Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Would you elect this man for president?
He is not a politician.....period. Not democrat or republican.
He took no pay. He had no religious label. He spilled his guts about his entire life good and bad. If he Didn't bash his opponents. He believes in Free energy. He doesn't believe there should be a ruling class. He had an Idea to amend the constitution to only use force(threaten, scare or imprison)when someone physically harmed or committed fraud against another person or their property. He created a value so you would want to pay taxes. He doesn't manipulate the truth and take things out of context to create illusions in the media. He doesn't support and would like to abolish all lobbying. He believes all government officials should work for nothing.
He spends his life making other people feel good. He believes in the people and the immense value of EVERY induvidual. He wants education to be free. Seriously would you vote for a man like this? This is not a joke. I need real feedback. 300 million rule U.S.!!!
Free energy as in Nicola Tesla's Free Energy.
Do the people have no vision, no hope.
People say our vote doesn't count, well lets say we all stood up for ourselves. It would count!!
Mcdonalds has to create a value for people to eat their food. The current government doesn't have to creat value. They force you to pay and pay and pay.
I guess you like what you have now if you don't have positive feedback. Calling this man names doesn't phase him. He knows who he is. Thank you to all who give creative feedback.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
No I would not as there is an awful lot of free stuff but no mention of how to pay for it. If people in government serve at no pay they would have to be very wealthy and therefore not represent average citizens. How would he pay for his staff? A representative from Oregon, or Hawaii would have to have a home in their home state as well as one in the Washington area. Thereby requiring one to be part of a ruling class. The reps from Maryland or Virginia may be okay with only one house and could be better off. I do agree with banning lobbying. Pie in the sky sounds great but not practical.
- BeardogLv 71 decade ago
Politics is the art of compromise. With so many opposing viewpoints amonst our people, it's a necessary evil- especially for a man with no party affiliation. He'd need to do a lot of politics, or no one will support him.
I don't care if he accepts the check or not, the President gets $200,000 per year.
We've got religious freedom in this country, he wouldn't be the first agnostic to hold office.
It doesn't matter if he spilled his guts or not, the press would do it for him.
Free energy sure would be neat, but nothing's really free. Where does this free energy come from, happy thoughts?
Whether he believes in it or not, there is a ruling class and they wield tremendous power in this country.
Why amend the constitution to include laws that every state already has in place?
Pardon? Created a value so I'd want to pay tax? Value is an attribute. What attribute of taxes did he create that would make them appealing?
He doesn't have to manipulate the truth or take things out of context- the media can do that without his help.
While it would be nice to see corporate lobbying illegalized, citizen's lobbying is an important tool for our citizens to let their leaders know what's important to them. Why deny the people the right to give their time and energy toward making their voices heard?
Why shouldn't government officials be compensated for their service to the nation? (Although most probably already feel like their working for nothing)
Spends his life making people feel good? What a bizarre waste of time! His whole life?
A humanist, that's neat. Ever wonder why that school of philosophy was abandoned? It's got flaws.
Education is already free- thirteen years of it guaranteed for every American.
No, I would not vote for this man. I can't follow a man with no direction. He sounds naive, and impractical.
- just the factsLv 51 decade ago
No! This man has ideas that would be impossible to enact. Who would provide the free energy? Would there not be chaos without someone to direct and set goals? Want to pay taxes? There are laws now and people STILL do not pay taxes (at the risk of imprisonment). If he abolished all lobbying, how would he enforce it if one can only be punished for those that physically harmed or committed fraud against another person or their property? If all government officials worked for nothing, how would they eat? Apparently Casanova made many people feel good too, but was it for their benefit? If this is not a joke, who is this man?
- 1 decade ago
With the list that you created, this person is unreal. First, whoever this person is, he/she should be paid for their services. I also don't believe that any anti religious person could do the job. There is nothing wrong with telling your life history good and bad, but what would that gain him/her? Nothing can be free, especially energy. It takes money to develop or produce. To amend the constitution for this would be crazy. Bad people would just get worse. Look at the trouble with things now. I personally have no problem with paying taxes to run the government if done correctly. Not like it currently is done. As I said before, nobody would be a politician for nothing. Pay would be an incentive to doing a good job, which currently, in my opinion, is not the case. As far as a person's value, he/she decides that for their self early on. If they choose the wrong path and become criminals, they have no value. I guess in giving you my opinion on a few of the questions you asked, I also gave you an answer to the big question. Would I vote for a person described by you....NO.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
This guy sounds like the Antichrist or a communist...
I would not vote for him for President.
Anyways, a guy like this would need alot of luck to get elected with no political experience whatsoever. Since he'd take no pay, he's obviously rich. To say that all government officials should be payed nothing would ensure that only the wealthy would run the government. It also sounds like this guy would take rights away from the state and local governments and put all the power at the top.
It seems he wants to make energy, education, and health care free. He probably would like to make all housing free and force everyone to live in nationwide housing similar to the projects. It sounds like very little income would be left for people to be free to spend their earnings with virtually all wages and salaries going to the federal government. This is complete control of the US economy by the government.
We would live in a nanny state where the government would control what we eat, drink, the music we listen to, the movies we watch, etc. We are already beginning to see certain foods outlawed. The US is slowly giving up all rights that our founders fought for. Our government is already convincing us to give up our freedom to protect our freedom.
Eventually a man such as this will be elected and the United States of America will be a thing of the past and maybe even completely lost to revisionist history.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana
Most of the people who believe a man like this would be good for our country are probably young and unaware of past leaders around the world who had similar beliefs. Anyways, someone like this would probably only get 10% or less of what he wants through Congress. Does anyone really see any Congress agreeing with a bill to receive no pay?
What is this man's foreign policy?
- sjsosullivanLv 51 decade ago
I believe government employees should be paid within reason. Perhaps a pay cap of 75k a year will help. That should send the lawyers back to practicing law, and make the Congressionals look hard at getting rid of the Lobbyists who make more than they do.
Perhaps the Tax payer should bear the burden of campaign finance? That would end Lobbyists getting their hooks into our officials before the election, and would make us want to be aware of how they spend those funds. Heck! Put a cap on the ammount that may be spent for campaigning. That way we don't lose too much, when they lose. At least then we'll know for sure where the money came from.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Hmmmm. . . Sounds like a Communist.
Not a Democrat or a Republican. No official pay. Against religion. State-run energy. Eradication of the classes. Amends the Constitution to suit his administration's purposes. Demands high taxes. Controls the media. Abolishes voice in government through lobbying thereby abolishing capitalism and the free market. Believes in the worker.
I think Russia did vote for a man like that. His name was Comrade V.I. Lenin. No, I would not vote for such a man.Source(s): The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Communism collapsed in 1990 when the Berlin Wall fell and Iron Curtain was shattered.
- 1 decade ago
I think the only problem with this man is that he isn't representative of the average person, so how could you justify having him lead the people?
Besides, people like to have their illusions; sometimes a good illusion is far more beneficial to a person than a desparing truth, so this guy might not be the best person for the job if he can't see that
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Yes i would vote for this man or woman. But why bother its not like we have any choice in the matter at the end of the whole thing its up to the electoral votes not the votes that the goverment encourages us to place. Why cant the person who is voted in as president be the one the people chose? If we are so free and this one person is going to have control over all of our lives then why shouldnt we choose?
- r0cky74Lv 41 decade ago
Yes, absolutely. Provided that we maintain and strengthen our power to elect our leaders. Hopefully he would also help us move away from the electoral college to the popular vote. That is way overdue.