Candidate Declaration: The Vagabond, Democratic

The Vagabond for President

I, The Vagabond, hereby declare that I am running for the office of President of The United States and are running for the Democratic party.

In short, my platform is simple:
I will end Bush's assault on liberty and ensure it can't happen again. I'll make peace then keep it through strong alliances and potent diplomacy aided by a reformed UN. I'll build our prosperity on education and technology. I will rock the boat.

To expand:
Civil Liberties:
President Bush and, to lesser degrees, several of his predecessors, have left us with a legal legacy which poses a threat to fundamental American political values and this must be undone. We can't just say, "good riddance"; we are going to have to work hard to undo the damage and to ensure the mistakes of the past cannot be repeated.

I will work with congress to eliminate provisions of FISA and USA PATRIOT Act which give the executive unchecked authority to conduct surveillance of citizens, particularly the issue of "National Security Letters", which essentially are a letter from the FBI giving themselves the authority to conduct a search without a warrant.

I will end the practice of issuing executive signing statements and I will direct the Attorney General to pursue cases wherein precedents can be set invalidating past uses of them.

I will extend the legal definition of treason to include the knowing and malicious oppression of a person's constitutional rights by any executive branch officer at the cabinet level or higher.

I will protect democracy with election-count verification measures that allow voters to verify that their vote was accurately recorded and counted.

To further protect civil liberities, direct accountability of elected officials will be increased in the following ways:
I will institute uniform requirements for all political parties and independents to obtain a place on the ballot- the two major parties will no longer have a lower requirement of support than others have. I will also push for public-funds-only campaign financing to reduce the influence of money in politics. Finally, I will work for a constitutional amendment that allows for ballot initiatives at the federal level, including presidential recall initiatives, with the threshold for recall set at 2/3s of the popular vote AND a majority of the vote in at least 25 states.

Foreign Policy
First and foremost, we must end the drain on our resources and credibility that the occupation of Iraq has become. I will accomplish this first of all by making America's intentions clear to Iraqis, to separate nationalists from terrorists- I will announce that US troops will be completely withdrawn from Iraq within 12 months and that Iraq will have 2 years from the end of our occupation to unilaterally sever any agreement made with the US or a US-based company.

To get us out within 12 months, I will make extra funds available to entice Iraqi recruits and make arrangements for NATO members to accept those recruits for training within their countries, so that our allies who find entering Iraq politically unacceptable can still choose to support Iraq's stability and independence. Troops will be gradually cycled out of urban centers and towards the borders to secure Iraq's borders against movement of weapons and terrorists while Iraqis begin a rapid assumption of control of their cities. At the end of the year, our troops will be removed from the theater and the Iraqi government will have to find its own way.

I acknowledge the probability that the Iraqi government will fail and eventually be replaced by an authoritarian regime which will probably be hostile to the United States. To prevent this is simply beyond what we can undertake- the mistakes of the past 4 years have created a power vacuum that can only be filled by overwhelming force. We will have to start from scratch with the new regime, using strong, credible diplomacy in true cooperation with other nations to force that regime to moderate without resorting to war- exactly what we should have been doing with Saddam from 1979-1991 but failed to do, resulting in the subsequent wars.

To equip ourselves to prevent future problems of this nature, both in Iraq and elsewhere, the United States has to get serious about developing the enforcement of international law.
We must push for the establishment of a standard UN process for crisis resolution which cannot be voided by the whim of a single security council member. The UN must treat all similar offenses equally, meeting them with an appropriate progression of incentives and consequences which are strong enough to compell compliance.

We must also develop relationships with regional powers around the world, based not merely on our level of agreement with their governments, but on their ability to contribute positively to their regions. We must establish a program for helping them develop peace-keeping qualified militaries, competent and transparent organizations for rendering foreign aid, and economic and diplomatic ties both to us and to their neighbors that make peace and stability in their regions a major priority for them. This will mean working with governments that we don't like and which don't like us sometimes, perhaps even Iran, which is perfectly acceptable if done on an equal footing, in ways that serve mutual interests, and which cannot be abused. Even small steps will be worthwhile in this regard.

Economics and Budget
I believe that the only way for America to retain the advantage it enjoyed prior to the rise of industrial competitors like China and India is to expand push the development of new industries which competitors do not now have the infrastructure to compete with us in.

Our standard of living at present affords every child the opportunity to become educated and that is an important advantage. With changes to the way we fund education and the way we manage those funds we can maintain such an edge in skilled personel that certain industries cannot be outsourced. One day oil will no longer be practical and fusion will be. When that day comes, if the best engineers and physicists are Americans, we will own the energy market. As we come to understand the human genome, medicine will become more complex, and if the best chemists are American, those industries will have to locate here. This applies to many high tech fields. Language skills, math, and sciences need to be strongly emphasized in our schools, college needs to be universally accessible both in terms of preparation and affordability.

The development of advanced technologies and infrastructure to support them is the second half of this strategy. We can wait for someone else to bring about the hydrogen economy, genetic medicine, etc so that our investment in education pays off, or we can actively invest in making it happen sooner. I will double US funding of scientific research and establish a prioritization and accountability program to ensure the wise investment of that money in the most important technologies. I will also fund the expansion of infrastructure that will support our competitiveness in emerging fields. For example, I will expand water carrying systems to areas not well suited to agriculture so that algae can be used to produce biodiesel without creating a future fuel crisis of "peak arable land". I will fund these responsibly through dual use and prudent engineering- for example, an investment in a water carrier and desalination plant serving California's Salton Sea would solve many problems at once for one price- urban water supply, ecological damage, support for farms and a source of water for algae cultivation in less fertile land in the California desert would all be addressed by this. Such opportunities are not uncommon- we just need an ambitious and pro-active government to pursue them responsibly.

The long term fiscal health of the United States cannot be ignored either. We have a very serious debt problem, on the verge of escaping our control, and yet we have many needs for the near future which demand investment. This is going to mean making some difficult choices in order to maintain a balanced budget and begin paying down the debt.

I will attempt to stimulate economic growth responsibly to pay for some of this. I believe that when consumers can afford to spend, this creates a motive for investors to seek out companies that can compete for that extra consumer spending. I believe that small tax cuts for the working class can accomplish this much better than large ones for investors, because investors aren't stupid- if consumers aren't spending they will play it safe- they won't make that money move. The money will move more agressively if the consumers are spending. So I am going to take back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and replace it with a slightly smaller tax cut for Americans earning less than $30,000 a year.

Windfall profits taxes will also be placed on certain industries, which allow only a certain, industry-specific amount of profit per customer before a higher tax rate is assessed. In the insurance industry, this will motivate companies to extend coverage more readily. In the oil industry it will deter gouging and reduce a major expense for the working class, giving consumers more purchasing power and thus generating more spending in other areas, to the benefit of our economy and tax revenues.


We also have to cut expenses.

We will begin with our largest expenditure- Social Security. We cannot take this money away from those who now depend on it, but we must control the growth of that burden. Social Security is going to fail us. I'm 23 years old- I know I'm going to pay into it for the rest of my life and I know that I'll never collect a cent. To cap and eventually reduce the burden, we will begin a long-term plan to phase out social security and replace it with certain minimum regulations of the insurance industry that allow more flexible, innovative organizations run on market principles to solve the problem within certain ethical bounds. A cut-off point will be established- the federal government will acknowledge that no one born later than 1977 will recieve social security benefits unless they already are recieving them, but that those born after 1977 will only have to pay social security taxes until they reach age 30. It's not perfectly fair, but something has to be done. This everybody still gets 40 good years to prepare themselves, and those of us who already know we'll never get it deep down can at least look forward to an end.

I will seek to cut military spending by 10%. I will do this by entering joint research and development projects with other NATO members in preference to continuing to go it alone on certain new designs, by removing US Forces from bases in countries of limited strategic importance, especially South Korea, where our forces are serve as a nuclear war equivalent to a canary in a coal mine, and by delaying low-priority research and development as well as procurements.

Many smaller adjustments will also be made through new accountability for federal spending programs and a thorough review of federal spending that benefits major corporations whose profits are sufficient that they could operate without hidden subsidies.


There are just a few of the many things that need to be undertaken to protect this country. Too many problems have been ignored for too long and it's time to wake up and do something about them.

I'm not promising a perfect world. Some candidates might be willing to do that, but as voters we've heard a lot of promises in the past 7 years, and here we are. What I will promise is that your government will respond to you and have your interests in mind, will keep its sexual indiscretions private, and won't shoot anyone in the face. Sound like a good change of pace?


As a candidate for this office, running on this website, I promise the following:

I will uphold the Terms & Conditions of AboveTopSecret.com at all times

I will conduct a campaign that focuses on issues

I will seek to always answer issue-based questions with direct honesty and integrity

I will not, through my actions, communicate libelous or slanderous statements or advertising messages directed toward other candidates in the primaries or general election

I will not, through my inaction, allow libelous or slanderous statements or advertising messages directed toward other candidates to be made on my behalf

I will participate in every debate and avail myself to questions from the general population

If selected in a primary election, I will accept the nomination to run for my party for The President of The United States and select a capable running mate for my Vice President

I understand that if I fail to live up to the higher standards described herein, I may voluntarily or forcibly be required to end my candidacy or Presidency if elected.

I've been keeping my eye out for this one. Glad to see you finally put your hat into the ring. I've decided on a question that I am going to ask the candidates, and it very simple.

In one sentence, Why should I vote for you?

The Vagabond,
I wish you well in your journey; I have had the pleasure of seeing you in multiple threads and have enjoyed your presence. You have always been to the point, never rude and welcoming of those new to the subject. Your stances above will place very high expectations on yourself from all of us. I believe you will exceed them given the opportunity.

whoknew

I was hoping you would run. I'm voting for ya.
A genuine "good guy" working for the people and not just to line his pockets.

Good luck!

Thanks for the warm reception.

Chissler, when has anyone here EVER seen me do ANYTHING in one sentence? But here goes:

You should vote for me because I'm a problem solver who informs himself and looks for the best possible answer rather than simply picking one of two options presented to me by the political establishment and mindlessly defending the party line.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The long term fiscal health of the United States cannot be ignored either. We have a very serious debt problem, on the verge of escaping our control, and yet we have many needs for the near future which demand investment. This is going to mean making some difficult choices in order to maintain a balanced budget and begin paying down the debt.

Whom do you believe is owed this debt?

Why is it owed to whomever?

Originally posted by df1
Whom do you believe is owed this debt?

Why is it owed to whomever?

Ironically enough, we owe it in part to the American people, among others. When we talk about the national debt, we are talking about the money in your bank account, not all of which is actually in the bank, and the money in your pension fund as well. The government owes your bank that money, and if it doesn't get paid, your bank account is worthless.

In order to finance excessive spending without simply printing new money and causing runaway inflation, our government borrows our money from the banks to which we have entrusted it in exchange for treasury securities which will pay off at a higher yield later.

So your bank offers you a little interest for your money, gives it to the government for more interest, the government spends it with no sense of responsibility whatsoever, and, in theory, pays back your bank eventually so that your bank, which doesn't actually have all of your money anymore, can continue to ration your money out to you bit by bit to sustain the illusion that you actually "have" the amount of money that your bank balance says you do.

If the debt reaches a level where we can no longer make sufficient payment on it, pension funds and private bank accounts will go empty. People fail to understand that when they put their money in the bank, they are trading legal tender for debt- a debt which may or may not get paid back depending on the conduct of the debtors- the banks and the governments.

We have a duty to ourselves to contain and begin paying down that debt and to slowly transition into a permanently debt-free government, with constitutional protection for that principle. At that point, control over the money supply may be exercised through taxation of lenders rather than direct control over interest rates.

I agree with you that the banking system is corrupted and must be drastically reformed, however I believe that we must do this very cautiously even though it will take longer, because the people have allowed themselves to become entangled in it and their fates are intertwined now with the unstable institution of public debt capitalism. We must ease this institution to a gentle end so that the people become disentangled without a loss and we may then institute reforms to prevent a reentanglement in such a risky system.

The problem with socialists (and I say this admiringly) is that they seek to destroy unfairness in societies that have made it their bedrock. I call myself a liberal by conservative means because god knows I agree with left-wing ends, but I believe that we must reach them gradually, meticulously operating the existing system for the end of building a better system to replace it.

To further protect civil liberities, direct accountability of elected officials will be increased in the following ways:
I will institute uniform requirements for all political parties and independents to obtain a place on the ballot- the two major parties will no longer have a lower requirement of support than others have. I will also push for public-funds-only campaign financing to reduce the influence of money in politics. Finally, I will work for a constitutional amendment that allows for ballot initiatives at the federal level, including presidential recall initiatives, with the threshold for recall set at 2/3s of the popular vote AND a majority of the vote in at least 25 states.

What percentage of tax take would you provision to public funds only campaigns?

Would you fund all levels of campaign centrally? Or would local and state campaigns be funded at that level?

What enforcement agency would you create to ensure that campaigns were only publically funded?

To equip ourselves to prevent future problems of this nature, both in Iraq and elsewhere, the United States has to get serious about developing the enforcement of international law.
We must push for the establishment of a standard UN process for crisis resolution which cannot be voided by the whim of a single security council member. The UN must treat all similar offenses equally, meeting them with an appropriate progression of incentives and consequences which are strong enough to compell compliance.

We must also develop relationships with regional powers around the world, based not merely on our level of agreement with their governments, but on their ability to contribute positively to their regions. We must establish a program for helping them develop peace-keeping qualified militaries, competent and transparent organizations for rendering foreign aid, and economic and diplomatic ties both to us and to their neighbors that make peace and stability in their regions a major priority for them. This will mean working with governments that we don't like and which don't like us sometimes, perhaps even Iran, which is perfectly acceptable if done on an equal footing, in ways that serve mutual interests, and which cannot be abused. Even small steps will be worthwhile in this regard.

I commend you for this policy statement. At last, a presidency candidate wanting to work with the UN rather than use it as a means of influence.

How would you propose to remove the veto from the permenant memebers of the securety council?

Thanks for the reply Freedom ERP. I'll do my best to elaborate on the positions you've mentioned. Please forgive me if I am a bit verbose, but I pride myself on the fact that I present sound ideas which will work and do not hide behind generalities and soundbytes.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
What percentage of tax take would you provision to public funds only campaigns?

Percentage wise almost any expenditure would be unimpressive, however expenditures will still be reigned in significantly, primarily because I believe that those who would lead us must exemplify the efficiency and fiscal responsibility that our government must exercise. In 2004 the combined cost of all democratic and republican presidential campaigns was just over 1 billion dollars. A decade before, it was less than half that much.

If we assume a trippling of candidates under a more open system, and reduced costs back to 1994 levels, the cost would be 1.5 Billion. To put that in perspective, our total spending (which, incidentally, does need to be reduced) is almost 2000 times that much.
We can further reduce that cost however by deemphasizing "shallow media" such as TV commercials and giving stronger support to cheaper and yet more meaningful methods of communication.
For example:

1. Production of a TV commercial to run nationally averages $350,000 link plus airtime, which can run $100,000 for 30 seconds. A news-worthy event such as a debate, however, (incidentally, i don't mean a highly scripted song and dance sponsored by Budweiser and RJ Reynolds Tobacco), can provide each of the candidates more in-depth national televison coverage while reducing costs by placing the cost of airtime on the news stations instead of on campaign advertising budgets, and placing production costs such as a venue and security on state and local governments which could volunteer the free use of their facilities or procure use of private facilities in order to increase the political importance of their area and the issues affecting them.

2. Internet Resources and Grass Roots Campaigning: We will obviously not be attempting to stop private citizens from expressing themselves. The importance of electronic correspondence and volunteer organization would grow significantly as candidates became less able to bombard those who are not politically engaged with emotive soundbytes. One of the most important expenditures of the new campaign system will be an independent oversight body to ensure that there is no sabotage or preference by electronic communication providers that are used for grass roots organization- if, for example, MySpace were to allow the creation of a bulletin board for Republican and Democrat supporters, they would also have to allow such organization by Independents.

3. Free mailing: Allowing candidates to provide explanations of their positions in print via mail to the voters in the midst of reduced sound-byte campaigning will place greater emphasis on whether or not a candidate chooses to articulate his ideas in black and white for the voters to see, and which issues the candidate chooses to do this on.

Would you fund all levels of campaign centrally? Or would local and state campaigns be funded at that level?

Senators and Representatives of the United States would be subject to this law. Because the United States is federal rather than unitary however, unlike the UK, the ability of the federal government to affect reform in state and local governments is sometimes questionable. Federal law only trumps state law when the federal law fulfills a constitutional power of the federal government, and since the federal government has no explicit constitutional power to oversee or manage the respective states, federal law respecting the election of state governments would not be binding, except in cases where it dealt with the movement of money or other political resources across state lines (thanks to the commerce clause of our constitution).

It would take a constitutional amendment to impose such rules on state and local governments. I have proposed several constitutional amendments already in this campaign, but I do not do so lightly. I simply don't believe that such an amendment as this one would have any hope of passing, because in order to be fool-proof from any judicial loophole it would not only have to establish the rules for elections in states but would have to either explicitly or implicity give the federal government oversight of the states, and this would not be acceptable to the majorities in many individual states where the issue of states rights is considered by many to be essential to the democratic spirit of sovereignty originating from the broadest base and being willingly conceeded upward to the central government.

In short, although I believe that this system should exist at every level, I conceede that it is not possible to make it binding upon the states immediately, and that attempting to do so would probably create a backlash that could undermine the entire idea, even on the national level (which is possible because states have discretion over how they determine which candidate recieves their electoral votes, giving the state government's an ability to 'strike back' if this system is seen as an attack on their 10th amendment rights.) The best course is simply to introduce it on the national level and trust many states to willingly follow suit, then wait for the success of the system to convince the voters in states which do not immediately adopt it.

What enforcement agency would you create to ensure that campaigns were only publically funded?

To enforce these provisions would not require a new organization, but in fact would require merely a reform and a simplification of the existing Federal Election Commission. The FEC is currently appointed by the POTUS and approved by the Senate, and consists of 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. It has the authority to investigate campaign finance and prosecute violations, which are currently quite complex. The current FEC serves to preserve a status quo between the two parties rather than to provide a check upon them.

John McCain and Russ Feingold have introduced one proposal to alter the FEC, and I propose borrowing a portion of their idea. Specifically, their bill (S. 478) includes a provision that the revised FEC (which they would call the FEA) meet under the supervision of an administrative law judge.

I propose that the FEC be altered. Its membership should consist of two representatives from each political party represented on any presidential ballot in the United States (at present there are 5 parties meeting this qualification- Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, and Constitution) and one judge, appointed from the bench to the commission, who shall chair the commission, and upon acceptance of his appointment shall become inelligible to hold any higher judicial appointment or any political office. A majority would be required for any action. The commission's primary responsibility would be to monitor the expenditures of the campaigns and verify accountability for the public election funds, invesigating any suspiciously low expenses or over-expenditures.

How would you propose to remove the veto from the permenant memebers of the securety council?

It will be difficult, in fact, it must be done voluntarily.
Chapter XVIII Article 108 of the UN Charter stipulates that the charter, which provides the Security Council with its powers, including veto, can be amended by 2/3s vote of the general assembly, including all permanent members of the security council.

This difficulty is the very essence of the challenge that these reforms are intended to address, and we must confront it. The current system is subject to the interests of a few nations, based on little more than the fact that they won WWII, and it presided over the cold war. It is unlikely to escape the patterns that were seen during that time. To advance, we must voluntarily put aside this system and the ability to enforce our short-term interests that comes with it, in hope that our collective long-term interests will be better served by it.

This is going to mean intensive diplomacy and a building of American credibility to truly sell a vision of internationalism to the permanent members of the security council and to major powers who have the regional clout to influence their neighbors in a vote of the general assembly. If we can get virtually all of Europe, Russia, China, India, Japan, and Brazil on board, I believe we have a good chance of success. The primary challenge in doing this will be convincing them that the new system really will be able to curb unilateralist efforts, ensuring that they aren't giving up their defense against an American strategy or surrendering their sovereignty to a global agenda. The emphasis must be strictly and objectively on peace and justice first, and we can later build onto that nucleus the organs for resolving smaller disputes.

I have a few other things to attend to this afternoon, so I hope I've gotten a good start on answering your questions. Please feel free to add follow-ups.

You may refer to Iraq in your foreign policy statement.

What would be your policy views on:

North Korea and their nuclear weapons program?

The Middle East (Israel)?

Would you continue support for Taiwan?

On World Trade, would you open up US markets? And be bound by all World Trade Organisation judgements?

Thanks for the followup Freedom ERP.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
What would be your policy views on:

North Korea and their nuclear weapons program?

We have lost a lot of credibility over our dealings with Korea since 1996. There are only two conclusions a nation can draw when they look at America’s failure to maintain a denuclearized Korean peninsula- either American leaders aren’t sincere in opposing proliferation, or America is impotent. How much longer do we want to call attention to this issue, and our inability to deal with the North Korean’s inappropriate behavior?

There is nothing for us in North Korea; it simply is not a legitimate priority in US foreign policy now. They do not pose a significant strategic threat, even with their weapons. Any threat they may be believed to pose is contingent on the assumption that 1. They are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. 2. That China will just sit on its hands while their pip-squeak neighbor invites catastrophe into the region. These things considered, the only two things that there has ever been a real danger of North Korea doing, namely invading South Korea or firing missiles at Japan, are patently absurd.

With much to lose and nothing to gain, I will not waste our budget or our credibility on an exchange of posturing and idle threats with a villain who learned everything he knows about evil from the antagonists of the Disney films with which he is obsessed.

1. Our troops are coming out of South Korea. They aren’t holding off any kind of invasion there. All they are doing is costing us money, making the North Koreans nervous, and standing in the nuclear line of fire if for some reason a war does come. By removing them, we reduce the likelihood of a war, reduce distrust towards us from a nation that well must find a way to peacefully disarm, and we save money. Everybody wins. We will maintain a commitment to intervening militarily if South Korea or Japan is attacked.
2. We will normalize relations with North Korea (as is already being discussed in the six-party talks) with no strings attatched (currently we expect them to shut down Yong Byon in return). The reason is that we know by now that they lie. We’re not going to get anything in return, so either it’s in our interest to have normalized relations just for their own sake, or it’s not. I believe that it is in our interest because it decreases tensions and moves us closer to the level of mutual trust where we can talk about verifiable arms reduction without fearing espionage under the program. We need to establish good will, not keep letting them steal the bait and learn that it’s profitable to threaten us and lie to us.
3. We will provide limited support to South Korean initiatives. Ultimately this is a Korean problem taking place on China’s doorstep and close enough to Japan to be of concern to them. America is the least affected party and therefore has neither the right to steer the diplomatic processes of the region nor the obligation to bear the expense. We will play a facilitating role as a responsible member of the international community which desires peace and justice, nothing more.

Some will say that I am rewarding North Korea’s bad conduct. I ask them what they would have me do: Bomb North Korea, tell China to mind its own business or get nuked, and watch Seoul disappear in a brilliant flash of light when the North Koreans retaliate? I’m not willing to govern with my own ego. Certain current presidents and former presidents, who shall remain nameless, have proven very adept at denying defeat and continuing to throw money and/or American lives at lost causes just so they won’t have to be the president who surrenders. I have sad news for my fellow Americans- America can lose, and when we elect short-sighted, dishonest leaders who conduct foreign policy badly, we will lose. Electing me won’t save us from the impending defeats created by policy failures of the past decade. All I can do is get us out and keep it from happening again.

The Middle East (Israel)?

It is important that we begin to place our full diplomatic strength behind building a unified international approach to a peace plan. As long as weapons and money are pouring into the region, there is no hope for peace. Any one nation that goes charging in to be the hero, even should they achieve a UN mandate to do so, will find itself in another Iraq.
I believe that certain goals and certain agreements of means are vital to the effort.

Goals
1. Israel must leave the West Bank entirely, the sovereignty of Palestine must be recognized, and the outcomes of Palestinian elections must be respected and not bring any prejudice or retaliation.
2. Each side must exercise sufficient legal control over its population to take responsibility for preventing terrorism.
3. Armed groups not answering to either government must be expelled.

Means
1. Each side must be offered a broad range of incentives to agree to terms of peace, and these incentives should be designed to improve the lives of average people, decreasing the appeal of radicals.
2. There must be severe diplomatic consequences for any nation engaged in providing weaponry to a non-governmental group in the region.
3. Strikes by either side must result in serious consequences.
4. Any outside nation which fails to sufficiently act against groups operating from their territory against either nation must also face severe diplomatic consequences.
5. Under no circumstances should either party undertake military operations against the other or groups within the territory of the other- they must police their own.

Would you continue support for Taiwan?

That would have been a good question to ask President Truman, but it’s a little late in the game now. America will not tolerate unprovoked aggression against Taiwan, but will not support Taiwanese independence.

On World Trade, would you open up US markets? And be bound by all World Trade Organisation judgements?

Under the current embodiment of the WTO, I cannot say with complete certainty that I will never be forced to take exception to a ruling. There is a need for a more democratic, inclusive structure which is carefully designed to balance all possible coalitions of interests, providing incentive to compromise rather than simply allowing certain groups of nations to gang up on others. Transparency and equality which make it possible for populations to insist on policies which are good for themselves, and not for large multinational corporations, are vital to the future of the WTO.

I do not believe that we need protectionism- if the playing field is kept level, I believe that there are sufficient industries where America can build qualitative advantages which will sustain our economy. That being said, I will counteract unfair trading practices which unfairly harm American workers, regardless of WTO rulings. I’m not letting China or anyone else subsidize the theft of American jobs on the backs of their own population.

Furthermore, I am not prepared to cooperate with any WTO ruling which unfairly disadvantages other nations. When developing nations are forced to open their agricultural markets while other nations are allowed to undertake protectionism, this renders developing nations dependent on multinational corporations and the wealthier nations in which those corporations base themselves. This is the mechanism of neocolonialism and enslavement and I oppose it. I will actively work to subvert that particular trend and support the independent development of underdeveloped nations, because I believe it is in the long term interests of the US to build strong nations in what is now the third world and foster mutually beneficial relationships with them. This benefits the US and the cause of an equitable, law-abiding international community far more than the blind support for shady globalist organizations.

As a general principle however, I favor free trade so long as it is reciprocated in the form of respect for intellectual property and patent rights as well as a lack of subsidies. I believe that the US trade relations should essentially be an even-money swap of high tech American products for efficiently produced goods from the industrialized world, and that this must be achieved through innovation and non-wastefulness on our part, not by protectionism.

I'd like to thank UK Wizard for his great work on these images.

I'm always open to suggestions/requests or offers of help with more. Hopefully I'll have a few more coming up soon.

surrounding these addresses with image tags will get you the image, but one of them may need to be shrunk if you want to use it as an avatar.

img.photobucket.com...



img.photobucket.com...
With a little luck, or some amazing volunteer work, there will be a second version of this one available soon featuring a "Rosie the dot commer" counterpart for those of you who agree that the US needs to stay ahead of the tech curve as others become competitive in more basic industries.


img.photobucket.com...



img.photobucket.com...

And here's a smaller button if you guys like. Now everbody can have the symbol that strikes terror into the hearts of trolls. Warning, this image may or may not be "unlucky".

i9.photobucket.com...