By Leslie Knorp
As the candidates for the next presidential election begin to campaign, the citizens of America are becoming familiar with the platforms and policies that each campaign supports. Most are black and white party-line policies, but some political concerns from candidates range from slightly uncommon to radically irrational.
Hope Johnson, one of two democratic candidates running for office, advocates for progressive educational policies, including decreased tuition for public universities, vaccine mandates, broadening the scope of learning to further inclusivity in the classroom and implementing plans to reduce carbon emissions.
Candidate Johnson, however, also supports the action of federally funding Netflix. Netflix, a common streaming service, provides programs ranging from Americans favorite canceled 90s shows to new, groundbreaking movies. Johnson aspires to fund Netflix for any citizen to spread the educational and enjoyment benefits of the service.
“It’s simply unacceptable that Americans who can not afford the 14 dollars a month are deprived of the joy and education that every other American gets to enjoy,” Johnson said. “Some call these ideas radical leftist socialism — we just call it equity.”
This platform is unique, yet displays a motivation towards equality that America has never seen from a candidate before.
The other democratic candidate, Anthony Armstrong, supports ensuring quality education for all Americans through internal improvement of the K-12 system, raising educator wages and increasing funding for schools.
Along with these actions Armstrong will take, he also plans on federally funding the classic McFlurry, from the popular fast-food chain McDonalds.
“Imagine you had a rough day at work, or just got out of school, and you’re not feeling at your best. There’s a remedy to this: a McFlurry. Even better, a free McFlurry,” Armstrong said. “That’s exactly what the Armstrong administration would implement - federally funded McFlurries for all Americans.”
Armstrong, with this initiative, will raise “morale” in the country. He focuses on the mental well-being of the American people, and clearly lays out the progression from a “happier” nation to a “prosperous” nation.
However, while the respective candidates have the common goal of equal opportunity and increased citizen satisfaction within the country, the other two candidate’s platforms are extremely dangerous and barely believable.
Candidate Bobby Gnocchi is somewhat reasonable in his regular calls-to-action, supports lowering carbon emissions from the industrial sector by providing more money to companies that are sufficient in his eyes. While this seems fair-minded, Gnocchi is the exact opposite.
Bobby Gnocchi enthusiastically believes in aliens. Despite the lack of substantial, public evidence to prove life outside of the earth, candidate Gnocchi fully supports “building positive relationships” with an unknown race he calls the Marcabs.
“Under my command, the Welcoming Aliens Committee (WAC) will be established as a way to make peace with the Marcabs, and any other extraterrestrial life,” Gnocchi said. “Once this peace is established, thetans will be free from the brainwashing that the Marcab confederacy forces on them.”
It is not clear what the Marcabs are, and what their confederacy entails. Gnocchi has yet to share more about this platform, yet passionately supports this cause. The passion is focused in the wrong areas. Candidates are running for US president, not president of the universe. Gnocchi seems to be misunderstanding this.
Another republican candidate, Samuel Buck, has yet to publish a website or any statement about his policies. However, Buck supposedly supports the initiation of a purge in the United States. Bucks campaign is completely unorganized and unclear to the citizens.
If Buck wants to be taken seriously, he must act like a serious candidate and share his beliefs and platforms publicly. Allegedly, Buck is shielding his goals as president from the public because public response is inevitably going to be distrust and aversion.
Commenti