As I said a couple weeks ago, there is definitely a case to be made against Mitt Romney for president. Generally speaking I tend to agree with some of what he does and says he would do, if elected president. However, my issues with him are as follows:
1. He supports the NDAA. Horrible, horrible law which hopefully will be struck down by the courts so that we don't have to worry about being arrested for disagreeing with the government. Yes, that's EXACTLY what the law says. First amendment be damned, you don't need to frickin' free speech. That's a problem, and I don't care whether we're "at war" or not. That's part of why it is that freedom of speech is so important, to defend the speech that others may think is offensive. Think about it, 50 years ago, someone speaking about black people living amongst whites, marrying whites, having babies with whites and it being socially acceptable would have been arrested in many areas. Now, the very activity he would have been arrested for just talking about, is socially acceptable to actually perform. Offensive today may be acceptable tomorrow. Additionally, those who speak for the minority may have a good point that eventually will become accepted by the majority. Ron Paul's ideas were first thought to be only acceptable to a small number of fringe candidates and their supporters. Yet, he's had influence on the platform (including the Republican platform plank calling for an audit of the fed) as well as influence amongst Tea Party candidates from all over the country. Freedom of speech allowed for that.
2. He supports the war on drugs with absolutely no hesitation and has no intention to legalize marijuana. C'mon. The war on drugs has gone on long enough. We've cost our country billions to incarcerate people whose biggest crime was having a bag of pot and not being smart enough(or being too stoned) to hide it in a good place. We have more people in jail per capital than any other country in the world, including China, North Korea, & Cuba, the last bastions of communism. I have no issue with keeping cocaine, heroin, meth, etc illegal. But pot? Seriously? Is it still illegal because the liquor companies don't want the competition? Is it still illegal because the companies that operate penitentiaries don't want to lose the business? I have no idea, but it's a victimless crime. If I grow pot and sell it to my 21 year old friend, I shouldn't be prosecuted. Nor should any company, including the tobacco companies if they want to start a commercial operation to do the same.
I'm not saying that pot is harmless, not by a long shot. Most studies show that it has many of the same health affects as tobacco (cancer, COPD, heart problems, etc), but you may want to note that tobacco is legal, while pot is not. Liquor causes deaths on the roads and in the hospitals every day, yet it's also legal and we have no intention of making it illegal.
3. Gun control - he's not a strong advocate of the second amendment. Yes, he's given it lip service and has generally not done anything that would be construed as against it, but when you are in a position of power and do not explicitly state that 'yes, I am 100% for it', it concerns me. In the past he has supported bans on 'assault-style' weapons, per the Brady Bill. As you've read here before, I find that idiotic. The Brady Bill definition of assault weapons include many that are merely cosmetically similar. So, my Ruger 10-.22 with the right (or wrong, if you're Sarah Brady) clip, a different hand guard, and a specific type of sight, would be considered an 'assault weapon'. Seriously? idiots.
4. Generally speaking I do like the fact that he's a billionaire. Seriously. He doesn't have to worry about being beholden to various industries or supporters for specific favors (although he still likely will, given the cost of the general election and the laws that forbid him from contributing too much to his own election). I don't believe that what he did at Bain is evil incarnate and I believe that his experience with American Motors, the Olympics, Bain, and other jobs give him infinitely more experience that President Obama had when he was elected to heal the planet. I like his pick of Ryan for VP, as he is as fiscal a conservative as you can be without being completely crucified (see Ron Paul) and run out of town in DC. I also like that while the Democrats are talking charity and good works, Romney is actually putting his money where his mouth is, donating more to charity in one year than Biden and Obama have combined in ten. The whole "out of touch" thing because he's a billionaire is a joke. Seriously? You truly think that these bungholes in Washington are actually IN-TOUCH with the common man? If you do, you're an idiot and need to leave this page right now, as you're lowering the average IQ of my readership.
However, these points alone are sufficient to drive me to vote (again) for the Libertarian candidate, who is Gary Johnson.
Post a Comment