Since I have asked all the other candidates this, I figure I should give
an answer as well.

What is your opinion the current election age, that is having to be at least
35 to become president, should it be lowered, raised or stay the same?

It is my belief that a person should be able to be president at a much
younger age than 35.

By the time someone is 35, there is more of a chance that they are
going to be corrupt, and only in it for personal gain or wants.

I believe the age should be 25.

What are your thoughts on the requirement that one must be born in the
United States to become president, should it be changed or stay the
same?

I believe that it is a smack in the face to something that this country
was born from, that being immigration.

Therefore I believe that as long as a person has been a citizen of this
country for at least ten years, than they should be able to run for the
presidency.

This is a list of the issues that are part of my platform.
These issues are all important to me.


-Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides
full coverage for all Americans.

-The gradual withdrawal of troops over 5-7 years with more emphasis
on training the Iraqis than fighting.

-Guaranteed quality education for all, including free pre-kindergarten
and college for all who want it.

-Repealing the PATRIOT Act.

-Fostering a world of international cooperation.
-Abolishing the death penalty.

-Increasing rehabilitation programs and reforming the prison system.
-Environmental renewal and clean energy.

-Preventing the privatization of social security.

-Providing full social security benefits at age 65.

-Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

-Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.

-Getting rid of the Electoral college, and furthering direct democracy
in elections.

-Protecting a woman's right to abortion.

-Ending the war on drugs, and legalizing all drugs, while taxing them
and controlling the production of those that are dangerous to produce.

-Legalizing same-sex marriage.

-Creating a balance between workers and corporations.

-Creating a system of Metronatural/green urban environments.

-Withdrawal from UN treaties that hinder freedom, and reform of the UN.

-Helping family farms, and increasing the prevalence of local farming.

-Protecting gun rights, and decreasing some of the gun control laws,
while eliminating others.

-Ending all military funding, and halving all other funding to Israel.

-Opening up a dialogue with Iran, while at the same time not eliminating
the possibility of military force.

-Amnesty for all illegal immigrants who have continuously been in the
country 5 years, speak English (or are willing to learn) and are willing
to integrate and become productive members of society.

-Funding reform and helping the Mexican government and economy,
to bring it up to or near American standards.

-Enforcing mandatory CO2 caps on corporations.

-Halting and/or limiting trade with any company or country that is not
willing to conform to international treaties or limits/denies freedom.

-Decreasing the amount of involuntary homelessness.

-Decreasing the nuclear arsenal by 40% while at the same time repla-
cing the other 60% with newer, safer and more efficient warheads.

-Bringing an end to the genocide in Darfur.

-Opening up a dialogue with Venezuela.

-Further funding NASA projects, and creating more government funded
competitions for space technology in the private sector.

-I will recognize, if they want to be so recognized, the Republic of
China (Taiwan) as an independant and sovereign nation.
And as such will pledge full support for them in the case that the
Peoples Republic of China(China) trys to take an military action
against them.

-I will work to reduce the amount of import from China by 50%.
I will work to create economic standards that require any company
that wishes to sell goods in America, to have atleast 10% of it's
jobs here.

-I will fund further R&D and production of alternative energy sources,
such as Biofuels, Hydrogen fuel cells, Hydroelectric, Wind, Solar,
Geothermal and Wave power.

[edit on 3/1/2007 by iori_komei]

Your last post is supportable and well thought out.

Under your user name you have a label defining yourself as some sort of "Corporate Socialist" potentate. What should the American people expect out of a "Corporate Socialist" president? It sounds to me like you want to put greater influence into the hands of the corporate elite.

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by jsobecky
Please clarify this. Would you allow ten year-old's to consume alcohol and drugs?

Well, so long as they understood the negatives, and they were only
allowed a small amount for their age, like just enough for them to get the
same feeling say a sugary snack or soda would cause, equivalent wise.

As it stands there are states that don't make it illegal for you to consume
alcohol if you are under 21, you just can't buy it.


In the long run though, unless they were buying it themselves, there is a
considerable lesser chance that they would be given it in the first place.

I am very troubled by that response. It brings up another question:

What is your stance regarding the age of sexual consent?

Originally posted by df1
Under your user name you have a label defining yourself as some sort of "Corporate Socialist" potentate. What should the American people expect out of a "Corporate Socialist" president? It sounds to me like you want to put greater influence into the hands of the corporate elite.

I have no intention of giving corporations power, indeed quite the
opposite.

I believe in corporate rights, however I believe that the good of
the state and above that the people overrides the good of the
corporation.

Originally posted by jsobecky
What is your stance regarding the age of sexual consent?

I was really hoping this would'nt be brought up so soon.

My stance on it, is that there should nto be an age of consent.
However that's not to say it should be openended so to speak.

I believe in a consent test for anyone under 17, whereby a randomly
selected neutral expert panel asks the individual specific questions to
gage if they understand what sex and all is, and what it means and such.

Ok, I have been doing some thinking about taxes, and I remembered
I'd made a chart awhile back on taxation.

Now, this is far from being perfect, I more or less was doing it because
I was bored, and had ben thinking abotu taxes.

Anyways, here you go.

Originally posted by iori_komei
My stance on it, is that there should nto be an age of consent.
However that's not to say it should be openended so to speak.

I believe in a consent test for anyone under 17, whereby a randomly
selected neutral expert panel asks the individual specific questions to
gage if they understand what sex and all is, and what it means and such.

Ehhh.... I recommend you speak more on this before you rapidly lose people's support.

As for your chart, the percentages would be varyable figures, adjusted in line with the economy and budgets. Otherwise your government is going to lose alot of money thru lack of financial optimization.

Originally posted by SteveR
Ehhh.... I recommend you speak more on this before you rapidly lose people's support.

Well I thought I made myself clear enough that I would'nt have to.

Basically, if you are under 17, and want to have relations with someone
over 18 and/or 5 years older than yourself you prove to a neutral panel
that you understand what sex is and are consenting to it.

As for your chart, the percentages would be varyable figures, adjusted in line with the economy and budgets. Otherwise your government is going to lose alot of money thru lack of financial optimization.

Well it's not exactly fixed, it's just arealy basic idea I had, not really
developed a great deal or anything.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Basically, if you are under 17, and want to have relations with someone
over 18 and/or 5 years older than yourself you prove to a neutral panel
that you understand what sex is and are consenting to it.

Sorry but why do these people get to decide? How do they know if these people are happy? Meant to be together? How do you stop bigots getting on this jury? Where does the money come for this panal or are they expected to do it for free? If they are being paid, surely the money could be better spent somewhere else?

Originally posted by Odium
Sorry but why do these people get to decide?

Because people will have a fit if it was completely open.

How do they know if these people are happy? Meant to be together?

No one knows if they are meant to be with someone or not, it's something
that just happens.

If a 14 year old and a 26 year old want to have sex, and they are both
consenting, I don't have a problem with it, and in fact consider it wrong
to try and prevent it, so long as it is consenting.

How do you stop bigots getting on this jury?

That is a good question, and really one of the only two major problems
I have seen.

Where does the money come for this panel or are they expected to do it for free? If they are being paid, surely the money could be better spent somewhere else?

They would be payed I suppose, as they would be professionals for
the most part.

I think that if they were, it would be a good monetary expenditure.

Originally posted by iori_komei
If a 14 year old and a 26 year old want to have sex, and they are both
consenting, I don't have a problem with it, and in fact consider it wrong
to try and prevent it, so long as it is consenting.

You have a well defined plan for state sanctioned child exploitation, but your economic plan for the entire country is in your own words "not really developed a great deal". Do you think that it would be fair for your opponents to bring this up during the campaign or would you consider it mudslinging?

Originally posted by df1
You have a well defined plan for state sanctioned child exploitation,

That's your opinion.

but your economic plan for the entire country is in your own words "not really developed a great deal". Do you think that it would be fair for your opponents to bring this up during the campaign or would you consider it mudslinging?

I do nto recall saying that, I did say however the tax chart I showed
was an example of a possibility that was not completely perfect.

If it is not taken out of context.

The ruination of the world, the taker of all, you are the curse of mankind. I abhor the day your parents elected not to abort you for your existence is nothing but an obscene waste of air and food. I have devoted a lifetime to destroying whatever you corrupt and live only in the hope of seeing a day when socialism, the excrement of mankind is swept away in the urine of your own corruption.

Originally posted by nobodyelse
The ruination of the world, the taker of all, you are the curse of mankind. I abhor the day your parents elected not to abort you for your existence is nothing but an obscene waste of air and food. I have devoted a lifetime to destroying whatever you corrupt and live only in the hope of seeing a day when socialism, the excrement of mankind is swept away in the urine of your own corruption.

From all of the Socialist Candidates, I'd like to say we love you as well.

Thank you Iori for answering my questions.

I'm still... Kind of in awe... 50% income tax? That's... Well... That's a lot of my hard earned money!

You are for socialized health care. What do you plan on doing differently than other socialized health care attempts in other countries, to make sure we as Americans still have the best health care in the world?

Originally posted by LostSailor
I'm still... Kind of in awe... 50% income tax? That's... Well... That's a lot of my hard earned money!

And you would have that money to spend on whatever you liked, and
not have to worry about starving, being homeless or medical costs.

Thats nto to say though that everyone is going to get to live in the lap
of luxury on the tax-payers dime.

You are for socialized health care. What do you plan on doing differently than other socialized health care attempts in other countries, to make sure we as Americans still have the best health care in the world?

Basically, no medical costs for the individual, unless they are found to
be taking advantage of the system.

Originally posted by iori_komei
And you would have that money to spend on whatever you liked, and
not have to worry about starving, being homeless or medical costs.

But, I'm not worried about starving, being homeless, or medical costs. What if I could use that 50% to... Pay for my own food, home, and medical???

Originally posted by iori_komei
Basically, no medical costs for the individual, unless they are found to
be taking advantage of the system.

You miss understood my point. I want the same standard of medical care that i am currently used to. Namely, the best medical care. No one gets refused medical care in the U.S. right now. And we have arguable the best medical care in the world. How can you convince the American people that they will get the same treatment. Especially when previous attempts in other countries haven't fared very well? And nothing is free...

I swear i am not picking on you... This probably isn't the best place to be debating these issues....

Originally posted by LostSailor
But, I'm not worried about starving, being homeless, or medical costs. What if I could use that 50% to... Pay for my own food, home, and medical???

Not everyone can though.

The system is set up to primarily provide the funds for social programs,
like assured basic housing, and food.

I should not though, if you wanted more than the basic apartment,
furnishings and foodstuffs, you would have to buy it.

So in essence, if you (not you, but a person living on their own), was
down on there luck, they would be assured housing and food, however
they would not be given (for free) luxuries, and unneeded things.

Originally posted by iori_komei
You miss understood my point. I want the same standard of medical care that i am currently used to.

And you would be provided as such, if not better.

No one gets refused medical care in the U.S. right now.

Well that is somewhat true, you do have to pay for things like MRI's
and other such testings, as well as many surgeries.

And we have arguable the best medical care in the world.

Well, I would'nt say the best, good, yes, probably in the top 10 as well,
but not the best in the world, but that's a discussion for another day,
and thread.

How can you convince the American people that they will get the same treatment.

Well, I think the prospect of not having to pay medical insurance or
worry about medical bills would be a good incentive.

I swear i am not picking on you... This probably isn't the best place to be debating these issues....

No worries, the thought had'nt even crossed my mind.
No, this is the place to ask questions, that' pretty much the whole
purpose of this thread after all. I would'nt say you are debating at all.