I for one welcome our default overlords.
Yes, I too am ready for the next question.
Although if I had known it was going to be such a long break I could have helped build that Home For Humanity, organized a mailing effort to send boxes of supplies to our troops, visited a few hospices, founded an Urban Youth Basketball Team, walked 15 miles in both the AIDS Walk and the Cure Cancer Walk, helped push a whale back into the ocean and then wrote a children’s book - proceeds going to children with terminal diseases.
I count five questions down, with another five to go. Am I off?
Tripler
My ever-changing opponents nothwithstaniding. . . . how’re we doing?
I’m glad you asked, DrumBum; I share your frustrations. I hope I can rise to a level of specificity that gives you and other voters a fairly clear picture of my view here. Primarily, I don’t see why a Republican can’t be an environmentalist just as I don’t see why and environmentalist can’t be pro business and industry… there IS a middle path.
My energy policy fits nicely with what I’ve often heard called “a little bit of everything”, although I’m against tossing federal funds at every energy technology and seeing what sticks. I think government grants need to be a bit more narrowly focused at projects that have near immediate impact: in general, making existing technologies more clean, efficient, cost-effective, accessible to commercial and private users and easier and cheaper to manufacture.
As for production of fossil fuels, I think drilling an exploration companies need to be given more freedom to drill and mine where it will be most effective. Government should be moderate in their regulation of these industries, letting the free market work while constantly requiring incremental improvements in worker and environmental safety. I favor opening a small fraction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling; perhaps interested parties could arrange to swap a land parcel poor in fossil fuel deposits but rich in natural beauty to be added to the national park system for drilling rights in Alaska. In the case of spills and accidents I strongly favor energy companies mitigating all financial and environmental damages to the fullest extent that our technology allows us.
Transportation-wise, I think we’re already on the right track with CAFE standards bringing forth cleaner, more efficient gasoline and diesel vehicles. Electric cars are also more viable than ever which is a mighty good thing because we have so much flexibility on how to produce the electricity that powers them. I believe we should as a government pilot a project to make electric vehicle “refueling” stations available to motorists for longer distance trips by installing rapid rechargers at existing gas stations. By setting a recharge price at about twice the cost of the electricity we could pay the gas station owner rent for the space it takes up, cover maintenance and expansion of the program. We could, for example make electric car recharging stations available every 100 miles on I-5, I-95, I-10 and I-90 to begin. Once this becomes a profitable venture, the government would sell the charging stations with gas stations getting right of first refusal. I would also pilot a program where land-owning electric car owners could mount a compact recharging station on the curb of their property where traffic patterns make it safe to do so. They would pay for installation but would receive the charging unit for free to be paid off by the small profit make from each user. Owners would get their own use for no charge over the cost of their own electricity.
Now I should make clear I don’t expect electric cars to replace gasoline and diesel vehicles. Citizens should have choice here, and I mean genuine choice, not one where fossil fuel vehicles are overtaxed as a means of influencing decisions. I am in general firmly against the government using taxes, fees or market influence to bring about social change. More electric cars will lower demand for gasoline and diesel making them less expensive. I would also seek to remove all alternative fuel vehicle taxes; while electric cars are in their infancy we shouldn’t be trying to replace the gas tax they’re not paying. One more note on transportation: electrified rail transport instead of diesel has all the same benefits that electric vehicles do. I favor making low interest loans to railroads to electrify all transcon and other major lines. This widespread electrification will allow railroads to enter into long-term, low-price contracts with electricity producers stabilizing what are now very unpredictable fuel costs, lowering the cost of freight and making goods everywhere available cheaper to all consumers.
On the electrical generation side of the industry, I’m a big supporter of combined build-operate licenses for new nuclear plants keeping litigation costs off your electric bill. Few generation technologies can generate power on such a large scale so cheaply, cleanly and safely. I support building small-to-medium sized natural gas plants at key points on the grid. Natural gas is clean burning, easy to throttle for grid stability and tends to come from right here in our country or other parts of the world where our “strategic interests” are unlikely to lead us into war. Coal is also an important and improving major component of our electricity generation. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and it is in our strategic interest to burn what we have when we can instead of buying oil from unfriendly parts of the world. I believe in an “up or out” strategy for making coal plants as environmentally friendly as possible: similarly to CAFE standards, existing coal plants would have gradually tightening limits on emissions leaving utilities to decide whether it is in their best interests to modernize or retire a plant.
Thank you, Mr. Moderator; past presidencies have made me think long and hard about the awesome power wielded by our chief executives. In large part I agree with the president’s role as head of the executive branch, commander-in-chief, head of party and head of state. I have some reservations about head of party… I think we need a president of all the people and while he has a party platform and umpteen campaign promises behind him, he must be the start of the end of hardcore partisanship in our capitol. Imagine what a different country we might live in if a president resigned from his party on inauguration day leaving the VP as chief of party and his successors followed the tradition. While that may be stretching the boundaries of practicality, meeting often with every states’ congressional delegation as I’ve outlined earlier in this debate is a much more realistic step. It will go a long way toward making the presidency more about leading the federal departments in serving the people instead of strategizing with the president’s own party and ignoring the party opposite.
I think the president has a role as moral leader; a role some presidents handle well and others don’t. I’m be in favor of a bill outlining a presidential code of conduct that would, for example, proscribe infidelity and Watergate-like thuggery. Violations of this code would be punishable by censure or impeachment. I realize this isn’t per se a limit on presidential power, I think it an important step to improve presidential behavior and let our executive truly set an example for our young people to aspire to. I think we might be better off if we could as a nation shout “NEXT” just a little more often and put a person of integrity in the White House. Such a code of conduct would allow us to do just that. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I also think recall elections are long overdue at the federal level. That would be the ultimate check on presidential power.
I share my opponents’ concerns about the war powers act and related laws. I think the president should have to notify the gang of eight before authorizing any hostile military action overseas. He should have no more than 30 days to conduct such hostilities until requiring a majority consent in congress. I feel congress should be obligated to declare war when giving such consent. What we have done over the last 60 years with no declaration of war in incredible in scope… we should be honest with ourselves about our military actions.
Well, I thought everyone had lost interest, frankly. New question by tomorrow morning.
Well done, gentlemen.
All right, then. Let’s try this again:
The Presidency has a unique influence on foreign policy with lesser developed countries. Congress notwithstanding, what do you think, as President, your relationship with the leaders of various LDCs be? Does it vary for Africa? Latin America? Southeast Asia?
Foreign policy is a vital part of American history – with a long and varied history. Generations of people around the world have looked to the USA for hope and for help in times of crisis. After World War II there were many people around the world who recall seeing CARE packages delivered, bringing food and medicine and supplies, during times of crisis. Those US Army surplus packages provided enormous goodwill and respect for America, and proved invaluable in later government negotiations. When your own populace is grateful and pro-USA, it makes it a lot easier to become an American ally.
I mention this as a prime example of providing aid to countries based on need and ability, and the long term value in doing so.
When a crisis arises, we cannot ignore human suffering, no matter how much we might despise a dictatorial leader or regime. Humanitarian aid is, and always should be, a priority of American policy. There is no country on earth that does not deserve adequate food, shelter and medicine for their people.
That said, we also need to work with other free nations to do whatever is necessary to help lessen the power of these dictators and regimes. This might mean freezing foreign financial assets and creating embargos for goods that will cripple armies and thwart nuclear research. This might mean causing non-life-threatening hardships for many people in those countries, but as a free country, we cannot condone dictators and regimes that are a danger to their people and perhaps the world at large.
Diplomacy is always the first course of action. To that end, we need to really understand each country’s culture and needs. We cannot force a country to create a democracy if they prefer to live under a monarchy – but we can at least try to ensure that monarchy is benevolent and tends to the needs of their people and culture and not be a danger to ourselves or other countries.
To that end, I think it is important to finally start staffing embassies with people who are totally familiar with their host country’s history and culture. Ambassadors should be selected not because they are a high paying donor to a political campaign but because they speak the language, know the culture and can represent the goals and ideals of American policy. As such, we are showing an interest in these countries, have a representative who can speak for them and know exactly what kind of aid and support those countries really need.
America cannot cure all the ills in the world. Money alone cannot stop a drought nor prevent a natural disaster, as we have seen in our own country. Unless there is an imminent threat to our security, military force is not always the best course of action. Yes, America is a wealthy country, but we can only do so much with the resources we have available.
I think we can all agree that people learn by example. If we show a willingness to help when help is needed, but restraint when not called upon, we become the good neighbor, the friend and the ally.
Well, I hate to say it, DMark, but you’re looking like our winner by default, here.
Well, that’s a ringing endorsement if I ever heard one.
I don’t mind waiting - maybe some of my esteemed colleagues are having troubles understanding the big words.
However, I do have my inauguration speech ready, just in case.
Uh nope. . . I’m still in this thing. I’m sorry I haven’t had a chance to hit this last question. Was on a business trip to Chicago the past three days.
Yes, true story.
Tripler
I’ll post my response tomorrow.
Gentlemen Candidates, and Mister Moderator, Distinguished Readers,
My apologies for not responding by my self-established group deadline. Several real-world events have come up, forcing me to travel more often than not, then and keeping me away from my normal keyboard. I am fully in this race, and and beg your forgiveness for another delay… For those of you in the know, I am on certain assignments that preclude immediate participation.
Tripler
One can only search so many venues a day.
As long as we are still waiting, I would like to mention two things I said in my opening statement way-back-when:
Although neither has been enacted into law, nor has my policy been followed exactly as I have suggested, motions are being set in place to make both of those concepts a reality; if nothing else, it does appear that I had my pulse on public opinion long before recent announcements were made in Washington.
So, take your time! At this rate, I have high hopes that more policies from my original opening statement will move forward. Perhaps by the time I am elected, my Presidency will be more of a caretaker of a new, invigorated and strong economic America, leading the way in human rights, educational reform, positive environmental change and a world leader in diplomacy without engaging in wars.
I wouldn’t mind living in a world where I would have the luxury to stop and smell the roses in the Rose Garden on my way to the Oval Office.
Also from my opening statement:
In light of recent events, I think public opinion is once again swinging in my direction. I strongly hope that this ban on hand guns and automatic rifles policy takes affect sooner than later.
As this thread has basically died of neglect while waiting for others to respond, and baring some miraculous intervention and resurrection, I would like to invite one and all to my inaugural party.
I intend to throw this party in Las Vegas, so that local casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, and others of his ilk, can see that throwing obscene amounts of money to his right-wing PAC’s does not guarantee a win. After being sworn into office, I will do everything in my power to ensure campaign donations are regulated to allow only limited donation amounts, and that all of those donors and dollar amounts are publicly named.
So, allow me to invite you all to join me in a wild night of celebration of my impending victory (sadly by default)!
Ladies and gentlemen, I do apologize for my inability to respond to my original thread. Recent events connected to the upcoming election, military training, and some other business trips have taken me away from the Straight Dope for legitimate purposes–it’s not laziness, it’s jobby-job stuff.
With that, I will be reading back through the thread this upcoming weekend, and will pick up where I left off. I’m sure my detractors will say, “See! He can’t be President, he’s inattentive to the job he’s got!” But, I’m sure all candidates agree that while stumping, certain other things have to take priority (including defending the free world from the scourge of Red Communism and Al Qaeda), and that on election–whomever may win–would resign any and all other positions to fully delve into the responsibility of the Oval Office.
Again, my apologies for not being active with the thread for some time. . . I will be resuming the campaign this weekend.
Tripler
No, seriously, Communists.
The President, as the Executive of the United States, does have a unique position with which to establish relationships, drive discussion, and influence policy with other parts of the world, both industrialized & developing alike. The short answer is this: I would approach any State leader with open arms to begin dialogue on any topic—nobody has ever been killed as a direct result of discussion. I would happily approach leaders of lesser developed countries to welcome them, discuss their strategic plans and concerns and their plans for growth in an ever-globalizing community of trade and science. I would aim to keep the relationship focused on growth for that LDC, lining it up for mutual benefit to that State and the United States.
Now some detractors will argue that this would be similar to “offshoring jobs,” which simply is not the case. I would approach these relationships as a way to grow potential for the American economy; either by developing markets for American products and services, or by partnering foreign interest, capital, and intellectual capability to our domestic production capability. Relationships like this are an excellent way to promote democracy through economic development, and bring otherwise left-behind nations into the global commons in a positive manner for the United States.
Looking back, I do want to make a few comments on DMark’s positions:
Agreed. However, I think my opponent makes promises he can’t keep. Unless he’s willing to stake his career on passing a federal law making marriage legal (which, I predict would be found unconstitutional at the national level), this is something that just won’t happen from Washington. I fully support gay/lesbian marriage as well as other LGBT equality rights, but firmly believe that this is a state’s rights issue, and must be handled at that level. The US Constitution has no structure or allowance for unions between people, but it does strictly uphold individual rights and the right to assemble, and equal protection under the law. Under the 14th Amendment, I would work to ensure that those states that did not validate or recognize same-sex marriages would. And there are mechanics to do that, but it is not by passing some carte blanche law through the US Code.
Because it’s a message board, and I can’t fully get the context of his statement, so I will needle at him thus: “will be given” is a dangerous statement; there are undoubtedly millions of undocumented workers who are here to make an honest day’s wage, provide services, and support their own families. However, there are undocumented personnel that are here with an underlying criminal intent, and would be less than desirable in the general citizenship. I support awarding of a green card, or a work visa, through current means bolstered by a background check, and proof of employment and living arrangements. I think he and I are on the same page, but it needs to be concrete how it’s done—you simply can’t just “give” someone a green card.
I will break from my normally reserved self, to make a rare, loud, point: the banning of handguns and rifles is simply not going to happen. Politicians all over the place love to bandy this idea about, but they ignore one simple, inescapable fact: *Pandora’s box is already open. *
American citizens already have access to firearms of all manner of caliber, frames, and styles, to make their own personal choice in owning. They are already out there. To implement a banning, would require some sort of confiscation for an immediate solution, or a ‘weathering out’ of existing firearms (thinning out of the population due to age and mechanical wear and tear) which would take decades and would solve nothing.
My position on firearms is straightforward: Guns are inanimate objects used to project the intent of the shooter. Guns do not kill people, the intent behind the trigger does. For this reason, I support background checks and waiting periods, and again, leave the delicate situation to the States to enact their own laws and policies, under existing reasonable regulation by the United States (e.g. the National Firearms Act of 1934, which did regulate machine guns, and made definitions of firearms specific).
And I’ll close with that reference: despite the heavy restriction of Thompson submachine guns, they are available to anyone with the money—and those are known markets. Those guns exist, along with a cornucopia of other automatic and semiautomatic firearm models, will continue to exist. Banning them, as enforced through confiscation will do nothing but rightly inflame the constituency and force the guns onto the black market; conversely, allowing them to ‘weather out’ is nothing short of apathy, and solves nothing.
To step out of my campaign, I think I’m caught up on questions. I’ll allow my opponents or any other debater on the stage forcibly and mockingly point out where I missed one. 
Tripler
Thanks for your time, and for your patience as I worked the DNC. (Seriously, I have photos).
Welcome back Tripler - sorry you missed my inaugural, but happy to continue now that you have returned. Also, as long as we are waiting for any final questions, I will be happy to respond to your comments about my comments.
People forget that until 1967, interracial marriage was also illegal in many states. It took the Supreme Court ruling to overturn these laws, making interracial marriage legal in all 50 states. The precedent is certainly there, and I would work to ensure any appointees I were able to make to the Supreme Court would agree that Gay Marriage is a basic human right. I strongly disagree that this basic right is some kind of state’s rights issue, to be banned by any bigoted local, regional or state law.
Yes, I believe we do agree on this point. Perhaps my choice of word “given” was taken out of context - you could substitute that word with “granted”, once felony criminal background checks are made.
This is a first. I don’t believe I have ever heard of someone allowing a bad law to remain in effect using a “Pandora’s box” defense!? Keep hand guns legal because people already own them? That is a ludicrous!
Simply banning the sale of any handguns would at least put a stop to increasing the number of people who own them. A small, but important, step in the right direction.
Immediately banning the sale of bullets for handguns would also quickly reduce the purpose of owning one.
Implementing a fair “buy-back” policy for existing handguns would get many off the street -either by the owners or by family members who would turn them in for cash.
Give a short window of opportunity to sell back these handguns before making ownership of a handgun a felony. The only exception to this rule would be to allow owners of truly historical handguns (from the 1800’s and prior) to keep them as historical artifacts - but again, bullets would be illegal, even for those weapons.
Implementing these laws, in short order, would drastically cut back on the number of handgun deaths in the USA.
To say it is too late to change this law is something I strongly disagree with. I think it is high time we started - and the sooner, the better.
I am truly happy to have you back in this forum. I applaud your efforts for this worthy organization and would be interested in seeing those photos - especially any compromising images that I could use in my upcoming television ads.
[Out of Character]
Inagural? 
What’d I miss?
[/Out of Character]
I agree that it is a basic right, however, I think the majority of opposition to gay & lesbian rights is based on religious grounds, and any legislation would fall into the realm of ‘legislation of morality’ which doesn’t often work on a Federal level. That’s why I think the first steps–which would start the larger cultural change–would have to happen at the State level first. I would welcome Federal-level legislation, but you and I only differ on the mechanics at this point. We fully agree on the principal topic.
I won’t rebut your statement (already did that), but I will acknowledge that this is where your platform and mine diverge strongly. I trust the American people to make the right decision, despite several dozen jackasses with poor intent and poor judgement using available, antiquated technology. I agree to disagree.
Any more questions, Mr Moderator?
Tripler
Ready for the next one.
And this is where we strongly do disagree. There is a reason for separation of church and state, and this is a prime example.
Certainly no church will ever be required to hold an actual Gay/Lesbian wedding ceremony if they wished not to do so. That is their right. But the actual legality of Gay Marriage, along with all of the exact same Federal legal benefits, cannot be denied.
I don’t think Jews are upset they sell bacon in local supermarkets, Catholics did not decry others eating meat on Fridays back when not doing so was part of their religion. While it is true that many religions still actively oppose Federal laws allowing for birth control, abortions, alcohol consumption, pornography, adultery and other things they find morally abhorrent, including homosexuality, we do not impose laws base solely off religious dogma.
Yes, we have religious freedom and that should remain so, but we do not base our laws off religion. As President, I will ensure that Federal Law remains separate from any religious morality and will be in the best interests of society as a whole.
And before this becomes an issue in any future campaign ads, allow me to freely admit I do not belong to any organized religion. As staunchly as I will vigorously support all rights of religious freedom, I will also support the equal rights of those who choose not be a part of any organized religions.
And yes, we can just agree to disagree on our policies regarding gun control.
Assuming our moderator has not yet left the building, I too am ready for the next question, should there be any.
Paging Mr Jonathan Chance, paging Mr Jonathan Chance. . .
Your debate is ready 
::Looking at his opponent, back at the moderator’s chair, back at his opponent, and shrugging his shoulders::
Tripler
Maybe it’s pledge drive week and he’s working the phones?