Repeal Roe v. Wade and ban abortion at the federal level, but permit state legislatures to individually pass bills to legalize abortions in cases of incest, rape, or other similar incidents

I definitely disagree here, why would you put this on the compromise? And furthermore...do you not even allow abortion in cases of rape?

Most everyone allows abortion at some level, Chile being the biggest country that bans abortions at all levels (including even if the mother is near-100% likeliness to die from birthing). Most countries that are thought to be "hardline" on abortion like Indonesia and Pakistan usually allow abortions in case of high hazard of scarring the mother.

5a. Cut Military spending by 80%

Did you put it to 80% just to spite me? Two can play at this game, I want military spending down by 120%. That's right, military forces now have to pay the government.

5b. Laws restricting religious practice such as prayer in schools

Y'know, I'm not well-known in this, but I don't think that's really restricted, you're overstating it. I mean, this is America, where churches get special tax exemptions, where they tried to put creationism in schools...I doubt folk are barred from praying in schools.

Unreasonable copyright laws; Perhaps limit copyright protection to 8 years

Frankly, it would be best to rid the idea of "intellectual stuff" altogether, but there needs to be an internationally united deed on that, so just greatly weaken copyright and trademark laws.

Laws restricting school choice

Mackarels, America has this, too? They still do this in China, and did it in the Soviet Union, to encourage building local centres of intellectualism, and to make the whole country geographically not in lack of smart folk. But Gorbachöv ended that un-free policy, now folk can go where they want to.

2. Repeal Roe v. Wade and ban abortion at the federal level, but permit state legislatures to individually pass bills to legalize abortions in cases of incest, rape, or other similar incidents.

I think State would be better here.

3a. Department of education
3b. Environmental protection agency
3d. Food and drug administration
3f. Healthcare

3a. ALL Departments of Education should be shifted to the local level. I am taking the PSSA (Pennsylvania System of State Assessments) and it is awful, and it is like a big business of collecting money through suspected cheating and taxes.

3b. EPA kills small businesses, shift this to the state level, or be innovative and come up with filters or something to reduce environmental impact.

3d. People have a right to know what is in their food, but the FDA & USDA are so corrupt that their power should be limited, and I think all GMOs need to be labeled, so the best way to enforce this is through government. I say keep it just for simplicity.

3f. No real opinion here, I'm healthy :P

ALL Departments of Education should be shifted to the local level. I am taking the PSSA (Pennsylvania System of State Assessments) and it is awful, and it is like a big business of collecting money through suspected cheating and taxes.

Local teaching is just as corruptible. A direction is needed, federal accredation, so that even if you do school in Bee, American Samoa, you still get accreditation, not just live the list of your life in Bee, American Samoa.

Y'know, I'm not well-known in this, but I don't think that's really restricted, you're overstating it. I mean, this is America, where churches get special tax exemptions, where they tried to put creationism in schools...I doubt folk are barred from praying in schools.

This actually is a hot-button issue in america, as there have been numerous court rulings outright banning prayer in schools.

I definitely disagree here, why would you put this on the compromise? And furthermore...do you not even allow abortion in cases of rape?

Most everyone allows abortion at some level, Chile being the biggest country that bans abortions at all levels (including even if the mother is near-100% likeliness to die from birthing). Most countries that are thought to be "hardline" on abortion like Indonesia and Pakistan usually allow abortions in case of high hazard of scarring the mother.

There are three differentiating opinions within our party on this one issue, so there obviously needs to be some sort of compromise.

I did specifically put in:

permit state legislatures to individually pass bills to legalize abortions in cases of incest, rape, or other similar incidents

Perhaps you're not too familiar with how government works here in the US, but basically everything is done at the state level. A federal ban doesn't mean much since the federal government isn't actually going to be performing any abortions, it will be all done by either private companies or state governments.

I'm proposing the following position instead:

2. Repeal Roe v. Wade and ban abortion at the federal level except for cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mothers life and permit state legislatures to individually pass bills to legalize abortions in other specified cases

I'll amend the platform to specify danger to the mothers life as well.

Mackarels, America has this, too? They still do this in China, and did it in the Soviet Union, to encourage building local centres of intellectualism, and to make the whole country geographically not in lack of smart folk. But Gorbachöv ended that un-free policy, now folk can go where they want to.

Perhaps this item was poorly worded.

What I am referring to here is what are essentially restrictions on homeschooling in some states. For instance, california and virginia require that you be a teacher to homeschool your children.

Did you put it to 80% just to spite me? Two can play at this game, I want military spending down by 120%. That's right, military forces now have to pay the government.

I wasn't comfortable with the 95% number since that would have put our budget down to 29 billion dollars annually, or just ahead of Brazil. A budget only 20% of our current size leaves us second in the world with 120 billion dollars annually, behind only china with 145 biollion dollars annually.

Edited 4/12/2016 22:20:06

Good get it as low as possible, raise paying for the debt and decrease taxes.

There are three differentiating opinions within our party on this one issue, so there obviously needs to be some sort of compromise.

Well, I definitely don't accept this compromise. How about let's do it like Britain and make it legal everywhere, but as long as one of these settings are fulfilled.
*Mother's health is in hazard.
*Mother's not all there, mentally.
*Mother's raped.
*Baby will be greatly deformed physically or mentally.
*Mother doesn't have much money/income, and can't take care of the baby to social-economic grounds.

2. Repeal Roe v. Wade and ban abortion at the federal level except for cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mothers life and permit state legislatures to individually pass bills to legalize abortions in other specified cases

I've hardly an idea what this means, but I'm not really for confederacy. I believe in national stands on things. For example, in America, cannibis legalisation is allowed in some states. Those states that legalised cannibis are just hated by their neighbours, their neighbours have to spend money on more drug patrols as it's easier to get drugs from a neighbour state, and the state that legalised drugs also has to do some regulation stuff and it's a mess. This specific mess wouldn't happen if the stand on cannibis was united.

What I am referring to here is what are essentially restrictions on homeschooling in some states. For instance, california and virginia require that you be a teacher to homeschool your children.

Oh, that actually sounds like a good enough idea to me (maybe I don't know the whole tale, though). Why should the parent be dumb and ruin a child's learning since they think they can teach?

I wasn't comfortable with the 95% number since that would have put our budget down to 29 billion dollars annually, or just ahead of Brazil. A budget only 20% of our current size leaves us second in the world with 120 billion dollars annually, behind only china with 145 biollion dollars annually.

America doesn't need to be number 1 or 2. America needs to be about number 80 on military spending, what's it going to use it on? It's already too big, and it's not like it's going to shrink, so cutting funding all together until it actually needs money sounds like the good idea here, or maybe just cutting funding by over 100%.

Well, I definitely don't accept this compromise. How about let's do it like Britain and make it legal everywhere, but as long as one of these settings are fulfilled.

I've included this to give credence to MGSB's opinion, that the issue should be left to the states. As I've already said, there aren't just Pro-life and Pro-abortion camps in our party, but also a third party who wishes it to be left to the states. Thus, the compromise breaks down like this:

Pro-Life: Abortions for just any old reason are banned by default
Pro-Abortion: Abortions are legal under a specific set of rules
Pro-States Rights: States can give more or less lenience to abortions

This is the perfect compromise IMO, and cutting out the states rights side of the argument (which is basically what you're proposing, forcing states to have abortion even if their legislatures have banned it) is just unnecessary.

I've hardly an idea what this means, but I'm not really for confederacy. I believe in national stands on things. For example, in America, cannibis legalisation is allowed in some states. Those states that legalised cannibis are just hated by their neighbours, their neighbours have to spend money on more drug patrols as it's easier to get drugs from a neighbour state, and the state that legalised drugs also has to do some regulation stuff and it's a mess. This specific mess wouldn't happen if the stand on cannibis was united.

Sorry, I forget that not everyone is an american sometimes. So here is some background:

In the United states, there is a court called the supreme court. Early on in the countries history, they gave themselves the power to make anything legal or illegal at any time for any reason. Remember how I said they gave themselves the power? It isn't in our constitution, they literally ruled that they had this power. They've used it to legalize any number of terrible things ranging from Jim Crow laws, Abortion, and Gay marriage most recently.

So anyway, given this, in the 1970s, using this power they gave themselves, they ruled that it was a violation of privacy laws (???) to deny women abortion. You can read some more about the case here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

As for your stand on our american federation, This is america, and you will not be caught dead saying that there should be no states. Period.

Oh, that actually sounds like a good enough idea to me (maybe I don't know the whole tale, though). Why should the parent be dumb and ruin a child's learning since they think they can teach?

The whole tale is, most publicly educated americans (I'm sure you've met some online, even if you're not an american) are not very bright.

America doesn't need to be number 1 or 2. America needs to be about number 80 on military spending, what's it going to use it on? It's already too big, and it's not like it's going to shrink, so cutting funding all together until it actually needs money sounds like the good idea here, or maybe just cutting funding by over 100%.

A governments only duty is to protect it's people by preserving their liberty. This includes their liberty from foreign oppression. America is the third most populous country in the world, so we at least need to be number three, and given some of the other top countries like China and Russia are pretty hostile towards us at times, we need even more than that.

Better to spend money on the military (defending people) than welfare state.

I've included this to give credence to MGSB's opinion, that the issue should be left to the states. As I've already said, there aren't just Pro-life and Pro-abortion camps in our party, but also a third party who wishes it to be left to the states. Thus, the compromise breaks down like this:

Pro-Life: Abortions for just any old reason are banned by default
Pro-Abortion: Abortions are legal under a specific set of rules
Pro-States Rights: States can give more or less lenience to abortions

Well, democracy is democracy, I get my opinion isn't the most popular.

This is the perfect compromise IMO, and cutting out the states rights side of the argument (which is basically what you're proposing, forcing states to have abortion even if their legislatures have banned it) is just unnecessary.

If we're going to do confederation, then it should be done in equally sized grounds. There's no need for, y'know, each fellow in Saipanland (population: 54k), to have 711x more of a choice than California (population: 38,333k) on some pick. Confederation, with the system it is at for now, is not the way to do things in my opinion.

As for your stand on our american federation, This is america, and you will not be caught dead saying that there should be no states. Period.

Federation, this means that the main government controls national matters, things that it really needs to be united on, while on everything else, the subgovernments can control. Confederation means that subgovernments have the ultimate say, not supergovernment. So keep true to the name of federation.

The whole tale is, most publicly educated americans (I'm sure you've met some online, even if you're not an american) are not very bright.

Relatively? Eh. I hear it all the time, Americans are the dumbest and most patriotic folk, but it really doesn't seem that way, it's just a matter of who they interact with, who say these things. In Pilipinas, 4% can't read. 28% India's population can't read. In Nigeria, 41% can't. In the newest international test of the kind, the PISA 2012, America did better in all categories than Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, and several others. I'd say the average American and Russian are just as patriotic and smart.

A governments only duty is to protect it's people by preserving their liberty. This includes their liberty from foreign oppression. America is the third most populous country in the world, so we at least need to be number three, and given some of the other top countries like China and Russia are pretty hostile towards us at times, we need even more than that.

I agree that a government needs to shield it's folk, however, China is not being aggressive, nor is Russia, to America, anyway. China's profiting loads off of American debt-building, and has no interest in invading America, but American military ships in the South China Sea and in the general zone appear way more often then Chinese military ships in Samoa.

At any rate, the American military forces have been way overfunded for a very long time, perhaps more than 100 years. I don't say to disband, just that they've probably got loads of money in the military keep, and when that runs out, then they can start selling all this useless tank stuff, and if it's really really needed, then build some ground and air defence systems.

Doing it by population is not an axiomatically good idea. Can you imagine if India did that? And they actually have more of a trigger to, they are pretty hostile with Pakistan, a nuclear power. That's just arbitrary grounding. America needs enough military forces, and right now, it's way-more than enough, it doesn't need any funding for a while.

Better to spend money on the military (defending people) than welfare state.

No, it's better not to fund filth that, at best, violates politic sovereignty, and at worst, wants to kill innocent folk for the selfish geopolitic and corporate wants of politican scum (and you want to make this policy, to kill innocent folk). I'd take Canadian government over an American one any day. Though both are bad, liberalism is way better than conservatism. Problems with liberalism mean that folk can buy less things, and are given things they don't want but can't sell, and folk can't earn money as well. But these are all economic problems. Problems with conservatism is supporting killing mechanisms that end up taking away folk's lives. I'd take the problems of liberalism any day over that.

Edited 4/13/2016 03:17:06

The welfare state and military state goes hand in hand. The German empire, the first welfare state, was arguably the most militaristic country of its time. They used public education to indoctrinate children to make them well working laborers and soldiers. The US is following it it's footsteps here.

If we're going to do confederation, then it should be done in equally sized grounds. There's no need for, y'know, each fellow in Saipanland (population: 54k), to have 711x more of a choice than California (population: 38,333k) on some pick. Confederation, with the system it is at for now, is not the way to do things in my opinion.

I'm not sure you understand the american system of government.

Yes, there is a senate that has equal representation where each state sends two senators, but you also have a house of representatives, which does have proportional represention, ie california sends 53 representatives, while wyoming only sends 3.

You need an equal house on one hand to protect small states from being steamrolled in every decision by larger states for no reason other than that less people live in them, but on the other hand you need a proportional house so that people aren't penalized too much for living in large states. The united states has both, each with it's own unique powers, to ensure that democracy does not do a severe injustice to people who choose to live in smaller states.

Yes, there is a senate that has equal representation where each state sends two senators, but you also have a house of representatives, which does have proportional represention, ie california sends 53 representatives, while wyoming only sends 3.

You need an equal house on one hand to protect small states from being steamrolled in every decision by larger states for no reason other than that less people live in them, but on the other hand you need a proportional house so that people aren't penalized too much for living in large states. The united states has both, each with it's own unique powers, to ensure that democracy does not do a severe injustice to people who choose to live in smaller states.

Well, that's dumb. Rid the Senate, it doesn't matter if small states are steamrolled, since that's how democracy votes - the minority is "steamrolled". It's not a perk, but that's democracy, anything else is not. You can put in measures to make the majority have to be categoric, so that there's as little as a minority, but the thing is, folk in the minority in California will be steamrolled, much less so than in Saipanland.

Or just reorganise the states every few years like France does to make sure that the populations are roughly the same, that'd be a better answer, though I still don't like the idea of confederacy on issues that need to have an united stand.

Edited 4/13/2016 04:06:08

Heck no, the harder it is for the government to impose new laws on a wide scale the better. Remove as much badness as possible and then make it hard to add more.

We're assuming the government is good, we don't want to scar it from working, even though pragmatically, it'd probably be better than as is (but pragmatically, we won't be ruling the country).

You don't scar the government, just wait and you'll have folk wanting freedom killing anti-poor social programs for the "greater good".

I don't get what you're saying.

Governments with the ability to get stronger will get stronger. If you don't break it, it will get even more powerful banking off of free market success.

I am not adding any sort of reorganization of the states into our platform. Nondemocratic structures like the senate, the electoral college, and the filibuster serve to disrupt democracy, which is the groundwork of american freedom. If democracy existed, Government would be uncompetitive, and minorities would be left to the wolves that are the majority.

Edited 4/13/2016 04:25:01

Governments with the ability to get stronger will get stronger. If you don't break it, it will get even more powerful banking off of free market success.

Governments will always have the knack to get stronger.

I am not adding any sort of reorganization of the states into our platform. Nondemocratic structures like the senate, the electoral college, and the filibuster serve to disrupt democracy, which is the groundwork of american freedom. If democracy existed, Government would be uncompetitive, and minorities would be left to the wolves that are the majority.

Ok, first of all, why not reorganise the states? It would greatly help out with the problem. Second, yeah, poor demography and substitutes for it is the founding of American freedom? No, it's just a substitute for poor demography, a problem more or less answered today. If democracy existed, that means that everyone gets a say and it agrees with the biggest amount of folk (majority). What you're supporting is a system where some folk are more equal than others and get some kind of limited say (that is part of the grounds why there are no third groups in America), and the majority is left to the wolves that are the minority.

It just makes no sense. I like the system of autocratic dictatorships, I think they're unfairly put off without proper debate, but you ought not be somewhere in the middle between dictatorship between democracy - you bring out the worst of two worlds, not the best, two opposing systems, I don't know how to word it better in English.

Ok, first of all, why not reorganise the states? It would greatly help out with the problem. Second, yeah, poor demography and substitutes for it is the founding of American freedom? No, it's just a substitute for poor demography, a problem more or less answered today. If democracy existed, that means that everyone gets a say and it agrees with the biggest amount of folk (majority). What you're supporting is a system where some folk are more equal than others and get some kind of limited say (that is part of the grounds why there are no third groups in America), and the majority is left to the wolves that are the minority.

It just makes no sense. I like the system of autocratic dictatorships, I think they're unfairly put off without proper debate, but you ought not be somewhere in the middle between dictatorship between democracy - you bring out the worst of two worlds, not the best, two opposing systems, I don't know how to word it better in English.

I'm not sure what "Problem" You're referring to. I don't see any problem with the american system of government, therefore arbitrarily reorganizing the states seems like a waste of time and resources.

There is nothing to be said about "Poor demography". People have the freedom to live where they choose, and that is a freedom that must be maintained.

If democracy existed, everyone does not get a say. People who form a majority get a say, and nobody else. If you are part of a majority, your opinion will always be heard, and if you are a part of a minority, your opinion will never be heard. Relying on majorities is a poor way to govern, and it's frankly just ethically unjustifiable.

A dictatorship is Pretty much the same, just swap the words "Majority" and "Minority". However, it is essentially worse than a democracy since it is impossible to advance politically, even if you do gather majority support from the populace.

American republicanism essentially gives any person a chance to be in power if they can come up with a coherent strategy to do so, rather than only giving government positions to people who can appeal to majorities. For example, by appealing to just the right people, it is possible to become president with only something like 20% of the vote nationwide. See this for reference:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/qy9JN

On the flipside, if you have majority support from the general population, it's fairly easy to use this to your advantage to get into government. This means that you can end up with minority and majority governments, and that is more fair and moral than either a majority or a minority having all the say.

Edited 4/13/2016 05:13:58