What would you do as President?

[Banksy]

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

[CaptUSA]

Obey the Constitution.

Stop everything that violates it.



Everything else will figure itself out after that. OF course, it won't be perfect, but it'll be a whole hell of alot better than what we have now!

[eduardo89]

I'd declare martial law and rule as a dictator. At least I'd have te decency of telling people the truth that they're not free anymore instead of pretending to obey the constitution like Bush/Obama

[bluesc]

The majority of Americans support taxing the rich because they are not rich. It is a Republic, not a democracy, to avoid that kind of mob rule.

Raising taxes on the rich wouldn't do much to the deficits, so that's pointless.

Unlimited power?

-Troops home.
-End the drug war.
-Cut almost all of the cabinet departments.
-End the EPA, FDA, ect.
-Given a surplus, eliminate the income tax.
-Permanently federalize national guard.
-Have the entire corrupt Congress put in jail, save a few.
-Release all secret documents in relation to conspiracy theories to put them to rest or give Alex Jones a field day.
-Put Rupert Murdoch in jail, shut down Fox News, NBC, CNN.
-Without realizing, I just became a dictator. Damn it must be hard to resist the urge. This is why I will never hold public office.

[Banksy]

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

[AuH20]

But doesn't it matter that a majority of Americans want something? Even if we are a representative republic and not literally a democracy, my gut tells me democracy is a good thing and the will of the American people should always be noted and acted upon by our elected representatives. Isn't that the whole idea of America? A government by the people, of the people, for the people. The government should do what we want it to do, not the other way around. Why does that only apply to slavery, civil rights, etc but not to tax policy?

What if a majority say that they want to dine on human meat? Democracy is a very dangerous concept.

[Banksy]

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

[AuH20]

I just think it's kind of a straw man argument to go to the most extreme belief people could have in some alternate screwed up world that would never happen. Like, what if people wanted to nuke China and North Korea? Not many people do or ever would think that's a sane idea. I think people have a natural aversion to murder, rape, etc and that's why only a few twisted individuals commit them. Like Ron said in that debate, the idea is that if we legalized heroin all of a sudden everyone would want do heroin. Most people are fundamentally sane and responsible and kind. In such a world where people were okay with murder, cannibalism, etc, ideas like freedom and democracy would be absurd for them anyway. They might as well just have totalitarian fascism in a world where people would actually behave that way.

Because the system rewards them for acting within those parameters. Don't be fooled, especially in these god-forsaken times.

[Seraphim]

You're not serious?

It was the will of the people to elect Hitler and "feast" on Jews.

It was the will of the peopel to elect Stalin and implement far reaching, totalitarian controls.

It is the will of the people in ISREAL TODAY to DESTROY PALESTINIAN LIVES.

"Extreme situations don't come about in democracy" is about as stupid a mistake you can POSSIBLY MAKE.

MOST human abominations have come about BECAUSE OF DIRECT POLITICAL DEMOCRACY.

You DO NOT have the right to steal from others. You DO NOT have the right to enforce your will on others. Unfortuantely, our reality does allow us to do so, but from a MORAL and LOGICAL standpoint...you do not.

POLITICAL democracy is nothing but 2 wolves voting to eat a sheep. YAY.

MARKET democracy is based around VOLUNTARY human interaction that leads to WEALTH BUILDING, PEACE and PROSPERITY.

POLITICAL democracy is a savage, vile, disgusting state.


I just think it's kind of a straw man argument to go to the most extreme belief people could have in some alternate screwed up world that would never happen. Like, what if people wanted to nuke China and North Korea? Not many people do or ever would think that's a sane idea. I think people have a natural aversion to murder, rape, etc and that's why only a few twisted individuals commit them. Like Ron said in that debate, the idea is that if we legalized heroin all of a sudden everyone would want do heroin. Most people are fundamentally sane and responsible and kind. In such a world where people were okay with murder, cannibalism, etc, ideas like freedom and democracy would be absurd for them anyway. They might as well just have totalitarian fascism in a world where people would actually behave that way.

[donnay]

I would first roll back every Executive Order in the last 100 years as null and void!

[VBRonPaulFan]

I just think it's kind of a straw man argument to go to the most extreme belief people could have in some alternate screwed up world that would never happen. Like, what if people wanted to nuke China and North Korea? Not many people do or ever would think that's a sane idea. I think people have a natural aversion to murder, rape, etc and that's why only a few twisted individuals commit them. Like Ron said in that debate, the idea is that if we legalized heroin all of a sudden everyone would want do heroin. Most people are fundamentally sane and responsible and kind. In such a world where people were okay with murder, cannibalism, etc, ideas like freedom and democracy would be absurd for them anyway. They might as well just have totalitarian fascism in a world where people would actually behave that way.

no, it doesn't matter if a majority wants something. the concept behind unalienable rights and a constitutional republic is the idea that you have certain protections against the tyranny of a majority when the majority is trying to oppress a minority for gain.

in the case of raising taxes on the super wealthy - the problem isn't a revenue problem. it just isn't. sorry. it's quite literally an explosion of spending at the federal level that has been unchecked and needs to be reigned in. asking certain people to give up an even larger portion of their life (their money, which is earned through their time, which is a direct withdrawal from their life), is fundamentally unsound logic.

[Banksy]

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

[Seraphim]

Thanks to direct political democracy the USA is no longer free.


Well it's a free country and you're entitled to your opinion. Maybe you're right for all I know. I just like to believe that left to their own devices, most people will not murder and rape each other en masse. I don't think we could have made it as a species otherwise. Whether it's God or nature, we seem hardwired to be against those things. Of course there are always are a few sick people who do commit those crimes and we usually have no way to stop them even with the biggest governments on earth.

[AuH20]

Well it's a free country and you're entitled to your opinion. Maybe you're right for all I know. I just like to believe that left to their own devices, most people will not murder and rape each other en masse. I don't think we could have made it as a species otherwise. Whether it's God or nature, we seem hardwired to be against those things. Of course there are always are a few sick people.

I'm not a fan of organized religion, but at least it projected a sense of moral order. Today's secular free-for-all has the potential to morph into a savage war zone if there is an immediate breakdown in government. Nowadays, everyone has rationalized their own little idea of truth and needs & will be willing to club their fellow man over the head to get it.

[donnay]

no, it doesn't matter if a majority wants something. the concept behind inalienable rights and a constitutional republic is the idea that you have certain protections against the tyranny of a majority when the majority is trying to oppress a minority for gain.

in the case of raising taxes on the super wealthy - the problem isn't a revenue problem. it just isn't. sorry. it's quite literally an explosion of spending at the federal level that has been unchecked and needs to be reigned in. asking certain people to give up an even larger portion of their life (their money, which is earned through their time, which is a direct withdrawal from their life), is fundamentally unsound logic.

It is UN-A-LEEN-ABLE not inalienable.


According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition; A.D. 2004), the definition of “inalienable” is:

“Not transferable or assignable. . . . Also termed unalienable”.

Black‘s 8th does not even define “unalienable” and would thus have us believe that the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” are synonymous.

But if we go back to Black‘s 2nd (A.D. 1910) we’ll see that “inalienable” was defined as:

“Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.”

Black’s 2nd defines “unalienable” as:

“Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”

At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous. However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened”. I believe the distinction between these two terms is this:

“Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. it is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable rights”. Once I have something “unalienable,” it’s impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is “unalienable”.

That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”. Black’s 2nd does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others.

But that leaves open the question of whether I may am entitled to voluntarily and unilaterally sell, transfer, abandon or otherwise surrender that which is “inalienable”. Thus, while it is impossible for me to abandon, or for government to take, my “unalienable rights,” it is possible for me to voluntarily waive my “inalienable” rights. I strongly suspect that our gov-co presumes that our rights are at best “inalienable,” and that since we have not expressly claimed them, we could have and therefore must have waived them.

if we look at Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) we’ll see:

“INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.”

“UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”

Clearly, the words are not synonymous. While “inalienable” rights can’t be “lawfully” transferred “to another,” they might nevertheless be waived by the holder or perhaps “unlawfully” (privately??) “transferred” to someone else. However, those rights which are “unalienable” are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, administratively, privately or by implication or operation of law. that which you have, which is “unalienable,” is your wrists in an absolute sense that cannot possibly be discarded, transferred, sold, or otherwise abandoned.

Also, note that the word “unalienable” describes things which are “not in commerce”. However, it appears that those things which are “inalienable” could be “in commerce”. as you know, much of the trouble we have with the modern government is based on government’s claim of power to regulate all that is involved in interstate commerce. In so far as you may be able to prove that any item or right you seek to use or exercise is “unalienable,” that item or write would be beyond the power of our government to regulate under interstate commerce. You can see the power potential in “unalienable”.

Most importantly, as declared in the “Declaration of Independence,” all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Our unalienable rights flow from God and are not subject to man’s meddling. Bouvier’s agrees by defining “unalienable” as including our “natural” rights (which flow from “nature’s God”).

Admittedly, both “inalienable” and “unalienable” are defined to include the concept of “liberty”. Thus, there is some confusion, some overlap, in the two definitions. Some things may be both “inalienable and also “unalienable”. Therefore, my argument about the distinctions between the two terms is not necessarily as pristine as I would like.

Nevertheless, the two terms are significantly different and virtually all of the real power will be found in the word “unalienable” rather than in the word “inalienable”. Those things which are “unalienable” are from God, outside of commerce, and impossible to “alienate” by external force or by personal consent. “Inalienable” offers no advantages that I’m able to see as compared to “unalienable”. “Inalienable” offers some possible disadvantages such as the possibility that you might be allowed to voluntarily waive whatever “inalienable” rights you possess.

I conclude that while there may be some confusion between the two terms, “unalienable” offers great and absolute power while “inalienable” is far weaker, more conditional, and probably subject to at least some “alienation”.

So why take a chance? Why not make it your business to ensure that every time you have a chance to use one word or the other you always choose to use “unalienable”? Why not use the exact word (“unalienable”) that was used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence?

While the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” have significantly different meanings, their “sounds” are almost identical and only a highly-tuned “ear” will note the distinction in sound and then meaning between them. I believe our modern gov-co fears and detests “unalienable” but doesn’t much mind that we use the word “inalienable”. The first term is lethal to gov-co powers; the second is not particularly threatening.

I visited the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC about five years ago. I was amazed to see that the Jefferson Memorial includes an excerpt from the “Declaration of Independence” attributed to Jefferson that referred to our “inalienable Rights”. But the text of the Declaration of Independence” expressly refers to our “unalienable Rights”. Thus, the “Declaration of Independence” is misquoted in 12″ high letters that are carved in stone. I couldn’t be more surprised if the gov-co has misspelled Jefferson’s name.

I cannot believe that the designers and builders of the Jefferson Memorial misspelled “unalienable” or “accidentally” replaced “unalienable” with “inalienable”. This change was done intentionally and because the word “inalienable” is trivial while the word “unalienable” is powerful to a spiritual degree.

I am discouraged to realize that tens of millions (maybe hundreds of millions) of Americans have visited the Jefferson Memorial without realizing that “inalienable” had been substituted for “unalienable”. I doubt that I’m the first to recognize that substitution, but I’ve never heard of anyone previously understanding and objecting to that substitution.

The difference between “inalienable” and “unalienable” is similar to the difference between a bean blower and a 50 caliber rifle. They both fire projectiles, but where the flying beans are virtually harmless, the 50 caliber bullets are absolutely lethal.

http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/

[Acala]

But doesn't it matter that a majority of Americans want something? Even if we are a representative republic and not literally a democracy, my gut tells me democracy is a good thing and the will of the American people should always be noted and acted upon by our elected representatives. Isn't that the whole idea of America? A government by the people, of the people, for the people. The government should do what we want it to do, not the other way around. Why does that only apply to slavery, civil rights, etc but not to tax policy?

No, mob rule (democracy) was NOT the "whole idea of America". The whole idea of America was LIBERTY! - freedom from government interference in the way you live your life and manage your property. In fact, one of the few things the Founders virtually all agreed on was that democracy is evil. It was seen, at best, as a necessary evil that needed to be double shackled like the monster it has always proven to be. And the rise of democracy in this country has much to do with its demise.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Well it's a free country and you're entitled to your opinion. Maybe you're right for all I know. I just like to believe that left to their own devices, most people will not murder and rape each other en masse. I don't think we could have made it as a species otherwise. Whether it's God or nature, we seem hardwired to be against those things. Of course there are always are a few sick people who do commit those crimes and we usually have no way to stop them even with the biggest governments on earth.

i pretty much agree with you. but it's funny how most people won't directly commit violence against another, but are more than willing to directly utilize violence against another via a third party (the government). remember, when you vote to raise taxes on some group - you are implicitly threatening violence against them. if they refuse to pay for whatever reason, the end result could be them being shot by police enforcing the law you supported.

[Acala]

Well it's a free country and you're entitled to your opinion. Maybe you're right for all I know. I just like to believe that left to their own devices, most people will not murder and rape each other en masse. I don't think we could have made it as a species otherwise. Whether it's God or nature, we seem hardwired to be against those things. Of course there are always are a few sick people who do commit those crimes and we usually have no way to stop them even with the biggest governments on earth.

I agree. This is why government is scarcely necessary. When you get into trouble is when you create an institution (democratic government) that legitimizes things that individuals would not do on thier own, like mass murder, rampant theft, trespass, etc.

[Banksy]

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

[Philhelm]

Good point, though I doubt anyone would actually be shot for not following along. At least not without serious repercussions for the police involved. Surely we are better as a nation than that. Probably just fined, maybe sentenced to jail. But you're right, that's a form of violence.

What if they don't pay the fine? What if they decide that they do not wish to be thrown in the dungeon? Sure, the police won't go in guns blazing (unless you own a dog or smoke weed), but they have those weapons for a reason. If you do not comply, the guns will be drawn at some point, even if the other party initiates no violence. This is why every law is inherently enforced by the barrel of a gun.

[Banksy]

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

[Danke]

Unban Truth Warrior. (and a few others).

[willwash]

•End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. They are just quagmires that we spend too much on.
Agreed. Bring the troops home, get them spending their money here in the USA.

•Raise taxes slightly on the super rich 1% and begin serious efforts to reign in the national debt. I know many people don't agree with raising taxes but I think our debt is so bad that it has to be on the table to fix this problem. Polls show a majority of Americans are in favor of taxing the very wealthy.
This would have so little impact on the debt it wouldn't even be worth it. Get that money pumping through the economy by cutting taxes, and you will see revenue grow in other fashions.

•Put Americans back to work in any way the government can (or should). Get the "real" unemployment level below 6% ASAP.
So FDR style ditch digging/filling in? I don't think that's a good idea. Cutting all meddlesome federal regulations would get people working though.

•End the costly and failed War on Drugs. Legalize marijuana, focus more on treatment than punishment for hard drugs.
The federal government cannot "legalize" marijuana or any other drug except by a Constitutional amendment prohibiting states from prohibiting it. Only a state can do this. The Controlled Substances Act should be repealed though, so that states can make this decision, not just for MJ, but all substances. Perhaps a modest federal tax on drugs would be OK as a kind of "user fee" for the decreased economic activity that drug use causes.

•Develop effective policies to address climate change and the energy crisis. I don't know how the government could or should do that but we do need to "get off oil" and the climate is starting to cause problems with worsening fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.
Stop all the regulations!

•Improve our public education system dramatically. American students score abysmally low on tests compared to other countries, and we spend a fortune for it.
Ummm...

[kahless]

Restore freedom to own private property. Try to pass a constitutional amendment to ban the levying of any form of tax on private property.
Phase out income and corporate taxes. Replace lost revenue with tariffs on imports. This will create jobs and competition here at home.
Repeal or goes as far as to try to pass a constitutional amendments restricting any federal or state government entity to intervene in lives of it's citizens.

This means an end of government involvement in families, marriage licensing and divorce. All replaced with private contract.
Eliminate all laws and federal departments that require individuals to purchase a product. Eliminates Obamacare.
Eliminate all laws restricting citizens to buy products and trade. Allows health care competition across state lines therefore lowering the costs of health insurance. Effectively allows gambling and drug legalization. Eliminates all associated federal departments.

Phase out the Federal Reserve and allow competing currencies.
Completely gut the federal government, close overseas bases and bring the troops home.

[willwash]

Bansky I see you're new here...I'm going to be honest, I don't think Ron is the candidate for you. You seem to want to do good for the country, but you're taking an Obama style approach to it, ie, how can I use the force of government to impose some state of affairs. Ron Paul believes government lacks this authority. The whole point of Ron's philosophy is that no government can plan or implement prosperity. It can simply get out of the way and let the people manifest that prosperity naturally.

I'd recommend you do some reading on the subject of liberty and how big government simply doesn't work.

[Banksy]

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

[VBRonPaulFan]

If you don't pay the fine, you go to jail. That's why America isn't Nazi Germany. We're better than executing people for not obeying the state. We tend to make sure our cops only shoot at people when they're doing really threatening things. Or the death penalty for murder, not for not paying your taxes.

and if you refuse to go to jail because you don't believe in the authority of the law in the first place? if you resist, force will be used. force and violence is always the end result unless you just go along with what a government mandates on you in some way or the other. so you can either give up on your principles and just go along with what the state says, or give up your life in defense of what you believe.

i don't believe in the income tax both in the legality or morally, but I pay my taxes to not get hassled by the state. if i refused to pay, they'd first fine me. if i refused to pay the fine, they'd send agents to arrest me. if i refused to be arrested, they'd pull their guns to make me comply. if i tried to defend myself, i'd be shot.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Yeah I know what you mean but I am a big fan of Paul. You know he's doing something right when he get even moderate liberals to pay attention. It's just so refreshing to hear a politician say what he actually believes even when he knows it's a politically incorrect or dangerous position to take in an election. But I got lots of good responses like I knew I would on this board, so thanks for the good debate. Any recommendations for what to read to convince a liberal that "big government simply doesn't work"?

liberty defined is a pretty great read to get a good look at his view on various issues of liberty.

[willwash]

Personally I was disappointed with Liberty Defined. I thought The Revolution: A Manifesto was a far superior statement of what is wrong with America, why both parties are screwed up, and why liberty workd.

[Philhelm]

Bansky I see you're new here...I'm going to be honest, I don't think Ron is the candidate for you. You seem to want to do good for the country, but you're taking an Obama style approach to it, ie, how can I use the force of government to impose some state of affairs. Ron Paul believes government lacks this authority. The whole point of Ron's philosophy is that no government can plan or implement prosperity. It can simply get out of the way and let the people manifest that prosperity naturally.

I'd recommend you do some reading on the subject of liberty and how big government simply doesn't work.

I think it would be better to explain to Banksy why Ron Paul has the philosophies he does, and the logic behind it, rather than telling him that he isn't the right candidate for him. Not every Ron Paul supporter is going to come in here right off the bat talking about how taxation is literally theft or slavery, or how our laws are inherently enforced through physical violence. Banksy obviously likes Ron Paul for whatever reason, so he shouldn't be persuaded to find another candidate simply because he doesn't toe the line on some of our key issues.

[oyarde]

Today ? , I would pre pardon Sea World :) .

[Conza88]

"In conjunction with the privatization of all assets according to the principles outlined, the government should adopt a private property constitution and declare it to be the immutable basic law of the entire country. This constitution should be extremely brief and lay down the following principles in terms as unambiguous as possible:



Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in anyway he sees fit so long as in doing so he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person’s body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between property owners are to be voluntary (contractual). These rights of a person are absolute. Any person’s infringement on them is subject to lawful persecution by the victim of this infringement or his agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of proportionality of punishment and of strict liability.


As implied by this constitution, then, all existing wage and price controls, all property regulations and licensing requirements, and all import and export restrictions should be immediately abolished and complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration introduced. Subsequently, the government, now propertyless, should declare its own continued existence as unconstitutional-in so far as it depends on noncontractual property acquisitions, that is, taxation-and abdicate."

~ Hoppe, Democracy: God that Failed, Hoppe - p215 [Ron Paul recommended book].

:cool:

[Philhelm]

I'd make women run around naked. During the winter I'd allow them to wear a G-string and bra though. :D

[oyarde]

I would do away with that dumb crap of giving a pardon to a Thanksgiving Turkey . Man up , eat the turkey :)

[Philhelm]

I'd make women run around naked. During the winter I'd allow them to wear a G-string and bra though. :D

Edit: I'm kidding of course...kind of. Whatever you do, never let me be king. I wouldn't get all Orwellian on you guys, but I guarantee that my rule would be freakishly bizarre.

[oyarde]

I would let Danno grow weed in the back lawn , cut down on mowing , put some goats on the front lawn , bbq those for state dinners :)

[Johnny Appleseed]

1. Bring all the troops home and build worlds strongest national defense.
2. Make illegal immigration punishable by 2 years in prison.
3. Use prisons to manufacture/grow what the government uses and to maintain infrastructure.
4. Return power to the states and reduce government to the state dep. and dep. of defense.
5. Collect tax from the state not individual.
6. Pressure/assist Mexico to raise standard of living.

[oyarde]

When Danno comes to harvest the weed , I would call it my Green Jobs Program :)

[Danke]

I would let Danno grow weed in the back lawn , cut down on mowing , put some goats on the front lawn , bbq those for state dinners :)

I wouldn't let Dannno near D.C. and all its interns.

[eduardo89]

I wouldn't let Dannno near D.C. and all its interns.

Mark Foley 2?

[fisharmor]

I'd make women run around naked. During the winter I'd allow them to wear a G-string and bra though. :D

I was wondering how nobody yet has said anything about cigars and interns.


Me? I'd probably spend my first day eating cabbage, brussels sprouts, refried beans, and corn on the cob.
On my second day, I'd head over to the National Archives, pull the constitution from its display case, head for the nearest john, and be the first US president not just figuratively wiping my ass with it.

[kahless]

2. Make illegal immigration punishable by 2 years in prison.


These are poor people just trying to find a better life and for the most part are not criminals or animals but you would lock them up for 2 years? Pretty harsh and remember we would have to pay to keep them in prison for two years.

Your number 6 sounds like a better solution to reduce illegal immigration.

[akforme]

I would first roll back every Executive Order in the last 100 years as null and void!

The only EO I would do is the elimination of EO's.

[Jingles]

I'd probably try to eliminate government. All of it.

I'd just take a sledgehammer to as much of it as I could. I'd be running out of ink in my veto pen within a day. A LOT of pardons. Stop enforcing unconstitutional laws, etc, etc, etc...

[Seraphim]

Lol yeah really...at the very worst you deport them...jail...lol...


These are poor people just trying to find a better life and for the most part are not criminals or animals but you would lock them up for 2 years? Pretty harsh and remember we would have to pay to keep them in prison for two years.

Your number 6 sounds like a better solution to reduce illegal immigration.

[Occam's Banana]

If you were made president tomorrow with relatively "unlimited" power, what would you do [...] ?
Resign.

[CaptainAmerica]

Does the president have the power vested in them to enforce the law? Is Article 1 section 8 law? If so, I would enforce it upon the U.S. Government and nullify all illegal federal departments,illegal federal laws,and that includes the Federal Reserve currency monopoly being nullified. I would demolish all bases 100 percent on foreign soil and make a quick withdrawal of troops from all 900+ bases.I would cut foreign aid to every nation including Israel. I would then seek a warrant to arrest Hillary Clinton who was exposed by wikileaks,and make a letter of marquee and reprisal for the saudi king for conspiracy to commit a war crime against the nation of Iran and for compromising the national security of the U.S.George W. Bush and his cabinet would be put on trial for war crimes and for suspending habeus corpus as well as fabricating lies to go to war. Bill Clinton would be put on trial along with Janet Reno for Waco Texas. The FBI would be abolished, the CIA would be abolished,all information would be declassified for the u.s. citizens to view. The war on drugs would end ,I would fire the drug tsar. I would appoint Andrew Napolitano to the supreme court. I would have the PATRIOT act suspended as an act of war against the u.s. population and the representatives who wrote the bill or amended it would be put on trial. This might sound radical,but w/e we are at the point where we are losing our civil liberties soo badly,we have domestic political enemies who need to be on trial for treasonous actions.

[Johnny Appleseed]

we would have to pay to keep them in prison for two years.
see #3

Work visas? I know too much trouble to have to do it legally.

Im a poor person trying to make a better life for myself is it okay for me to do it illegally?

[JackieDan]

As President I would do the following if I had unlimited power:

Foreign Policy
End all foreign wars.
Close down 80 % of all military bases.
Cut foreign aid.
End the war on drugs.

Economics
Close down the IRS, and then reinstitute a flat 25 % tax on the rich (millionaries and billionaries).
Eliminate the corporate income tax, excise tax, estate and gifts taxes, custom duties/fees and other misc government receipts.
Institute a 20 % Gasoline tax.
Institute a 10 % VAT, and over the years lower it to 5 % when debts + interests are paid.
Keep Social Security taxes; deny coverage for the rich.
Write down all debts from the federal reserve.
Run surpluses to get rid of the debt.
Reestablish a gold standard.

Policy
Eliminate 70 % of federal departments, except for medicaid which would be block-granted to the states.
Cut Military spending
Cut Defense spending to reasonable levels.
Cut Federal pay
Privatize SS over the years.
Deregulate heavily.
Legalize competing currencies.
Legalize prostitution.

[SharedSacrifice]

Explain to the people what 15-16 trillion in (debt only) really adds up to...then hit them with the reality of local, state and federal unfunded liabilities in relation to any check they were opening presently or in the future originating from same.

Next on the agenda would probably be total current basic infrastructure needs locally/nationally (including projected needs and total per year needed to 'save up' for same)...how much money per year it took us last time to win the cold war with but one major opponent (now two or more)...then most likely a quick poll as to who seriously expects their 'promised' entitlement check to keep coming or stay at the same amount and for how long.

I'm guessing that after the poll results were in?...I'd know exactly whether 'money bombs' were indeed in my future or not.