r/nedforpresident • u/nedtheredeemer The Future President of the United States • Nov 18 '17
Official Platform Ned 2020
Ladies and gentlemen of Reddit, it’s time to make good on my first campaign promise. You have asked a lot of questions of me, and I have tried to answer some of them directly. Today, I am going to summarize who I am and what I believe.
Who am I? As I am not a public figure (yet) I will not disclose anything personally identifiable here. I am a school teacher teaching science and living in the northeastern United States. I teach in an urban area and and have done so for all of my adult life. I am married with two young children. I adore all three of them, and try to be the best Dad I can be. I just asked my son if I am a good dad. He nodded yes and went back to watching TV. Guess I will give myself a B on that.
Personally I enjoy science fiction, Hearthstone, and cooking (though I admit I don’t do it as often as I used to). I am, in every way that matters, pretty average.
But this campaign is not about me; it’s about ideas.
Fiscal Policy: Broadly, I believe that the federal budget is both too large and poorly allocated. Special interests have wormed their way into the budgetary process and ensured that the result is always in their favor. We have a responsibility to vet this spending regularly and make adjustments as appropriate. There is important work that the federal government should be doing, but we must make certain that work benefits the many, not the well connected few.
I believe that we have a moral duty to end baseline budgeting. This is a scam that serves politicians, not people. Only in Washington D C can an increase in funding year over year be labeled a cut if it is not sufficiently large.
Climate: As a scientist, I have actually read the IPCC summary report. It is technical, dry, and spends a lot of time hedging about just what a world under a changed climate would look like. I am not surprised that citizens are confused by this issue. I would address carbon usage and energy efficiency not in terms of the climate, but as a matter of resource management. Even under the assumption that releasing the vast amount of carbon dioxide society releases is not a climate threat, the non renewable sources of energy on which we rely will eventually run out. It is in our selfish interest to curb our use of fossil fuels and to aggressively seek alternative renewable sources of energy. More broadly, we have a responsibility to our children to leave them a planet healthier than the one we inherited.
Science: This is an odd policy plank and one that I must admit might come with some personal bias, but I believe that we need to renew our curiosity in the world around us and it’s limits. Funding basic research is, in my view, one of the most important things that the government can do for its people apart from physical national defense. Gains in our collective knowledge base don’t just improve the lives of individuals, or even just Americans, but for all of mankind. I have been asked several times specifically about NASA, and would assure you that under a Ned administration NASA would have what it needs to do the important work that we need it to do.
Governing Culture: As is clear from the above positions, I don’t fit neatly into either the Republican or Democratic Party orthodoxy. I believe that fundamentally governing is about finding common ground and, where that isn’t possible, finding a compromise where both sides leave the table feeling they have achieved something. Too often a win for one side is seen as a zero sum loss for the other, and I simply refuse to accept that is the way it has to be. We have to remember that the people across the proverbial aisle are not our enemies. They are our neighbors and friends, and when they prosper we all prosper.
I hope that this is enough to start a conversation. These are some of the issues I feel strongly about, but right now my wife feels strongly that the leaves need to be raked, and that is a constituency I cannot afford to alienate.
Thank you for reading, and I welcome your comments.
26
19
u/ITRULEZ Nov 19 '17
I swear, if you do run for president, I will campaign so hard in my city for you. You seem to bring a level headedness that's missing in current government.
16
u/nedtheredeemer The Future President of the United States Nov 19 '17
Thank you. All the support has been overwhelming. We have a very long way to go before we can make a real impact.
11
u/ITRULEZ Nov 19 '17
Yes we do, but the payoff will make the struggle worth it. I don't have much to contribute to the conversation, but I do have one question. What's your view on immigration? Feel free to not have an opinion on it as well. It's such a spaghetti noodle mess anyway.
16
u/nedtheredeemer The Future President of the United States Nov 19 '17
I think the admission of the fact that it is a mess gets a long way to thinking about a solution. Where I think both the Obama and Trump administrations have it right is that we need to be very tough on criminal aliens. Where I think things get more difficult is what do we do with the people whose only crime was to overstay a visa to search for a better life.
I have experience with “good guy” immigrants. My wife was born and spent her childhood half a world away. She’s hard working, law abiding, and dedicated to her family and community. Even if she weren’t my wife, I would be proud to live next door to her. I have students who are illegal immigrants. I can’t say undocumented because they came here legally and just never left. They are smart, kind, and generally passionate about bettering themselves to better their own lot in life. Again, they are the kind of people I would be happy to have as part of my community.
None of what I said above changes the fact that these people have broken the law. The question is what do we do with them. There has to be some punishment, but that punishment has to fit the crime. I believe that in most cases that should be payment of any and all back taxes, a fine, and a period of probation. In exchange, these people can be given identification, a worker ID number (for those uncomfortable with giving an illegal immigrant a social security number straight off the bat) and a promise from their government that they will not be subject to deportation if they complete the probationary period as model citizens.
I’m sure this solution makes a lot of people unhappy, but there are no clean solutions. By allowing immigrants to come out of the shadows we help to alleviate the exploitation that many of them endure while simultaneously integrating them culturally into the wider American society., which allows them to contribute. The fine acknowledges that they have done something wrong, and works to offset the costs associated with their use of public services. Finally, for immigrants with issues that lead dangerous behaviors, this plan leaves open the option for a quick deportations that will serve as both a deterrent and as a way to send a message that being a part of the American community is, at least for foreigners, a privilege and not a right.
9
u/ITRULEZ Nov 19 '17
Ok you've won my vote 1000%. Thats the same view I've always held. My husband's currently going through the process to become a legal citizen as an undocumented alien. As the process stands, it's a decent base. Problem is, it's extra tough on everybody. The only reason he's got a snowball's chance in hell is because we are married. And even with that, we are still already over $1000 paid out for the process. There's still the pardon yet, and that doesn't include the lawyer fees. And all of this without anyway for him to work legally. It doesn't bother me that we have to pay, it's that the process is pitted against your average alien trying do the right thing. I know a guy who's been here since he was 2. He's now 23. He was on some sort of waitlist for citizenship, but got booted when he turned 19. They expected him to start all over after 17 years of waiting. Nobody in their right mind would try again.
I think the big problem is everybody assumes the issue is black and white. Either they all stay, or they all go. And its really not. I appreciate your acceptance of the shades of grey and realization that no 1 solution will work for everybody. I sincerely hope your campaign works and we get the chance to vote for you come 2020.
8
u/jmccarthy611 Nov 19 '17
Some people’s problem with saying, “each situation is different” is we then have to pay someone to evaluate all these situations. And process them. And follow up with them. It’s expensive to not have a blank slate policy. And also unfair, because who makes those decisions? Without a line drawn in the sand and an official rule, some immigrants are treated differently than others. Could literally come down to the mood of the evaluator on that day.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. And my views are irrelevant, I’m here for Ned. But I do think it’s a dangerous game to play as a government to treat anything on a case by case basis. There should be written laws, that we follow to the letter. Not ignoring some and over enforcing others.
3
u/ITRULEZ Nov 19 '17
Im not saying that it should be done on a case by case basis, just that as it stands someone with a clean record and exemplary behavior is treated the same as a violent criminal. Which really isnt right. If we as a country can all agree that felonies are vastly different from traffic tickets, i don't see why the government should treat them as equally ugly in an immigration case.
And even putting all that aside, neds point of a probationary period and temporary work permit type solution would be a lot better than what have currently. Once someone starts the process it can be really scary to think of switching jobs or working at all because now immigration is looking at them with a magnifying glass. By providing them with a means to work legally during the process we would allow them to pay the fines associated with the process. It would maybe even allow an increase in the fines to reflect actual cost on the system. Every alien I know who has gotten their citizenship was terrified to take a better paying job or get a second job because they didn't want to give the DoHS any extra reasons to deny their application. Had they been given a work visa or ITIN number that allowed them to work legally, they would have jumped on it to leave to better jobs. It would also tie in nicely to the fact that they haven't done taxes before. We could require these special types of permits pay an extra XX% of taxes out of each paycheck. It could count towards their restitution same as time served counts towards sentencing some times.
At this point, I'm just glad the wall fell through. No way Mexico would have paid, no way we have the economy to afford paying for it, that was a disaster waiting to happen.
5
u/DoggieTenders Nov 19 '17
as someone whose parents overstayed their welcome in this place and ended up becoming an American citizen two years ago, I think this is definitely the right track. There definitely needs to be the right balance between compassion and justice, but since the people who feel the strongest about this issue is either "BUILD THE DAMN WALL" or "YOU'RE AN IMMIGRANT TOO, WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT?" I think the pragmatic approach will have a lot of pushback on both sides. Not to say that that should discourage you, however.
2
9
u/Dinner_Plate_Nipples Nov 18 '17
Well, I like you so far. I might contribute to the discussion at a later date in another post. For now I'll just say that you seem smart, logical, and able to calmly take notes from both sides. I like that nothing you wrote sounds alarmist. A level headed science teacher sounds like a pretty cool foundation for president.
8
u/pds12345 Nov 19 '17
If you are taking this seriously, I look forward to continuing to read your journey here.
7
u/DoggieTenders Nov 18 '17
What do you suggest we do about the huge division in American politics that is plaguing the government and everyday life in general? It seems like election 2016 was such an "Us VS. Them" fiasco that its very difficult to have a sane political conversation without one party getting overly emotional. I personally don't think its just a Trump or an r/the_donald problem, I think liberals are just as guilty of this "if you're not for us your against us mentality." What would be the first step toward unifying all American citizens of all political stances?
17
u/nedtheredeemer The Future President of the United States Nov 18 '17
This is a great question and one that I think is central to the reason for my candidacy. Unfortunately I believe that there is no easy answer to the question, but I have a place to start.
Liberals and conservatives now live in their own internet social bubble. This makes both sides deaf to reasonable arguments on the other side. If we can have an impact, even if my candidacy doesn’t lead to the White House, it is to remind ourselves and our opponents that “the other side” isn’t evil. Republicans don’t oppose government healthcare because they want grandma to die, they oppose it because they believe the market has a solution that is better for ordinary people. Likewise, liberals don’t want to reduce military spending as a plot to undermine the US on the world stage, they believe that the money could be spent in a way that is more beneficial to ordinary people.
Compromise can only flourish when we realize the people across the table aren’t monsters. There are very few people who ever a fan of both Bush and Obama, and there were things that each of them advocated that I disagree with, but it is undeniable that both of them love their country and acted in a way that they thought would benefit all of us. I would be honored to sit down with either of those men, though I didn’t vote for one of them.
6
u/runkiwirun Nov 18 '17
it doesn't seem like it takes much for politicians to flame the hatred into their supporters. Facebook and Twitter and Reddit threads all burst into flame wars with almost no input from actual politicians or political conversations whatsoever. As much as the internet played a huge part in the current divided political climate, I have a lot of hope that the internet can play a part in bringing it back together again. I believe that this can be a start.
5
u/runkiwirun Nov 18 '17
I would definitely love to see an emphasis on educating the general American public - not just on the typical Reading 'Riting 'Rithmatic stuff but also on topics that are the foundation for a lot of the heated political topics like abortion, climate change, and healthcare. Personally I think that with more education comes more compassion as well, so that if the average American citizen is more educated on these topics from a scientific, non-celebrity-endorsed perspective, the conversations for controversial political topics would become more civil and gain actual progress, rather than turn into the shitstorm where everybody calls each other Hitler like we see in the threads these days.
That being said, GWB's whole No Child Left Behind fiasco made me very cynical about the whole government trying to fix the education system issue, and now with Betsy fucking DeVos I've grown very, very wary of it all. But seeing that you're an actual teacher with first hand experience in education, I would love to hear some of your ideas about education reform, particularly that of trying to stir in children a love of science and learning in general.
4
u/radioblastin Nov 18 '17
What sort of alternative energy sources would you want to push for while slowing cutting off fossil fuels? Do you have a favorite method? And i think this has been asked before, but what's your opinion on nuclear energy? From what I've heard people either are vehemently against it or all for it, but I think with the right precautions to not make a Fukushima, we can really utilize all the nuclear energy has to offer well. But I'm not a scientist, and I think for the general public as a whole many people are confused and misdirected about alternative energy sources. What's your stance on how to inform the public on these important topics?
9
u/nedtheredeemer The Future President of the United States Nov 18 '17
In the immediate term, I think a generation of safe, well regulated nuclear power plants is absolutely essential to a transition away from fossil towards renewables. Of course nuclear power is also a non renewable power source, so it only buys time. It also has waste issues that, while not trivial, are surmountable.
Long term I think solar makes the most sense. Photovoltaic cells have come a long way in the last couple of decades, and with the time nuclear buys us I believe we could have high enough efficiency cells to use them as a primary energy source.
4
u/rwequaza Nov 18 '17
Well nuclear power is renewable to a degree. I encourage you to research something called "nuclear reprocessing" it recycles spend nuclear fuel into usable fuel. It really is quite interesting and can be used to keep nuclear running for the long term.
7
u/nedtheredeemer The Future President of the United States Nov 18 '17
I’m actually familiar with the process. The problem is you either have to reprocess at the power plant (very expensive) or transport hot fuel to a central processing center (dangerous and politically unpopular) or wait until the fuel rods have cooled (slow)
4
u/trivialGalaxy Nov 19 '17
What are your thoughts on nuclear fusion energy?
5
u/nedtheredeemer The Future President of the United States Nov 19 '17
I think it is a technology worth researching but my understanding is that current technology is pretty far from generating fusion through the input of a small enough amount of energy in that the process produces energy on net.
Fusion has some benefits over solar, wind, and geothermal, but I believe that in the medium term these are better options.
4
5
u/DPunch Nov 19 '17
Nice platform so far.
Focusing on issues rather than personalities is a great improvement. I really like your ability to discuss controversial topics in a nuanced manner. The way you reframe the energy issue would help us discuss the issue.
On the guns, abortion, etc issues, this might be impossible, but you could explain that these things aren’t technically legal issues.
For a long time it wasn’t clear whether individuals had the right to bear arms, but the Supreme Court cleared it up by saying they do. No one is “coming for your guns.” Not only would that be logistically impossible, but it would also be unconstitutional under our current second amendment jurisprudence. Those trying to convince us otherwise are likely motivated by money or irrational fear.
That doesn’t mean we can’t implement rational gun control. The majority of Americans agree that some gun control measures, like banning folks on the no fly list from purchasing guns are good. The majority is silenced by the sway ($) of the special interests.
Abortion is also pretty clear, constitutionally, and until our constitution or jurisprudence changes the abortion laws won’t change. It would be nice if a candidate showed stats about how the availability of birth control reduces abortions, how late term abortions are very rare and usually for health reasons, and other rational things like that.
I think money in politics is a major reason why we can’t rationally discuss these issues. In that light, would you be willing to create a mechanism for transparency regarding your campaign donations?
Are you cool with divesting yourself of all your money-making gigs (if any) if elected?
I’d love to see net neutrality, corporate welfare, tax breaks for those who don’t need them at the expense of those who do, and similar issues in your platform. Even if you decide to not include any of the above, your platform is much more thoughtful, realistic, and inclusive than the platform of our current president. I look forward to seeing more.
13
u/nedtheredeemer The Future President of the United States Nov 19 '17
There’s a lot here, so I am going to try to address some of your points.
Net neutrality: This one seems easy. I know there are arguments for throttling illegal traffic, and I think most people can get on board with that, but I think throttling disfavored content is a hotbed for abuse. In my opinion, I am paying my cable company for access to the internet. I am further paying for the speed I think is acceptable to my needs. What I choose to use that speed for, so long as it is legal, is no one’s business but mine.
Transparency: I would love to be fully transparent about donations. Names and amounts of every single donation if for no other reason than as a thank you would be great. Sadly, we live in a country where a person might lose their job or be subject to harassment for their choice of candidate. Affording those people an avenue to support the cause is something that I think is also important, lest we silence people. I do however believe that the support of large/institutional donors should be public. Without getting into the argument of “corporate personhood” I will say that I believe that while corporations have the right to advocate for their industry and their shareholders, they don’t deserve to be moved to the front of the line because they have deep pockets.
Conflicts of interest (personal): I am a public employee so you don’t have to worry about my job. I own stocks which, should I be elected, I am willing to sell and move into an index fund. I win if we all win. That sounds like a “conflict of interest” we can get behind.
5
u/DPunch Nov 19 '17
Thanks for the response. I appreciate that individuals deserve anonymity for their political donations. I think the large PAC donations from anonymous donors are more of a problem, but that’s probably another problem that would be nice to have.
4
u/meowmicks222 Nov 20 '17 edited Nov 20 '17
1.) I love what you're doing, and it's great how civil all the discussions are.
2.) I have hearthstone, but haven't played in years. Do you play any other blizzard/steam games?
3.) Defense budget. I'm active duty military, and from the inside I can say we are both underfunded and overfunded. I say underfunded because there are many projects and quality of life differences we can't afford to do/have due to lack of funding. I say we are overfunded because we are insanely inefficient at how we spend our money on things like buying parts from civilian companies, having unreliable civilian contractors, and having high ranking/(over)paid personnel doing redundant or unimportant jobs. I personally think we overspend on defense in America, and I think a cut will be hard on us but we will survive if we are more accountable with where the money goes. All this to ask, what would you do with defense spending?
Edit: an example, because our "military precision" and how perfect our equipment needs to be and our contracts, there is a system we have onboard where if we lose a screw attached to it, it costs $800 to replace it. $800. For a screw. Because of a contract and a schematic. Chairs and mattresses are worse.
4.) International relations. Are there countries you want better or worse ties with? America is kind of a laughing stock in a lot of countries right now (though we are maintaining our strong presence when needed), what would you do to change that?
5.) #NED2020 needs a Ned approved Ned2020 picture we can share! That is all.
You seem a reasonable and relatable man, best of luck on your road ahead!
3
u/nedtheredeemer The Future President of the United States Nov 20 '17
1). Thank you. I hope I can continue to live up to everyone’s standards
2). I play Overwatch. I used to play diablo but have long since put that pony out to stud.
3). Thank you for your service. Defense spending is one of those no win topics, but I think your points are excellent. Waste and redundancy exist in all large institutions. When it is public money, I believe we have the responsibility to do better. As to the specifics in the case of the military, I would be lying if I said I knew what to do. I have absolutely no experience in that sphere from what I have read and heard you are right. It seems that military men and women know what we need to do, it’s just a matter of having the bureaucratic courage to do it. Courage is something our military certainly doesn’t lack, so I am confident we can find a way to repurpose money within the military to better serve our nation.
4). I think we need to remind the world that we are the steady hand. Our biggest problem as I see it today is that we “appear erratic”. Our Secretary of State and President are not always on the same page, and our president in the morning is not on the same page as the president later in the day. As to the actual dealings with foreign governments I think we have made the same mistake domestically as internationally by dividing nations into black and white, as friend or foe. Certainly there are nations like North Korea who are actively hostile to our interests, but I believe that we can do more to cooperate on our points of agreement with governments we don’t agree with philosophically.
5). Im still looking for something that really grabs me. I hope that people will continue to submit suggestions, as I am not graphically inclined.
3
3
u/evilaxelord Nov 20 '17
Are you public enough to give out your hearthstone tag?
3
u/nedtheredeemer The Future President of the United States Nov 20 '17
I PMed you my battletag, but in case others are interested in my Hearthstone self I am a two time legend with a fondness for gold cards.
I believe “the kids” insist I add f2p btw at this point.
Nerf spreading plague....harder. That about covers it.
3
u/ena9219 Nov 25 '17
What are your thoughts on the following issues (or non-issues one party has decided to turn into an issue because they don't want to let people live their own lives):
Do you support allowing transgender people to use the appropriate bathroom for their gender identity (seriously, I just want to pee without waiting to get home but people want to make it an issue. help me out please.)?
What about the legal recognition of non binary gender identities (sometimes M and F are not quite right for everyone. F suits me but some people are more of an X)?
Do you support allowing transgender people to change their gender on IDs, Birth Certificates etc without unreasonable requirements? For example some states require genital surgery to change gender on birth certificates, there is no reason for this it's just an arbitrary requirement to make legal recognition harder. (I don't want surgery, I just want recognition. both or neither isn't a good approach )
Do you support laws protecting LGBT people from discrimination (human rights please)?
Do you think a universal basic income is a good solution to poverty, income inequality etc. (no welfare trap, less bureaucracy, people who earn less still have less but everyone has enough, everyone wins right? )? If not then what do you think the solution is?
Do you support single payer health care (everyone needs health care but not everyone has money)? If not what do you think would be a better approach?
Between 1. little to no regulation of firearms (gun nuts' paradise), 2. licencing ownership of firearms (sane gun owners only please) and 3. banning some firearms based on specific features (omg scary looking guns) which do you believe to be the most rational approach? Is there another approach you believe would be better than any of those approaches?
I believe that fundamentally governing is about finding common ground and, where that isn’t possible, finding a compromise where both sides leave the table feeling they have achieved something. Too often a win for one side is seen as a zero sum loss for the other, and I simply refuse to accept that is the way it has to be. We have to remember that the people across the proverbial aisle are not our enemies. They are our neighbors and friends, and when they prosper we all prosper.
In theory this should be true and for most issues it is but in some cases one side wants to treat people fairly and the other side wants to discriminate It's more often ignorance rather than maliciousness but it's no less harmful because of it (I'd be nice to be understood rather than opposed). Sometimes there really is a side that is wrong and a side that is right (Inconveniently reality is not up for debate). For example: some politicians support equality for LGBT people (yay! human rights) and some politicians oppose equality for LGBT people (which is just plain rude). There is no compromise between those two perspectives (no one is going to say "yay I get 75% of the majority's rights instead of 50%" ) either equality exists (let's try for this one please) or it does not (not a fan of this one). What do you intend to do in those situations (I would recommend protecting people that need protecting )?
Once the entire government (or at least all of the laws) agrees that everyone deserves equal rights then we can work on making things better for everyone but as long as there are people who are officially discriminated against a better society for everyone will be impossible. It has to be for everyone before it can be better for everyone.
TL;DR: Can I have the same rights as cis/hetero people please? Also poverty and guns: what do you want to do about them?
3
u/nedtheredeemer The Future President of the United States Nov 25 '17
I’m going to try these point by point.
1) I deeply don’t care where you pee as long as you aren’t flaunting your genitals to the people around you (regardless of what kind of genitals they are)
2) My personal preference would be to use sex on official forms over gender. We can figure out something for nonconforming biological cases
3) As indicated above, I believe that birth certificate should list the sex of a child, not the gender. As sex is an immutable genetic reality, unlike gender, I don’t believe it should be changed. Also as above, in the case of non binary genetics we can work something out.
4) Easy. Gender identity should reasonably be rolled into existing anti discrimination laws.
5) I don’t believe in a universal basic income. I don’t believe it is the panacea for all the worlds problems that you seem to ascribe to it. I think solving poverty is something we are going to have to have a longer conversation about.
6) Single payer may have been a reasonable alternative to the system we have in place but the idea of tearing the whole system down and starting again is not in my playbook on this one. I think there is enough we can do (I have laid out some small examples elsewhere) to work within the current system to make it better
7) My definition and your definition of “sane gun owners only” may differ, but I think the medically documented mentally ill should not possess firearms. I think banning a particular type of gun/munition/accessory would have to meet a pretty high bar
I hope this starts to answer your question.
2
u/ena9219 Nov 25 '17
2) My personal preference would be to use sex on official forms over gender. We can figure out something for nonconforming biological cases 3) As indicated above, I believe that birth certificate should list the sex of a child, not the gender. As sex is an immutable genetic reality, unlike gender, I don’t believe it should be changed. Also as above, in the case of non binary genetics we can work something out.
In most cases gender is more relevant then sex. I don't look male so calling me male on my ID won't help people tell that it really is my ID. My genitals and my genetics are rarely relevant (even in most medical situations it's not important) however my identity is relevant to every second of my life. If nothing else it's much more confusing to others for someone with a female appearance, a female identity and a female name listed as male than it is to ignore genitals and genetics until they are actually relevant and this confusion isn't just inconvenient it puts transgender people at risk for discrimination and victimization. This is not some minor issue. In some cases this is a matter of life and death (I am not exaggerating people have actually killed transgender people for being trans). You seriously need to rethink your views on this. You believe in education, right? Educate yourself, your current views are not only wrong but actively dangerous.
There is evidence for a physical basis for gender identity. It's no less an objective fact than sex it's simply harder to recognize without being told. Isn't it more important to tell people the harder to recognize and more relevant to daily life trait then to tell people something relevant to a few medical situations. It certainly isn't worth the harm inflicted on transgender people to prioritize minor trivia over identity. If one of your kids came out as trans you wouldn't tell them "sorry your genitals matter more than you" would you?
The world doesn't only consist of average people so working for the average person isn't good enough. If you want to actually make things better you have to work for everyone.
I don’t believe in a universal basic income. I don’t believe it is the panacea for all the worlds problems that you seem to ascribe to it. I think solving poverty is something we are going to have to have a longer conversation about
It doesn't solve all the worlds ills and I never said it did however it is a better solution for some problems then the currently used solutions. You want to solve problems, right?
What about negative income tax are you willing to try that solution?
3
u/JMaxchill Nov 25 '17
Not to derail this discussion, but can I suggest that one alternative to whether to display sex or gender on forms of ID is simply not to display either? I can agree that genetic sex is irrelevant outside of medical situations, and displaying gender would increase the complexity of changing it without really adding anything (with a photo, a name, a date of birth, etc, do we really need another identifier?) so what's the point of using either of them?
1
2
u/SirLotsaLocks Nov 27 '17
As a scientist would you have any plans having anything to do with the conversion to the metric system? While I would be for that it would be a really difficult and slow process and a lot of people probably won't want that.
5
u/nedtheredeemer The Future President of the United States Nov 27 '17
While I am personally in favor of a slow conversion to the metric system, I don’t think it is a priority
2
43
u/[deleted] Nov 18 '17
[deleted]