Attributes-Quality, Attributes-Quantity, Problem Solving, Labels, Motor Planning: Fill & Download for Free

Warning: This is going to be a long answer.Briefly and very honestly…I openly admit that I probably-arrogantly and potentially-delusionally believe that in many ways, I am both what this country deserves and what this country needs.Not so briefly…Before we get into what would essentially be a pitch of platform, I also believe that voters should know just as much about who they are voting for as what they are electing. So I must provide a “background check” of sorts about myself, and I must do so because you should know my flaws just as well as you know my merits. If you were to hypothetically be a fellow civil servant, you should know and be prepared for my faults. Otherwise, the system of checks and balances would be broken at the most basic level of interpersonal dynamics. I do not believe this is simply spilling the dirt before one is buried in it. This is just the most honest and best way to filling you, the American people, in on the skeletons before they can start dancing around the room and scaring the children—so to speak. (I have no intentions of scaring the youths, if that was not clearly a metaphor.)So why should I not be the next president of the United States? Well, there are several reasons, and they are certainly valid in-and-out-of-the-context of the circumstances I have lived through.I struggle frequently and periodically with mental illness.I regularly struggle with depression.I regularly struggle with suicidal ideation.I regularly struggle with anxiety.I occasionally abuse alcohol.It is a miracle I am not a felon in prison right now for drug offenses. The only reason I am not is because I have been blessed (Make no mistake, though, sometimes blessings are curses in disguise) with a complexion, upbringing, and demeanor that are often very appealing to a great deal of the people who could ruin my life at the restraining of cuffs, pressing of triggers, stroking of pens, and smashing of gavels.I have used, and most likely will continue to use, drugs recreationally that might make many people probably believe to be indicative of a lifestyle that is unsuitable for a president and—let’s be honest—unworthy of the office.As a twenty-one-year-old (Twenty-three come time for the next election) who has never held the office of an elected position, I am undoubtedly inexperienced.Those three points are arguably grounds for disqualification from the race even before the “ready” preceding “set.” I cannot honestly debate that. I cannot honestly say that if I did win a presidential election that it would not be because I was just the lesser of another “evil.” I will not and would never dispute that. However, for the purposes of this question’s hypothetical scenario, I will assume that for whatever reason, drastic circumstances have called for drastic measures, and I really am the only candidate that could stand a chance against whatever my backers believed to be the “greater evil.”Ultimately, as a person running for executive office, I could only really debate and reason in terms of how I would enforce legislation and execute policy. That’s it. I will not make the case that I am the best candidate conceivable at any given moment. I will look the voters in the whites of their eyes and tell them, “If you do not feel comfortable with voting for me; if you do not have a lick of confidence in me to lead the country; if you think I would either maliciously or negligently harm this country and its citizens in anyway imaginable, please do not vote for me for it is clearly not in yours or the country’s best interests as you perceive them—no matter if I disagree with that perception.”Despite that, I do believe there are some noteworthy attributes of my character that could probably be admissible boons to my “suitability” and “worthiness” ratings.As I hope I have demonstrated, I am honest. I saw mentioned on another comment on an answer to another question not even an hour ago mention of how one previous president grappled with the truth (I may need quotes here, but I am not sure if these were the commenter’s exact words). As president—really, in any office—barring the necessity to use vague statements when it comes to genuine matters of national security, I have no intention of wrestling with The Truth as it were; I will always strive and by-the-gods-no-matter-which-believe-or-disbelieve-in, succeed in being upfront with the American people.That honesty, whether it’s to a political fault or not, lends itself to another trait of mine. I know when to admit that I am wrong without a doubt, and even more importantly, I know when it is time to change my beliefs and opinions so that they may be compatible and thus-substantial with the facts and evidence presented either to me by others or by my own findings. Someone I could probably get away with calling a “good friend of mine” once said that to really understand economics, “You have to read everything from Mises to Frankfurt to Marx,” and you know what? As far as I can tell, they are not wrong, but many of my previously-held beliefs certainly have been proven so from thinking and learning in that way.* A bit more succinctly, I am mentally open to change, and I will change according to the reality of the facts, even if it means admitting that mistakes were made on my part.. (For example, there was once a time I listed under Politics on Facebook that I was an “Imperialist Nationalist.” Oh how I have laughed and cried at the foolishness of such a self-identification made by a naive thirteen year old).I know that thinking short-term all the “term” is just as bad as disregarding and thus not preparing for the short- or long-term at all.Most of the time I think in the long-term and then do my best extrapolate further ahead and as well as “closer toward.”To me this is a sort of critical thinking that has been sorely lacking at some magnitude in both our rudimentary political discourses and our governmental behaviors for several decades—if not centuries.Though we Americans, and humans in general, often have surprisingly good foresight, though not always precise to a T, we rarely prepare for the accepted-certain inevitable. How else could we have let anthropogenic global climate change affect our planet and our communities as it already has? How else could we have let catastrophic wars come and go as if they were mere seasons of the human nature that cannot be proactively resolved, despite all of history telling us otherwise? How else could we continue to make the same mistakes that history, again, and even science have often shown us will happen? How else could we be so woefully unprepared for the ongoing autonomous industrial revolution? How else could we be so uncertain of our future that unhealthy levels of anxiety and stress could be allowed to eat away at so many of our people’s mental health?Really, put it in the comments if you think otherwise, but people have been writing about many of our societal ills for so long now that it seems to me one could argue that at any given moment we are as tragic as we are comic in our heroic endeavors to survive and thrive as a species. Let alone as any given country espousing such noble ideals as liberty and equality.A significant part of me wants to be President of the United States, knowing to a confident degree of exactly what sort of stress and exposure that would entail.I do not want to be president for sake of fame or power. I do not want it because my family simply cultivated a likely-delusional belief that I could become president.I do not want the office because myself or anyone else vainly desires it.I want the job of the highest civil servant in the United States of America because unlike my dream job of a commanding officer in the armed forces I will not be in a combat zone where every mental-emotional fault of mine could lead immediately to the death of my would-be fellow soldiers. Yet, the president has even more responsibility and power with which he can serve his country.I definitely and admittedly want that power because I have often felt powerless to do what I have felt and do feel needs to be done. I want to continue this Grand Experiment of ours and be a repeatable result of it to show ourselves and others across the world that such great power does not have to corrupt, does not have to endanger democracy, and could in fact be used efficiently and effectively by a genuine, modern state to make the country and the world (We’ll get to that in a second) a better place.I told you it would be a second, and so here it is. While I have often struggled within myself to remain optimistic about the world, if we are assuming the terms of the hypothetical, I will have to be. It’s literally my best-and-probably-only chance.I do not hold America, or its citizens, in any higher degree of priority over the world. I firmly believe that the United States and its people’s fate and potential prosperity are irreversibly interwoven with the fates and prosperity of the many nations and peoples of the world. I do not believe Americans are more important than Mexicans, Canadians, Germans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Kenyans, Somalians, Iranians, Syrians, Israelis, Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Australians, Indonesians, et cetera et cetera.I think it is just important to be one of many leaders of the world as it is to be a leader of the United States. This is not just a matter of policy or ideology, though it certain does form the foundations of such, but it is a matter of fundamental faith.I cannot perceive that there is any substantial difference between the citizens of one country and another beyond the legalese of labels, titles, and demonyms. I can almost certainly “prove” this right now, and I will do so by asking a rhetorical question that if you so wish, you may choose to answer in the comments (I am interested in seeing what my hypothetical supporters and opponents think after all). Which of these people is more fitting to carry on the legacy of all of humanity? The Spaniard, Frenchman, Mexican, Canadian, Syrian, Iraqi, Chinese, Korean, or the Martian?Now that we established the faults and merits of myself as a person, I think I have danced around my platform long enough, haven’t I? Thus, in no specific order, let’s get to it.The recognition of the fact that concepts such as gender and sexuality exist on spectra that may not always align with historically-dominant binary thinking.The protection of the right to marry regardless of sexualities implied by the matrimony and/or the genders identified by the spouses.The rigorous research (or assembly thereof), publication, and dissemination for and of educational materials on matters of gender identity and sexuality for those who seek them.The prosecution of those who would willfully endanger mental and even physical health by either barring or allowing participation in medical procedures that may have or may not have been approved by relevant regulatory bodies without first informing the interested party/patient and receiving their consent or their legal guardian’s if applicableThe enactment, codification, and subsequent strict enforcement of legislation prohibiting discriminatory legislation, policy, or adjudication at lower governmental levels on the basis of either gender or sexuality.The formulation and application of strategies and the conception, design, and implementation of tools to prevent discrimination, persecution, and physical harm to those of any sexuality and gender identification.The strict prohibition of requiring gender or sexuality to be registered on government identification materials and documents and any other material document where medical procedure does not require the admission of such information for health and safety.The strict prohibition of asking for either identified gender or sexuality to be entered non-verbally on employment applications or verbally in employment interviews.The legalization and subsequent appropriate regulation and taxation of cannabis.The federal-level disapproval of any laws that erroneously refer to cannabis by any other name besides its scientific/botanical name.Pardon and compensation to be dispensed to all non-violent federal and state drug offenders with release being immediate upon executive signature following enactment of legalization legislation at the federal level.The prosecution of all those found to be in willful leadership positions in which they actively sought to profit from the imprisonment of non-violent drug offenders.The refocusing of federal, state, and local law enforcement resources from surveillance and restraint of users and low-level, non-violent distributors to violent black market actors so that they may be apprehended and prosecuted in the due process of the law.Further drug law reformThe federal and state decriminalization of all recreational drug possession not exceeding to-be-determined-at-the-state-level quantities reasonable for usage and not for distribution.The establishment of federal standards for drug abuse rehabilitation facilities.The funding of research into drug abuse, rehabilitation methods, and establishment of rehabilitation facilities.The establishment and funding of work training and job-search programs for those completing rehabilitation.The pardon and compensation of all non-violent drug offenders found to not have been in connection with instances of distribution that led to deaths by overdose from the substance(s) for which they were incarcerated and otherwise penalized.The research of the merits and dangers of legalizing other currently-illegal drugs for medicinal and/or recreational purposes.The rigorous research (or assembly thereof), publication, dissemination of educational materials for harm-reduction, harm-prevention, health, safety, and courtesy strategies and practices for recreational drug use in public and/or private settings.The continuance of circumstantial prohibitions on recreational drug use in terms of verifiable intoxication while operating heavy machinery or motor vehicles and/or while in the presence of children when the use of such substances could endanger their health and development and/or while in public areas deemed unsuitable for such use, such as academic institutions and hospitals.The reevaluation and subsequent reformation of legislation, policy, and bureaucracy of immigration procedures.Following the relevant and necessary procedure of legislation pertinent to such, all undocumented/illegal immigrants/residents may apply for amnesty within two years, upon application of which they shall register themselves as prospective residents.Likewise, anyone seeking to gain citizenship within this country but wishing to live within it while they go through the process of acquiring citizenship must register for prospective residency.Assuming availability of documents from the emigrated-from country of origin and no criminal offenses during the period, it should take no longer than three years and require no more than what it may have cost to arrive and enter the country for a prospective resident to become a citizen with all the rights, privileges, and protections afforded to citizensAssuming availability of documents from the emigrated-from country of origin and no criminal offenses during the period, it should take no longer than two years and require no more than what it may have cost to arrive and enter the country for a immigrant-refugee of violence, poverty, and/or natural disaster or asylum-seeker fleeing political persecution to become a citizen with all the rights, privileges, and protections afforded to American citizens after applying for prospective residencyIf pertinent documents from countries of origin are not readily available either at or within three months after registration as a prospective resident, the prospective resident will be provided with a six month grace period in which they may either try again to attain these documents or report the certain inability to do so.Upon failure to acquire the documents after three months or immediately upon the report of certain inability, the United States Department of Homeland Security and any other relevant and necessary government apparatuses and agencies shall have up to the remaining term of the prospective residency to determine if the prospective resident committed fraud or negligence in trying to acquire the documents, if the prospective resident simply requires the creation of the documents because of either loss or lack of recording thereof, if the prospective resident has committed substantially violent and/or fraudulent crimes in their country of origin or during their prospective residency in the United States, and if the prospective resident is ultimately qualified to become a citizen of the United States.If the prospective resident has committed substantial violent and/or fraudulent crimes either in their country of origin or the United States, the prospective resident shall be charged and arrested for these crimes, and, if found guilty, deported/extradited for such following the due process guaranteed to them by the Constitution.If the prospective resident requires the creation of documents because of loss or lack of recording in their country of origin, then such documents shall be created immediately upon their notice and response-to-notice (presence at the pertinent immigration facility) with information as accurate or close to accurate as possible.If the prospective resident is found qualified and the documents are either created or found available without their possible knowledge, they may remain in the United States to finish out their term as a prospective resident and thus become a citizen of the United States.Immigrants that have already been in the processes previously used before the creation of prospective residency may register as prospective residents and have their current waiting periods/probationary terms reduced to the two years or their citizenship granted upon passage of the citizenship test if they have already been documented for more than two years so long as they have committed no violent or fraudulent criminal offenses within the last five years. This shall apply likewise to refugees/asylum-seekers. Any expenses not related to immigration travel costs that they have incurred because of the previously-executed process may be reimbursed to them if they so apply and are found qualifying for such.All prospective residents and any domestically-residing immigrants/asylum-seekers/refugees who had to register while already in the legal immigration system shall be granted virtual tax exemptions in the form of refunds of up to fifty percent and no less than ten percent for no less than one fiscal year and no more than three fiscal years depending on income or lack thereof following their registration as prospective residents.The federal government shall abolish and prohibit warrant-less searches and seizures commonly referred to as civil seizures/searches at any level government and law enforcement. States that refuse to subsequently abolish these practices will be considered in defiance of already-establish constitutional law and will subsequently be refused any allocation of federal funds.The federal government shall establish and fund firearms safety standards and laws as well as gun violence prevention programs.States found lacking sufficient firearms safety standards and laws and gun violence prevention programs shall be subject to penalties to federal allocation of funds exceeding no more than fifty percent and no less than twenty-five percent.The use of foreign nations and states by either corporations or individuals to hold/haven/shuffle income/earnings gained from commercial activities in the United States to evade taxation shall be considered a felonious criminal offense with a penalty of no less than one year imprisonment and no more than five year imprisonment in a federal detention facility and/or no less than a fifty-thousand dollar and no more than a five million dollar fine.Federal and state minimum wages shall no longer discriminate between occupations. All employees shall be entitled to same minimum wage plus any tips or commissions earned.Neither any state or the federal government may tax as self-employed persons who require the sponsorship of those who have higher positions of authority and responsibility.The federal minimum wage shall be reviewed annually and need be adjusted according to the relevant agencies’ best estimates of inflation.Combined, federal, state, and local governments may not tax any more than fifty percent of an individual or joint-income individuals’ income from their labor.Combined, federal, state, and local governments may not tax any more than sixty percent of inherited income.The federal government shall henceforth be prohibited from ever instituting a federal sales tax.The potential viability and sustainability of a universal basic income is to be investigated over the course of five years by several independent and government research groups. The findings of each group are to be presented upon completion of their research to both the Senate and the House of Representatives.State, local, and federal governments are to coordinate their taxation of corporations and businesses so that they are in accordance with the understood burdens of individual income taxation. The goal would be to ensure that no one level government ever exceeds a flat rate of thirty percent at any time, and that the “shares” of revenue are distributed proportionally according to where the corporations being taxed performed their commercial activity.Pretty much, there’s no reason for the Federal government to have the “lion’s share” if the business in question only ever operates within one state, and that is not to say that Federal government would not be allowed to tax the business, rather that the state and the local governments should receive most of the revenue.If at all possible economically feasible, taxes should be cut by 5–10% across the board of government hierarchy for all persons earning less than two hundred thousand dollars annually. (Notice here that I’m not too confident about that number, and for all I know maybe lower or higher cuts could be applied more precisely at the federal level without the states taking an immediate loss to revenue. See below for maybe a better system)The Tax code to be roughly follow these brackets not including reasonable deductions:45% income over one billion dollars42% for income over one million dollars39% for income over five hundred thousand dollars36% for income over two hundred thousand dollars33% for income over one hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars30% for income over one hundred thousand and fifty thousand dollars25% for income over one hundred thousand dollars20% for income over seventy-five thousand dollars15% for income over fifty thousand dollars10% for income over twenty five thousand dollars7.5% for income 0 to ten thousand dollarsHey, these numbers are probably bad, and if so, you should tell me and explain why if you’re kind. I will say that as of now these could only be honestly called “best guesstimation sorta-arbitrary.” I essentially based everything off of trying to minimize the tax increases from the 2017 and 2018 rates for the “upper-upper” middle class as much as possible while still maintaining some significant tax decreases for middle class at-large as well as the lower-earning population. It is my belief that this is how we can maximize our economic growth by capturing maximum revenue with minimal burden to those who legitimately struggle with taxation already. My math is probably off. I would say I am about 51–60% confident that these numbers are anywhere close to optimal.The justice system needs fundamental reform and systematic overhaul.Clearly, courts either need to become more efficient without infringing upon due process or there need to be more judges and more courts. There is simply no excuse for civil servants in the justice system to have been complaining about the burden of courts for so long and then to have these same civil servants resort to tactics like plea bargains to streamline the system but compromise the dispensation of justice.To accomplish this, every level of the court system except maybe for some low population/low incident areas are going to need redistricting.With adequate drug reforms and subsequent emphasis on rehabilitation rather than incarceration, we can drastically reduce the amount of non-violent offenders incarcerated in American prisons, but that does not solve all of our problemsFor what it is worth, no, not everyone incarcerated for non-violent (Or rather, in this case, a crime that has not resulted in a physical injury) crime need to be released right away as many are flagrant repeat offenders that have had multiple opportunities to stop committing crimes, but this does not mean we should let their minds and bodies waste away in an environment that promotes mental illness and incentivizes violent behavior. This goes doubly so for violent offenders, some of whom we may be able to rehabilitate and decondition enough to make safe again for society or at least contributory to it.We need to make sure mental health care is readily available to any inmate that needs it.We need to make sure educational programs and opportunities to work are provided to inmates who exhibit behavior good enough to be trusted to not disturb in any way these programs and opportunities.If we are going to use prison labor for anything at all, we have a moral duty to those human beings to treat them as we would any other human being at work, regardless of their crimes. We must pay them a minimum wage at least comparable to what we have now, and if they are slated for release, we must allow them access to these funds upon release having already been taxed as this could be critical to re-integrating them back into society smoothly.Alongside learned trades and any other academic skills they might have acquired during their incarceration, they must receive re-integration assistance training as soon as six months and no later than three months prior to their release.Upon their release, they should be immediately pointed to a federal/state/local work-training and/or job search assistance program that has established strong relationships of trust with businesses within a reasonable commuting distance from where the released inmate plans on residing.There needs to be strict federal standards of quality of life, especially in regards to hygiene and mental health, when it comes to prisons, and we absolutely need to stop placing the mentally ill in cell blocks where their illnesses may be exacerbated by other inmates of either similar illness or violent/belligerent/hostile disposition.If it is not clear, these standards must be enforced on the state and local levels, otherwise we are letting vast swathes of the incarcerated population to go untouched.We must devise a way to reduce the competition corrupting the justice system. As of now, we have to factions fighting to cast doubt over each other’s version of the truth rather than cooperating to find the truth. This often leads to wrongful imprisonment (if not death) as well as protracted expenditures of court resources. I believe a scientifically-inclined investigative “third party” must be introduced into the system to not only reconcile the differences of the defense and prosecution as much as possible but also to be the ones to handle and accurately present the facts of cases rather than having battles between experts biased to the side that brought them in. I am open to other ideas and encourage criticism and improvement upon this one.Similarly to prisons, we need more carefully-curated standards of mental healthcare and in-patient quality of life than we currently have in general. We must also increase the availability of patient advocates and legal advisers at in-patient facilities if for nothing but at least to provide a sense of comfort and a voice for the patients who often believe their concerns are not heard over the stigmatic perceptions of their illnesses.Ultimately, what it comes down to is that mental healthcare needs to see a serious surge in funding as soon as possible. If not, we risk letting more of these problems fester thus allowing them to spread almost epidemically to people who are too ill-informed to ever be competently-equipped to deal with them. This is especially true of veterans and children. I wish I had the numbers and exact standards that are going to be needed to see a serious reversal in the current trends, but I simply do not, and thus like I would with tax reform, I would defer to a diverse array of reputable professionals and respected researchers.If at all feasibly possible, we need a major overhaul of the constitution for several substantial changes to even be remotely successful in the short- and long-terms. So if at all feasible, I would like to initiate a constitutional convention to address a lot of concerns I and the American people have had about our system for a long time now.Currently, I think representation is far too centralized in the United States. We have less than 600 people representing over 300 million. I am not saying that a statistician or a survey-maker would necessarily come up with the most reasonable size of congress, but currently, at just the house level we have one person representing 700,000 people. For the senate that number could and always will vary wildly state-to-state, but still even with Wyoming’s one person to about 200,000 and California’s one to over nineteen million, the numbers just seem to ludicrous to truly be representative at all. And they might never be according to survey standards, but why should we not strive for democratized legislative authority and better representation. So what I did is use the website CheckMarket.com’s sample size calculator and the approximation that the United States’ population is 325.7 million.Starting with 325.7 million population at 1% margin of error and 99% confidence level: 16587325.7 million population at 1% margin of error and 95% confidence level: 9604325.7 million population 2% margin of error and 99% confidence level: 4147325.7 million population 2% margin of error and 95% confidence level: 2401Average those numbers and you get: 8184.75That seems a little too high for comfort, so let’s take the closest thing we can get to a median out of this set (Correct me if I’m just completely forgetting how math works at all) and average 4147 and 9604. That gives us 6875.5. If we rounded up for 6876 and assumed each congressman represented an equal portion of the population that is not too far under 50,000 people each. Obviously, no system is perfect, and the margin of error is probably larger than the basic sample size calculation would lead us to believe, but it is nice to see those numbers play out. And if you are wondering, depending on confidence level, right now, the Margin of Error at 535 congressmen is about 4.24% to 5.57%.Also, it turns out, most of these numbers don’t change much if at all if you plug in the United States’ projected populations for 2050 and 2100, so this restructuring could suffice for a long time to come.Ultimately, do I believe we need eight thousand or six thousand congressman? Absolutely not. We can barely get 535 to agree some times. However, if we do “fatten congress,” we could have a more representative and democratic system overall. Maybe a good way to start would be to keep things as simple as possible and double the number of congressmen to roughly halve the populations they represent. That would put us at 1070 with 200 United States senators and 870 United States House Representatives.There are several potential ways to further democratize our system, especially in regards to electoral reform, and the constitutional convention should consider options such as abolishing winner-takes-all in states’ elections of presidential electors, implementing Ranked voting - Wikipedia, and establishing a means for national referendumBy all means, we should enshrine into our new constitution the abolition of the practice of lobbying.We must remember that in democratic society, it is the civic duty of the voter to inform themselves on the positions of all candidates for election to any office. Not to be told who to vote for and blindly hop on a bandwagon or follow the crowd. This submission to a mob mentality of relying on what is “folk knowledge” at best and outright falsehood at worst is one of the principal dangers of democracy as an imperfect system that we must always guard ourselves against.Likewise, it is the civic duty of the candidates to engage with their opponents in order to elaborate on the flaws and merits of their own positions and their opponents’. This is not what occurs in the current system. Rather, candidates in any given election are equipped with what maybe called “war chests” of campaign funding which they may use to squeeze out their opponents from the discourse. Incumbents, who already accrue numerous significant advantages, are especially privy to war chests allocated to them by parties. This virtual monopolization of the discourse during an election is inherently undemocratic, and the phenomenon only increases the prevalence of negative campaigning, dirt-throwing, and counter-productive ad hominem attacks levied ad nauseam.Furthermore, special interest groups exacerbate this problem of campaign finance and discourse disparity between any given set of candidates by aligning the majority of their financial support to narrow ideological or corporate interests.At risk of being rhetorically inquisitive again, I have to ask, would the more democratic and informative system be one where donations to election campaigns are split evenly between the candidates to decide for themselves to then use how they best see fit—whether that is television airtime or rally organization? Or is it better to let parties and glorified corporations decide what the voters should see and hear?To address an obvious counterpoint that could be made here, no, I do not believe that “forcing” someone to donate to both candidates is undemocratic or a violation of their rights. There is no right and should be no such right provided for in either the current or the new/amended constitution. You are less-informed when only one candidate speaks compared to when all the candidates speak, and only truly democratic and valid form of expression is still sacred, as it should be. Just because you have to technically donate to both (or all) candidates does not mean you have to vote for the one you disagree with, rather it makes sure you are not violating your fellow citizens’ rights to perform their civic duties to be informed themselves by financially exerting more political influence than they could afford to do so.We need to rewrite the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to better suit modern day realities. This includes revising the Second Amendment without abolishing the principal of it, re-affirming the Bill’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment regards to torture and some applications of force, re-affirming the Bill’s prohibition warrant-less searches and seizures especially in regards to personal information, clearly delineating and limiting the powers of the various levels and branches of government, enshrining the right to education, enshrining the right to healthcare, and proclaiming the priority of civil and human rights over any given manner of sovereignty.(There is so much more that needs to be done, but this answer is getting long and I have not even touched foreign policy yet.)In order ensure the survival of the species and the security of the rights of their citizens, democratic states and societies must strive for unity and solidarity with each other at all costs—ultimately endeavoring to one day unify themselves under the banners of economic unions, diplomatic and military alliances, and supranational government unions. Currently, the trends of warfare and history predict that while violence maybe down relatively in comparison to some of our historical errors, our capacity to destroy and kill that which we build and love has never been greater than it is today, and potentially more disturbing is the fact that even those of our societies which boldly claim themselves “champions of liberty” and/or “defenders of human rights” have consistently proven indifferent to the plight of our fellow man in societies less like ours and unfaithful in our attempts and measures when we stop being apathetic for what are mere moments on the relative historical scale. We learned the solutions to many of our world’s current problems in the World Wars, especially the Second. However, because our leaders have feared electoral failure or towed nebulous ideological lines, genocide and war still pervade our planet. If we do not care enough now to restrain and remove the despot that gases, carpet bombs, or guns down his own people mere thousands of kilometers away and to follow the steps required for long-term nation re-building as we so nearly-flawlessly demonstrated with Germany and Japan, how little will we care for our brethren nuked, suffocated, or starved millions of kilometers away? I can only imagine that the apathy there would be near-insurmountable unless we actively adjusted our course starting now.To call Brexit tragic and foolhardy is not as politically divisive as it should be perceived. The European Union was but a first small step in the process of unification that truly-sustainable peace demands, and for the United Kingdom to leave such a noble experiment for little more than promises and charades rather than trying to change it for the better is undoubtedly a leap backwards. Peace can often be found between those states that regularly engage in mutually-beneficial trade with each other, and if the United Kingdom and its people had felt that the benefits were no longer mutually and equally enjoyed, then instead of casting the Union into disposal bin, the would-be Brexiteers should have formulated ways to reform whatever mechanisms had degraded the system. However, they chose to do so democratically by their own standards, and although many of us may judge it is as mistake, it is no reason to falter in the mission for economic integration of nations and states to effectively globalize the world market for the benefit of everyone, not just the “developed” or the “first” world. To demonstrate that this is indeed possible, the United States should seek to create either one or both of two analogues to the European Union. The Pan-American Union or the Atlantic Trade Union. I think we would be better off starting with the Pan-American and hopefully one amalgamate with the European to form the Atlantic. Either way, no matter the procession of events, these Union would exist to promote peace and prosperity via encouragement and facilitation of multinational economic integration and inter-dependency and multicultural social and political interaction. There should be some commonality or discernible correspondence of the Union’s member-states’ laws and legal systems for ease of acclimation and fluid transition in travel from one to another. There should be means for the affluent to assist the member-states that may be in need in any way. Finally, there should be some way for the Union to be empowered to independently investigate concerns of corruptions of the democratic processes and modes of governance and violations of human rights of each member-state. This is the first and ultimately the greatest step the United States and its regional neighbors could make right now for greater global prosperity and world peace.There should be established between democratic societies across the world an entity that exists separate from but works in conjunction with the United Nations and the International Criminal Court to investigate and if necessary detain those person accused of war crimes and human rights violations in general.The United States will active take the position within the United Nations and among the United States’ direct alliances that condemnations alone are not enough affect change and that economic sanctions upon governments without the launching of humanitarian aid missions to counteract those governments’ displacement of those sanctions’ negative effects on the populace at large rather than the state itself are also unconscionable and misguided.The United States will actively take the position within the United Nations and among its own alliances that current conventions on war that create additional rules of engagement that prioritize states’ sovereignty over human rights are in violation of the founding principles and ideals of the United Nations and the United States of America itself, and thus the United States will seek to repeal/reform/amend/revise such conventions, treaties, resolutions, and so forth in order to allow peace-keeping forces of either the United Nations or the United States greater freedom of action to response to human rights violations in areas under their supervision or occupation.The United States will actively take the position in the United Nations, among its alliances, and certainly across the world that any physical attack, attempt to attack and/or harass, and/or disrupt UN peace-keeping operations or the actions of internationally-recognized humanitarian organizations and missions shall be considered henceforth an act of war on the United Nations and the United States of America.The United States shall no longer approve or allow any sale of arms produced within the borders and territories by companies operating in any form within those borders and territories to foreign militaries and private military contractors without first completing a comprehensive review of those entities human rights track record within the last five years in regards to their conduct in combat zones and use of weapons or lack thereof on civilians and non-combatants.So, I think that about wraps up most of the important aspects of my hypothetical campaign platform. I apologize because I know that was a long answer, and it might not have been the best read considering probably-poor formatting, instances of sub-par grammar, and… Well, it might have just been very boring. However all that about “sums up” why I think I should hypothetically be the next president. I could have mentioned a great deal more, but honestly, this has become the beast of hours of typing and thinking, and I am slightly concerned that it almost turned into a ramble at a few points. I welcome your criticism and look forward to any discussion.Semi-relevant side note:*I will boldly claim that I aspire and try to think critically in a way that would make a great mind proud. I subscribe to something that Stephen Hawking, may he rest in peace and rejoice in pleasure, gave his stamp of approval. The model of dependent realism. What I have learned from it is that ultimately every perspective is valid in its own way and has something to contribute, so none can be wholly discounted without first understanding the complex interplay between various models of reality as they appear in the near-countless sciences. Sure we may ultimately find certain models and perspectives and ideologies based upon such representations intrinsically flaw, but flaws and mistakes are not things to be thrown aside to never again be considered. We must always be willing to look back to see where we have gone wrong (and done right) before. We must never stop learning from either our labs, our think-tanks’, our groups’, or ourselves’ accumulations of experiences. Even if it means marching into mental melees with those people and those perspectives we believe to be frightening and fallacious, we must never forget.