My Youtube channel

That would be where protectionism comes into play.

The government is corrupt af and gangs own most of the territories, so I would prefer not to do business from down there. Hardly Heaven on Earth.

This is exactly what you're asking for when you say you don't want government interfering with business.

They're 100% PRO-BUSINESS.

They've got practically no government oversight (regulations), you can easily avoid paying taxes and you don't have to worry about big subsidies for your competitors.

REalistically, though.  What do you think would happen to your precious America if all those evil-nasty-government-regulations disappeared overnight??

According to the World Bank ease of doing business index, America is 6 th in the world, while Mexico is 60. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ic.bus.ease.xq

We must be 10x more pro-business than them, right? ;)

In terms of regulations we have a better score than Mexico(less burden by government regulations). We have a 4.68(seven being the best) while Mexico has a 2.63.

I don't want all regulations to disappear, nor do I want anything drastic overnight. That would be a disaster.

Because the Republicans in that time supported open borders.  Ideological gravitation is pretty prominent in the minds of Americans.  You´ll be surprised what policies people would support just because they are Republican or Democrat by default.

The bible has various verses supporting not to oppress the foreigner and to treat the foreigner like the native.  Since native people don´t have to go through a legalization process, the bible does not advocate this for immigrants.

Businesses don't have worker caps is the thing.  They would hire all qualified workers.  Whether or not someone is qualified for a job has nothing to do with whether there are illegal immigrants applying too.

Latin American countries are generally:

-Christian

-Have separation of church and state.

-Are capitalist economies that resemble colonial Spain.

-They have European gun laws.

-They are mostly of European descent ethnically.  Just so happened that the Europeans mingled with a bunch of natives.

-They generally abolished the death penalty, just like Europe and Canada.

-They have medicare for all generally.

Lets say that every one of the 160 million immigrants coming into the country vote liberal.  This would cause the conservatives to poll at 33% nationally.  The pie chart method would save the republican party in this situation, since Republicans would still get significant representation in government, they just don't get as much as the Dems.  However, there will be some republicans in the mix, since the US under my plan would have open borders with everyone, Latin Americans would be voting liberal possibly.  But the other ethnic groups that would come into the US, like those from Africa would be very red pilled compared to African Americans.  They are very religious, very disciplined, very pro life, they would look at our poverty as a joke since they have had worse, so they would oppose welfare.  They can help remove the liberal monopoly on minority votes.

Partitioning the Hispanic race; classifying White Hispanics as Whites and Native Hispanics as Native Americans, etc can help make the group more red pilled.  If they are a combination, they are classified in the two or more races group.

So does some of Latin America.

It´s because they think they need them.  In order to alleviate poverty, I would show them how to get a better paying job that only requires a HS degree.  

If I euthanize it so I could say, ¨I want to eliminate poverty through individual effort¨, and they point out that the war on poverty was a failure, then a bunch of Sanders supporters would not like the war on poverty because it is counterproductive to their goal of eliminating national poverty.  They might vote for my proposal to eliminate poverty if it makes sense.

One at a time.  Poor people can get a better paying job that only requires a HS degree.  Such jobs do exist, are very common, and some examples are in the sheet below:

They may not be the best jobs, but they are certainly better then working at McDonalds considering the salary advantage.  Only 1 job from the list goes below $45,000 per year, and barely so.  Bernie Sanders $15 an hour plan gives the worker $30,000 per year.  My plan is better for the poor then Bernie´s plan.

As someone with autism, I don´t need welfare and there should be strict requirements for going on welfare.  I would only reserve welfare for people both physically and mentally disabled.  Mentally disabled people can still do construction work and physically disabled people can still get a job in the link above.

Children's parents can follow the plan I described above in order to escape poverty for themselves and their children.

That must be because of their LACK OF reliable (government) REGULATION ENFORCEMENT.

For example,

Corruption is a significant risk for companies operating in Mexico. Bribery is widespread in the country’s judiciary and police. Business registration processes, including getting construction permits and licenses, are negatively influenced by corruption. Organized crime continues to be a very problematic factor for business, imposing large costs on companies. [LINK]

Without a functioning government, MOBSTER ETHICS is the only law.

Isn't that so-much-better-than all those annoying (government) regulations?

Can you and I agree to make this priority #1?

As per, [LINK]

And are you including the corn subsidies that artificially prop-up the junk-food-industry??

Can they though?  How many companies do you know of will hire homeless people?  What about a 55 year old that only has a high-school education and hasn't held a job in the past ten years (supported by spouse).  Have you considered orphans who are under the legal working age?

Because this is the true and primary CAUSE OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION.

They too can get a job.  You gotta start somewhere.  The company would accept him as more labor for their projects.  The company benefits since they get to expand and the homeless person gets a good job and would no longer be homeless once they buy/rent a place to live.

They wait until a foster parent is there to adopt them.  The foster system can use welfare, but as POTUS, I would want consenting competent parents to adopt the kids so the kids get a home.  From what I've heard and concluded from this evidence, there are more people wanting to adopt then there are foster kids.  From this evidence, I think the foster system tries to figure out the best parents for the kids and this is why it takes time.  I don´t know if this is right.

Why ending homelessness isn’t as simple as just getting a job, and why homeless people have a hard time getting jobs? 
There are many assumptions about homeless people. Perhaps the most common is that they are too lazy to work. Having almost been there myself in 1991, because of medical issues and having worked with many others in the same situation for years, I have to say that for the vast majority of homeless people the assumption that they are lazy is dead wrong and your elected officials know it in this city. 
But many won’t defend them. I used to work one full- and two part-time jobs, a total of three jobs, until I got sick. It happened again a second time (almost lost my home years later) when the government made a big mistake and declared me dead because my Social Security number was recorded as someone else’s, off by one number.
Why it’s hard to deal with being homeless. 
Most employers require addresses. This is a lose-lose situation:  People can’t get a place to live until they get a job, but can’t get a job until they get a place to live. 
Many jobs require transportation.  
That can be a huge obstacle to getting to work. For some, an automobile is a home-on-wheels, (I’ve seen 30 families last winter live in their vehicles) but many don’t have even that. Many jobs require that applicants have dependable transportation. Sometimes this can be a bus, but if work hours are irregular and begin before buses start running or after they have stopped, it means owning your own vehicle. Not having a car or money to pay for a bus fare means you can’t get to work.
Working at Home Depot in Hooksett, I require transportation. It costs me $120 monthly, but I’m not allowed to claim the expense because I don’t own the car, even though they know I must pay someone to get me to and from work daily. It’s crazy.
Many Homeless People Have Criminal Records.                              
The criminal records are often a result of their homelessness and sometimes, their only crime was not having a place to sleep. Just look at our city parks. Our city officials pulled people from their tents without finding them any other shelter and did not clean up the mess in many places. So where were they supposed to go? Of course they went Downtown, as our elected officials took away the only home they knew.
The BMA has not adequately addressed this crisis. Homelessness is often a crime in the city of Manchester and it shouldn’t be. 
In many cities in America, the state of being homeless is inherently illegal, so getting a criminal record is inevitable if one has nowhere to live in those areas. While some people on the street do commit crimes, sometimes their only crime is being without a place to sleep or to find a place to go to an indoor bathroom. Did you know that the city parks public bathrooms paid for by the taxpayers are no longer available to all citizens of Manchester?
In 2018 the BMA created a segregated bathroom at Veterans Park with two portables covered by a shed, where the parks public bathrooms are closed to certain populations of the Queen City. 
(Let’s not forget the fact that the BoMA closed Veterans Park public bathrooms six years ago and still we as a city have not resolved that issue other than for them to create a segregated indoor heated and outdoor portables covered by a shed. Within 50 feet of each other are two working sets of bathrooms… One for the haves and the other for the have nots – without heat in the winter months. As unforgiving as that is, we treat our pets better. It’s a double standard. 
That is so wrong because it’s not true at all.
Now the BoMA is at it again, instead of helping them they are writing up another senseless ordinance to make it illegal to be homeless and making it a crime within our city. Another homeless ordinance being written will make it illegal to camp within the city except for those they may give a permit too. It’s all about money and less services rendered to its citizens. 
It often doesn’t take long for the homeless to get criminal records without doing anything wrong. Charges for loitering, trespassing, unauthorized camping, or for falling asleep in a place not designated as a residence are common. 
Some of the elected officials already call all the homeless variance as if it’s a bad word because only the homeless commit crimes, drug sales, and violence in our city, according to them.                           
When we as a city start treating humans worse than we treat our pets, then how can you expect respect or work toward results of solving our city problems? (One can be arrested for mistreating our pets, but not how we treat people suffering homelessness.) The BoMA has turned a $56,000 repair estimate into a nearly $200,000 budget to repair our public bathrooms downtown in the park two years later. 
They created this crisis, now’s the time to fix it.
They claim homelessness is the source of most crime. They are wrong and it doesn’t reflect their opinions in the crimes recorded by our own MPD. That is so wrong, because it’s not true at all.
Addiction (and the Assumption of Addiction) Is an Obstacle to Employment.
Addiction might play a part. Addictions prevent them from looking for work and from getting hired at times, but not always. (It depends how out of control your addiction is.) Many employers assume the homeless citizens are all addicts because here in Manchester that’s what some elected officials want you to believe is true. They are not!  But it’s not damn close JKL and you are not doing anyone a favor as an Alderman-at-Large spreading such misinformation for your political gains to get re-elected.
Money Alone Isn’t Enough to Rent an Apartment! 
That’s right, money alone is not enough to rent most apartments. To get into most apartment complexes in the United States, applicants must have a good credit score, good references, and have a job at which they earn at least three times as much as the monthly rent. (Manchester is no different…)

While a person might be able to afford to rent an apartment working a minimum wage job by sticking to a very strict budget, still, most apartment complexes will not rent to them knowing that there are other bills needed to pay to survive. Like food – medical – electricity – vehicle – cable – phone – heat and other necessary living expenses.  A very modest one-bedroom apartment might have cost only $600 a month in the year 2000, but in today’s housing costs with an average increase of 5 percent per year, the average one-bedroom apartment goes for $1,200 those who rent it must now earn at least between $1,952 to $3,600 a month in most cases. If you rent a two or three-bedroom you can add another $200 to $300 more in rent. That takes the income needed two rent a 2 or 3 Bedroom apartment between  $2,150 to $4,200 or $2,250 to $4,500 depending on monthly bills. 

Here in Manchester, New Hampshire a person needs to earn at least a minimum wage of $12.20 per hour or more to rent a one bedroom or $13.45 for a 2 BR and $14.10 for a 3 BM to even be considered as an acceptable applicant for the apartment.
I recently tried to help a family of five to fill out paperwork to move into a low-income apartment complex and the requirement on their paperwork read that the rent must not exceed 30 percent of the applicants’ combined income. So their $700 a month of income does not pay for the apartment which requires them to earn at least $2,350 per month to be allowed to rent it, (and that was an affordable low-income housing program.) So they slept in their vehicle since June, so they can at least afford food for the five of them (the two parents and three children.) There are at least 30 other families this past winter that were living in their vehicles with similar situations. [LINK]

Ending corporate welfare must be priority #1.

Please tell me which of your hodge-podge is your pick for #1.

How are you going to "eliminate poverty"?  That doesn't even make any sense.

Didn't say that.  My assumption about them is that they want to work good jobs, but don´t know how.  They could barely care what job they do if it's a decent job if it pays the bills.  My sheet shows many jobs a homeless person can do that only require a HS degree.  The homeless would appreciate the sheet as a means of getting out of poverty on their own, without government handouts.

This is harder than it has to be for the homeless.  They work multiple jobs because they don´t know how else to secure money for themselves.  I´d want to show them good paying jobs they can get that enable them to reduce their hours and earn more at the same time.

Why do they do this?  Their address can be a charitable shelter that is nearby until they get the good job from my sheet.

Under my plan, lets say your in NYC and you want a job in rural Kansas.  If you need a ride to get to Kansas that´s government paid, so be it.  The poor person gets their ride and contributes to the job in Kansas.  If all they need is a $100 ride to a place where they can be productive, so be it.  They can get a place to live in that area with the money they earned from their job.

Me personally, I wouldn´t ban sleeping on the streets and I don´t think it´s good for cities to ban it.  We have charitable shelters for the homeless to live.

What is the BMA?  I looked it up but didn't find anything.  What is the BoMA?

This is going too far.  How much does a bathroom cost?

See what big government does.  It requires a permit for safe things.

We both agree that homelessness must go down?  Now, how do we get to that point, because the War on poverty has been tried for about 50 years and not only has not reduced poverty, but poverty was going down before the policy started, and when the policy was put into effect, the poverty rate stagnated.  Check out the link below:

I favor rehabilitation for those who use most recreational drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.  It worked in Portugal.

I´m sorry, but I don´t know how to help fix the situation of people who are in this.  Maybe they can get a good credit score and good references.  Or maybe landlords should not restrict people on this, I don´t know.

3600*12=$43200.  All the jobs on my sheet pay more than $43,200 per year for those with a HS degree.  Getting rid of the property tax will help renters because a lot of their rent goes to pay the property tax.  Schools can get funded by a sales tax on goods, services, and investment profits.

I would say eliminating the US debt should be #1 to maintain our sovereignty.

If POTUS, I would show low income people how they can get a better job that only requires a HS degree if that´s all they have.

If you're proposing some sort of national job-placement assistance, then I'm on-board.

This is highly unlikely.

After doing some research, if it helps them be on their own with a good salary not mandated by the government, sounds good.  

Welfare is a cash handout to poor people.  Rehab isin´t welfare.

It´s true.  Rent is so high in part to pay for the property maintenance.  This includes taxes.

Rent is set by market demand.

In my personal experience, property tax is less than 25% of the monthly rental fee (and even less for an apartment).

If you eliminated property taxes, landlords would simply pocket the extra money and continue to raise rents every single year like they always do anyway.

You can have a reliable government with few regulations. The problem with corruption in Mexico is that there is selective enforcement. That and one of my source specifically discussed regulatory burden, which was higher in Mexico.

This "regulatory burden" only applies if there is a reliable enforcement mechanism.

Do you really believe that smaller government would be preferable?

Maybe you could just pay the cartels their protection money directly?

That usually works out just fine, right?

So labor union members are just slaves to whatever the Democrats say? Over 1/3 of them, 38.4%, voted for Trump. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/silver-bulletpoints-the-union-vote-could-swing-the-election/ 

That is 8% above what Romney got and Trump's main issue was immigration. Pretending that union households don't care about immigration because the Democrats don't is just plain incorrect. If you account for only white men in labor unions, over 50% voted for Trump.

Even if we assume the Bible supported immigration, and not only that but also uninhibited immigration, it never calls for a theocracy in which you force you religious views upon others in your country. Could you cite a quote about that in the New Testament in case I am unaware? The Bible guides individual action, not governmental policy insight. And treating them like you treat natives would refer to not being xenophobic rather than saying there should be no laws regarding to who can come into your country.

There are hiring caps based on the company's available capital. You are neglecting that there are diseconomies of scale. If you have too many people working on a task, it becomes less efficient. So, pretending that companies can hire whoever they want is wrong because it costs money to hire people. If a company wants to save money, they would hire the illegal worker over the native worker.

Let us assume you are right on the Latin America thing, you are just proving that if we allow any foreigners in, they will irreparably alter our culture. You would have to assume two outrageous things to say that these immigrants will assimilate like the old European immigrants: (1) that our political, social, economic, and cultural climate is exactly the same as it used to be when we took those European immigrants long ago (2) you must assume that their attitudes on policy are exactly the same as they used to be despite the political, social, economic, and cultural differences that their countries have experienced over the past century.

Latin American countries don't really have medicare for all. Medicare for essentially no one would better sum it up. If you consider that Hispanics vote 69% Democrat, I don't know how you think your Libertarian views will fly when you let in the entire third-world below our border. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

So, you admit that the Hispanics will vote Democrat, but say that Africans will vote Republican. You also are operating under the assumption that the individuals will pay to move here themselves. In your opinion, will more Hispanics be able to afford to cross our southern border or will more Africans be able to cross an entire ocean without any money?

No, not really.

I don't think that poor people are poor simply because of their mindset. And when you inevitably drive down their wages by letting in tens of millions of low-wage immigrants that take all of the jobs that don't require a college degree......yeah. Not sustainable. Corporations benefit from hiring low-skill immigrants instead of natives. Immigrants get better jobs than they would in their home countries. The only people that get shafted are native workers who get worse working conditions and lower wages. You know, the people that the government has a responsibility to?

Hope you mean to say you would use a euphemism not "euthanize" lol. But you just said that union people vote based on what Democrats say, now you are saying people's minds can be changed regardless of party? 

Are you the one liking my posts? lol

If you mean cartel in the business sense, I believe in anti-trust regulations.

If you mean it in the criminal sense, the role of the government is to fight crime.

I do believe that a government that stays out of our lives as much as possible and that enforces our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be preferable.

How does that mesh with a free-market-economy?

Would you break-up Amazon and Microsoft?

I can agree with you on this.

However, I'd make sure to specify that a good government must first and foremost, protect personal sovereignty and personal privacy in service of protecting citizen's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Well, the whole benefit of having a free-market is the competition. So, you cannot allow monopolies that stifle competition.

I don't know enough about Microsoft and Amazon's market share to say if they should be "broken up" or exactly by how much.

You can't really stand up to international criminal organizations. They exist in the other countries, which makes it that country's responsibility. You can work with the other government on a joint initiative if you wish. But outside of that, invasion is the only way to solve that problem. I don't particularly like invasion, but to each his own.