[UnderseaLcpl]

Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions thoroughly, CH. Now I'd like to offer a little feedback, if that's ok.

You seem like you have a good head on your shoulders, and I more or less agree with most of your policies. I think pretty much everyone thus far has had a good opinion of most of them as well.
For starters, I like your outlook on the Constitution, and you'll find a lot of conservative support there. From a Libertarian standpoint, I'm a little concerned as to why you think drug policy should be one of the Federal government's roles, rather than being in the hands of the states. It's more a slippery-slope type of worry than anything else. Since the Constitution does not specifically grant power to the Fed to regulate drugs, the Fed isn't supposed to have it, imo. But I can live with that. It's a damn sight better than most recent candidates policies in my view.

I'll hand you the campaign finance reform bit. It's not my ideal solution and you didn't really answer my concerns (I was a bit too brief in outlining them) but it's not really an important issue to me anyway.

Stepping over the elephant in the room for a moment, I also like your economic stance. As a Libertarian, I tend to disagree with the "fair trade" policy somewhat, and NAFTA is a poor, poor example of "free trade". If you've ever read even a part of the NAFTA agreement, you'll see that it is actually very heavily regulated.
More or less, it's just a government-sanctioned (and sometimes funded) system of arranging trade rights and permits.
Furthermore, protectionist tariffs are not going to be attractive to any business and can't stop jobs from leaving the country unless they are extremely high. Labor is generally one of the highest expenditures on any company's budget, and import tariffs make materials (the other main expenditure) more expensive as well.
As an alternative, I would suggest eliminating corporate taxes entirely, and relaxing trade regulation and legal obligations to the minimum extent possible.
Many of the wealthiest countries in the world (per capita) are only so because of their freedom of economy, more than anything else. Even places like Singapore, with its' near-fascist political system, is wealthy all out of proportion to its' size because of free trade policy. Hong Kong is another good example, as are the Special Economic Zones of China, Switzerland, Belgium, Lichtenstein, etc.

Still, I'd be okay with the original policy as a whole, and I like the Consumer tax as a stand-in for the myriad of other taxes we have now. It's Constitutional and it might even limit the federal government's funding to a less harmful extent.

I also like your policy on gay marriage, although I do wonder why the government has anything to do with marriage in the first place. From a state standpoint, it's a religious institution at worst and a contractual civil agreement at best, and the state has no business regulating either outside the realm of the civil justice system.
You've got my vote on gun rights as well.

stop giving illegals welfare, food stamps, health care and free education for their kids

And on illegal immigration, for this alone. Which is not to say that states should have to do this, but the Fed has no business providing a budget for this crap.

I'm less than enthusiastic about your environmental and energy policies, simply because the approach is still a bit too hands-on for me.
I like the nuclear part, as I'm a longtime proponent of nuclear energy, and I generally share your view on environmental policy.
My only problem is that I'd like to see market forces determine those, or at least have the power for such decisions residing in the hands of the states. The Constitution does not provide the Federal government with these powers and it wouldn't even if it were written today. Thus, those powers are reserved to the States and the People, period.
I undestand that there is a strategic concern about oil dependency, which might allow energy policy for defense reasons under the Constitution, but given our ability to synthesize oil (albeit less efficiently), it's hardly a matter of immediate national concern.


The big issue everyone has seem to be your foreign policy regarding the War on Terror. Straight up, it would trash any chance you would ever have of being elected unless it was presented immediately following a particularly devestating terrorist attack. And I know where you're coming from, believe me. I've fought the war on terror, right on the front lines, and seen friends wounded and dead because of it. For a time, I was actually a proponent of what you are advocating now, except my stance was "if we even think that an attack was sponsored by (an Islamic nation) we will blow Mecca and Medina off the face of the goddamn planet!
So not only should they refrain from funding terrorists, they'd better make damn sure that they actively work to prevent terrorist activities!"
Ah, the heady days of youth.

Unfortunately, this policy will encourage violence on an epic scale. And the reasons are many. For one thing, this is not a Western society we are dealing with. The ramifications of that are too many to explain here, but the point is that perception radically differs.
In addition to the worldwide backlash that such a devestating strike would generate, it would only encourage more jihadist activity. Just look at how the destruction of the twin towers galvanized America. Now imagine that you lived in a theocracy and believed that they were holy objects that been desecrated as well as destroyed, to say nothing of the lives lost.

The type of warfare that you are advocating is total warfare, which against a Jihadist opponent, can only escalate until one side is destroyed. Even worse, it is very unlikely that an Islamic state will commit to a declaration of war upon the U.S., rather than simply relying on covert terrorist activities, which makes addressing the problem properly a political minefield.

Fortunately, we have a fairly easy way out. Many (if not most) American citizens, as well as the media, have made it abundantly clear that they are perfectly willing to overlook wars, genocides, and abuses of human rights in order to prevent the loss of any of our troops. So give them what they want.
We can extricate ourselves from Iraq with only a little difficulty by either declaring the Iraqi nation ready to stand on its' own a bit prematurely or by simply splitting the nation into three nations; Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni.
Naturally, the Kurds will probably be massacred in any kind of dispute, but they don't pose much of a threat in the way of terrorist reprisals in future years. Power struggles between the Shiites and Sunnis over the scraps should occupy most of their attention and may present a target for Iranian invasion. That's okay, because the majority of Muslims are Sunni, and they'll look favorably upon that outcome rather than directing any ire towaards us.
The next problem is Israel. Whatever posesses people to think that they can create nations out of thin air is utterly beyond me but I have yet to see a good example of such policy. We start by assuming a "pure mediation" stance in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This needs to be done slowly. We gradually withdraw military and financial support to Israel in the guise of "concessions" for Palestinian peace commitments. At a suitable point, (the most recent incursion of Israeli troops would have been a good one) we withdraw from our alliance with Israel in protest of their actions. Muslim nations will view this favorably and in all likelihood, a war will break out at some point between Israel and the Islamic nations.
Then we sit back and watch. Some European nations may intervene, thus drawing the focus to themselves for the next round of terrorist attacks, whatever the outcome of the war. The U.S. remains neutral.
It doesn't solve the terrorist problem, but it does make it someone else's problem.

Indubitably, there are better ways to go about it,( and I didn't go into detail about Afghanistan, either) but the goal should be a delicate withdrawl from our entagling alliances whilst maintaining trade relationships. Thomas Jefferson thought as much. War or no war, you're going to get criticism, but I've yet to see an example of U.S. non-interventionism causing more problems than going to war eventually did.

Perhaps you agree with some of the points I've made, or perhaps not, but your stance on terror is political suicide, one way or the other. I'm just trying to offer a little perspective for alternative solutions on that and the other issues.


All that being said (phew), I have one more question for you.
What is your stance on the War on Drugs? What would you do to make it more successful, if anything?