NationStates Jolt Archive

If elected, I would...

1.Get us out of the UN, NAFTA, the WTO, NATO, and all other entangling alliances.

2.Repeal all gun control laws.

3.Abolish all forms of social welfare, including Social Security.

4.Abolish all tariffs as well as all forms of corporate welfare.

5.Get rid of antitrust laws, minimum wage laws, and all business regulations.

6.Repeal the 17th Amendment.

7.Get rid of the income tax (I would return to the old system, where the
states were taxed in proportion to their population).

8.Get rid of the Federal Reserve.

9.Bring back the gold standard.

10.Abolish all departments except the Departments of Treasury, Defense, State, and Justice.

11.Break up the Department of Defense into the Departments of War and the Navy.

12.Return all our troops that are stationed abroad.

13.Pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately, permanently, and completely.

14.Scrap all foreign aid programs permanently.

15.Return all illegal immigrants who have been in the country less than a year. Afterwards, ALL illegal immigrants who entered the country would be returned.

16.Limit the number of people who can immigrate to the U.S. in one year to 250,000.

17.Drastically increase border security, so no one could enter the country illegally.

18.Get back the Panama Canal.

19.Demand that Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, et. al. return all the POWs they're still holding, or suffer severe consequences.

20.Put Jimmy Carter on trial for crimes against humanity.

21.Severely restrict the CIA's power, so that it could only perform intelligence operations and not intervene in other nations' affairs.

22.Pursue a non-aligned, non-interventionist, laissez faire foreign policy.

23.Get Roe v. Wade repealed, so the states could decide for themselves what they wanted their abortion policies to be. Likewise, gay marriage (and marriage in general), civil rights, education, drug policies, law enforcement, church and state, and almost everything else- including paying for said things- would be left completely up to them.

24.Repeal all laws prohibiting the importation of prescription drugs from other countries.

25.Sharply decrease government spending in all areas except defense, which would be kept what it is unless we were threatened, in which case defense spending would increase.

26.Eliminate, or minimize as much as possible, the influence of corporations in politics.

27.Introduce a congressional amendment forbidding conscription into the armed forces.

28.Get rid of the reverse racism that is affirmative action. People should be picked based on abilities and character, not skin color, national origin, or whatever.

29.I would sharply lower the salaries of congressmen, senators, myself, and my staff.

30.I would greatly restrict the powers of the Republican and Democratic parties and strengthen those of other parties, to ensure that all political parties had just as much a say in the government as any other party, so people wouldn't always have to choose between the "lesser of two evils."

31.I would end all funding for science and the arts. Funding for them would have to come from state and local governments and/or private individuals.

32.I would shrink the government as much as possible.

33.The Martin Luther King holiday would be repealed and replaced with a Booker T. Washington holiday. President's Day would be replaced with Washington's birthday.

34.Get rid of the FDA.

bump

I have seen this before.

It's still just as crazy :p

I have seen this before.

It's still just as crazy :p

What's crazy about small, de-centralized government?

:confused:

Why don't you do what china did and build a wall across all your borders aswel?

34. Wonder why it all went down in blood and fire.

I agree with some of it but a lot of it is pretty lunatic.

Why don't you do what china did and build a wall across all your borders aswel?

Why do leftists always equate anti-illegal immigration with anti-immigration?

How you propose to stop them all I don't know. Seriously, they'll find a way around anything short of a big fuck-off forcefield (and even then...)

Why do leftists always equate anti-illegal immigration with anti-immigration?

China cut themselves off from the rest of the world, that was what I was equating you to be doing in the modern world it had noting to do with immigration, illegal or otherwise

As a side-note, you've based all your policies as if you were running for an election in the US. The NS General Parliament doesn't work that way. Also, you strongly risk alienating voters not from the US, since they'd see no reason to vote for you.

Well from all the fancy quizes I've taken I am a small-government type of guy. So I don't disagree with small-government, it's just that what you are suggesting wouldn't make for a sustainable society.

What's the point of a gold standard without a central monetary authority?

Do you realize that free-market capitalism will cease to function properly without active anti-trust efforts?

You are trying to reduce our world-wide military commitment, but at the same time making threats to Panama, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Do you not see this as contradictory?

You are removing all social aid programs, but keeping our current level of military and, I assume, police funding. This seems like cruel, economic ignorance to me.

Bascially you are using a small-government agenda to turn the U.S. into a capitalist, monopoly-friendly, police state. I would say fascism if it wasn't so overused and you weren't so commited to democracy and civil liberties.

I do hope this is all sarcasm, if not, I won't even get started.

You are trying to reduce our world-wide military commitment, but at the same time making threats to Panama, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Do you not see this as contradictory?

I'd threaten them with sanctions first, and only respond militarily as a last resort.

You are removing all social aid programs, but keeping our current level of military and, I assume, police funding. This seems like cruel, economic ignorance to me.

Federal funding for the police would end. As I said, the states would have to pay for (almost) everything themselves.

I do hope this is all sarcasm, if not, I won't even get started.

Why, are you a worshipper of big government?

Or just a liker of reality.

China cut themselves off from the rest of the world, that was what I was equating you to be doing in the modern world it had noting to do with immigration, illegal or otherwise

How is minding our own business cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world? Would you prefer that the U.S. continued to play Globocop?

RB,

Fair enough, I misunderstood your points on those matters.

You still have to convince me that free-market capitalism can operate properly given the government you are suggesting.

You are trying to reduce our world-wide military commitment, but at the same time making threats to Panama, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Do you not see this as contradictory?I'd threaten them with sanctions first, and only respond militarily as a last resort.

So, you are advocating that the US break treaties with other soveriegn states by use of the threat of force?

So, you are advocating that the US break treaties with other soveriegn states by use of the threat of force?

You're putting words in my mouth. I said Panama, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea would be threatened, not anyone else. And I would only use force against them if they refused to return our canal (Panama) and POWs (Vietnam, Laos, N. Korea).

You're putting words in my mouth. I said Panama, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea would be threatened, not anyone else. And I would only use force against them if they refused to return our canal (Panama) and POWs (Vietnam, Laos, N. Korea).

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but control of the Panama Canal was handed to Panama (which is a sovereign state) as a result of a treaty signed by it and the USA, and you are now advocating the threat of military action to break this treaty, yes?

I fail to see how my earlier post was putting words in your mouth.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but control of the Panama Canal was handed to Panama (which is a sovereign state) as a result of a treaty signed by it and the USA, and you are now advocating the threat of military action to break this treaty, yes?

I fail to see how my earlier post was putting words in your mouth.

The treaty is null and void. The version Torrijos signed is different from the one ratified by the U.S. Senate. Moreover, it's our canal, not theirs. We built it, we paid for it, etc. etc. If they didn't return it to us, we'd take it back by force, if necessary.

How is minding our own business cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world? Would you prefer that the U.S. continued to play Globocop?

Allways talking in extremes. Anyway these are the particular ones

1.Get us out of the UN, NAFTA, the WTO, NATO, and all other entangling alliances.

12.Return all our troops that are stationed abroad.

13.Pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately, permanently, and completely.

14.Scrap all foreign aid programs permanently.

15.Return all illegal immigrants who have been in the country less than a year. Afterwards, ALL illegal immigrants who entered the country would be returned.

16.Limit the number of people who can immigrate to the U.S. in one year to 250,000.

17.Drastically increase border security, so no one could enter the country illegally.

18.Get back the Panama Canal.

19.Demand that Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, et. al. return all the POWs they're still holding, or suffer severe consequences.

22.Pursue a non-aligned, non-interventionist, laissez faire foreign policy.

So basically you want nothing to do with the world except in the ways THEY can benefit you

eg

24.Repeal all laws prohibiting the importation of prescription drugs from other countries.

Allways talking in extremes. Anyway these are the particular ones

1.Get us out of the UN, NAFTA, the WTO, NATO, and all other entangling alliances.

12.Return all our troops that are stationed abroad.

13.Pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately, permanently, and completely.

14.Scrap all foreign aid programs permanently.

15.Return all illegal immigrants who have been in the country less than a year. Afterwards, ALL illegal immigrants who entered the country would be returned.

16.Limit the number of people who can immigrate to the U.S. in one year to 250,000.

17.Drastically increase border security, so no one could enter the country illegally.

18.Get back the Panama Canal.

19.Demand that Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, et. al. return all the POWs they're still holding, or suffer severe consequences.

22.Pursue a non-aligned, non-interventionist, laissez faire foreign policy.

So basically you want nothing to do with the world except in the ways THEY can benefit you

eg

24.Repeal all laws prohibiting the importation of prescription drugs from other countries.


I want to trade with the rest of the world and maintain diplomatic relations. That is all.

I want to trade with the rest of the world and maintain diplomatic relations. That is all.

"1.Get us out of the UN, NAFTA, the WTO, NATO, and all other entangling alliances"

Very diplomatic :p

"14.Scrap all foreign aid programs permanently"

Sod the poor

"18.Get back the Panama Canal.

19.Demand that Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, et. al. return all the POWs they're still holding, or suffer severe consequences."

Threatening war is your way of "maintaining diplomatic relations"? I think not

By the way you don't do politics or law do you?

"1.Get us out of the UN, NAFTA, the WTO, NATO, and all other entangling alliances"

Very diplomatic :p

We'd exchange embassies with nations, but not entangle ourselves in their affairs.

"14.Scrap all foreign aid programs permanently"

Sod the poor

Foreign aid doesn't help the poor. It enriches despots.

"18.Get back the Panama Canal.

19.Demand that Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, et. al. return all the POWs they're still holding, or suffer severe consequences."

Threatening war is your way of "maintaining diplomatic relations"? I think not


What's wrong with demanding back something that's ours?

Moreover, it's our canal, not theirs. We built it, we paid for it, etc. etc. If they didn't return it to us, we'd take it back by force, if necessary.

According to this principle, how many historical buildings and works of engineering in the USA do the former colonial powers have the right to back by force, if necessary?

7.Get rid of the income tax (I would return to the old system, where the states were taxed in proportion to their population).

18.Get back the Panama Canal.

19.Demand that Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, et. al. return all the POWs they're still holding, or suffer severe consequences.

25.Sharply decrease government spending in all areas except defense, which would be kept what it is unless we were threatened, in which case defense spending would increase.

26.Eliminate, or minimize as much as possible, the influence of corporations in politics.
7. Read on...

18. So how would your government pay for this?

19. So how would your government pay for the imposition of severe consequences on several countries that are thousands of miles away?

25. Why do you need to keep defense spending at its current level if all troops are being pulled back from their stations abroad?

26. How? I suggest banning corporate donations to political parties.

Income tax is necessary to run a country these days, even if only to fix the mistakes of your predecessors (see #19).

What's crazy about small, de-centralized government?
See my signature. That's what's crazy about it.

Ps.. Where is the part about busting and killing roaches in your manifesto? ;)

According to this principle, how many historical buildings and works of engineering in the USA do the former colonial powers have the right to back by force, if necessary?

They're not strategically important, though; the canal, however, is.

7. Read on...

[quote]18. So how would your government pay for this?

We'd tax the states. The states could tax their citizens any way they pleased.

19. So how would your government pay for the imposition of severe consequences on several countries that are thousands of miles away?

With all the money saved from not paying corporations, the poor, other countries, unconstitutional programs, et. al.

25. Why do you need to keep defense spending at its current level if all troops are being pulled back from their stations abroad?

Better safe than sorry.

26. How? I suggest banning corporate donations to political parties.

It would be a start.

What's wrong with demanding back something that's ours?

Its the fact that your demanding for a start. Firstly you negociate, you don't just stomp your feet like a petulent child saying in a loud moaning voice "I WANT IT BAAAAACCCCCCCKKKKKKK" which is what your basically saying in diplomatic terms

Ps.. Where is the part about busting and killing roaches in your manifesto? ;)

I'll add it, not to worry.

35.Extermination squads would be deployed all over the world to kill as many cockroaches as possible, with the goal of eventually making them extinct.

Pfft... income tax? Who cares?

These measures are going to create an economy controlled by monopolies, where fraud is a respectable way of making a profit, and which will be subject to devestating recessions.

The whole efficiency thing that free-market capitalism provides will go out the window, you may as well be a communist.

Its the fact that your demanding for a start. Firstly you negociate, you don't just stomp your feet like a petulent child saying in a loud moaning voice "I WANT IT BAAAAACCCCCCCKKKKKKK" which is what your basically saying in diplomatic terms

What's wrong that? It's ours, they have it, we have every right to demand it back. And if they refused, we'd impose sanctions. If they still refused, we'd break off diplomatic relations. If they still refused, we'd mine their ports and harbors (except Laos, which is landlocked). If they still refused, we'd bomb them into submission.

I'll add it, not to worry.

35.Extermination squads would be deployed all over the world to kill as many cockroaches as possible, with the goal of eventually making them extinct.
All over the world? That sounds like interventionism, Globocop. ;)

What's wrong that? It's ours, they have it, we have every right to demand it back. And if they refused, we'd impose sanctions. If they still refused, we'd break off diplomatic relations. If they still refused, we'd mine their ports and harbors (except Laos, which is landlocked). If they still refused, we'd bomb them into submission.

sanctions that only your country would acknowledge so it doesn't really affect anyone else especially as your economy has gone down the crapper as none of your primary sectors can compete with exports as you have no tarrifs putting you with an even bigger defecit

They're not strategically important, though; the canal, however, is.

And the relevance of this point to the underlying principle is what, exactly?

Aside from which, I think a couple of European countries would actual consider having sovereign rights over pockets of land inside the rest of the USA somewhat strategically important, no?

sanctions that only your country would acknowledge so it doesn't really affect anyone else especially as your economy has gone down the crapper as none of your primary sectors can compete with exports as you have no tarrifs putting you with an even bigger defecit

Hey. Sanctions worked in Cuba.

Hey. Sanctions worked in Cuba.

which is of course why Castro is still in charge :p

Hey. Sanctions worked in Cuba.

but what if the:
"1.Get us out of the UN, NAFTA, the WTO, NATO, and all other entangling alliances"
and cuba isn't as bad off as it first appears, aswel as the sanctions arn't the only factor putting cuba in trouble

which is of course why Castro is still in charge :p

My point exactly. Thus the italics.

People opposed to the US would rather eat stray dogs than bow down.

My point exactly. Thus the italics.

missed that my bad

Aside from which, I think a couple of European countries would actual consider having sovereign rights over pockets of land inside the rest of the USA somewhat strategically important, no?

Indeed. By his logic, the various parts of the US should be returned to the European nations they first belonged to. After all, they're "ours". :p So be a nice chap, disband the US, and revert to being a set of European colonies.

Or we'll nuke you into submission. :D

Indeed. By his logic, the various parts of the US should be returned to the European nations they first belonged to.

...and thence back to the aborigines.

You would never be able to reclaim the Panama Canal w/o doing serious harm to the US economy.

I imagine that if the US put trade sanctions on Panama as a means of pressuring the Panamanian government to return the canal to US hands, the consuquence would be denying US ships the use of the canal.

The US would have no other alternative than escalating the conflict as pr. R-Bs description and use armed force.

I have no doubt that the US military would win souch a conflict.

I am also without doubt that the international community would impose trade sanctions on the US, until such a time that the canal was returned and compensation paid.

Even with the non-interferrence/isolationist policy set forward in R-Bs party program, the US would still be involved in world trade (also according to one of R-Bs earlier posts).

I think we can all agree that without global trade, the US would be f*****.

...and thence back to the aborigines.

The Native Americans. Yes, I know that. I was just trying to show the absurdity of his peculiar brand of logic.

Oh, and btw, R-B, we want the Statue of Liberty back. We built it. It's ours. :p

Why, are you a worshipper of big government?
What part of "I won't even get started" do you not understand?