Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Now, Romney has a chance to win, if he distinguishes himself in a meaningful way!
2 views
Skip to first unread message
lo yeeOn
Oct 22, 2012, 8:59:27 PM10/22/12
to
Obama himself has instituted the much hated policy of drone strikes in
the name of defending America. But the a study done by Stanford and
the NYU has found it to be actually counter-productive for its stated
purpose.
So, it will do a lot more harm than good for four more years if we
re-elect Obama.
Romney can therefore easily distinguish himself by telling America
(and the rest of the world) that we are a lawful nation, that we
embrace the due process, and therefore that when the American people
elect him president of the United States, he will stop the unlawful,
unethical, and counter-productive drone strikes against individuals.
And of course, he can go further on the Afghan war, as RootsAction is
suggesting (see below).
Mr. Romney can be president if he really wants to, given the opening!
lo yeeOn
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:02:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: RootsAction Team <in...@rootsaction.org>
Even the New York Times has reversed its position of over 11 years and
editorialized for withdrawal from Afghanistan now.
The crowd at the Republican National Convention cheered for immediate
withdrawal when Clint Eastwood and Senator Rand Paul proposed it.
The U.K. and other allies are speeding up their withdrawal plans.
A strong majority of Americans has favored withdrawal in polls for
years now.
And who's left favoring two more years of war, followed by 10 more
years of lower-level war?
These guys: Obama, Romney, Biden, and Ryan.
Tell them to give up on endless war in Afghanistan.
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6743
The military-industrial complex shouldn't get to have two candidates
for president.
Demand that one of them change now. If the New York Times can do it,
so can Obama or Romney.
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6743
Please forward this email widely to like-minded friends.
-- The RootsAction.org team
the name of defending America. But the a study done by Stanford and
the NYU has found it to be actually counter-productive for its stated
purpose.
So, it will do a lot more harm than good for four more years if we
re-elect Obama.
Romney can therefore easily distinguish himself by telling America
(and the rest of the world) that we are a lawful nation, that we
embrace the due process, and therefore that when the American people
elect him president of the United States, he will stop the unlawful,
unethical, and counter-productive drone strikes against individuals.
And of course, he can go further on the Afghan war, as RootsAction is
suggesting (see below).
Mr. Romney can be president if he really wants to, given the opening!
lo yeeOn
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:02:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: RootsAction Team <in...@rootsaction.org>
Even the New York Times has reversed its position of over 11 years and
editorialized for withdrawal from Afghanistan now.
The crowd at the Republican National Convention cheered for immediate
withdrawal when Clint Eastwood and Senator Rand Paul proposed it.
The U.K. and other allies are speeding up their withdrawal plans.
A strong majority of Americans has favored withdrawal in polls for
years now.
And who's left favoring two more years of war, followed by 10 more
years of lower-level war?
These guys: Obama, Romney, Biden, and Ryan.
Tell them to give up on endless war in Afghanistan.
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6743
The military-industrial complex shouldn't get to have two candidates
for president.
Demand that one of them change now. If the New York Times can do it,
so can Obama or Romney.
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6743
Please forward this email widely to like-minded friends.
-- The RootsAction.org team
bmo...@nyx.net
Oct 23, 2012, 12:46:10 AM10/23/12
to
On Oct 22, 5:59 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> Obama himself has instituted the much hated policy of drone strikes in
> the name of defending America. But the a study done by Stanford and
> the NYU has found it to be actually counter-productive for its stated
> purpose.
>
> So, it will do a lot more harm than good for four more years if we
> re-elect Obama.
>
> Romney can therefore easily distinguish himself by telling America
> (and the rest of the world) that we are a lawful nation, that we
> embrace the due process, and therefore that when the American people
> elect him president of the United States, he will stop the unlawful,
> unethical, and counter-productive drone strikes against individuals.
Romney isn't going to stop the drone strikes. He'll be far worse than
> Obama himself has instituted the much hated policy of drone strikes in
> the name of defending America. But the a study done by Stanford and
> the NYU has found it to be actually counter-productive for its stated
> purpose.
>
> So, it will do a lot more harm than good for four more years if we
> re-elect Obama.
>
> Romney can therefore easily distinguish himself by telling America
> (and the rest of the world) that we are a lawful nation, that we
> embrace the due process, and therefore that when the American people
> elect him president of the United States, he will stop the unlawful,
> unethical, and counter-productive drone strikes against individuals.
Obama.
> And of course, he can go further on the Afghan war, as RootsAction is
> suggesting (see below).
>
> Mr. Romney can be president if he really wants to, given the opening
naive can you be?
> The crowd at the Republican National Convention cheered for immediate
> withdrawal when Clint Eastwood and Senator Rand Paul proposed it.
rst0
Oct 23, 2012, 11:28:01 AM10/23/12
to
On Oct 22, 9:46 pm, "bmo...@nyx.net" <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 5:59 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>
> > Obama himself has instituted the much hated policy of drone strikes in
> > the name of defending America. But the a study done by Stanford and
> > the NYU has found it to be actually counter-productive for its stated
> > purpose.
>
> > So, it will do a lot more harm than good for four more years if we
> > re-elect Obama.
>
> > Romney can therefore easily distinguish himself by telling America
> > (and the rest of the world) that we are a lawful nation, that we
> > embrace the due process, and therefore that when the American people
> > elect him president of the United States, he will stop the unlawful,
> > unethical, and counter-productive drone strikes against individuals.
>
> Romney isn't going to stop the drone strikes. He'll be far
> worse than Obama.
It can't be any worse than now.
> On Oct 22, 5:59 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>
> > Obama himself has instituted the much hated policy of drone strikes in
> > the name of defending America. But the a study done by Stanford and
> > the NYU has found it to be actually counter-productive for its stated
> > purpose.
>
> > So, it will do a lot more harm than good for four more years if we
> > re-elect Obama.
>
> > Romney can therefore easily distinguish himself by telling America
> > (and the rest of the world) that we are a lawful nation, that we
> > embrace the due process, and therefore that when the American people
> > elect him president of the United States, he will stop the unlawful,
> > unethical, and counter-productive drone strikes against individuals.
>
> Romney isn't going to stop the drone strikes. He'll be far
> worse than Obama.
>
> > And of course, he can go further on the Afghan war, as RootsAction is
> > suggesting (see below).
>
> > Mr. Romney can be president if he really wants to, given the opening
>
> The peace movement would *not* be happy with a Romney
> presidency. How naive can you be?
lo yeeOn
Oct 25, 2012, 1:50:30 AM10/25/12
to
In article <0079b235-a4ad-41bd...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
Naive??? Au Contraire, monsieur. To the contrary, sir, I am not.
So roll your eyes all day if you want.
When G W Bush ran for reelection, Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel "Peace" prize
winner, cheered him on because he wanted more of Bush's war. When
Obama now runs for reelection, the neocons - yes, the neocons, albeit
Romney is a "good friend" of Israel and a personal friend of Netanyahu
- are actually cheering the Prez on because the moveon crowd and the
discontented minorities will never be so conspicuously silent when a
White Republican guy is in White House and manage their favorite war!
The war on terror will be hard sailing if Romney is elected.
And that may be why Biden has been reportedly saying:
"Baby, do not cry, 'cos you'll be alright, 'cos Romney will be
defeated" of something less rhymed, when a baby in the crowd
interrupted his campaign speech by screeching loudly.
So, Romney and Obama apparently reached a pact to not bring up the
subject of the 9-11 attack on our embassy in Libya - an evolving story
which looks more and more like a Watergate type scandal.
So, Romney decided to play by the rule set out by the Establishment.
So, that third and last debate was deafeningly quiet and dull. And
yes too, I saw Obama made a face while Romney spoke, obviously an
eye-rolling act!
But so what?
Romney could have done something he could be proud of and he didn't.
And maybe, no matter what he said and will say from now on, the only
effect would be to make the Establishment mad and so he chose not to
make the bosses mad. And that's his prerogative!
That is mainstream American politics.
On the other hand, I saw the third party candidates debating on Larry
King Live, last night.
And there were four of them: Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Virgil Goode,
and Gary Johnson heading the Green, the Justice, the Constitution, and
the Libertarian parties respectively.
The debate was much more lively and the speakers came across as being
more eager, more enthusiastic as well as more sincere. I can find
fault with their missing moments and what not .... But I would not
belabor them here.
One thing is that most of them came out in opposition to the drone
strike policy and got the biggest cheers from the audience. Another
is they are all for cutting the military budget,at least by half of
what it is now. And the latter issue unites all of them as they have
all been ignored by the MSM, candidates whose views being not worth
reporting, not to mention carrying their debate live.
You see, they are all opposed to the war - our endless war; so their
debate stood in deafening contrast with the debates between Romney and
Obama, representing the Republican and Democrat parties respectively.
But if you are serious about freedom and democracy, here is a site you
can go to (RT.com) to get a sense of what other candidates for the
U.S. presidency this year are like. If you have 90-minutes, then the
video is well worth your time to watch and listen to.
(By the way, Jill Stein and her running mate were arrested for trying
to enter the venue for the Romney/Obama-only debate.)
I think I will vote for Rocky Anderson, instead of wasting it on
Romney. Sorry, Mitt!
lo yeeOn
--------
1) Who is Rocky Anderson?
http://www.voterocky.org/ron_and_rocky
Issue Rocky Anderson Ron Paul
End the wars? Y Y
End hold of the MI Complex Y Y
(MI is short for:
Military Industrial)
Oppose Indefinite Detention Y Y
End the "war on drugs" -
End prohibition; treat
all substance abuse as
public health issue Y Y
Support Social Security Y N
Elimination of the EPA N Y
Support Universal
single-payer healthcare Y N
Support 1964 Civil Rights Act Y N
Supports Depriving USSC
of Jurisdiction to decide
Cases involving Marriage Eq N Y
...
-------------------------------------------------------
`Obama, Romney - same police state': Third party debate up close (FULL
VIDEO)
Published: 24 October, 2012, 07:18
http://rt.com/usa/news/third-party-debate-us-election-094/
In response to a blackout from both the mainstream media and the
American political elite, RT is happy be giving American voters
coverage of this year's third-party presidential debate, hosted by
Larry King and a panel including our own Thom Hartmann Tuesday night,
RT was one of only a handful of media outlets to broadcast the debate
moderated by multi-award winning broadcast journalist Larry King.
Organized by the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, candidates from
the Constitution, Green, Justice and Libertarian parties sounded off
on the issues facing American voters - without having to worry about
towing Democratic or Republican party lines.
The third-party candidates' debate statements, as diverse as they
were, came as a breath of fresh air to the growing portion of
Americans who see little substantive difference between Mitt Romney
and Barack Obama. And as much as they disagreed, there was near
unanimity on one general concept: that the Democratic and Republican
parties represent corporate interests, not the average American.
Speaking to RT, Free and Equal Elections Foundation founder Christina
Tobin said, "We're going to shift the power back to the people, back
to the origins of the Constitution, which doesn't even mention parties
or corporations."
And despite having their platforms largely silenced by the two-party
system's ruling elites, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson,
Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Constitution Party candidate Virgil
Goode and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson plan to continue
their campaigns through Election Day. Since their thoughts on critical
issues have been muted by the mainstream media, however, their visions
for America have been left without an outlet.
The debate changed that.
Candidates dove into a set of questions submitted through social media
- after the debate's hosts forgot to allow their opening statements.
Other than that, the show went without a hitch, with members of the
crowd applauding each candidate on every answer.
And on one occasion, there were even boos. It was not your father's
presidential debate.
If you missed RT's live coverage, check out our full video of the
debate - and our breakdown of the four candidates and their positions,
below.
Rocky Anderson - Justice Party
Representing the newly-formed Justice Party, Ross Carl Anderson served
two terms as the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. A former Democrat,
Anderson focused on income-related issues facing Americans,
specifically mentioning the "corrupting influence of money" in
American politics. The result, he said, was that American officials
end up representing whoever floats them the most cash - instead of
their constituents.
As for the two-party system, Anderson was clear: it's putting a
"stranglehold on our democracy."
Looking at Anderson's comments as a whole, you see a candidate
fighting for lower-income Americans who often fall victim to both
financial interests and law enforcement. In that connection, he was
adamant that the US must help the students who face crippling debts
and working families who face foreclosure while Wall Street gets an
unlimited zero-interest credit line from Washington.
As for domestic policy, Anderson said the US Constitution has been
"shredded" at home under George W. Bush and Obama, with the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allowing US presidents to "round up"
anyone they want and imprison them for the rest of their lives -
without trial or even a charge.
Anderson insisted on the right to education for all Americans, saying
"we cannot afford not to provide" the higher learning that leads to
"equality of opportunity." While Washington pushes austerity, he said,
Americans must demand prosperity, getting behind the workers and
students he says will build the country's future.
The War on Drugs was a hot topic at the debate. Anderson was clear
that he sees it as a waste of national money, and a "source of
unbelievable human tragedy." He noted examples of Americans who will
sit in prison for decades simply for selling marijuana, which he said
should be legalized. He used the example of alcohol, which was
formerly under prohibition, and said drugs should be issues for
education and health issues - not law enforcement.
Anderson continued that the US has more people in prison on drug
charges that Western Europe has in their prisons on all offenses
combined. If elected president, he said, he would immediately pardon
anyone in jail on a drug offense that did not include any other
charge.
When it came to foreign policy, Anderson told the audience that under
both George W. Bush and Obama, the US has engaged in foreign wars
based on a "pack of lies." He noted that while the Pentagon warns that
climate change is a bigger threat to national security than global
terrorism, American elected officials are "sound asleep" asking for
money to beef up weapons systems.
He explained to viewers his stance on foreign wars in greater detail:
that the US should have no wars of aggression, and should only attack
another country if American soil has been attacked first. Anderson
noted that wars of aggression are illegal under the UN Charter - and
that the US has lobbied for the prosecution of foreign leaders who
commit the same crimes US officials have committed.
Virgil Goode - Constitution Party
The nominee from the Constitution Party, Virgil Hamlin Goode, is a
former member of the United States House of Representatives who wants
to give Americans broader access to diverse political views. He
believes that without a constitutional amendment limiting politicians'
terms, the Congress will always be more worried about the next
election than solving the country's problems.
Goode kept most of his answers short and sweet, focusing on balancing
the US government's budget while respecting constitutional principles.
He had little to say that didn't fit into a brief soundbite
and clearly took pride in the brevity and clarity of his answers.
In his opening statement, Goode gave a concrete example of what many
Americans are feeling in general: that when it comes down to it,
there's little difference between Obama and Romney. "Obama and Romney
both claim to support a balanced budget," Goode told the audience,
"but the Obama budget is $1 trillion in deficit," while the budget
proposed by vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan would create a
$800-billion deficit.
Goode proposed spending cuts in various areas in combination with
novel ideas to tackle the problems facing the country. One, which
doesn't get much airtime among the political elite, is term
limits. Goode urged term limits on all elected officials so that they
can do their best possible work in office, instead of focusing on the
next fundraiser. He conceded that such a proposal would be fought
tooth and nail in Washington, and might require a grandfather clause
allowing sitting politicians to serve until they retire.
He was also adamant about the danger of Political Action Committees in
American politics, which he said restrict the democratic
process. Without leaving any room for ambiguity, he declared, "we must
throw the PACs out now."
As for the War on Drugs, Goode was once again clear: he doesn't
support the legalization of drugs. Anyway, he said, cutting back
federal spending on the War on Drugs - which he does support
Goode was the only candidate to draw boos from the crowd, when he said
he would cut funding to Planned Parenthood "to zero." He justified the
proposal by saying "we have to reduce nearly everything" to balance
the budget.
Another target for budget cuts: the Department of Defense. Goode said
he supported a strong defense - but not the US' current role as the
"policemen of the world." He reiterated the point to close his answer,
saying "the US must stop trying to be the overseer of the world."
Goode also said he would cut Pell Grants, veto the NDAA and put a
moratorium on green cards for immigrants until unemployment dropped
below five percent for American citizens.
Gary Johnson - Libertarian Party
Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson is an experienced
entrepreneur and a former Governor of New Mexico who, he says, made
name for himself by vetoing legislation. He says he would make a
difference as president when it comes to laws that end up costing the
American taxpayer more than he can pay, or tell him what to do behind
closed doors. Most of Johnson's answers dealt with life on US soil.
The New Mexican's first point was that the US political system is in
desperate need of transparency. It doesn't matter whether it's Obama
or Romney that's elected next month, he told the audience, as we will
still have " a heightened police state in the US" no matter what. On
top of that, both Obama and Romney are guaranteed to continue American
military interventions abroad, he added.
One of the domestic changes Johnson emphasized was term limits for
elected officials. Implementing them, he said, would do away with the
politician who "beats his chest" during election season but never sets
out to do what he promised. He contrasted that politician with his own
record, recalling how the term limit on governor forced him to "push
the envelope" as much as he could while in office.
One way Johnson would push the envelope as president would be to
abolish income taxes on individuals and corporations. He linked the
tax issue to an impending "monetary collapse," where US dollars would
be worthless thanks to the country's debts.
However, he saw taxing marijuana as one alternative to outlawing
it. "I have drank alcohol," he said, "and I have smoked marijuana."
But, he told the audience, "I can tell you that in no category is
marijuana more dangerous than alcohol He was also clear in his
position on education: "the notion of 'free' must be put to an end" in
the US, and that would include education. He noted the system of
guaranteed federal loans, which he said allow universities to charge
whatever they want due to immunity from real pricing mechanisms.
Johnson repeated throughout the debate that thanks to American wars
abroad, the US has millions of enemies around the world that it would
not otherwise have. The use of the military, he said, is to defend the
country - not invade others. "The biggest threat to our national
security is that we're bankrupt," he told the audience, proposing a
43% cut to military spending that would end every single military
engagement the US has abroad.
Johnson stood in contrast to Goode, the other candidate on the right,
in his stance on immigration. "Immigration is a good thing," he told
viewers, proposing that the US make it as simple as possible for
foreigners who want to work to get American work visas.
He also called for an end to drone strikes and the culture of bossing
Iran around. Along with the other candidates, Johnson also called for
a veto of the NDAA, saying he would decommission it if elected. He
said he would repeal the PATRIOT Act, and ensure that marriage
equality is protected under the Constitution, calling it a right "on
par with the civil rights" movement of the 1960s.
So roll your eyes all day if you want.
When G W Bush ran for reelection, Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel "Peace" prize
winner, cheered him on because he wanted more of Bush's war. When
Obama now runs for reelection, the neocons - yes, the neocons, albeit
Romney is a "good friend" of Israel and a personal friend of Netanyahu
- are actually cheering the Prez on because the moveon crowd and the
discontented minorities will never be so conspicuously silent when a
White Republican guy is in White House and manage their favorite war!
The war on terror will be hard sailing if Romney is elected.
And that may be why Biden has been reportedly saying:
"Baby, do not cry, 'cos you'll be alright, 'cos Romney will be
defeated" of something less rhymed, when a baby in the crowd
interrupted his campaign speech by screeching loudly.
So, Romney and Obama apparently reached a pact to not bring up the
subject of the 9-11 attack on our embassy in Libya - an evolving story
which looks more and more like a Watergate type scandal.
So, Romney decided to play by the rule set out by the Establishment.
So, that third and last debate was deafeningly quiet and dull. And
yes too, I saw Obama made a face while Romney spoke, obviously an
eye-rolling act!
But so what?
Romney could have done something he could be proud of and he didn't.
And maybe, no matter what he said and will say from now on, the only
effect would be to make the Establishment mad and so he chose not to
make the bosses mad. And that's his prerogative!
That is mainstream American politics.
On the other hand, I saw the third party candidates debating on Larry
King Live, last night.
And there were four of them: Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Virgil Goode,
and Gary Johnson heading the Green, the Justice, the Constitution, and
the Libertarian parties respectively.
The debate was much more lively and the speakers came across as being
more eager, more enthusiastic as well as more sincere. I can find
fault with their missing moments and what not .... But I would not
belabor them here.
One thing is that most of them came out in opposition to the drone
strike policy and got the biggest cheers from the audience. Another
is they are all for cutting the military budget,at least by half of
what it is now. And the latter issue unites all of them as they have
all been ignored by the MSM, candidates whose views being not worth
reporting, not to mention carrying their debate live.
You see, they are all opposed to the war - our endless war; so their
debate stood in deafening contrast with the debates between Romney and
Obama, representing the Republican and Democrat parties respectively.
But if you are serious about freedom and democracy, here is a site you
can go to (RT.com) to get a sense of what other candidates for the
U.S. presidency this year are like. If you have 90-minutes, then the
video is well worth your time to watch and listen to.
(By the way, Jill Stein and her running mate were arrested for trying
to enter the venue for the Romney/Obama-only debate.)
I think I will vote for Rocky Anderson, instead of wasting it on
Romney. Sorry, Mitt!
lo yeeOn
--------
1) Who is Rocky Anderson?
http://www.voterocky.org/ron_and_rocky
Issue Rocky Anderson Ron Paul
End the wars? Y Y
End hold of the MI Complex Y Y
(MI is short for:
Military Industrial)
Oppose Indefinite Detention Y Y
End the "war on drugs" -
End prohibition; treat
all substance abuse as
public health issue Y Y
Support Social Security Y N
Elimination of the EPA N Y
Support Universal
single-payer healthcare Y N
Support 1964 Civil Rights Act Y N
Supports Depriving USSC
of Jurisdiction to decide
Cases involving Marriage Eq N Y
...
-------------------------------------------------------
`Obama, Romney - same police state': Third party debate up close (FULL
VIDEO)
Published: 24 October, 2012, 07:18
http://rt.com/usa/news/third-party-debate-us-election-094/
In response to a blackout from both the mainstream media and the
American political elite, RT is happy be giving American voters
coverage of this year's third-party presidential debate, hosted by
Larry King and a panel including our own Thom Hartmann Tuesday night,
RT was one of only a handful of media outlets to broadcast the debate
moderated by multi-award winning broadcast journalist Larry King.
Organized by the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, candidates from
the Constitution, Green, Justice and Libertarian parties sounded off
on the issues facing American voters - without having to worry about
towing Democratic or Republican party lines.
The third-party candidates' debate statements, as diverse as they
were, came as a breath of fresh air to the growing portion of
Americans who see little substantive difference between Mitt Romney
and Barack Obama. And as much as they disagreed, there was near
unanimity on one general concept: that the Democratic and Republican
parties represent corporate interests, not the average American.
Speaking to RT, Free and Equal Elections Foundation founder Christina
Tobin said, "We're going to shift the power back to the people, back
to the origins of the Constitution, which doesn't even mention parties
or corporations."
And despite having their platforms largely silenced by the two-party
system's ruling elites, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson,
Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Constitution Party candidate Virgil
Goode and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson plan to continue
their campaigns through Election Day. Since their thoughts on critical
issues have been muted by the mainstream media, however, their visions
for America have been left without an outlet.
The debate changed that.
Candidates dove into a set of questions submitted through social media
- after the debate's hosts forgot to allow their opening statements.
Other than that, the show went without a hitch, with members of the
crowd applauding each candidate on every answer.
And on one occasion, there were even boos. It was not your father's
presidential debate.
If you missed RT's live coverage, check out our full video of the
debate - and our breakdown of the four candidates and their positions,
below.
Rocky Anderson - Justice Party
Representing the newly-formed Justice Party, Ross Carl Anderson served
two terms as the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. A former Democrat,
Anderson focused on income-related issues facing Americans,
specifically mentioning the "corrupting influence of money" in
American politics. The result, he said, was that American officials
end up representing whoever floats them the most cash - instead of
their constituents.
As for the two-party system, Anderson was clear: it's putting a
"stranglehold on our democracy."
Looking at Anderson's comments as a whole, you see a candidate
fighting for lower-income Americans who often fall victim to both
financial interests and law enforcement. In that connection, he was
adamant that the US must help the students who face crippling debts
and working families who face foreclosure while Wall Street gets an
unlimited zero-interest credit line from Washington.
As for domestic policy, Anderson said the US Constitution has been
"shredded" at home under George W. Bush and Obama, with the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allowing US presidents to "round up"
anyone they want and imprison them for the rest of their lives -
without trial or even a charge.
Anderson insisted on the right to education for all Americans, saying
"we cannot afford not to provide" the higher learning that leads to
"equality of opportunity." While Washington pushes austerity, he said,
Americans must demand prosperity, getting behind the workers and
students he says will build the country's future.
The War on Drugs was a hot topic at the debate. Anderson was clear
that he sees it as a waste of national money, and a "source of
unbelievable human tragedy." He noted examples of Americans who will
sit in prison for decades simply for selling marijuana, which he said
should be legalized. He used the example of alcohol, which was
formerly under prohibition, and said drugs should be issues for
education and health issues - not law enforcement.
Anderson continued that the US has more people in prison on drug
charges that Western Europe has in their prisons on all offenses
combined. If elected president, he said, he would immediately pardon
anyone in jail on a drug offense that did not include any other
charge.
When it came to foreign policy, Anderson told the audience that under
both George W. Bush and Obama, the US has engaged in foreign wars
based on a "pack of lies." He noted that while the Pentagon warns that
climate change is a bigger threat to national security than global
terrorism, American elected officials are "sound asleep" asking for
money to beef up weapons systems.
He explained to viewers his stance on foreign wars in greater detail:
that the US should have no wars of aggression, and should only attack
another country if American soil has been attacked first. Anderson
noted that wars of aggression are illegal under the UN Charter - and
that the US has lobbied for the prosecution of foreign leaders who
commit the same crimes US officials have committed.
Virgil Goode - Constitution Party
The nominee from the Constitution Party, Virgil Hamlin Goode, is a
former member of the United States House of Representatives who wants
to give Americans broader access to diverse political views. He
believes that without a constitutional amendment limiting politicians'
terms, the Congress will always be more worried about the next
election than solving the country's problems.
Goode kept most of his answers short and sweet, focusing on balancing
the US government's budget while respecting constitutional principles.
He had little to say that didn't fit into a brief soundbite
and clearly took pride in the brevity and clarity of his answers.
In his opening statement, Goode gave a concrete example of what many
Americans are feeling in general: that when it comes down to it,
there's little difference between Obama and Romney. "Obama and Romney
both claim to support a balanced budget," Goode told the audience,
"but the Obama budget is $1 trillion in deficit," while the budget
proposed by vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan would create a
$800-billion deficit.
Goode proposed spending cuts in various areas in combination with
novel ideas to tackle the problems facing the country. One, which
doesn't get much airtime among the political elite, is term
limits. Goode urged term limits on all elected officials so that they
can do their best possible work in office, instead of focusing on the
next fundraiser. He conceded that such a proposal would be fought
tooth and nail in Washington, and might require a grandfather clause
allowing sitting politicians to serve until they retire.
He was also adamant about the danger of Political Action Committees in
American politics, which he said restrict the democratic
process. Without leaving any room for ambiguity, he declared, "we must
throw the PACs out now."
As for the War on Drugs, Goode was once again clear: he doesn't
support the legalization of drugs. Anyway, he said, cutting back
federal spending on the War on Drugs - which he does support
Goode was the only candidate to draw boos from the crowd, when he said
he would cut funding to Planned Parenthood "to zero." He justified the
proposal by saying "we have to reduce nearly everything" to balance
the budget.
Another target for budget cuts: the Department of Defense. Goode said
he supported a strong defense - but not the US' current role as the
"policemen of the world." He reiterated the point to close his answer,
saying "the US must stop trying to be the overseer of the world."
Goode also said he would cut Pell Grants, veto the NDAA and put a
moratorium on green cards for immigrants until unemployment dropped
below five percent for American citizens.
Gary Johnson - Libertarian Party
Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson is an experienced
entrepreneur and a former Governor of New Mexico who, he says, made
name for himself by vetoing legislation. He says he would make a
difference as president when it comes to laws that end up costing the
American taxpayer more than he can pay, or tell him what to do behind
closed doors. Most of Johnson's answers dealt with life on US soil.
The New Mexican's first point was that the US political system is in
desperate need of transparency. It doesn't matter whether it's Obama
or Romney that's elected next month, he told the audience, as we will
still have " a heightened police state in the US" no matter what. On
top of that, both Obama and Romney are guaranteed to continue American
military interventions abroad, he added.
One of the domestic changes Johnson emphasized was term limits for
elected officials. Implementing them, he said, would do away with the
politician who "beats his chest" during election season but never sets
out to do what he promised. He contrasted that politician with his own
record, recalling how the term limit on governor forced him to "push
the envelope" as much as he could while in office.
One way Johnson would push the envelope as president would be to
abolish income taxes on individuals and corporations. He linked the
tax issue to an impending "monetary collapse," where US dollars would
be worthless thanks to the country's debts.
However, he saw taxing marijuana as one alternative to outlawing
it. "I have drank alcohol," he said, "and I have smoked marijuana."
But, he told the audience, "I can tell you that in no category is
marijuana more dangerous than alcohol He was also clear in his
position on education: "the notion of 'free' must be put to an end" in
the US, and that would include education. He noted the system of
guaranteed federal loans, which he said allow universities to charge
whatever they want due to immunity from real pricing mechanisms.
Johnson repeated throughout the debate that thanks to American wars
abroad, the US has millions of enemies around the world that it would
not otherwise have. The use of the military, he said, is to defend the
country - not invade others. "The biggest threat to our national
security is that we're bankrupt," he told the audience, proposing a
43% cut to military spending that would end every single military
engagement the US has abroad.
Johnson stood in contrast to Goode, the other candidate on the right,
in his stance on immigration. "Immigration is a good thing," he told
viewers, proposing that the US make it as simple as possible for
foreigners who want to work to get American work visas.
He also called for an end to drone strikes and the culture of bossing
Iran around. Along with the other candidates, Johnson also called for
a veto of the NDAA, saying he would decommission it if elected. He
said he would repeal the PATRIOT Act, and ensure that marriage
equality is protected under the Constitution, calling it a right "on
par with the civil rights" movement of the 1960s.
0 new messages