Candidate Declaration: iori_komei, Socialist

Considering I intend to try to get a great deal done if I am elected,
I think I should probably put a little schedule of what I intend to do in
my first month in office.


So, here is basically the things I will/would be focusing on in the beginning.

-Ending the 'war' in Iraq while making sure they can defend themselves.
-Institing a single-payer Universal healthcare system.
-Reallocating money from unneeded places to other more important things.

My Stance on Censorship

One of the things I realized I've really not talked about is censorship, so I feel it would be a good idea to state my position on it.


In general I am completely opposed to censorship in nearly all cases.

I do not believe in censoring what people say simply because it is offensive, if you really don't want to hear/see something, don't watch/listen to it.

When it comes to national security, well I consider few things to be matters of national security, so limited censorship for a specific amount of on certain things I begrudgingly accept.

Examples of this would be broadcasting troop movement before or during an operation, or revealing detailed designs and flaws on a new weapons system before or while it is in use.

Now, when it comes to things such as racism, derogatory terms and such, well, as much as I may dislike them, and generally dislike the people who use them, I would never seek to make them criminal actions, that is unless they knowingly use the term to set-off a fight, but even than they should get in trouble for starting the fight, not using the words.

Holocaust denial is another thing that a great many people would group together with the above.

Personally I don't doubt that the holocaust happened, and that millions died, I don't necessarily think it was quite as many as is said, but that's
another topic. Just because someone ants to deny the holocaust happening, it does not mean they should be considered criminals and get in trouble for it.


Anyways, that's basically my stance on censorship.

If you have any questions on it, or any other topic, please feel free to ask
me, well unless it's about certain aspects of my personal life anyways.

[edit on 5/7/2007 by iori_komei]

Why I'm A Socialist.

I've been thinking about this, and I realized, I've never said, anywhere
why I am a Socialist.

It did'nt take me to long to come up with the answer(s) to that.


The reason I am a Socialist is two-fold.

1. I abhor the entire idea of money, and believe people should work to
better themselves and humanity as a whole, and to feel satisfied at doing
something, especially something they enjoy.

2. I believe that all everyone should have access to good health-care,
regardless of how much they make, and should have the basic
necessities of life available to them, instead of having to work there
fingers bare just to survive.

[edit on 5/7/2007 by iori_komei]

Ok, so being the president is a very serious job, but we all know being serious all
the time is not good for you, causes stress and other related psychological and biologic
problems, so if/when I am elected President, I will get the white house gardeners
to write the following phrase in large letters on the front lawn on April 1st, using herbicide.

"NWO b*tch!"

A really useless thing to do I know, but come one, how funny would that be,
and of course I would pay the gardeners to do it and for the eventual repair of the
lawn myself, no need for the taxpayers money to fund my pranks.


I would subsequently set-up some prank every April Fool's Day of my tenure as president.

[edit on 5/17/2007 by iori_komei]

If anyone has any (positive) ideas on a campaign slogan, I really would like to hear them,
as the best I've been able to come up with is 'I Kare.', and that's not exactly a great slogan.

My Stance on 9/11.


Ok, I was thinking, and I realized I rarely ever actually say what I think regarding 9/11,
so I figure I might as well say it.


I believe that 9/11 was indeed perpetrated by Islamic extremest terrorists,
however I do not believe all of the 'official story'.

It is in my opinion that there were some very powerful people (in government and
outside of it, I'm not sure, though probably both) that had heard through there own sources
about 9/11 plans and knew that they would actually be done, however for whatever reason,
probably because it benefited them not to say anything, they did not say anything,
and because of that 9/11 happened.

I also believe that because of our own intelligence agencies absolute failures to actually
do anything useful, that 9/11 happened much easier than it should have.


As president I do/would intend to re-open parts of the 9/11 investigation, and also investigate
other things and people as well.

After thinking about this, and comparing the positives and negatives.

As president I will/would cut all economic ties with Jamaica, and would only re-establish
them when/if Jamaica were to institute several social and judicial reforms.

I think it is safe to say that your thoughts on legal sexual consent laws are a little "extreme". Do you believe that this will be a strength or a weakness in your platform? Why?

One thing we cherish is the innocence of a child. Some may view your thoughts as the exploitation of this sacred innocence. How would you respond to this?

Do you believe the American public want a leader who believes in sexual relations between children and adults? (Those that past a "maturity test")

**********
Double Post.
**********

[edit on 6/11/2007 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by chissler
I think it is safe to say that your thoughts on legal sexual consent laws are a little "extreme". Do you believe that this will be a strength or a weakness in your platform? Why?

Most likely a weakness, but I believe that being honest about it and explaining why
I think what I do is a better thing to do than try and bury it or say that my opinion has
changed (that's not to say my opinions don't change), is both morally and strategically better to do.

One thing we cherish is the innocence of a child. Some may view your thoughts as the exploitation of this sacred innocence. How would you respond to this?

Well I suppose it would depend, that is I may respond differently to different people,
though basically the same thing just in a different wording.

I do not see it as exploitation if both parties are consenting, so to me I honestly fail to
see how it could be described as exploitation.

Though I do understand the concerns and where they are coming from.

Do you believe the American public want a leader who believes in sexual relations between children and adults? (Those that past a "maturity test")

I think that the American public want someone who is going to do a good job as leader,
and what said leader's personal thoughts on a matter, at least one they are not really
seeking to change.

(That of course would lose me the NAMBLA vote, but I really did'nt want it in the first place.)

[edit on 6/11/2007 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by iori_komei
Most likely a weakness, but I believe that being honest about it and explaining why I think what I do is a better thing to do than try and bury it or say that my opinion has changed (which has actually done on other thins), is both morally and strategically better to do.

Honest answer. I respect that.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well I suppose it would depend, that is I may respond differently to different people, though basically the same thing just in a different wording.

Care to elaborate? Maybe provide an example of how you would word this to two different parties.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I do not see it as exploitation if both parties are consenting, so to me I honestly fail to see how it could be described as exploitation.

How do you believe that a ten, eleven, or twelve year old child can possibly comprehend the ramifications of their actions? You condone the consent to have sex with grown men, so I can only imagine that you consent to cigarette, alcohol, drug, etc., consumption? Should they have the ability to vote? What about driving an automobile?

Originally posted by iori_komei
I think that the American public want someone who is going to do a good job as leader, and what said leader's personal thoughts on a matter, at least one they are not really seeking to change.

I'd have to disagree 100% here. If someone is a full blown racist, their "tendencies" will inevitably seep into their platform and policies. I'm not insinuating that you are a racist, but I am implying that your stances are against the status quo of some widely acceptable standards. How can you advocate these things, and then tell the public that you are not going to change the laws.

Isn't that a little hypocritical to your previous statement?

You've said that you are going to be an honest candidate and be straight forward.

Your not going to hide your beliefs, but your not going to implement a policy that you firmly believe in? How is that?

Do you not see a discrepancy?

Originally posted by chissler
Care to elaborate? Maybe provide an example of how you would word this to two different parties.

Well an example would be if I was talking to a hard-line conservative individual,
I would explain it in a more neutral point of fact way, but if I were talking to a more
open minded person, I would be more, well I can't think of the correct term,
but I think the term emotionally open is the closest to it.

How do you believe that a ten, eleven, or twelve year old child

I believe in an idea where 12 is the youngest, 12-17 to be able to, so not 10 or eleven or younger.

can possibly comprehend the ramifications of their actions?

I don't think that everyone will, however that's why I think a test would be a good idea,
it would prevent those who don't comprehend it from being taken advantage of,
but would also keep those that do from having there freedom limited.

I for one fully understood what sex was, what it lead to and all that it entails when
I was 12, and, had the situation arisen, and I had chosen to, I would have been able
to consent to it fully comprehending it.

You condone the consent to have sex with grown men,

Or grown women.

so I can only imagine that you consent to cigarette, alcohol, drug, etc., consumption? Should they have the ability to vote? What about driving an automobile?

I don't believe they should be able to purchase it until they are 18, however
as long as they understand the negatives, I don't have a problem with them doing
it in moderation.

Personally I think the voting age should be 16, but that's a Constitutional issue,
and not one I really have any intention of seeking change in.

Driving I think should stay at 16, even if you know how to drive at a young age,
most people are not physically developed enough (tall enough) top be able to safely
operate a vehicle until they are 16.

I'd have to disagree 100% here. If someone is a full blown racist, their "tendencies" will inevitably seep into their platform and policies. I'm not insinuating that you are a racist, but I am implying that your stances are against the status quo of some widely acceptable standards. How can you advocate these things, and then tell the public that you are not going to change the laws.

Isn't that a little hypocritical to your previous statement?

You've said that you are going to be an honest candidate and be straight forward.

Your not going to hide your beliefs, but your not going to implement a policy that you firmly believe in? How is that?

Do you not see a discrepancy?

My own personal beliefs and what I would/will do are two completely different things
on many issues.

Much like how some people have had religious beliefs that do not affect the decisions
they make, even if the decision goes against there own beliefs.


Another way to think of it is the good of the many (not trying to change it to fit my own belief)
outweighs the wants of the one (my wanting to it to be changed).

I would never put my own wants on such an issue above the good of society and
what it wants.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well an example would be if I was talking to a hard-line conservative individual,
I would explain it in a more neutral point of fact way, but if I were talking to a more
open minded person, I would be more, well I can't think of the correct term,
but I think the term emotionally open is the closest to it.

You'd sugar coat it for someone who disagreed, basically. But why sugar coat something that you firmly believe in? Being honest and open, I fail to see why you would need to sugar coat it. I certainly see why you would, but not when your making the case that you are going to be honest and open about your platform.. this simply comes across as a contradiction.

Either your honest and open, or you are telling people what they want to hear.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I believe in an idea where 12 is the youngest, 12-17 to be able to, so not 10 or eleven or younger.

You realize what you speak of is a crime? In your platform, you are advocating a blatant crime. Sex with minors is a crime. A twelve year old child can not consume alcohol, they can not smoke cigarettes, they can not consume drugs, and they most certainly can not experience intercourse.. especially someone who is double and triple their senior.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I don't think that everyone will, however that's why I think a test would be a good idea,
it would prevent those who don't comprehend it from being taken advantage of,
but would also keep those that do from having there freedom limited.

I assume you understand the flaws in this system. And I would like to reiterate that what you are advocating is a crime.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I for one fully understood what sex was, what it lead to and all that it entails when
I was 12, and, had the situation arisen, and I had chosen to, I would have been able
to consent to it fully comprehending it.

If you actually believe you understood exactly what sex was at 12 years of age, that clearly indicates that, to this day, you still don't understand everything that it entails. And this isn't about what was, is, or will be, best for you. This is about what is best for millions and millions of hard working citizens who are going to trust you with their safety.

Is this how you are going to handle this trust?

Originally posted by iori_komei
Or grown women.

Very fine line. I'm going to ignore this for the time being, because to be honest, the taste in my mouth is absolutely unbearable. If this comes up in the future in a debate, I'll gladly engage you on it. But as it stands, please do not speak of this again. Please!

Originally posted by iori_komei
I don't believe they should be able to purchase it until they are 18, however
as long as they understand the negatives, I don't have a problem with them doing it in moderation.

Just how many laws do you intend to break before the primaries?

Originally posted by iori_komei
Personally I think the voting age should be 16, but that's a Constitutional issue, and not one I really have any intention of seeking change in.

Man alive! You've set the bar at 12 for other absurdities, but the ability to vote isn't until 16? How do you justify this? (Please Don't!)

Originally posted by iori_komei
I would never put my own wants on such an issue above the good of society and
what it wants.

So how do you justify your own stance? You believe all of these things, but you openly say you would not implement any of them. As a political figure, you are openly stating that your own platform and policies are exactly what the public does not want. Why should someone vote for you if all of your policies are going to consist in everything that you don't believe in?

Why not vote for someone who is going to accomplish something similar, but actually believes in it?

When I look at a politician, I look for sincerity. You've already admitted that you firmly believe in many things. But you would not seek to implement any of these. So what you believe in is clearly not right for our society. Yet, we should still vote for you?

I do not ask these questions as your opponent, but as an eligible voter myself.

Can you please explain this?

[edit on 10-6-2007 by chissler]

Originally posted by chissler
I assume you understand the flaws in this system. And I would like to reiterate that what you are advocating is a crime.

It strictly isn't a true crime.

It is nothing more than a socially constructed crime. It isn't something such as murder, where every Government finds murder illegal without reasons.

Consent laws differ, Japan has the age of 12 to 14, it is one of the two and I can't remember off of the top of my head. Many other Nations differ - the fact that people used to be married by 12 and making babies for hundreds of years shows that it wasn't always a crime.

Originally posted by Odium
It strictly isn't a true crime.

Under American law, is it a crime? Yes. The consent laws of other countries carry no weight here. If a candidate for the President of the United States is advocating crime in the very country he is looking to run, I see a large problem. True crime? Socially constructed norms? That may be very true. But the consent laws in Japan are completely irrelevant. American law does. Under American law, this is a crime.

Originally posted by chissler
You'd sugar coat it for someone who disagreed, basically. But why sugar coat something that you firmly believe in? Being honest and open, I fail to see why you would need to sugar coat it. I certainly see why you would, but not when your making the case that you are going to be honest and open about your platform.. this simply comes across as a contradiction.

No, I would'nt sugarcoat anything.

What I mean is with the more hardline person, I'm going to clearly state my beliefs,
and what I believe them and that's that.

However with a more open minded individual, I would do the same, but answer there questions.

Now, if the hardliner actually asked me those kind of questions, I'd of course answer,
but they're more likely to just go on yelling at me for my beliefs.

You realize what you speak of is a crime? In your platform, you are advocating a blatant crime. Sex with minors is a crime. A twelve year old child can not consume alcohol, they can not smoke cigarettes, they can not consume drugs, and they most certainly can not experience intercourse.. especially someone who is double and triple their senior.

Yes, I do realize that in the current system such a thing would be a crime in most places
(different states have different ages of consent), and I don't advocate breaking the law.

However, the entire consent thing is not, nor has it ever been a part of my platform,
nor will I be adding it.
It is simply a personal belief that I have, based on my own knowledge, not something
I am going to try and change.

Also, with the drugs thing, part of my platform is the total legalization of drugs,
so I am thinking from a stand point where they would be legal.

Alcohol is actually something that laws can be vague on, while you do have to be
21 to purchase alcohol, not all states have consumption ages, so it would not actually be illegal.

I assume you understand the flaws in this system. And I would like to reiterate that what you are advocating is a crime.

Yes, I do know the problems that such a system w/would encounter, but it's the best
idea I have been able to think of on the matter, and it really is nothing more than that,
an idea, something I think would produce more freedom, but ultimately something that now,
and for the foreseeable future has far to many problems to evens seriously even try to talk about.

I don't advocate it while it is a crime.

If you actually believe you understood exactly what sex was at 12 years of age, that clearly indicates that, to this day, you still don't understand everything that it entails.

I fully understand what sex is on both a physical/biological level and on an emotional level.

The only difference between what I know now and what I knew than is in things that
while being part of the general topic, are not things you need to know to understand
what sex is and what it entails.

And this isn't about what was, is, or will be, best for you. This is about what is best for millions and millions of hard working citizens who are going to trust you with their safety.

The theoretical system I have thought of was meant to best for as many people as possible,
but as I've said, it's not something I am going to actually try to implement.

Even than though I do recognize it has to many negative aspects and problems to actually
be the best for as many people as possible.

Just how many laws do you intend to break before the primaries?

I have no intention on breaking any laws, heck I would'nt even buy lottery tickets
(for an adult who was to lazy to do it themselves) until I turned 18.

But again, with the drug thing I am thinking in a mind set where-in drugs are'nt illegal.

Man alive! You've set the bar at 12 for other absurdities, but the ability to vote isn't until 16? How do you justify this? (Please Don't!)

Simply because politics is a whole hell of a lot more complicated than sex.

So how do you justify your own stance? You believe all of these things, but you openly say you would not implement any of them.

Did Kennedy ever try and make Condoms illegal?
As a Catholic part of his religions beliefs are that Condoms are bad, and should be prevented,
but as a president he did not let his personal beliefs interfere with his job as president.

Mind you I am not saying I believe in it religiously, I'm merely saying that you can believe
something and not have it influence your politics.

As a political figure, you are openly stating that your own platform and policies are exactly what the public does not want. Why should someone vote for you if all of your policies are going to consist in everything that you don't believe in?

Again, the whole consent thing has not nor ever will be a part of my platform on any level.

All of the things that I have said that are part of my platform are things I believe in,
and am going to try to change.

The consent thing is not one of them since it is'nt part of my platform.
Not only because it is not what people want, but because it's not a system that I am
even fully comfortable with, that is there are still problems and things that need to be
worked out before any such system could ever be presented.

When I look at a politician, I look for sincerity. You've already admitted that you firmly believe in many things. But you would not seek to implement any of these. So what you believe in is clearly not right for our society. Yet, we should still vote for you?

Everything that is part of my platform I believe in, and subsequently are things
I intend to try and change.

Some results from various tests I've done, I figure they will be interesting to some and
allow a for a visual representation of where I am in sociopolitics.

There is one other, but I can't seem to find it right this moment.

The third aforementioned test results.

That chart is idiotic in itself. Surely you have better things to do than to spam it at us.

If you want to insult the validity of the result chart, than that's your business,
but I am not spamming.

1. This is MY thread.
2. It is relevant to the thread.