Do you want to be President of the United States?

[Gracile]

F**k no.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Yes, certainly. I wouldn't be stressed about it (I like policy briefings and bill details), so it would basically be a fun job you get to do from a mansion and get to fly a massive private jet all over the world, followed by millions after you leave office.

Not to mention I'd be considerably less mad about politics if I was in control. That said, like CentristRepublican I think it's unlikely I'll ever be elected to the White House, so my goal is the U.S. Senate or a Governorship.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

There are two parts of me, the part that wants to be president, and the part that isn't insane.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

I've heavily considered local politics — even though I'd almost certainly lose, running a campaign could be a great learning experience.

I'd never want a position that requires living in DC and any executive position is way too stressful. Especially president. Like, how many hours a day does the president even get to sleep? There's a reason they age twenty years in a span of eight years. You'd have to be crazy to want to be president. Even being mayor of a major city is tough as nails.

[GregTheGreat657]

I agree with President Johnson. I'd like to experience this, but I couldn't do it every day for 4 or 8 years in a row

[Mexican Wolf]

For my sake and the sake of other Americans, no way would I want to be president.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would love to be President.

I am grateful that the American people have the good sense to never let that happen.

[TheReckoning]

So your solution to the North Korean regime committing atrocities against the North Korean people is to... simply murder millions of North Koreans?

That makes absolutely no sense

CentristRepublican is very young which is why he might have some rather… stupid solutions to problems. No slight to him, I was the same way when I was his age.

[Boobs]

As if this country would be so lucky.

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

Yes

[Oakvale]

I think I could be President of the United States. A kick-ass president. I would have all this money and people would love me. Then they would come to me and beg. And, if I felt like it, I would help them out, and then they'd owe me big time.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'm not 100% sure, maybe what MB says applies to me... I'm of course not eligible and even if i was, i would never get elected. The most annoying thing about president is that you're not able to do the things you believe are best to do, and that you have to fit the schedule of strategy/campaigning/working together with people/advertising your policies to people and stuff like that. I mean i'd like to change things, but I doubt in the climate of today, anyone is able too (or very few people). Intellectually i could handle the job, mentally i'm not sure of that.

But do I want it... No, it would be a very frustrating job where at that point you have never some privacy or anonomity.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Never.  I like my freedom.  I like bourbon and Marlboros.  I live to golf in the good weather.  Plus I really have no patience any longer. 

[SWE]

I mean, kinda moot point for me, but no lol. Being a political leader is way too much stress.

Well, if I was president I'd alleviate some of that stress for me by not caring about reelection; I'd do whatever I want without any concern about midterms or reelections or any of that. I'd just do whatever good I can in whatever time I have.

Figuring out how to do good effectively and avoid messing up is the most stressful part of all! (At least if you care about that to begin with)

True.

Anyway, one of the things I'd do is use the nuclear codes to bomb Pyongyang for several hours straight.

...ok well with that attitude maybe stress isn't a concern for you

I'm serious. I was reading Wikipedia pages about North Korea and its dictatorship about a week ago and I began to realize just how terrible life in North Korea must be. There are human rights abuses and life is literally a living hell - if you think our leaders are even remotely authoritarian, research North Korea and you'll realize it could be much, much, much worse (I'm not telling you specifically, I'm using it as a general term to anyone reading this post). So...yeah. And aside from that there are safety issues, since North Korea is working on nuclear weapons and successfully conducted a test a while ago. Who knows what they might do. So it's probably best to preempt them and just eliminate them and liberate millions of oppressed North Koreans (basically, like the argument George W Bush made to invade Iraq in the early 2000s, except this one is based on what is publicly known to be true and isn't covered in lies and distortions).

This guy really read about all of the human rights abuses in North Korea and thought "how can I be worse than that?"

[vitoNova]

Nope.

"I'd get elected on Friday
Assassinated on Saturday
Buried on Sunday
And go back to work on Monday"

- Wyclef Jean

I really can't be bothered. 

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I wouldn't be able to deal with the pressure and stress and I'm too concerned with other peoples opinion of me to want that gig. I would like to hold office in some capacity some day, but POTUS is too much.

[Sir Mohamed]

Yup, I actually believe that I wouldn't be that bad at being prez.

What would get done legislatively would for sure depend on congress, though I'd definitely fight for my priorities such as a public health option, tax reform (increase the top tax rate and corporate taxes to 28%), a 15$ minimum wage, voting integrity laws and campaign finance reform and a moderate reduction of the military budget. I'd use the bully pulpit excessively to rally the public behind my priorities and pressure congress to help solve the problems.

Besides, I'd use the executive branch to implement policies helping the middle class. The Justice Dept. for example would be instructed to take on monopolies with high priority. Splitting up companies like Google or Meta would rank on top of said list.

On foreign policy, I'd for sure take a harsher stance against countries like the PRC, Russia and, in particular, Saudi Arabia. For sure I'd so pretty straight talk with autocratic leaders because I believe that's the only language they really understand. I wouldn't play their games like cyber attacks from Russia without serious retaliation. For sure I would never issue treats that I later can't or won't enforce.

Also, I'd do monthly Townhall events for citizens in all 50 states. Particularly areas that didn't vote for me. I would at least try to make people in states like KY or ID understand my policies and try to understand their problems so that I can work on solutions.

I know the presidency is very stressful job, but if I could really make a difference, for sure I would sacrifice 4 or 8 years to do so.

[Schiff for Senate]

I mean, kinda moot point for me, but no lol. Being a political leader is way too much stress.

Well, if I was president I'd alleviate some of that stress for me by not caring about reelection; I'd do whatever I want without any concern about midterms or reelections or any of that. I'd just do whatever good I can in whatever time I have.

Figuring out how to do good effectively and avoid messing up is the most stressful part of all! (At least if you care about that to begin with)

True.

Anyway, one of the things I'd do is use the nuclear codes to bomb Pyongyang for several hours straight.

...ok well with that attitude maybe stress isn't a concern for you

I'm serious. I was reading Wikipedia pages about North Korea and its dictatorship about a week ago and I began to realize just how terrible life in North Korea must be. There are human rights abuses and life is literally a living hell - if you think our leaders are even remotely authoritarian, research North Korea and you'll realize it could be much, much, much worse (I'm not telling you specifically, I'm using it as a general term to anyone reading this post). So...yeah. And aside from that there are safety issues, since North Korea is working on nuclear weapons and successfully conducted a test a while ago. Who knows what they might do. So it's probably best to preempt them and just eliminate them and liberate millions of oppressed North Koreans (basically, like the argument George W Bush made to invade Iraq in the early 2000s, except this one is based on what is publicly known to be true and isn't covered in lies and distortions).

This guy really read about all of the human rights abuses in North Korea and thought "how can I be worse than that?"

No...the goal is to liberate North Korea, and to keep the number of civilian deaths low. Sad if you think that's even comparable to what Kim is doing right now.

And let me ask you a very genuine and frank question, if I might (it's fine if you don't want to answer): If given a choice between spending the rest of your life, with virtually zero chance at escape, in an extremely authoritarian dictatorship that pervades and dictates every aspect of everyday life, and a quick, painless death - which would you choose?

[Big Abraham]

I mean, kinda moot point for me, but no lol. Being a political leader is way too much stress.

Well, if I was president I'd alleviate some of that stress for me by not caring about reelection; I'd do whatever I want without any concern about midterms or reelections or any of that. I'd just do whatever good I can in whatever time I have.

Figuring out how to do good effectively and avoid messing up is the most stressful part of all! (At least if you care about that to begin with)

True.

Anyway, one of the things I'd do is use the nuclear codes to bomb Pyongyang for several hours straight.

...ok well with that attitude maybe stress isn't a concern for you

I'm serious. I was reading Wikipedia pages about North Korea and its dictatorship about a week ago and I began to realize just how terrible life in North Korea must be. There are human rights abuses and life is literally a living hell - if you think our leaders are even remotely authoritarian, research North Korea and you'll realize it could be much, much, much worse (I'm not telling you specifically, I'm using it as a general term to anyone reading this post). So...yeah. And aside from that there are safety issues, since North Korea is working on nuclear weapons and successfully conducted a test a while ago. Who knows what they might do. So it's probably best to preempt them and just eliminate them and liberate millions of oppressed North Koreans (basically, like the argument George W Bush made to invade Iraq in the early 2000s, except this one is based on what is publicly known to be true and isn't covered in lies and distortions).

This guy really read about all of the human rights abuses in North Korea and thought "how can I be worse than that?"

No...the goal is to liberate North Korea, and to keep the number of civilian deaths low. Sad if you think that's even comparable to what Kim is doing right now.

And let me ask you a very genuine and frank question, if I might (it's fine if you don't want to answer): If given a choice between spending the rest of your life, with virtually zero chance at escape, in an extremely authoritarian dictatorship that pervades and dictates every aspect of everyday life, and a quick, painless death - which would you choose?

Life is an inalienable right, full stop. If you want to keep the number of "civilian deaths" low, presumably that would preclude violating international law and committing war crimes by, you know, bombing civilians.

[Orwell]

I am not entirely surprised some of our youngest members would like to be President, and I think it's really a novel idea. I think around their age I wanted to be President too. I think something they fail to realize is that the Presidency is not a job for political idealists or moral crusaders. The Presidency is a job where you're destined to fail. the American Empire is fading, and partisanship has brought Congress to a stand still. You may think you are smarter than everyone and would just be able to make these Republicans/Democrats see the error in their ways, but in reality the biggest difference in Washington is not ideology, but who signs their checks.

[SWE]

I mean, kinda moot point for me, but no lol. Being a political leader is way too much stress.

Well, if I was president I'd alleviate some of that stress for me by not caring about reelection; I'd do whatever I want without any concern about midterms or reelections or any of that. I'd just do whatever good I can in whatever time I have.

Figuring out how to do good effectively and avoid messing up is the most stressful part of all! (At least if you care about that to begin with)

True.

Anyway, one of the things I'd do is use the nuclear codes to bomb Pyongyang for several hours straight.

...ok well with that attitude maybe stress isn't a concern for you

I'm serious. I was reading Wikipedia pages about North Korea and its dictatorship about a week ago and I began to realize just how terrible life in North Korea must be. There are human rights abuses and life is literally a living hell - if you think our leaders are even remotely authoritarian, research North Korea and you'll realize it could be much, much, much worse (I'm not telling you specifically, I'm using it as a general term to anyone reading this post). So...yeah. And aside from that there are safety issues, since North Korea is working on nuclear weapons and successfully conducted a test a while ago. Who knows what they might do. So it's probably best to preempt them and just eliminate them and liberate millions of oppressed North Koreans (basically, like the argument George W Bush made to invade Iraq in the early 2000s, except this one is based on what is publicly known to be true and isn't covered in lies and distortions).

This guy really read about all of the human rights abuses in North Korea and thought "how can I be worse than that?"

No...the goal is to liberate North Korea, and to keep the number of civilian deaths low. Sad if you think that's even comparable to what Kim is doing right now.

And let me ask you a very genuine and frank question, if I might (it's fine if you don't want to answer): If given a choice between spending the rest of your life, with virtually zero chance at escape, in an extremely authoritarian dictatorship that pervades and dictates every aspect of everyday life, and a quick, painless death - which would you choose?

Dropping nuclear bombs on a city the size of Chicago for several hours is not something you would do if you had any consideration for civilian life, and death by nuclear attack is anything but quick and painless. I'd absolutely take being an average person living in a dystopian dictatorship over something so horrifying - and even if I would make the opposite call, it'd be pretty sick to think I have the right to make that call for three million people

[Pink Panther]

It would be a dream job. I think I could do decent with a lot more experience and confidence, eventually. But for the memes, I would pardon Drake Bell, Don Blankenship, Don King, Jeffery Dahmer, Chris Benoit, Tekashi69, RKelly, Bill Cosby, William Jefferson, and Henry Cuellar, as well as carpet bomb London in revenge for Napoleon.

[Senator Incitatus]

No; more interest in being powerful than attention.

[Schiff for Senate]

I mean, kinda moot point for me, but no lol. Being a political leader is way too much stress.

Well, if I was president I'd alleviate some of that stress for me by not caring about reelection; I'd do whatever I want without any concern about midterms or reelections or any of that. I'd just do whatever good I can in whatever time I have.

Figuring out how to do good effectively and avoid messing up is the most stressful part of all! (At least if you care about that to begin with)

True.

Anyway, one of the things I'd do is use the nuclear codes to bomb Pyongyang for several hours straight.

...ok well with that attitude maybe stress isn't a concern for you

I'm serious. I was reading Wikipedia pages about North Korea and its dictatorship about a week ago and I began to realize just how terrible life in North Korea must be. There are human rights abuses and life is literally a living hell - if you think our leaders are even remotely authoritarian, research North Korea and you'll realize it could be much, much, much worse (I'm not telling you specifically, I'm using it as a general term to anyone reading this post). So...yeah. And aside from that there are safety issues, since North Korea is working on nuclear weapons and successfully conducted a test a while ago. Who knows what they might do. So it's probably best to preempt them and just eliminate them and liberate millions of oppressed North Koreans (basically, like the argument George W Bush made to invade Iraq in the early 2000s, except this one is based on what is publicly known to be true and isn't covered in lies and distortions).

This guy really read about all of the human rights abuses in North Korea and thought "how can I be worse than that?"

No...the goal is to liberate North Korea, and to keep the number of civilian deaths low. Sad if you think that's even comparable to what Kim is doing right now.

And let me ask you a very genuine and frank question, if I might (it's fine if you don't want to answer): If given a choice between spending the rest of your life, with virtually zero chance at escape, in an extremely authoritarian dictatorship that pervades and dictates every aspect of everyday life, and a quick, painless death - which would you choose?

Life is an inalienable right, full stop. If you want to keep the number of "civilian deaths" low, presumably that would preclude violating international law and committing war crimes by, you know, bombing civilians.

Fair enough but it's not like North Korea is holding their side of the bargain either. They violate the UN's orders and the UN keeps asking them to stop with their human rights abuses, but North Korea hasn't played ball. I might first consult with the UK and France and other such allies and discuss their opinion; if the backlash is too strong, I might cancel, but the goal would actually be to persuade them to join. Life is an inalienable right, which is why, like I said, we would be careful to avoid hitting civilians as much as possible, mainly just wherever Kim and his closest advisors happen to be.

[Schiff for Senate]

I mean, kinda moot point for me, but no lol. Being a political leader is way too much stress.

Well, if I was president I'd alleviate some of that stress for me by not caring about reelection; I'd do whatever I want without any concern about midterms or reelections or any of that. I'd just do whatever good I can in whatever time I have.

Figuring out how to do good effectively and avoid messing up is the most stressful part of all! (At least if you care about that to begin with)

True.

Anyway, one of the things I'd do is use the nuclear codes to bomb Pyongyang for several hours straight.

...ok well with that attitude maybe stress isn't a concern for you

I'm serious. I was reading Wikipedia pages about North Korea and its dictatorship about a week ago and I began to realize just how terrible life in North Korea must be. There are human rights abuses and life is literally a living hell - if you think our leaders are even remotely authoritarian, research North Korea and you'll realize it could be much, much, much worse (I'm not telling you specifically, I'm using it as a general term to anyone reading this post). So...yeah. And aside from that there are safety issues, since North Korea is working on nuclear weapons and successfully conducted a test a while ago. Who knows what they might do. So it's probably best to preempt them and just eliminate them and liberate millions of oppressed North Koreans (basically, like the argument George W Bush made to invade Iraq in the early 2000s, except this one is based on what is publicly known to be true and isn't covered in lies and distortions).

This guy really read about all of the human rights abuses in North Korea and thought "how can I be worse than that?"

No...the goal is to liberate North Korea, and to keep the number of civilian deaths low. Sad if you think that's even comparable to what Kim is doing right now.

And let me ask you a very genuine and frank question, if I might (it's fine if you don't want to answer): If given a choice between spending the rest of your life, with virtually zero chance at escape, in an extremely authoritarian dictatorship that pervades and dictates every aspect of everyday life, and a quick, painless death - which would you choose?

Dropping nuclear bombs on a city the size of Chicago for several hours is not something you would do if you had any consideration for civilian life, and death by nuclear attack is anything but quick and painless. I'd absolutely take being an average person living in a dystopian dictatorship over something so horrifying - and even if I would make the opposite call, it'd be pretty sick to think I have the right to make that call for three million people

I'd largely agree - except like I said, I would only bomb the part with Kim and his close advisors in it. Of course civillians would still be killed but way less would. The main goal would be taking out Kim and his allies. Heck, it doesn't even need to be a bombing - it could be helicopters coming where Kim is and gunning him down, though I'm unsure if that would work out as planned.