Would you vote for this platform?

[Farnan]

Here is a political platform I came up with on my own.

Foreign Policy:

1. Will support fledging democracies with low or no interest loans or military assisstance in the form of advisors if requested.

2. Will finicially and politically support peaceful pro-democratic parties in non-democratic nations.

3. Will finicially and politically support non-peaceful pro-democratic parties in nations where the non-democratic government is deemed moderately - highly tyrannical as long as the pro-democratic parties do not engage in targeting civilians.

4. Will militarily support non-peaceful pro-democratic parties that do not target civilians if the situation is considered extremely-highly tyrannical (a nation with civil rights equal to or less than Nazi Germany, Maoist China, or Stalin's Soviet Union), if possible (Geo-political situations will be considered, such as the case with North Korea that has a nuke, and artillery targeted at Seoul).

5. Will work to reform the UN and work with them when possible.

6. Will try to strengthen NATO bonds.

7. Will work to convince China to liberalize its government.

8. Will use extreme political pressure and the threat/use of military force to prevent genocides such as Rwanda, Darfur, and the Holocaust.

9. Will use surplus grain bought from farmers after ending the Agriculture Adjustment Act (see below) as foreign aid to nations with food shortages.

10. Will rebuild SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation).

Defense

1. Will move towards an efficent military based on force projection and not Cold War tactics.

2. Will keep defense spending around the same amount unless situations dictate an increase.

3. Will send efficency experts to the DOD who will look for and try to cut frivial spending, though they will not be allowed to make any decisions related to equipment used by frontline soldiers, or transportation equipment. The SOD can veto any suggestions, though the president can overrule that veto.

Illegal Immigration

1. One of the most controversial ideas I have: form an American Foreign Legion. Any caught illegal immigrants have the choice of joining the AFL and earning US citizenship after 7 years of serving or be sent home. The AFL will pay around the same amount as the regular army.

2. Use the National Guard to increase border security.

Welfare

1. Increase funding to Job Training schools, and demand those on Welfare attend such schools.

2. Move funds not used for Job Training schools, to private charities where they would use the money to help the poor. There will be some federal oversite over these private charities to make sure the funds are spent right.

Agriculture

1. End the Agriculture Adjustment Act

Education

1. End classical standardised training and replace it with pre and post tests, the pretest in 9th grade, and the post in 12th grade. The school will be judged based upon the improvent of the students.

Illegal Drugs

1. Compare research and if it proves that Marijuana is equal to or less dangerous than tobacco, legalise it and use the money gained to fund fights against harder drugs.

Civil Rights

1. Will pressure universities and colleges that accept Federal funds to end Affirmative Action based on race, instead base it upon economic situation of applicant.

2. Will support Gay and Lesbian Civil Unions with the same rights as marriage, just not the name (compromise position in a way, Gays and Lesbians get the ability to do everything a married couple can, but not the name so the "sancitity of marriage" is preserved (not like the rampant divorce has already destroyed it ) .)

That's about it, what do you think? (If you're not American, ignore the American-specific ones)

Note: I didn't and won't vote in the poll, since my answer is obvious.

[Libertine]

before i vote, i would be intrested to know about your stance on the teaching of the Theory of Creativity as a viable alternative to Darwinian Evolution in American schools....

[Justinian]

What do you call this party? I like the idea of an American Foreign Legion.

You didn't cover civil rights, by the way..

[bdh]

before i vote, i would be intrested to know about your stance on the teaching of the Theory of Creativity as a viable alternative to Darwinian Evolution in American schools....

Curriculum is state issue and his proposals are largely for the national government. Even if he did support one or the other its not like he could affect any change unless he established a platform for state governments, but I don't think thats his priority.

[Libertine]

Oh right...forgive me my ignorance...im English

[bdh]

Oh right...forgive me my ignorance...im English

I won't hold it against you....
America is boggling enough as it is for its own citizens!
Federalism...wuh? Took me years to get that one down :laughing:

[over-man]

before i vote, i would be intrested to know about your stance on the teaching of the Theory of Creativity as a viable alternative to Darwinian Evolution in American schools....

Theory of Creativity....hahahaha... it is a creative theory..

[Farnan]

I'll put the civil rights part up now...

[Justinian]

Hm... the second part of Civil Rights is not quite what I would expect from you, Farnan. I think I would vote for your platform.

The idea of an AFL seems to be the most interesting, so I'll address that.

What do you do if the immigrants are women or children? What exactly is would the role of the AFL in military be? (What would they be expected to do, et cetera). Lastly, what would you do with illegal immigrants already in the States?

[bdh]

I really suggest that you drop the marriage part. Marriage has always been a state issue. Since the drafting of the constitution, states have retained the right to govern the family. The best thing you can do to widen your support is to focus on the main areas of your concern, national policy, and leave the state issues as open as possible so as to gather stronger support for your founding principles. The only thing that propels marriage into the national debate is the Comity Clause, which forces states to recognize the legal contracts of other states, and you should do your best to avoid that to promote your priorities.

Gotta love political strategy

[Lee1026]

Too militaristic in my view. The military costs way too much as it is. 3% of the GDP!

(Which means that each and every person in the US have to pay 1 198.05 per year for the military. And this doesn't even include Iraq!)

P.S. How the hell is this AFL going to fight when its soliders don't speak english? How the hell are you going to pay for the AFL? The taxes are too damned high already.

[bdh]

Too militaristic in my view. The military costs way too much as it is. 3% of the GDP!

(Which means that each and every person in the US have to pay 1 198.05 per year for the military. And this doesn't even include Iraq!)

P.S. How the hell is this AFL going to fight when its soliders don't speak english? How the hell are you going to pay for the AFL? The taxes are too damned high already.

Well you have to look at where the US is now. American already gives billions of dollars in foreign aid and to pro-democracy groups. Obviously this policy would promote a higher cost, but it would also hope to provide a speedier resolution to the cause that demanded the funding in the first place. Albeit, the idea has its flaws but I can understand where they are coming from.

[Lee1026]

The military don't just cost a few billion dollars - it costs somewhere in the 300 billion range as a conserative estimate. Also, when is the last time those so called "pro democracy groups" have actually shown any results? Giving money to them is the same as flushing it down the toilet.

3. Will finicially and politically support non-peaceful pro-democratic parties in nations where the non-democratic government is deemed moderately - highly tyrannical as long as the pro-democratic parties do not engage in targeting civilians.

You will have a dictator on your hands before you know it. After all, isn't this how bin laden started?

[bdh]

The military don't just cost a few billion dollars - it costs somewhere in the 300 billion range as a conserative estimate. Also, when is the last time those so called "pro democracy groups" have actually shown any results? Giving money to them is the same as flushing it down the toilet.

Well its happening. Who do you think funds the Iranian students movement? Sociological change costs money, and the US is giving it out millions at a time to small organizations and billions at a time to countries. It all began to combat communism. I'll try and get some precise figures.

[Farnan]

Oh ya, BDH, I included marriage since everyone has to have a stance on it, because they will ask it...

[Farnan]

To Justinian: The AFL will be considered, for administrative purposes, a division in the United States Army. All non-junior officers will be US citizens, whether members of the AFL who have served 7 years, or members of the Regular Citizen Army. Women will be able to perform positions within the AFL that women perform in the Regular US Army or perform duty as a daycare worker, and a daycare will be established for soldiers within the AFL. Illegal Immigrants within the US will have the same option as incoming Illegals.

To Lee: AFL members will be taught English, like FFL members are taught French. The money spent on this can come from the money saved by the efficency experts. OBL came from paying a man who supported a religious Jihad against the SU, not democracy.

[Lee1026]

To Lee: AFL members will be taught English, like FFL members are taught French. The money spent on this can come from the money saved by the efficency experts.

I doubt you will have enough money. If my estimates are anywhere near correct, it will cost at least 1 billion to keep 10K men in the field for a year. At current rates, your army will be about 70,0000 men strong which will cost at least 70 billion dollars. In my book, that cost about as much as free telephone, cable and high speed internet for every man, woman and child in the united states. Giving all of that up for a army that will most likely never see combat. And that is just counting the Mexicans flooding into california. All told, you will have at least a few million men in that army, soaking up enough funds to pay for the health care for every person in the united states. All for what? A army that will never see combat.

[bdh]

I doubt you will have enough money. If my estimates are anywhere near correct, it will cost at least 1 billion to keep 10K men in the field for a year. At current rates, your army will be about 70,0000 men strong which will cost at least 70 billion dollars. In my book, that cost about as much as free telephone, cable and high speed internet for every man, woman and child in the united states. Giving all of that up for a army that will most likely never see combat. And that is just counting the Mexicans flooding into california. All told, you will have at least a few million men in that army, soaking up enough funds to pay for the health care for every person in the united states. All for what? A army that will never see combat.

Honestly, the large sum for running an army is way greater than any foreign expenditure, though the 1 billion for 10k seems deflated. If the war in iraq costs 232 billion for 150 thousand troops over about three years, the cost per ten thousand soldiers is 5 billion per year, provided you invade a country like Iraq. Obviously a weaker or more stable country would cheaper though.

[Lee1026]

Well its happening. Who do you think funds the Iranian students movement? Sociological change costs money, and the US is giving it out millions at a time to small organizations and billions at a time to countries. It all began to combat communism. I'll try and get some precise figures.

How much result have we seen from the Iranian student's movement? I will take free wi-fi everywhere in the United States for that kind of money instead. At least then everyone in the US can benefit.

[bdh]

How much result have we seen from the Iranian student's movement? I will take free wi-fi everywhere in the United States for that kind of money instead. At least then everyone in the US can benefit.

Isolationism does have its perks! Arguments like that really make me reconsider interfering in the world at all, especially since ignoring them could solve so many problems at home so easily. The the US citizens already give over 200 billion dollars to foreign charity causes anyway without government help.
http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/...rityholds.html
Its certainly not unreasonable for the US government to leave philanthropy to the citizen so it can work for the citizen.

All policies are very expensive, and every cost has to be considered when forming new ones.

Especially since the price is the bottom line and not what percentage of the army fights...at least thats what I think.