At this point, the candidates have said everything a million times over. We all knew going into this last debate that nothing new was going to be said.
Also, it was a debate that focused mostly on foreign policy, and we already knew what both of the candidates were going to say because of their party affiliations. The debate tonight could have been predicted play by play and nobody would have missed a beat. From the looks of it, I made the right decision in choosing to not watch it and instead spending the night celebrating my friend's birthday.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Political Parties
As we have all heard time and time again, George Washington in his Farewell Address after two terms as President of the United States said to the young nation that political parties and the polarization of the political process would be detrimental to the progress of the country. Despite this advice, political parties developed in the country, and they started to tear people apart, as expected.
However, even though this sounds like it's a bad thing and in light of recent events it seems as though political parties have done nothing but hurt the nation, we should consider the fact that it was probably impossible for political parties to not take root.
People love to identify with a group of other people. The fact that we are social creatures that want to be able to come together under one common cause is a huge factor in the formation of political parties. Very rare is the person that just goes out on their own and does something without the support of others when it comes to politics. They usually want to go in with some sort of following before they do anything because without it, they have no power.
The Republican and Democratic parties that we know today started out as groups of people who had similar ideals who were going to try to push for certain things to get passed through Congress and the rest of the government, while trying to block other things. People made alliances, tried to make strategic moves, do certain things to intimidate, charm, or trick the other side into making a mistake or doing things the way they wanted and just like that, the political process of today was formed.
There is nothing in the Constitution about primaries or any sort of nomination process for someone to run for President. Legally, someone can just meet the qualifications that are spelled out in the Constitution and they can decide one day that they want to run for President. Third party candidates usually take this route and they try to gain a following through grassroots organizations or small groups of people that have a passion for certain things. Third party candidates can also come from failed primary elections, and they can end up running for a third party if they don't make it past the primary stage.
Sadly, third parties don't usually have a good chance of winning elections. As we all know, a third party has never won a presidential election, and there have only been a few of them who have won seats in the Senate and House over the years, but they usually don't last long. Independents and Libertarians are the third parties that have seen some moderate success over the years because they seem to identify with most of the general public. The general public just isn't as informed about these candidates due to the fact that they aren't allowed to participate in the debates.
In short, I believe that third parties need to play a bigger role in the government so that we can be more democratic and can start to appeal to those who don't vote because the two party system doesn't cater to their needs.
However, even though this sounds like it's a bad thing and in light of recent events it seems as though political parties have done nothing but hurt the nation, we should consider the fact that it was probably impossible for political parties to not take root.
People love to identify with a group of other people. The fact that we are social creatures that want to be able to come together under one common cause is a huge factor in the formation of political parties. Very rare is the person that just goes out on their own and does something without the support of others when it comes to politics. They usually want to go in with some sort of following before they do anything because without it, they have no power.
The Republican and Democratic parties that we know today started out as groups of people who had similar ideals who were going to try to push for certain things to get passed through Congress and the rest of the government, while trying to block other things. People made alliances, tried to make strategic moves, do certain things to intimidate, charm, or trick the other side into making a mistake or doing things the way they wanted and just like that, the political process of today was formed.
There is nothing in the Constitution about primaries or any sort of nomination process for someone to run for President. Legally, someone can just meet the qualifications that are spelled out in the Constitution and they can decide one day that they want to run for President. Third party candidates usually take this route and they try to gain a following through grassroots organizations or small groups of people that have a passion for certain things. Third party candidates can also come from failed primary elections, and they can end up running for a third party if they don't make it past the primary stage.
Sadly, third parties don't usually have a good chance of winning elections. As we all know, a third party has never won a presidential election, and there have only been a few of them who have won seats in the Senate and House over the years, but they usually don't last long. Independents and Libertarians are the third parties that have seen some moderate success over the years because they seem to identify with most of the general public. The general public just isn't as informed about these candidates due to the fact that they aren't allowed to participate in the debates.
In short, I believe that third parties need to play a bigger role in the government so that we can be more democratic and can start to appeal to those who don't vote because the two party system doesn't cater to their needs.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Romney on abortion/ "flip flopping" and what it really means.
If anything, this is something Romney can say that he has been consistent on. He hasn't changed his position on this issue from the beginning of this campaign all the way to the end. I saw a bit today on MSNBC about Romney supposedly being a "flip flopper" when it came to the issue of abortion, and it just made me laugh more than anything.
I don't think that any candidate has ever been completely consistent from one end of an election to another. In today's campaign environment, it's almost impossible for someone to be completely the same when it comes to policy throughout the entire process.
A candidate essentially has to run two separate campaigns: one for the primary when they polarize as much as possible without going off the deep end and sounding crazy so that they can win over the people that are actually going to go vote in a primary election (which would be the more polarized members of the electorate), and then one for the general election where they have to move back toward the middle to try and win the swing voters in the more important states.
This is a sad fact because it often means that the candidates have to change their viewpoints and what they say about certain policy over the course of the year due to the extreme cases in the primaries and the more moderate ones in the general election debates.
It's just sad that the majority of the public doesn't understand this fact, so when they see on TV or read online somewhere that Romney or Obama changed their stance on something, they think that that candidate cannot be trusted and must not be a dependable person. In reality, they're just playing the game that they are being forced to play to win votes and hopefully get elected into office.
Finally, I think that we have to consider that candidates are at their core HUMAN BEINGS. They too have experiences and encounters that change their viewpoints on certain things and can influence their worldview. If you have something happen to you that is a major event in your life, it usually changes your view of the world in that area, whatever that may be. If we begin to think of candidates of humans instead of just political robots, we start to see that changing viewpoints and stances might not be something that has to do with integrity or trustworthiness, but might actually be attributed to the fact that they could have a soul.
I don't think that any candidate has ever been completely consistent from one end of an election to another. In today's campaign environment, it's almost impossible for someone to be completely the same when it comes to policy throughout the entire process.
A candidate essentially has to run two separate campaigns: one for the primary when they polarize as much as possible without going off the deep end and sounding crazy so that they can win over the people that are actually going to go vote in a primary election (which would be the more polarized members of the electorate), and then one for the general election where they have to move back toward the middle to try and win the swing voters in the more important states.
This is a sad fact because it often means that the candidates have to change their viewpoints and what they say about certain policy over the course of the year due to the extreme cases in the primaries and the more moderate ones in the general election debates.
It's just sad that the majority of the public doesn't understand this fact, so when they see on TV or read online somewhere that Romney or Obama changed their stance on something, they think that that candidate cannot be trusted and must not be a dependable person. In reality, they're just playing the game that they are being forced to play to win votes and hopefully get elected into office.
Finally, I think that we have to consider that candidates are at their core HUMAN BEINGS. They too have experiences and encounters that change their viewpoints on certain things and can influence their worldview. If you have something happen to you that is a major event in your life, it usually changes your view of the world in that area, whatever that may be. If we begin to think of candidates of humans instead of just political robots, we start to see that changing viewpoints and stances might not be something that has to do with integrity or trustworthiness, but might actually be attributed to the fact that they could have a soul.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Is Romney going to win his own state?
I had a conversation with someone who lives in Massachusetts today and I asked a question that I think we should all ask ourselves, and I think that it points to one of the fundamental problems that we have in our nation today.
Mitt Romney, as most of us know, was governor of the state of Massachusetts before this campaign for President. Being a Republican governor of that state, he seemed to break the trend of Democrats that had been in power for so long before him. The fact that he was elected showed that the people of Massachusetts were willing to compromise and elect someone who was truly the best candidate for the state, regardless of the party affiliation that the state had seemed to maintain for all those years.
However, it seems like he won't be able to win his home state when the votes get tallied in November. The state is increasingly becoming one that is more blue than red, and the bipartisan politics of today seem like they're going to take over and make it impossible for the former governor to win over his own people.
In most elections, the candidate is almost guaranteed to win his home state because of his ties to the constituency, but it's not looking like Romney will be able to pull out a win in this one.
Mitt Romney, as most of us know, was governor of the state of Massachusetts before this campaign for President. Being a Republican governor of that state, he seemed to break the trend of Democrats that had been in power for so long before him. The fact that he was elected showed that the people of Massachusetts were willing to compromise and elect someone who was truly the best candidate for the state, regardless of the party affiliation that the state had seemed to maintain for all those years.
However, it seems like he won't be able to win his home state when the votes get tallied in November. The state is increasingly becoming one that is more blue than red, and the bipartisan politics of today seem like they're going to take over and make it impossible for the former governor to win over his own people.
In most elections, the candidate is almost guaranteed to win his home state because of his ties to the constituency, but it's not looking like Romney will be able to pull out a win in this one.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Debate.
Romney won. I don't think that there is any argument to be made for the other side. He was more confident, assertive, and more commanding than President Obama. He made sure that everyone knew that he was there to stay and that he is a viable option in this election.
I have been getting flak for still saying that my vote is going for a third party candidate. When it comes down to it, my vote doesn't really mean much in the overall scheme, but I still want to voice my opinion about what I want in a candidate, even though that might not be a reasonable and realistic request today.
My voting preference aside, I really think that Romney dominated the debate. I talked to a couple Democrats today that are strong Obama supporters today and they even said that Romney won the debate because of the fact that he kept the President on his heels the whole time. He didn't leave any room to breathe, and he made sure that whenever Obama said something that he got his chance to respond to the attacks, whether that meant bulldozing the moderator or not.
He has obviously been practicing those "zingers" that he talked about for awhile now, and he didn't pull any punches last night. He made it known that he is the candidate that is going to fight for every vote, whatever it takes, down to the last day of the campaign.
I personally thought that he took Newt Gingrich's advice very well and presented himself as a viable option for the presidency in a time when the different things that he has said in the past couple weeks has started to make it seem like he wasn't.
I literally got giddy every time he said something about returning the power to the states because they can better deal with things like entitlements because they are closer to their constituents and can better formulate a plan that fits the people in their state. Private organizations also came into the discussion when they talked about stuff like entitlements, and that made me very happy as well.
Romney, well done. If you were a little more moderate on social issues, I would probably vote for you.
Tweet me with suggestions.
I have been getting flak for still saying that my vote is going for a third party candidate. When it comes down to it, my vote doesn't really mean much in the overall scheme, but I still want to voice my opinion about what I want in a candidate, even though that might not be a reasonable and realistic request today.
My voting preference aside, I really think that Romney dominated the debate. I talked to a couple Democrats today that are strong Obama supporters today and they even said that Romney won the debate because of the fact that he kept the President on his heels the whole time. He didn't leave any room to breathe, and he made sure that whenever Obama said something that he got his chance to respond to the attacks, whether that meant bulldozing the moderator or not.
He has obviously been practicing those "zingers" that he talked about for awhile now, and he didn't pull any punches last night. He made it known that he is the candidate that is going to fight for every vote, whatever it takes, down to the last day of the campaign.
I personally thought that he took Newt Gingrich's advice very well and presented himself as a viable option for the presidency in a time when the different things that he has said in the past couple weeks has started to make it seem like he wasn't.
I literally got giddy every time he said something about returning the power to the states because they can better deal with things like entitlements because they are closer to their constituents and can better formulate a plan that fits the people in their state. Private organizations also came into the discussion when they talked about stuff like entitlements, and that made me very happy as well.
Romney, well done. If you were a little more moderate on social issues, I would probably vote for you.
Tweet me with suggestions.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Prisoner's rights
I had to write a reaction paper on something that the ACLU had taken up arms over. I chose two topics, Internet censorship and prisoner's rights. I feel like everyone has beat the Internet censorship thing to death over the past couple years, so I'll talk about the rights of prisoners, or lack thereof.
To start off, I want to say that the vast majority of prisoners have committed a crime, broken a law, and are there for a reason. I believe in the system that we have in place enough to say that the percentage of inmates that we have in the prison system nationwide that are completely and totally innocent of the crime that we have them in there for is pretty low, and the percentage of those who are innocent that got off with something else earlier in their life is pretty high. They are in there because they made a choice. Even if they didn't do something and got framed, they were hanging around with the wrong people and got themselves into a situation where they could be held accountable for something illegal that they didn't do.
That said, I think that since they are in prison, they should not have the same rights as someone who abides by the laws that society has put in place. We used to have a prison system that was very harsh. It was not a fun place to go. We did not treat our prisoners very fairly and didn't treat them well. They were beaten severely for petty offenses, some died because of starvation and disease, etc. These were problems that we remedied, but then we went and took it a step further.
We started to give them free dental care and health care while they were inside. Then along with just the basic vocational training courses that they could receive that would help them to assimilate back into society, we started to help to pay for them to get an education. Those are tax dollars from the American public that are going to make sure that a prisoner has a filling put in because he's in pain. That money could be spent better elsewhere. If someone who murdered a family member, friend, coworker, etc. in cold blood doesn't get to have three square meals a day, then I don't know if I would really lose any sleep over it. Some people that get out of prison can't wait until they are back on the inside because they are being provided with things that they would have to work for to get on the outside. They don't want to have to work and get an honest job, so they just steal, murder, sell drugs, prostitute themselves and other things so that they can get back into prison and have a simple life again.
When they try to stand up and say that have rights, I say to them: why didn't you think about that before you went and broke the law? If you are going to violate the rights of those around you and stick your middle finger up to the system that puts laws in place to protect your rights and the rights of the people around you, then why should you still be able to enjoy those rights after you do something like that?
I'm open to hear some arguments, please tweet me @CBMARTIST if you have suggestions for another post or want to debate openly about this topic or something that I've posted before.
To start off, I want to say that the vast majority of prisoners have committed a crime, broken a law, and are there for a reason. I believe in the system that we have in place enough to say that the percentage of inmates that we have in the prison system nationwide that are completely and totally innocent of the crime that we have them in there for is pretty low, and the percentage of those who are innocent that got off with something else earlier in their life is pretty high. They are in there because they made a choice. Even if they didn't do something and got framed, they were hanging around with the wrong people and got themselves into a situation where they could be held accountable for something illegal that they didn't do.
That said, I think that since they are in prison, they should not have the same rights as someone who abides by the laws that society has put in place. We used to have a prison system that was very harsh. It was not a fun place to go. We did not treat our prisoners very fairly and didn't treat them well. They were beaten severely for petty offenses, some died because of starvation and disease, etc. These were problems that we remedied, but then we went and took it a step further.
We started to give them free dental care and health care while they were inside. Then along with just the basic vocational training courses that they could receive that would help them to assimilate back into society, we started to help to pay for them to get an education. Those are tax dollars from the American public that are going to make sure that a prisoner has a filling put in because he's in pain. That money could be spent better elsewhere. If someone who murdered a family member, friend, coworker, etc. in cold blood doesn't get to have three square meals a day, then I don't know if I would really lose any sleep over it. Some people that get out of prison can't wait until they are back on the inside because they are being provided with things that they would have to work for to get on the outside. They don't want to have to work and get an honest job, so they just steal, murder, sell drugs, prostitute themselves and other things so that they can get back into prison and have a simple life again.
When they try to stand up and say that have rights, I say to them: why didn't you think about that before you went and broke the law? If you are going to violate the rights of those around you and stick your middle finger up to the system that puts laws in place to protect your rights and the rights of the people around you, then why should you still be able to enjoy those rights after you do something like that?
I'm open to hear some arguments, please tweet me @CBMARTIST if you have suggestions for another post or want to debate openly about this topic or something that I've posted before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)