2017 will be one of the rarer moments in American politics, electing a new President without an incumbent in office. What is exciting now is the amount of candidates on both sides vying for the position, particularly on the Republican side. Though it has dwindled down over time, still in November we have an incredible amount of candidates still running. For a while it seemed that Donald Trump was going be the nominee, but now it seems that it's beginning to shift, with Ben Carson fighting for the top position, but even that might be changing.
For myself, going for Rand Paul, who I've had referred to as the "Little Pipsqueak". The guy at the debates whose usually is at one of the ends, typically doesn't get a lot of time to speak. Why am I for him? He's a Constitutionalist, he uses the Constitution for the basis for most of his positions, which is very much in line with what I believe. It is the founding document of this country, and one of the foundations of our culture. It is what gives the government it's legal authority, and also restricts it.
I can see why people have swarmed to Donald Trump and democrat / independent Bernie Sanders. They tap into an anger that comes from the frustration with the government and the economy. Sometimes it seems like the whole country is in a downward slide with no way out and a strong leader with new ideas and is a non politician is appealing. Someone who people can latch onto to give them hope. I support Rand Paul because my beliefs tell me that getting back to the ideals of the Constitution is what will "save us." We can't go back to everything from the past, but sometimes the past gives us answers for the future.
I Stand With My Core
So I was asked to look up the "flip-flops" on the candidate whom I support for the 2016 presidential election, Sen. Dr. Rand Paul. From what I have read, and heard, and watched, he is a candidate, who at his core, is a man who bases his political beliefs on the Constitution. That hits a cord with me, someone who just doesn't swear to uphold the Constitution, but actually does it. The article (linked below) that came up with attempts to explain how the senator and presidential candidate is someone who doesn't follow his own values.
I am not a journalist, just some idiot with access to a free blogging service, but the quality of the article from "Salon" is very poor. Not an article that tries to have a clear look at Dr. Paul's "flip-flops", but one that uses a very biased and pompous tone. The supposed gaffs that the senator made come from a desperate attempt to discredit the senator, and I will go through them.
Number 1: Support for fighting ISIS
According the article, Rand Paul sent an email saying how we shouldn't support giving the rebels weapons because of the events that followed in Libya and in the second saying that he would fight ISIS militarily if he were president. The two emails don't contradict each other, the first talks about his fear that if we supply Syrian rebels, they will form terrorist organizations that may only escalate the problem. While the second says were should fight them with military force and he would likely seek congressional approval to do so, but says nothing about supplying weapons.
Number 2: Drones used against US citizens
In one comment Dr. Paul says, during his filibuster of John Brennan's nomination as CIA chief, that he is concerned with security agencies targeting and killing American citizens "not involved in combat", then saying he's fine with Police agencies using drones while going after criminals, and then how he is concerned with the police becoming militarized. These have nothing to do with one another. I agree with Dr. Paul in that organizations like the NSA and the CIA, they should have warrants (4th Amendment) to target innocent citizens. But this does not contradict with police deploying a tool to help catch a potentially dangerous criminal.
Number 3: Money aid to Israel
In Dr. Paul's quote, it he says that bill he is proposing cuts all of America's foreign aid, including to Israel and then in the following quote, says that he never proposed to cut aid to Israel. Unfortunately, this is the only one that I can not refute, that's a blunder on Rand Paul's fault.
Number 4: Birth control
In a bill proposed by Dr. Paul, he proposes that multiple forms of birth control be banned, as well as abortions, and giving companies the ability to chose whether or not they will provide birth control. Then says that no republican candidate would ban birth control. There is a difference between an outright ban and banning specific forms, for what reason is not said. Mr. Cesca, a little more detail would be nice before calling that a "flip-flop". Not to mention that the "Personhood" amendment (linked blow) is a law defining the definition of a person, not banning birth control (also see CNN link below as well).
Number 5: Views on the Civil Rights Act
According to the "journalist" who wrote the article, Rand Paul said that civil rights would harm businesses and said that he "would’ve tried to modify that.” But following that, according to the author, Rand Paul never said that he never opposed the part of the Civil Rights Act preventing discrimination in business. There is big difference between modification, and outright opposing something.
From what I have read of Dr. Rand Paul's background and articles on his positions, he is an imperfect human-being, capable of mistakes like anyone else, but at the core of his political motivations is a devotion to the Constitution. To me, that is what makes him one of the best choices for the presidency, his ideals are based on the foundations of this nation, not which way that "political compass" swings. Admittedly, he is not as hard core on the idea that his father was, and has choreographed how he presents his views to keep himself in the running for the presidency. There are also a few instances of plagiarism and a malpractice suit that don't sit too well with me. But his core values are what brings me to his side, because they fit with my core values.
Ever since I started following politics, my trust in politicians has dropped to nearly zero, and I view most government actions with suspicion. Every time I vote, I have to pick between two people, neither of whom I like very much, and pick the one that sit better with my views, and most of the time that tends to be the Republican. I despise both parties, as they only seem to care about themselves, not the people or the country, to the point where I think many consider themselves a Democrat or Republican first, and a American second. It should be the other way around. Many people seem to be apathetic to politics as a whole, preferring to stay away from the annoyance that it is, and I can sympathize with that. When most people shout with emotion, and you try to look at politics with a logical point of view, and the response is mostly insults, the interest wanes to eventually nothing.
It's nice, however, to finally have a few viable candidates, which follow my core values, running for office. Candidates like Rand Paul and Ben Carson. People who look at politics with a sense of logic and Constitutionally, rather than emotion and the party. It's nice to finally have someone who I feel represents me, rather than just clamoring to get my vote. Only time will tell if my hopes will come to fruition. In the mean time my suggestion, when looking up on what candidate you would like to vote for, go to news sites that give a more unbiased look rather than places like Salon and other opinionated trash that belongs at the bottom of the barrel. Never take anything at face value.
Conclusion
I won't tell anyone who to vote for, but don't just vote based on personality or party alone. Listen to what the candidates have to say, and look at what they have done. If we are to get out of this so called "downward spiral", it is voting with an informed mind that will get us out of it. Educate yourselves on the candidates, parties, and the government, they will be working for you, remember that, they are working for YOU. The vote is the most powerful weapon the American people have.
There will never be a "prefect candidate", your always going to find something you disagree with them on. I disagree with Rand's stance on NASA, I think it's one of the most innovative organizations we have, has helped improve our lives. But I do agree with him on the idea of making schools more of a local obligation rather than federal. However, because he is a Constitutionalist, I will vote for him.
Don't let anyone tell you that you should vote for a candidate because they have a greater chance of winning. If more people voted for who they believed in rather than what the media perceives and anoints as the one who will win, we would have a different set of candidates. Do your own research, and don't listen to the media, watch the debates, and look at what they said if you think what they said is questionable. Politicians have tendency to dance around questions and "flip-flop". This way you go into the voting booth with an informed mind and we won't have to vote for who is less evil.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/21/rand_paul_doesnt_know_what_hes_talking_about/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/30/politics/rand-paul-plan-b/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_62
No comments:
Post a Comment