So you’re going to start wars with Iraq, Iran, Turkey, the rest of NATO, North Korea, and China?
I don’t think those troops are going to stay on the Rio Grande for very long.
I predict the resulting World War III to make the OP’s long-term economic goals moot.
Does “moot” mean “awesome?”
Some answers to your (GREAT) questions:
I’m not especially handsome, and I’m not Lyndon Larouche.
What I believe AA is: casting a wider net to find QUALIFIED candidates, what (IMO) most people think AA is: quotas
In regard to my Mid-East and Asian policies: “force” is too strong a word, but can’t think of lesser word they’d take seriously.
BTW, Assume I’m 2 years out of being the Governor of MA for two terms.
Okay, so you believe that affirmative action is what it actually is.
I’m not sure what most people think it is, but if I had to guess, most people do think (incorrectly) that it’s quotas.
I predict that the lack of traction the OP would gain (he or she might not even get their own families vote…the only vote they could be sure of is the OPs own) would render the entire platform mute. 
-XT
They’re not going to take your threats seriously either. Not if you have no way of making them happen.
How did you get elected there?
And I am opposed to cultural genocide. However I am saying all things considered Tibet is better off under Chinese control than under a Lamaist mediaeval theocracy.
The trouble being how one determines what is ‘better’ for someone else…and also the fact that the Chinese didn’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts or a sense of civic duty. Deciding you know what is ‘better’ for a people leads to the same kind of slippery slope that got us into Iraq, after all…
-XT
Interesting sidenote: “I am opposed to genocide but” gets very few google hits. By the same token I don’t have anything positive to say about theocracy. But if China wanted to improve infrastructure in Tibet or reform its government, for example, they could do it without wiping out the local culture. The primary aim is destroying the culture because Communist governments and authoritarian governments need to do that to non-state religions.
And saying ‘it’s better now than it was then’ doesn’t necessarily mean that Tibet wouldn’t be better off in the future being independent.
I actually agree with you on quite a few (but not all) of these policies, which is why it’s usually so hard for me to find a candidate I lke.
ETA: but your foreign policy positions are wacky.