (Or rather, written by people who don't care what it does to the country and merely want to fatten their own pockets as much as possible.)


Only if you also admit that unions and similar also are not people. I don’t care that you think they are purporting to represent the interests of people, they are still money-making, money-laundering schemes playing politics for their own gain just as much as any corporation. If you let half the big boys pay to play, you should also let the other half.

Also, what about the small group of small time citizens who band together to buy an ad for their candidate? Currently, they incorporate to do this. So they are an evil corporation or PAC at this point. What about them? Or are they not allowed to broadcast their POV to everyone else?


Ah yes, the evil unions. I'm fine without them being allowed to make massive political donations.

Banned, or otherwise worked to limit spending to low amounts per person. Broadcasting is a service, not free speech. A service I can choose to deny, if I so desire.


No go here. You cannot fire everyone you don’t like and then keep a few you do. Let’s put the show on the other foot and suppose I wrote this and said we’d fire everyone, but maybe keep a few like Cruz … but get rid of all those other idiots like Sanders or Warren. Face it, not everyone thinks or believes like you do and that is why those people are where they are. And just because you think a thing is “right” doesn’t necessarily make it so. It only make it your opinion, something we all have.

If we’re replacing everyone with random civilians, why are we testing them and why bother to reform elections?


I'm sorry, but what was the title of this thread again?
I believe it had something to do with a fanciful dictatorship, not about 100% legitimate pure real presidential actions.
Also, less about ideology (that plays a part but it's not the entire thing) more about corruption. Sanders and Warren are the only people I'm currently aware of who aren't corrupt. And also the only ones who don't seem to have failed fantastically at their jobs.

Because we can't keep it a dictatorship forever, now can we? And they're tested for their morals (e.g. their susceptibility to corruption) and their intelligence (so they aren't just incapable of helping.) I don't care if they're pro or anti whatever, I'm making sure they aren't easily corrupted or drooling morons.


You do understand that it is our allies who need to start taking care of themselves? We need to shift out bases out of our allies’ territory. I’d renegotiate for use rights and sell the bases back to them. We don’t need to be based there all the time, but if necessary, it’s good to know we can shift our men and material there at a moment’s notice. We need to keep our ability to project force which is what those bases are all about.


Remember what I said about the United States not being an empire? Did you miss that? The reason why the world's so f*cked up right now is exactly because the US has been flexing its big boy muscles and projecting its force.


Again, this boils down to economists you approve of and not necessarily the best economists. IMO, in order to get a really good idea of what a plan should be, you need a broad mix of economists from a broad mix of economic thought, not just ones you approve of because you don’t think they’re “shills.”


I take the ones I think are trustworthy and capable, they make the tax plan.
Then, I send it out to 100-500 other economists, some of which may be these "shills" you're talking about, who help fine tune it or raise any glaring flaws.
Two step plan, not particularly complicated. Did you miss it?


Only when you decouple the welfare state from substance abuse entirely. You can have your party, but I refuse to subsidize it.


Fine, but only if you stop using roads, police, and the fire department. Other people are subsidizing them for you, after all.
It's impossible to fix the issues with welfare before first fixing the other issues (and there are many) with the US's economy. There are more people than jobs, hence, someone's always gonna be on welfare. And yes, there will be people that abuse it (in the MINORITY of cases) just like there are people who prank call fire departments, or ruin roads.


With PCP, meth, flakka and the rest now legal, you want to disarm the cops?


Geez, you sure are projecting. "Evil liberal strips police force down to tank tops and sweat pants, laughs as torn apart by rabid cannibal PCP users" is the story I can see whirling around in your head.
Demilitarize, surprisingly, is different from disarming. Also, I didn't legalise anything beyond marijuana. I ended the war on drugs because it's a waste of resources that actually makes the drug trade stronger.


Not useless, but out of control.


Actually, yes, you're right, not useless. Worse than useless. Since it's out of control and an active detriment.
I'd probably downsize it and task it with keeping an eye on criminals on probation/leave/whatever. Stop them from running off.


Why spend all that time with all those economists if you are simplifying the tax code this much? It’s pretty easy to do, and wouldn’t take a committee. The real problem, in fact, is the spending, not the taxing.


Because I'm not able to perfectly craft a good tax plan off the top of my head?
And that statement was obviously hyperbole. I doubt it would be reduced to 100 pages, but bye bye loopholes.
I guess that's good then, because spending would be going down under myself.


I get it. You hate Republicans and conservatives, so you think the world would be Utopia is you abolished parties and instituted direct democracy, but why bother with this if we are being ruled by random citizens who are being intelligence and morality tested? Btw, I forgot to ask … whose morals are we using? The left keeps telling me that all morals are relative and we shouldn’t judge but if you have a test, aren’t you doing just that?


What? No, where did I say that? I think the concept of conservatism is quite good. I dislike Republicans as much as I dislike Democrats, because I dislike the whole two-party system. Because it's bad.
Morals are relative to society. We would be judging their morals based on the American society's morals. And when I say "Morals" perhaps I should have just been more specific and said "susceptibility to corruption." As I said, I don't care if they're pro or anti whatever (abortion, guns, trans, etc.) as long as they aren't drooling morons or easily corrupted jackasses.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:55 AM
link   

But getting back to this election reform, if you abolish the EC and party system, aren’t you making the single popular vote system a one-time all or nothing election?


Perhaps I wouldn't necessarily abolish the electoral system entirely, but watch these.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

It's indisputable that the current US election system is massively flawed and can be improved.


You think single payer is better, but what if it isn’t? If it’s so good why do so many Canadians jump the border to the US to get their treatments in a timely manner? There are in fact significant issues to single payer that are never addressed and I have my doubts that your vastly simplified tax system would address the costs.


1st point: It's less expensive than the current system, so it's actually a net gain in revenue.
2nd point: Weren't you the one who said the problem isn't with taxing, it's with spending? Cutting down the absurd military budget would certainly go a long way towards freeing up the income for things actually useful to the country's citizens.
3rd point: I'm unaware of any Canadians jumping the border to use the US's medical system. I'm sure you're aware that it's a laughingstock in almost every other country in the world.


1.) How are you planning on improving public education? It seems to me that pretty much every president for past two or three have tried and failed miserably. Again, if you throw money at it, isn’t that shooting your simple tax system in the foot? And since throwing money at it has been the popular approach and has done jack squat to fix anything about it, what is your real solution to it?
2.) Free college has the same problem as free health care. How are you going to pay for it?


1)First important step is to try and make teachers actually respected.
Second important step is making sure teachers actually know what they're teaching.
Third important step is removing wastefulness from the system.
2) Slashing bloat. The US spends far too much money far too inefficiently and providing tuition-free college would actually be extremely cheap compared to many other expenses. "Free" college is actually useful for the long term health of the country, and actually follows conservative ideals. (People can help themselves and "get a job" if they actually have the education needed to do so.)


And when the next person takes power after you, they try you. Pretty soon, no one takes power anymore because everyone in power commits some kind of crime according to other side and the next guy to come along spends his or her entire term trying to put them in prison in an effort to assuage the people.


Except the next person after me isn't a dictator, I'm not alive at that point (though I suppose they could do so posthumously), and I haven't committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.


Oh, c’mon! You are a dictator being dictatorial. You’ve waved you wand and forced us into all kinds of other silliness, but you’re being persuasive here?


Not workable. I can't force it on the population when it's something easily (and almost certainly) repealed after I leave office.


Cool! So if someone steals your car and then robs a bank and uses your car as the getaway, can we prosecute you for accessory, aiding and abetting? You should take better care with your vehicles, you know.


It's a lot easier to keep a gun safe from being stolen than a car safe from being stolen. Guns are also not essentially mandatory for everyday life like a car is. If you want to own a lethal weapon, then you are responsible for making sure your gun is not stolen and used to murder someone. Criminal neglect. A gun is not a toy, you don't leave it on your dashboard, you keep it safe on your person or a relatively secure hiding spot.


How do you get candidates to run who don’t want the job? Is this when we go back to picking random civilians again?


You don't seem to have properly read what I said. If someone's reason for running is wanting to be in government, they're not likely to be a good candidate. Because that means being in government is the paramount goal, not the method by which they strive to make the country a better place.


Um, so that’s how you avoid being prosecuted for treason or taking any of the accountability for your actions.


I'd swear you're just being contradictory at this point. As far as I'm aware, you can indeed be prosecuted for such things posthumously. Killing myself doesn't stop my name from going down as an awful tyrant, does it not?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join