*Stop fighting every country America is at war with now, and fight only indisputably defensive wars.

Socialism , welfare and mandatory indoctrination compliment the warring state. This gives much more money to the state while making folk like their government more (unless they're conscious of the extortition and imprisonment going on). Bombings will continue , and invasions will go on.

Economy isn't as important, I'll leave that up to some economic ministers who know that better than I do. But most importantly, to stop the evils that are bloodspills and nationalism (by the way, Libertarians are headed by a nationalist).

Edited 4/15/2016 03:22:11

Except giving the government more power will just ensure more bloodshed and nationalism. These folk want to make higher education free, and will probably move onto making it compulsory and government done after that. They support big militaries (Falcon) and Anti-freedom organizations like the FBI (Chuck Norris). Combine that with them wanting complete control of the economy via corporatism and socialism, and you have a perfect storm of invasions and bombings.

It would depend on the situation - but the same problems are with capitalism: your successor won't be as kind as you.

Well, who says we should have a successor? Deconstructing the state ought to put a end to this non-sense. Also, there's a difference between harming a tyrants abilities before he comes into power and amplifying his abilities before he comes into power.

I write-in Team Guns.

this has fallen apart so i leave the socialist party

Critique:
*Why all of them? Why abandon Israel?
*Clarification needed (Already a constitutional right).
*Seems like a massive extreme.
*Sure.
*I agree with NSA, but why FBI and CIA?
*Open borders to Canada but not Mexico (yet). Once Mexico's drug issue is solved (once they legalize drugs), then I would be for opening all borders.
*Yes.
*Sure.
*sure.
*Sure. Just make sure that labeling won't give off the false idea that the GMOs are bad.
*Get rid of all loopholes. Period.
*Yes.
*Should be lowered, but quite extreme.
*Yes.
*Sure.
*Yes.
*Yes.

*America should stop supporting all Middle Eastern and other governments, and possibly put sanctions on some.

*Why all of them? Why abandon Israel?

Israel is a theocratic militarist country (surrounded by the like), who has been doing uncurbed warfare upon the Palestine (who also were not little cherubs; don't support them, either).

*Everyone earns the right to a fair hearing in crime.

*Clarification needed (Already a constitutional right).

As it stands now, not everyone gets these constitutional rights - for example, anyone that the government "suspects" is a terrorist.

*Lower military spending by 100%.

*Seems like a massive extreme.

It's been "massively extremely" overfunded for years. They don't need any more funds for a long while. If their money starts getting low, sell a few tanks to Britain.

*End the NSA, FBI, and CIA, and like agencies spying upon their denizens.

*I agree with NSA, but why FBI and CIA?

They're all the same - to the point where I don't really know why they bother to have different agencies. I guess the CIA is a more gendarmy organisation, but that's the only difference I can think of - all they deploy fighter units in foreign and home lands, all they spy on foreign folk, all they spy on home folk.

*Uncap immigration, end the concept of work visas (everyone can work), and open national borders to all. End the concept of illegal immigrant - all immigrants are legal. Turn denizenship to mostly a nominal thing.

*Open borders to Canada but not Mexico (yet). Once Mexico's drug issue is solved (once they legalize drugs), then I would be for opening all borders.

I don't see what Mexico's drug laws have to do with it. It'd be helping Mexico out, for sure, if drug dealers could just go to America and legally sell drugs, and settle disputes in the legal system, not in the gunfire system. By the way, the borders to Canada are closed? I don't know why America would do that, be afraid of richer, more taught (I think Canada has one of the highest proportions of its population who are university-taught), mostly English folk? I think it's Canada who is in charge of the border there, not America.

*Mandate GMOs to be labelled as such.

*Sure. Just make sure that labeling won't give off the false idea that the GMOs are bad.

It's foolish to say GMOs are a safe gift from God, as it is to say that they are Satan's spew. There are good things that GMOs do that conventional food can't, but there are also bad things there that conventional food doesn't have.

However, in my opinion, just mandating that it would be decently-visibly seen, some label like "Note: This food comes from a genetically modified organism (GMO). Eat at your own risk.".

*Install progressive income tax, where everyone is taxed at one rate, and end any tax-evasion loopholes, aside from moving headquarters.

*Get rid of all loopholes. Period.

Yeah, I agree, rid all loopholes, but that takes some legal effort. What I mean to say, though, is to concentrate on tax-evasion loopholes.

*Put foreign help spending as much as military spending.

*Should be lowered, but quite extreme.

I don't get what you're saying. I am for putting both at 0%.

Israel is a theocratic militarist country (surrounded by the like), who has been doing uncurbed warfare upon the Palestine (who also were not little cherubs; don't support them, either).
Who will mediate diplomatic issues between them?

As it stands now, not everyone gets these constitutional rights - for example, anyone that the government "suspects" is a terrorist.
Ok. Great idea.

They're all the same - to the point where I don't really know why they bother to have different agencies. I guess the CIA is a more gendarmy organisation, but that's the only difference I can think of - all they deploy fighter units in foreign and home lands, all they spy on foreign folk, all they spy on home folk.
The FBI is a law enforcement organization that was designed to track down and arrest the crooks that local cops can't. The CIA is an intelligence agency that was designed to tell policy-makers what's really going on in the world. One measures its accomplishment by successful convictions, the other by successful predictions. Both use intelligence to do their jobs, but catching the kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby and determining whether Gen. Badenov still has influence with Khrushchev are two very different goals. And because the work is so different, the two agencies differ in how they collect, analyze, act upon, and share intelligence (full article at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2002/10/spooks_vs_suits.html). Also, who will hinder international terrorists abroad? Who will stop criminals that cops cannot catch (modern-day Al Capone)?

I don't see what Mexico's drug laws have to do with it. It'd be helping Mexico out, for sure, if drug dealers could just go to America and legally sell drugs, and settle disputes in the legal system, not in the gunfire system. By the way, the borders to Canada are closed? I don't know why America would do that, be afraid of richer, more taught (I think Canada has one of the highest proportions of its population who are university-taught), mostly English folk? I think it's Canada who is in charge of the border there, not America.
The Mexican War on Drugs led to drug cartels going into the US and many people wanting to go to the United States. With Canada- remove all paperwork like the EU's Schengen Area.

It's foolish to say GMOs are a safe gift from God, as it is to say that they are Satan's spew. There are good things that GMOs do that conventional food can't, but there are also bad things there that conventional food doesn't have.

However, in my opinion, just mandating that it would be decently-visibly seen, some label like "Note: This food comes from a genetically modified organism (GMO). Eat at your own risk.".

Good idea, except for the "Eat at your own risk." It seems to give off the idea that GMOs are confirmed to be bad, when they have not been.

Yeah, I agree, rid all loopholes, but that takes some legal effort. What I mean to say, though, is to concentrate on tax-evasion loopholes.

What will stop most corporations from moving their headquarters overseas? That was what I was getting at.

I don't get what you're saying. I am for putting both at 0%.

It is quite extreme to entirely get rid of foreign aid.

Who will mediate diplomatic issues between them?

America isn't doing anything like "mediation" now. As far as I know, I think there's just been a stalemate with slow Israeli gains and a few breakouts since the 1980s between Palestine and Israel.

Let the UN do its job.

The FBI is a law enforcement organization that was designed to track down and arrest the crooks that local cops can't. The CIA is an intelligence agency that was designed to tell policy-makers what's really going on in the world.

That's not really what they do now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFnjb9Lyr8

Also, who will hinder international terrorists abroad? Who will stop criminals that cops cannot catch (modern-day Al Capone)?

Interpol and national police, that's their job, not the FBI's or CIA's, which is mainly spying.

The Mexican War on Drugs led to drug cartels going into the US and many people wanting to go to the United States.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

With Canada- remove all paperwork like the EU's Schengen Area.

Only if Canada agrees.

Good idea, except for the "Eat at your own risk." It seems to give off the idea that GMOs are confirmed to be bad, when they have not been.

There's no scientific grounds that they wouldn't be, just since there have been no definite ties found between GMOs and general allergies doesn't mean there won't be. See these pages for more information.

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Health-Wire/GMO-foods-positives-negatives/2015/06/10/id/649812/

I'm a fan of GMOs, but it's important to realise the bad side. There are risks.

What will stop most corporations from moving their headquarters overseas? That was what I was getting at.

What's stopping them now? It's always going to be a potential problem, and a competition of where is the best site to run a business, and America hopefully will be a good one.

It is quite extreme to entirely get rid of foreign aid.

Military and foreign help spending wouldn't always be 0. A few year scores later, both can be put at 1k million $ (0.2% of now military spending, 3% of now foreign help spending). Also, foreign help spending should not be given to governments, but non-government humanitarian organisations, like Doctors Without Borders.

Let the UN do its job.

The UN has been bad at its job at times.

Interpol and national police, that's their job, not the FBI's or CIA's, which is mainly spying.

Interpol has been controversial at times and the national police is not as strong and will not be able to catch as many terrorists as possible.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Drug cartels have hindered progress in the War on Drugs and the instability in Mexico has caused uncontrollable immigration. We need control of the situation.

There's no scientific grounds that they wouldn't be, just since there have been no definite ties found between GMOs and general allergies doesn't mean there won't be. See these pages for more information.

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Health-Wire/GMO-foods-positives-negatives/2015/06/10/id/649812/

I'm a fan of GMOs, but it's important to realise the bad side. There are risks.

All I'm asking for is an unbiased statement (or very close to one).

What's stopping them now? It's always going to be a potential problem, and a competition of where is the best site to run a business, and America hopefully will be a good one.

Fair point. Maybe tax puppet businesses in US but leave shell corporations alone (if multinational is not based in US)?

Military and foreign help spending wouldn't always be 0. A few year scores later, both can be put at 1k million $ (0.2% of now military spending, 3% of now foreign help spending). Also, foreign help spending should not be given to governments, but non-government humanitarian organisations, like Doctors Without Borders.

How will the military survive? Their only source of funds is through the budget. I do not think they have their own monetary reserve.
I do agree that humanitarian funds should be given to non-government humanitarian organizations.

The UN has been bad at its job at times.

America has been far worse. At any rate, America's not wanted, and it's not America's job.

Interpol has been controversial at times and the national police is not as strong and will not be able to catch as many terrorists as possible.

It's the same with the FBI and CIA, except they're more powerful and hurt more folk.

All I'm asking for is an unbiased statement (or very close to one).

The thing being sold is not going to be unbiased, it's obviously going to (try to) make the buyer buy it. However, saying "GMO: Eat at your own risk" seems pretty unbiased to me. You can suggest something else.

How will the military survive? Their only source of funds is through the budget. I do not think they have their own monetary reserve.

I think they do have their own bank, but even if they don't, they can live on selling all the too much equipment they have. They can hire less soldiers, since that's the main thing that drains their funds, I think: paying incomes.

Edited 4/16/2016 23:52:09

Well, they have millions of small arms. They could sell plenty.


The FBI was formed to spy on folk who were against the directors beliefs, and it has done many bad things. It tried to get MLK to stop being a activist and it helped actively spied on reds who were only being reds. The CIA is mostly used for foreign aggression and has tortured and done experiments on Americans. Get rid of it.

Also why do you care about assault rifles? Few folk use them in killings, if you actually wanted to curb violence you would go after handguns. Or if you actually wanted to go after violence, you'd legalize drugs, kill regulations on businesses , and get rid of the minimum wage so young folk in poor places could get jobs at factories and businesses.

I think they do have their own bank, but even if they don't, they can live on selling all the too much equipment they have. They can hire less soldiers, since that's the main thing that drains their funds, I think: paying incomes.
Um... Iran-Contra Scandal?

if you actually wanted to curb violence you would go after handguns.
Any suggestiosn so that I don't get butchered by the right-wingers?

Or if you actually wanted to go after violence, you'd legalize drugs
Already for that.

kill regulations on businesses
Not always the best idea. Businesses will sometimes make unethical moves, especially with asbestos.

and get rid of the minimum wage so young folk in poor places could get jobs at factories and businesses.
That's just begging for a socialist revolution.
Also, cost of living is growing, so removing the minimum wage is a step backwards.

The cost of living is growing, so let's make it where folk don't get jobs and we give them money and make them dependent on the government , while inflating the money and making their money worth less while interfering in the economy and creating monopolies that drive up prices and keep wages down. The only thing that's a step backwards is more government attacks on the economy.

Um... Iran-Contra Scandal?

I wouldn't mind selling guns to Iran. Just since America targets it as a foe doesn't mean it is one, at all. It's a Shia country bullied by pretty much all the countries west of it, it's not particularly strong in any way.

But first, sell to the really powerless countries. Hey, Luxemburg, I heard you wanted to strenghten your military forces. How about we sell you a tank for every Luxemburger?

And yeah, sell small arms.

I doubt unarmed college folk could carry out a socialist revolution when their main selling point is taking lots of your money and giving back a little. It would probably be out down by patriot groups rather quickly.