This is mostly ok, but I completely disagree with most of your foreign policy/immigration points, which matter most. So, you will never have my vote.

Economic war works far better than military war. I mean, I can't understand for-war folk. This was was started by bombing folk, helping rebels, and now you want to answer this by bombing folk and helping rebels?

About immigration, well, the point of a government is to help folk, that's it. Who cares about if it's economically good or bad? It helps. And with more competition, mm, that's good, too (it is economically good).

Antigeneven things obviously should not be done, I can't imagine any argument for them.

Abolishing NSA, FBI, CIA, well, these are getting information on you. On other folk. It's the foundation to build a police theode. If you speak out against the government, your internet seller might be cut. If you speak out more, maybe you'll be put in gaol, and if you speak out even more, you'll be killed. I hate that system.

Only disagreed on TPP (because it doesn't address currency manipulation or international trade violation)

You know, I may not have read on the TPP enough, but seems to me like an economic free-trade zone with several countries about the Quiet Ocean. Sounds good to me.

death penalty

You are for ridding death penalty?

healthcare

How would you like it, just for folk to die? Or maybe you want bigger healthcare.

If you wanted to make a reform policy of your own you should have done it before i did

It's not reform, it's remaking.

TL:DR

I read the first 3 stars, and

"* Can a business deny customers based on faith? Absolutely. A business has the right to deny any customer service on any grounds whatsoever. Same with firing it. Anything else is taking away freedoms."

Is very poorly worded. I mean You are saying a business can turn someone away based on anything?! (Hint; think skin color... etc. ) I choose to believe that your intentions were well, but this (and after a quick scan, add other points too) are just not based around what ca actully be taken as the legal and real world consequences.

Is very poorly worded. I mean You are saying a business can turn someone away based on anything?! (Hint; think skin color... etc. )

Yes, there's no illegalising racism. Furthermore, it shouldn't be illegalised. It's stupid, but there's no grounds to illegalise it. And they lose money, when they turn folk away. It's not a good economic policy. Folk will boycott it, and capitalism will, as said, "run the course". Same with firing and work unions (or as work unions should be, they're OP as is).

"Death punishment? Yes, only for folk who have intentionally killed more than 2 folk with undeniable evidence. And not wasting loads of money doing it "humanely" - these are inhumane folk, just shooting them in the head."

ANother logical failure here; so the ones carrying out the execution can only do so once? For the 2nd time they too are subject to DP. What about self-defence? DP for them too? And veterans etc?

ANother logical failure here; so the ones carrying out the execution can only do so once? For the 2nd time they too are subject to DP. What about self-defence? DP for them too? And veterans etc?

who have intentionally illegally killed*

You are for ridding death penalty?

Yes. I'm a hindu. The code of non-violence is the highest ethical code one can follow. I believe foremost in the sanctity of all life. Of the unborn child. Of the murderer. And of the small insect. There's no need to kill criminals when you can lock them up for the rest of their life, which in my opinion is worse than death. Freedom and free will is the essence of man's liberty and prison denies that fundamental right. What can be worse than that?

How would you like it, just for folk to die? Or maybe you want bigger healthcare.

Medicare and Medicaid are illegal. Get the government out of taking care of the sick and near-death. I don't trust the government not to push for euthanasia and "assisted" suicide. Privatize most of it. Get rid of the artificial state lines that prevent competition and don't force healthy young people to buy health insurance to subsidize the elderly.

Жұқтыру, what I am saying is that what you mean, is not what you wrote in your 1st post.

For example your write that "* Syrian refugees: America should accept as many as it can take - no limits, like in Germany. The goal of a government is to help folk. Stop."

But before it sounds like you are against a gov. helping its own citizens?

"* Welfare? Rid it. Too many poor folk who just leech other folks' tax money and use it to buy drugs (since they're addicted). Now, if a person collapses out of hunger, then they can be taken to the clin."
^even assuming you are right about the drug use thing, you write too many poor, implying that you recognize that welfare is helping some folks.

I know it is somewhat picky, considering the wall of text, but the wording is extremely important.

Edited 3/19/2016 02:40:19

Medicare and Medicaid are illegal. Get the government out of taking care of the sick and near-death. I don't trust the government not to push for euthanasia and "assisted" suicide. Privatize most of it. Get rid of the artificial state lines that prevent competition and don't force healthy young people to buy health insurance to subsidize the elderly.

Life-threatening healthcare wouldn't have these problems you're talking about. And you haven't answered my frain.

For example your write that "* Syrian refugees: America should accept as many as it can take - no limits, like in Germany. The goal of a government is to help folk. Stop."

But before it sounds like you are against a gov. helping its own citizens?

"* Welfare? Rid it. Too many poor folk who just leech other folks' tax money and use it to buy drugs (since they're addicted). Now, if a person collapses out of hunger, then they can be taken to the clin."
^even assuming you are right about the drug use thing, you write too many poor, implying that you recognize that welfare is helping some folks.

I know it is somewhat picky, considering the wall of text, but the wording is extremely important.

Yes, I'm for a government helping folk, not for wealth equalisation. I am for the government giving opportunities, not tax money.

Life-threatening healthcare wouldn't have these problems you're talking about.

Yes it would. If patients go into a vegetative state the government may demand they be taken off life-support after a certain time period to save money.

"Yes, I'm for a government helping folk, not for wealth equalisation. I am for the government giving opportunities, not tax money."

This reads as a contradiction to me.

Yes it would. If patients go into a vegetative state the government may demand they be taken off life-support after a certain time period to save money.

Well, frankly, my faith (atheism) says that's ok with me. Furthermore, they of course have the choice of switching to private care in my system, so shouldn't be a problem for you, either.

"Yes, I'm for a government helping folk, not for wealth equalisation. I am for the government giving opportunities, not tax money."

You're probably left. I'm for giving folk emergency healthcare, but otherwise, the government should usually stay out of the market, and let capitalism do its good thing. I'm for letting folk grow and excel, which can not be done if you're taxing everyone to give a few things to only a small population; and if you tax the rich super-hard, their businesses will fail or they will move away. I am for letting someone live in a country with great living settings such as America, but I am not for taking everyone's money to give a few folk something for doing nothing.

i agree with you on most things except:
death penalty:what was thought was indeniable evidence 20 yearsw ago is now turning out ot be not so good, i think it will be the same and you can never be absolutely sure that the person your killing actually comitted the crime, if you go to jail under false conviction you can be released and given money by the government as reparations but with the death penalty you cant do that.
Progressive tax: i think the rich should be taxed a higher percentage, billionaires have more money than they could ever possibly use so why not tax them higher, they arent going to miss the money and the government does need it while the poor are going to miss every cent you take off of them and it doesnt do much for the government
Abolish welfare: welfare is good, without welfare there is an extreme gap between the rich and the poor (even bigger than now) and that doesnt turn out well, just look at russia in 1917 huge revolutions cause most of the population was starving to death while a select few had gold plated mansions
Minimum wage: without the minimum wage the workers will be exploited,companies will just charge 2 cents an hour like they do in china ( im exxagerating a little but its still not good)
guns: guns lead to shootings and inoccent dead people, its better for the country if their illegalised unless your a farmer with a license and only let weapons that can effectively be used in a farm, you dont need a flamethrower or a machinegun in a farm
Drugs: i kinda agree with you, but i think the very dangerous ones should be illegalised like krokodil for instance and for the less dangerous ones (like cocaine) the government should have ads advising not to use them just like with alcohol and tobacco and rehabilitation centers for drug users
Photo ID: for the reason you said before, it eliminates poor people from voting, everybody should be able to vote
Solitary confinement: this is a form of torture, it drives people crazy, under no circumstances should a prisoner be tortured like that


Edit:I only read the TL;DR version so there might be others

Edited 3/19/2016 04:43:24

death penalty:what was thought was indeniable evidence 20 yearsw ago is now turning out ot be not so good, i think it will be the same and you can never be absolutely sure that the person your killing actually comitted the crime, if you go to jail under false conviction you can be released and given money by the government as reparations but with the death penalty you cant do that.

They were and are much too happy to give out death sentences, I am saying it should be stricter than it is now. I understand the concerns, and am for lowering the amount killed under death penalty.

i think the rich should be taxed a higher percentage, billionaires have more money than they could ever possibly use so why not tax them higher, they arent going to miss the money and the government does need it while the poor are going to miss every cent you take off of them and it doesnt do much for the government

A standard rate is taxing the rich higher, let's not be unfair, though. And most rich folk run businesses, and help the economy - but taxing them disproptionately higher means they get to spend less on businesses, and get to hire less, which really hurts the poor. Rich folk drive the economy as they are the economy. +superprogressive tax is less motivation to earn money, while under a good income disparity like there is now in America, the amount you get for what you work for grows exponentially; it's basically addicting you to excel, since each time you're getting more and more gain from it then you did for the same work growth (and that's rare, that things addict you to excel).

Abolish welfare: welfare is good, without welfare there is an extreme gap between the rich and the poor (even bigger than now)

What is so bad about income disparity?

and that doesnt turn out well, just look at russia in 1917 huge revolutions cause most of the population was starving to death while a select few had gold plated mansions

The 1917 revolution was started by communists, yes. But revolution further back, and assassination tries at kings was done not of just communism, but of the philosophy of regicide; that everything would be better once the king was dead. Folk Will (Narodnaya Volya) was based on just killing the king and founding a republic, not getting communism. Organised work unions had co-ordinated railroad strikes, and mistransportation and logistic mistakes to pile on that meant that some folk in Petrograd went hungry. And so the February Revolution began, and a week later, established the Petrograd Workers' Council and Russian Republic, and they had a power struggle.

The October Revolution began when the communists got confident enough to overthrow the weak Russian Republic. They stormed the Winter Palace and many folk had enough of the Soviets and the things they made worse (especially hurting the war effort - soldiers could basically choose not to obey orders and report their officer to their Soviet - punishment was none).

without the minimum wage the workers will be exploited,companies will just charge 2 cents an hour like they do in china ( im exxagerating a little but its still not good)

A worker can not possibly be exploited. If you don't want to work for 0.02 $ hour rates, then don't accept the job. Don't ruin it for folk that do. With minimum wage comes of course more jobs, too - they have more money (+money saved from not being pressed under superprogressive tax) to hire folk, and to make more money for themselves, and from more money they have, they hire more, and so on. It's a good cycle.

guns lead to shootings and inoccent dead people, its better for the country if their illegalised unless your a farmer with a license and only let weapons that can effectively be used in a farm, you dont need a flamethrower or a machinegun in a farm

The same problems from illegalising drugs are there for illegalising guns. I say legalise and tax both, and get rid of the problems. Ideally, what you say is best, but then folk will be left defenceless against those who get it from the black market.

i kinda agree with you, but i think the very dangerous ones should be illegalised like krokodil for instance and for the less dangerous ones (like cocaine) the government should have ads advising not to use them and rehabilitation centers for drug users

I am for legalising all them, but definitely for opening federal reknacking sites, though (and advertisments advising not to use them - maybe experimentally do it, and see if it's worth it, and if not, don't, and if yes, do.

for the reason you said before, it eliminates poor people from voting, everybody should be able to vote

But it doesn't "eliminate them", it's just a hassle for them. It's still very possible for them to vote. And furthermore, I'm not so much for democracy, and this is some grounds why: they probably won't have advised opinions, they'll vote on charisma and misconceptions over actual policies and issues. And to rid voter fraud, I'll take it (and to rid poor voters, the Republicans will take it).

this is a form of torture, it drives people crazy, under no circumstances should a prisoner be tortured like that

Hmm, maybe you're right.

and advertisments advising not to use them - maybe experimentally do it, and see if it's worth it, and if not, don't, and if yes, do.
do what they do here in australia on tobacco, here they pout pictures of cancerous and diseased lungs or people with a hole in their throat on every cigarette packet and thats discouraged a lot of smokers
The same problems from illegalising drugs are there for illegalising guns. I say legalise and tax both, and get rid of the problems. Ideally, what you say is best, but then folk will be left defenceless against those who get it from the black market.
not really theres plenty of countrys where guns are illegal and there are none of the same problems that are happening with drugs in the US, its not the illegalization that causes the problem its the war on them, making them illegal just keeps it out of the hands of most people, the war on drugs is what has made it so violent. A civilian with a gun is more likely to get shot and killed by a trained criminal than the other way around and the civilian with a gun is more likely to get shot than the civilian without a gun as the civilian with a gun is seen as more of a threat so having a gun does more bad than good

Edited 3/19/2016 06:02:36

Having a gun does help you when you have to organize a militia against rioters (1993 Koreatown) , you have to protect your neighborhood from police (Black panthers monitoring police in black neighborhoods), or fight the government (Waco).

The government has infringed on the rights of humans too far already in the name of progress.

In some cases it helps but overall it does more harm than good

Overall trying to ban guns would not work, end in more bad than good and give the government more power over its populace when it clearly has quite enough,