theworstlesbian a reblogué votre lien : I is here.: thedancingtoast: peprika a réagi à votre diaporama : No. 119 - 20/9/12…
crazytextbookcovers.tumblr.com
the link doesn’t work, unless this is a suggestion, in which case YES
2 notes
theworstlesbian a reblogué votre billet : theworstlesbian a reblogué votre billet :…
Hmm yes, these are things I haven’t thought of before (I am pretty new to politics). I think that Obama has more potential to do good than Romney does. Stateside, at least. I don’t know about internationally, but from what you said, it sounds pretty bad.
It’s hard to think about those kinds of things when no one’s really talking about them. I’m lucky enough to be getting a degree in the subject… so it’s sort of all I talk about, as well as environmental politics and China (I am such a cool person).
BUT
Don’t let me be your only information source this election! The online magazine (it’s in print too, but haven’t you heard? Print is dead.) Foreign Policy is a fantastic source of news, and because it’s written by a bunch of wonks/dorks, they talk about the election a lot in addition to the usual foreign policy issues.
Obama probably does have a better shot at doing good domestically, or at least not doing worse than Romney. But it’s hard to get a feel for the candidates’ actual economic plans, and therefore it’s hard to say. And Romney has some shockingly sensible things to say about the environment, which chilled my very soul and confused the hell out of me.
And I mean, okay, if Hillary were to run, I would not be having this problem. JUST SAYING.
theworstlesbian a reblogué votre billet : theworstlesbian a reblogué votre billet : We are…
He’s really stupid and awful. I don’t think you should vote for him, but hey, politics are a personal choice.
There are a hell of a lot of reasons not to vote for Romney, and a hell of a lot of reasons to vote for Obama. But either of them being stupid and awful is just not a reason. Romney has a lot of drawbacks, particularly in the social realm, because in order to win the nomination, he has made himself out to be the Perfect Republican. Make no mistake, the man is establishment GOP all the way through. In fact, he probably has no consequential opinion on abortion, gay marriage, or gun control. These issues actually don’t mean much in an election. They’re used as gimmicks, and as signals to members of the two parties.
Deeply conservative Republicans (and these are the folks who tend to control the nomination process and are the most active voters) want a candidate who is “pro-life” (don’t you absolutely despise that term? Like, “Um, actually, I’m anti-life!” Um… no.), against gun control, and against gay marriage. Those issues are sort of like shortcuts for people—this candidate is against gun control, okay, he’s the candidate for me. These issues—in presidential elections, NOT in general political practice—really only serve to distract people from greater (as in sizable) issues like, I dunno, foreign policy. The economy (the actual economy, not what people think of when they say they care about the economy), America’s position as a world leader/world member, environmental issues, etc., etc.
If Romney were elected, he wouldn’t do much in the social realm. I’m not saying he’s not dangerous for other reasons, but when we say that he’ll turn the country “pro-life”… that’s just not going to happen. He is a very weak, ineffective, establishment, lackluster individual. It will take a lot more to overturn Roe v. Wade than Romney. Honestly, our country operates as a body of precedent, not a body of law, and the Supreme Court is loathe to go against precedent—especially, in fact, conservative Supreme Courts.
What I worry about is his foreign policy, but you know what? I worry about Obama’s foreign policy, too. A lot. His foreign policy is what made me think for the first time, “Maybe I don’t want to vote for this guy…” Really, it boils down to his use of unmanned drones. His very liberal use of drones, but also the fact that he uses them at all, and the fact that he doesn’t get much criticism for it even though that shit is dangerous as hell.
Obama is, happily, responsible for the pivot to Asia, which I am pleased about. But outside of that, I’m not particularly feeling the foreign policy love from his administration. Part of that has to do with the “Great Recession”, because people kind of don’t care about foreign policy when they lose their jobs, even though the two issues happen to go hand in hand… But part of it, too, is that he just kind of glosses over FP. Bin Laden? First of all. Symbolic kill, I think it’s safe to say. Important because of symbolic reasons, but strategic reasons, not so much. Second of all, it was mentioned in one of my classes last year that Obama’s success in pulling troops out of the Middle East was really a continuation of a plan set in place by Bush. Wonderful that he stuck to the plan, commendable that he saw it through, absolutely. But Obama doesn’t necessarily deserve all the credit for that maneuver. Did anyone notice, by the way, that we haven’t left Afghanistan?
So in short (ha, yeah right), I’m deeply conflicted on many fronts about these two, because I don’t like either of them and think they can be quite dangerous in different ways. So I’m solidly in this 3% of the population who genuinely does not know who they will vote for in 8 (8!!) weeks. It’s tough, and I see good reasons for choosing either candidate, and I see bad reasons, but mostly I just see a colossal mess that I have yet to sort through.
I didn’t mean to write that much… Sorry…
