There are issues in motion right now that I consider the most important political issues of our day and this election those are big factors in my filtering of candidates criteria:
?NDAA, the Patriot Act, TSA and all accompanying inroads against the rights of citizens in the US including the ongoing military police assault against Occupy Wall Street and peaceful protest.
?CISPA/SOPA/ACTA and all its bastard offshoots and clones.
?Wars, occupation, and military spending in the Middle East that are gutting this country and killing off the younger generation of soldiers either in the field or when they suicide either in the field or after returning home.
?The ?war on drugs.? Which is contributing substantially and not in a good way to the militarization of police forces at home in conjunction with the ?war on terror.?
As far as I am concerned, there are no more pressing issues right here, right now, in play in politics.
?
Ron Paul and I don?t see eye to eye on everything. Given other options, I?d want Dennis Kucinich. But there are no other options and Dennis Kucinich is not on the ballot and the next best choice is Ron Paul.
Ron Paul will pull us out of the wars, occupations, and nation building that are bleeding this country dry, not only of years to come of its gross national product, but of the lives of young soldiers dying daily not just from enemy fire, but suicide as a result of the damage done to them by these wars. And not two or three or five or fifteen years from now. NOW. He?ll un-write indefinite detention [NDAA] of American Citizens; He?ll kill the Patriot Act and unwarranted searches and wiretapping; He?ll dismantle the groping and ever reaching TSA; He?ll stop the ongoing police assault on peaceful protesters in the Occupy movement and the militarization of domestic police forces; He?ll end the insane war on drugs that has made the US the world leader in private [for profit] prisons and incarceration of citizens; And he?ll stop the ongoing and perpetual assault on a free and functioning internet that show up daily in the forms of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and more recently CISPA. Add to this he does not believe in the ongoing assault on whistle blowers and Bradley Manning might just see the sky again someday if Ron Paul is elected president and the ongoing world wide witch hunt for Julian Assange might stop. And, he?ll stop the drones. Which are killing civilians every day overseas, and coming to your neighborhood street corner any day soon if either Obama or Romney are voted into office.
That?s a lot of reasons to vote for Ron Paul.
?
People shove a lot of objections at me on the Ron Paul argument:
He?s a racist!
Um. Right. One number:
35,948
That?s the DAILY AVERAGE OF PEOPLE ARRESTED IN THE US EVERY DAY. It?s a fucking huge number. The majority of those arrests are for non-violent drug crimes. And the majority of them, poor or of color, will go on to join the vast, near-voiceless crowd of 2.3 million incarcerated Americans. And what will most of them have in common? They will be poor people of color. So don?t talk to me about racism. The one presidential candidate who is trying to take Black America off the prison block, which appears to have replaced the slave block, may have a few personal foibles about whom he wants to invite over for Thanksgiving dinner, but he?s trying to do something that will be of more value to the communities of color in this country than any other candidate is. He?s trying to end the drug war. Which is not incarcerating White America. It is incarcerating Black America.
?
Then there is the abortion issue. Ron Paul doesn?t like abortion! Okay. So what? He?s the president. That is the executive branch, not the legistlative or judiciary branch.
[For fuck's sake, learn your branches!]
The president doesn?t get to outlaw abortion. He doesn?t get to outlaw anything. All he can do is veto laws coming through he does not approve of, or, suggest lawmakers make laws he might like to see, or, in some cases, really strong arm his party to create laws. But he doesn?t make laws. Ever. Because. He?s not the branch of government that makes Law.
I think Obama was kind of counting on the public citizenry getting this when he just sat there doing nothing during the whole health care thing. Or at least his handlers were. But at this point, everyone is so used to treating the president like a king, I?m not sure the general public actually knows ~ The President does not write laws.
Because, Hello, the president is not the law making branch of government.
?
Then there is the argument, but he gets to name new Supreme Court members. Yeah he does. I used to fall for that one too. Also, a little late for that, Bush WAS in office EIGHT YEARS. AHHH! But yes. Naming the Supreme Court peeps is major. Unless the Supreme Court and Federal Government are not in charge of EVERYTHING.
Maybe this is something you have been missing. The president can actually say, Hey, the Supreme Court doesn?t get to rule on this issue. [Didn't know that one did you? Any president since Roe vs. Wade could have killed Roe vs. Wade. All they had to do was say, This is not the purvue of the the Supreme Court. They didn't though, did they? Think about that one if you voted for a president because you thought he was anti-abortion. He lied to you. He could have ended it any day. And he didn't.] This is, from a pro-choice perspective, actually the real danger of a Paul presidency. He does know how that works. He can nullify Roe vs. Wade. And, being one of the men in DC who actually knows how that all works? And being anti choice? He might do it.
However. He?s a constitutionalist. Every vote he makes is about whether the federal government should be imposing or overriding state law. He might overturn Roe vs. Wade. But he won?t walk storm troopers into any state that makes abortion legal.
As things stand now, if anyone on the federal level were to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the establishment would.
This is what I think people often do not get about Paul. His stances on any issue are always, should this be federally imposed? Should the federal government be imposing this, and capable of taking this away, or should this be up to states, period? That?s his stance on civil rights, that?s his stance on abortion, if you give that right to the federal government, it can be taken away from all people at any time, if you hold it with the state, you have some input and ability to change it sans the National Guard and/or drones attacking.
And, if you think about it, it doesn?t matter if Roe vs. Wade is still hovering on the brink of extinction in federal court if your state makes it nearly or entirely impossible to obtain an abortion despite it being federally legal. [Which is happening in a load of states.] So maybe if we stop worrying about the federal government dictating this and start pushing on a state level for choice, you and I can make our states allow choice. [Also Ron Paul is the only candidate in the Republican primary debates who, during a discussion about this when the "ABORTION PILL!" came up in discussion said, "Well don't be stupid that is just birth control."]
Back to choice. Though it is kind of cool to have someone who will say, Don?t be stupid, that?s just birth control. [Yay for doctor candidates!]
Right now, apparently all it takes is one [more] Supreme Court judge to say no and the whole freaking country goes toes up on Roe vs. Wade. Though that might be a little optimistic, considering what else the Supreme Court, allegedly more balanced than it really was, has done recently. [Corporations are people, anyone?] In fact, if you leave something in the entire control of the federal government, that?s how it works. If the federal government goes the wrong way, and it has a lot, recently, everyone goes the wrong way. So. Which do you have more access to? Your federal government? Or your town and state? Who do you want dictating to you? That guy from South Carolina? [Sorry South Carolina but you guys have been sort of dicks recently.] Or the governor you can actually maybe talk to or put some pressure on?
?
Then there is gay marriage. ?Ron Paul is against gay marriage!? Um, no he isn?t. He doesn?t want to do it himself. He isn?t entirely down with the concept. But what he doesn?t want to do is federally control or dictate it. He thinks states should make their own laws. The end, period. And the federal government should be as hands off in this and every matter as possible. You want to make gay marriage legal in South Carolina? Go fucking boot out the bozo in South Carolina who is against it. Wait, you don?t live in South Carolina? Then go boot out the guy messing with you in your own state and let South Carolina worry about itself and boot out its own guy. This will work, state by state, if you become active instead of waiting for the federal government to do things and then relying on compromise with [sorry, but you were dicks] South Carolina.
?
Another argument: Regulation. ?Ron Paul will get rid of regulation and environmental protection agencies!? Um, well, in case you hadn?t noticed, Obama has Monsanto in charge of the FDA, Goldman Sachs in charge of banking regulation, Exelon is running nuclear regulation, BP and Haliburton and other oil entities are running oil drilling regulation, Wellpoint wrote the new health care bill, GE is in charge of job creation? do I have to keep going here or do you get the picture? The protection and regulation agencies, on top of costing the American tax payer a load of coin to operate because they keep growing and costing more, are already asylums being run by the inmates. They don?t regulate. They don?t protect. They have become antimatter agencies tearing down everything they are supposed to protect. Add to that, each industry that is allegedly being regulated, except it is being ?regulated? by double agents it sent in? [Being paid and supported on the tax payer's dime.] Each of those industries is still getting seed fund cash from the government. Big oil gets incentive cash. Nuclear companies get seed money cash. Monsanto gets seed money cash. [That was not a pun on purpose.] We are paying tax payer cash into these companies to create the very things killing us, then paying them again in the form of regulatory agencies to stop themselves after we paid their start up fees and when their own executives and lobbyists are running regulatory agencies in order to ignore any wrong doing and while the heads of these companies are swapping in and out of the presidential cabinet to ?advise? the president on how to keep it all going this way.
Which I call hell in a hand basket.
So yeah. As far as I am concerned? Tear those motherfuckers down. And then? Cut off their tax payer paid start up funds. And see how willing they are to build a new nuclear facility if it?s them, not the tax payers, who have to put out the 40 billion dollar fee to built the facility.
?
Have I addressed all objections?
Probably not.
But that is a pretty good start.
?
jeff carter chomp national enquirer kate gosselin helicopter crash matt jones whitney houston in casket photo
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন