Brony running for president? (Joke thread)

[Adachi 772]

I would make "Harm none, do as ye will" the main law of the land.

My policies would be pretty much the same as I would if I wasn't into ponies, and I wouldn't go out of my way to mentioned the brony issue or to hide it as it would serve as a rather annoying distraction. Basically I would run as a Ron Paul style libertarian in other words technically running as a republican but actually being more of a libertarian at heart.

I'm just learning about libertarians. So basically, you would be individualist?

[Perfect Alicorn 19]

As long as they can do the job, I'd be all for them. I'm not going to choose them just because they're a brony. That would be complete stupidity.

[Shanks 10,811]

I'm just learning about libertarians. So basically, you would be individualist?

That is correct, as a libertarian I favor a very limited de centralized role for government. To put it simply, I want the government out of my wallet and out of my pants. Force and fraud should be punished harshly, but think most of the social programs would be best left to state and local governments instead of the federal government making me lean much more toward minarchist libertarian thought as opposed to anarcho capitalism. There are various personal decisions I may or may not agree with yet still do not believe the government shouldn't be involved in. I don't think using drugs is a good idea (except for maybe smoking pot every now and then) but don't believe it is the governments job to tell people what they can and cannot put in their own bodies.

[Adachi 772]

That is correct, as a libertarian I favor a very limited de centralized role for government. To put it simply, I want the government out of my wallet and out of my pants. Force and fraud should be punished harshly, but think most of the social programs would be best left to state and local governments instead of the federal government making me lean much more toward minarchist libertarian thought as opposed to anarcho capitalism. There are various personal decisions I may or may not agree with yet still do not believe the government shouldn't be involved in. I don't think using drugs is a good idea (except for maybe smoking pot every now and then) but don't believe it is the governments job to tell people what they can and cannot put in their own bodies.

I mostly agree, except drugs can make people act in a way where they disrespect the rights of other individuals, so I think there should be some regulation.

[Shanks 10,811]

I mostly agree, except drugs can make people act in a way where they disrespect the rights of other individuals, so I think there should be some regulation.

The same can be said for alcohol as well though we learned our lesson the hard way that banning it was a very very bad idea and there is a huge difference between someone getting high in their basement and driving while stoned for example just like there is a difference between someone getting drunk in their home and driving while drunk.

[Lil Pip 775]

I would do something with education, less homework more tests more material, and get areas with poverty to increase their state spending into prettying up the place and to pay for the homeless to have homes (it increases tourism to not have homeless on the streets or something,t hey say its more expensive to not give them places to shelter at) then after crime is reduced significantly focus on their education. Perhaps issue a national standard, and a financial incentive like reduced taxes off of your jobs or partially paid taxes by the us that are work related the higher education one has. 

 

Why focus on education and poverty? Poverty is linked to crime and low education. 

 

Then when it comes to the stuff I don't know about I'll get advisors and time to do independant research to make my decisions. 

 

Also, because I doubt the constitutions or amendments will change I would have to be pro-gun as gun-free zones in a not gun-free nation is begging for more mass shootings. Just psychological and background checks to renew licenses for it prolly, like every few years, because drama can happen and throw someone to being unstable. But then they'd have a gun, be unstable, and need to bring someone to their palce to confiscate it if they fail the test? Idk. Or bring their registered guns to the test would be better. But idk I don't have experience with guns myself can't say how paranoid senile people might be.

 

Also I would reduce what taxes have to be paid on pertaining to belief. Like a church can get away without paying taxes, but centers for productive hobbies will get taxed? That doesn't seem very fair nor productive. Something like removing taxes on art, or other things one strongly believes in like buying trees for the environment or such. Perhaps tax breaks to inventors who manage to yield useful products for a short period of its success.

 

Also I would be kick-started or crowdfunded or patreon'd just so you know I'm not a corporate somebody, and don't need to suck up to them either. 

[Adachi 772]

The same can be said for alcohol as well though we learned our lesson the hard way that banning it was a very very bad idea and there is a huge difference between someone getting high in their basement and driving while stoned for example just like there is a difference between someone getting drunk in their home and driving while drunk.

I'm talking about the hardcore chemical drugs like meth, e, etc. The stuff that will really warp someone's judgement. Alcohol can affect someone's judgement, but it usually takes a lot. There's a certain Korean alcoholic drink that is banned almost all over the world, because it is almost pure alcohol. I think drugs should be the same way. If it is dangerous enough, it should be banned. Suicide only physically affects those who commit it, but that is still illegal, there has to be a line.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Adachi

[EpicEnergy 22,072]

I would vote for them if they held the same, or at least similar, views and beliefs as mine.

[Fluttershyfan94 5,738]

I plan on running for president actually, though that said I'm a libertarian. Therefore some would and some would not agree with my worldview. Yet then again all politicians lie that's their game, they sell lies for votes and what's sad is people actually buy their lies. Meanwhile I want to be a president that stands for what's right someone who works for the people and their interests. We all know though that bronies really don't have much in common other then being bronies haha. 

[Tom Gallagher 33,521]

If a brony did become president, I wonder how everypony would react. 

[Splashee 28,537]

5 hours ago, TomDaBombMLP said:

If a brony did become president, I wonder how everypony would react. 

First, using words like "everypony" would really upset the opposing party a lot.

 

Then, of course, remember that not the entire world is govern by presidents. We have a King in our country as well as a Prime Minister. Our King is probably already a Brony. Our Prime Minister is not.

[Here No Longer 5,270]

That would make very, very little if any difference to me in choosing them as a candidate. I'm more about the policy.

 

But that also can go either way. If the candidate in question is a despicable person I'll hate them even more for making me look bad. Pete Buttigieg is a prime example of this for LGBT persons like myself.

[Splashee 28,537]

I wonder if Bronies will exist after Pony Life airs? If not, then having a Brony president would be considered outdated. Bronies are kinda outdated already. It's been 10 years since I saw one.

[Prospekt 10,984]

He obviously wasn't running for president, but former RNC communications director and White House press secretary Sean Spicer once referenced Twilight Sparkle on national TV.