If I were a Politician this is who I would be:

Party: Unaffiliated

Basis of Platform: Most people are most of the time Rational beings in their own mind. Accordingly, almost all political ideas and decisions that have significant backing have an abundance of reasoning and logic behind them, to the point that any final decision is a judgment call. This means that my opponents are not terrible or evil people, nor are they ignorant or stupid, they are simply prioritizing differently from me. Therefore my choices, decisions, and actions are not dependent on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of any other person's choices but should represent my own best personal judgment, which I should honestly express so that people know what they will be electing into office. 

Platform issues points in priority of importance:

1. Abortion:  According to the constitution, the Federal Government has no business making decisions on this issue. I would push for any and all questions of Abortion to be tabled or dismissed at the Federal level and encourage vocally encourage State Governments to make decisions on this matter. I would also freely express my personal opinion on the matter and vote accordingly if required. Namely, that no matter how you look at it, someone’s future possibility has been forever ended through the act of Abortion. The same can be said about War, which at times is a necessary evil when we are threatened, or aggression is forced on us. We do not leave the decision to go to war to Generals or soldiers, likewise I do not think the decision to end someone's future should be determined by anyone who is financially invested in the situation (doctors) or is emotionally compromised (soon-to-be parents). Unless an option is presented that is as discriminatory about ending someone's future as we are about going to war, I will oppose it.

As for the idea of Pro-Choice, in which it is a woman’s body to do with as she wishes, I say that women have as much choice and power over their body as any dictator does over a country. No one would expect me to support or condone a dictator killing her own people – in fact most would push for intervention – and so no one should expect me to condone a woman having an abortion. Having the authority to do something does not make something right.

2. Separation of Church and state and the Freedom of Religion: I believe strongly that the State and church should remain separate. That the State should not control, pressure, or mandate actions of churches nor should any church dictate the actions of the State. I do not believe that separation of church and state is the same thing as separation of religion and state. This nation was founded by religious men and the freedom of religion is in the bill of rights. This to me means that religion is an expected part of the State as long as there is no specific Church determining what it is or what the State does. Therefore moments for prayer, pronouncements of thanksgiving to God, and other expression of religion should be permitted and encouraged in all government and public locations, as long as no one is required to act or speak in those moments in accordance to any religion. Symbols of religious heritage that have impacted and created this country, such as the 10 commandments on courthouses, should be upheld and respected as the acknowledgment of history that they are, same as non-religious heritage sites. Likewise, mosques, synagogues, and religious dress should be protected and supported. To deny Religion in government is to deny Freedom of Religion. Only to allow a specific Church or religion to dictate government actions (or vis-a-versa) denies the separation of Church and State.

On this issue comes the question of the LGBTQ community and gay marriage. I believe the Government can issue whatever they want to call marriage to whoever they want. I will strongly oppose ANY suggestion that a Church be required to comply with or acknowledge those actions. Churches by definition have Creeds that their followers are expected to follow to be members and if someone doesn’t wish to follow the Church’s Creed then they can go elsewhere. Any Church that wishes to exclude these groups can do so and any that wish to acknowledge them can do so. That is the separation of Church and State.

Similarly, Freedom of Religion means that no one should be required to act against their Religion no matter what their occupation (government, emergency, services). If that causes problems for recipients, then they can go elsewhere, or employers can replace the unwilling worker. However, service should not be denied based on who is being served. If the service could be done without revealing anything about the requesting party and it would not cause issue, then knowing the requesting party should also cause no issue. However, if the action itself indicates support of, or is directly, against someone’s religion, it should not be compelled.

3. State vs Federal: I believe the greatest issues that this country now faces are caused by an imbalance between the States and Federal government that the constitution expressly prevents. The constitution states that only the powers expressed in the constitution are given to the Federal Government and all else is with the States. There have been many Departments, executive orders, and laws passed that are outside the authority of the Federal Government and the States no longer have the pull or power to prevent it. This has resulted in fewer issues and less attention being given to the State Governments and with more and more large-scale general laws and regulations that hurt more than they help. The prime example of this to me is Education, which is in-fact expressly given to the States and which the last several Presidents have all infringed on. I would oppose any bill that weakens the State governments power further.

To this issue I would actually propose two changes:

1.      That an effort is made to re-evaluate the roles the Federal Government intends to and should be involved in, and an amendment made to the Constitution which codifies these laws. Any Departments or regulations outside this amendment would need to be discontinued.

 

This would be to re-establish the relationship between the governments and reign in the Federal sprawl that has been occurring.

 

2.      In order to give States some power to balance the Federal Government, candidates for the US Senate must first be approved by their State Legislature by a simple majority.

 

The original change to popular vote for the Senate was because of excessive corruption with the limited number of people to be bribed in a state legislature. However, this change removed the greatest check on the Federal government and removed the entire purpose of the Senate – to represent the States while the House represents the people. We now essentially have two Houses and they act accordingly. Improvements in anti-corruption laws and the requirements of a simple majority and popular vote should prevent corruption above what already exists within the election process.

4. Guns: This I am aware is a very sensitive issue to many as they have been injured and lost loved ones due to gun violence. However, I am a firm advocate that the 2^nd Amendment was written, so that in the end of the day, individuals and communities could unite on an ad-hoc basis to form militias and protect their lives, freedom, and rights. The term used is explicitly “Arms” and not guns because the Founding Fathers understood that weapons technology evolves, and only equally lethal force can ever guarantee our rights. Should the establishment ever faulter – the government collapse, invaders conquer, police become overwhelmed, communications lost – it is our right and responsibility to be able to organize and protect ourselves. If we restrict gun access, we deny ourselves this ability and empower those who feel they are above the law, gangs, criminals, and invaders to take away our rights.

That said I am not unsympathetic to the current situation and danger we have with Guns. We live in an imperfect world and where there are weapons there will be those who will use them incorrectly. I oppose any move to limit access to guns. However, I DO believe that universal requirements that anyone can meet does not limit access. As a result I would propose the following:

1.      All gun purchases require a safety, handling, and control training certificate.

2.      Any incident involving a person’s gun, they are liable for, even if they were not in possession of the gun at that time; due to negligence as they were certified as having been trained to control their guns.

3.      Increased funding, research, and efforts put into protecting and securing classrooms and students at schools.

4.      Increased funding, research, and efforts put into to identifying and assisting people who are at risk of taking their own life or others.

5. Government Spending and Bloatware: Government Spending and Laws are going out of control with our debt and the number of laws constantly increasing. It is only a matter of time until the interest of the debts exceeds the income. At which point many people lose their retirements as bonds default or inflations goes crazy. No one wants to lose what they have gained however nor pay more in taxes. The same holds true for Laws though in many cases the laws have long since lost their purpose and are only obscuring more important issues.

I have several unpopular proposals I would try to put forward:

1. More government services will need to be paid for. Right now, some national parks, passports, and some few other services are the only ones that generate any revenue for the government outside of taxes. These would need to increase in cost and other services that are currently free would need to start charging.
2. As applicable, Government contracts, awards, and grants would be considered or at least partially include a loan with expectation of repayment.
3. The IRS will create a website so in which taxpayers will indicate their preference for how their money is spent across the existing budget. This will not be the actual usage of the funds but will be used to determine which programs could least painfully be discontinued.
4. A committee would be established with the sole purpose of reviewing laws for repeal or amendment – starting with laws intended to save money (daylight savings), involving regulations, and taxes. 

6. War: I think the idea of helping others in the world who are suffering is admirable and even that there is an obligation on all nations to stand up to genocide and mass slaughter. However, the recent wars have shown abundantly that limited intervention does not always or even normally result in fewer deaths or a long-term improvement in peoples lives. The recent wars I think have also shown that long term intervention is extremely costly in both dollars and lives and that such a cost is outside the ability of the United States to reasonably pursue in anything but the most extreme of cases. Sadly oppressed populations does not meet this qualifications. It would be wonderful if we could truly police the world and end the suffering of the many who need intervention. We cannot, however, and attempting to do so sets false expectations, creates both national and international unrest, and ultimately fails in its goal. I believe the UN is doing the best that can be done in this area (which again is far less than ideal) and would support its endeavors.

All that said, I do still believe that there are true cases of genocide in which intervention is necessary. In these few and extreme cases I would support war. I believe the situation in China with the Uhgers is bordering on this, though I trust the Chinese government can be reasoned with before it comes to that.

As for the current conflicts, to my understanding, there is little to no indication that our continued involvement will every change the end result of our leaving and we cannot sustain our efforts indefinitely. As such I see continued efforts as a waste and I am inclined to pull out all our troops and let whatever terrible result occur. I understand however that I cannot see all however and that the previous few Presidents indicated the same but did not follow through. This is a decision I would need full military counseling for which I do not currently have. My inclination though is that we cannot fix the problem and trying to patch it is just hurting us and we should discontinue.  

7. Anti-Vaxers:

Are Anti-Vaxers an issue? Yes, because eradicated diseases are starting to return to the country as a result of their concerns. As I believe people are normally rational, I believe the Anti-Vaxers have thought the issue through and have some reason for their concern and there are enough of these people to have an impact on the health of the nation – though, I personally disagree with their reasons and feel their concerns are blown out of proportion. However, the root of their concern seems to stem from the fact that vaccines are required and therefore there is little market incentive to improve or validate them beyond that they work.

I would propose organizing a donation based and government supported research project including a detailed analysis and report into the dangers and reasons for inclusion of every component of each vaccine, and would sponsor a government loan for the development of any improvement that reduces the risks of any existing vaccine.

In the meantime, I would strongly urge everyone to vaccinate. The consequence of no vaccination is potential death for yourself and those around you and, based on the number of people vaccinated without consequence, other risks are slim and minor. 

8. China: I think China is a great asset to the US and international community as a whole. Its unique culture, government, and capabilities provides the competition to strive and excel that has been largely missing since the fall of the Soviet Union. They also provide a different perspective that a largely unified West no longer considers or ignores from other less powerful countries. I applaud their success and movements into the larger global scene.

That said, a little friendly competition can get out of hand and too much power in the hands of bullies is a bad thing. The way China handles its minorities with harvesting organs, concentration camps, and forced quartering is atrocious, despicable, and not something anyone of conscious could turn a blind eye towards no matter how many other wonderful attributes there may be. If China treats its own people so poorly, we can hardly expect fairer treatment as its influence grows. The US and UN should denounce and even start sanctioning China over these issues and offer incentives for reconciliation.

9. Iran: Iran understandably wants nuclear capability – so did Pakistan. All the very real threats and issues with Iran, were also the threats from Pakistan. Should Iran get nuculear capability and the real threat of retaliation sets in, they will work with us to simmer things down. That said I believe in the sanctions and restrictions in place to prevent those risks from ever taking place. Anything more, well that is Israel’s call if they feel they need to take more extreme actions.