|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:35 pm
Since we're coming up on the election in a little over a year I think we need to know a bit about the candidates running. I'm mostly gonna focus on putting up the views when it comes to the war on drugs (because for most of that does have an important aspect) but I'll also cover other aspects.
Dems:
Biden: wants to increase drug penalties and build drug courts, has plan for Ira withdrawal, defends Roe V Wade, adjust laws for equality for same-sex couples.
Clinton: harder to get around her main site, I'll have to come back to her.
Dodd: again confusing
Edwards: has yet to put up anything on crime period, but thinks Iraq needs to help itself, equal same sex rights, for right to choose
Gravel: no issue link on main site.
Kucinich: best way to understand his WoD http://www2.kucinich.us/issues/drugwar.php, marijuana decrime, lessen need for troops in Iraq, hopes to reduce the need for abortion with proper education/economic and health plans, wants same sex MARRIAGE (not civil unions) legal, also relatively pro-gun for a dem which is kinda nice IMO
Obama: Fight meth spread, get out or Iraq, kinda low info on others so far
Richardson: not much on crime, sticks on party line on other issues
Republicans:
Brownback: can't see anything on drugs but considering he's for wholesome family values I'm guessing he's a hawk on this case.
Giuliani: Again, pro wholesome values
Huckabee: and again
I'm gonna do more later, but I need sleep.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:11 am
You need to get on the NORML website, it has a list of all the runners and how they feel on the subject of both medical cannabis and legalization. smile
BTW I would like to cover something about gay marriage that nobody ever covers.
I am pro-gay marriage, but I don't believe they should be allowed the same tax breaks that heterosexual couples receive when married. When a heterosexual couple is married, they receive tax breaks with the mind set that most will be having children fairly shortly so the extra money will be needed due to procreation. This isn't the case for homosexual couples, there for no need to have extra money for another mouth to feed unless you feed poop babies. eek JK smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:14 am
I am glad someone on gaia is taking an intrest on this subject. Its nice to have someone bringing a brief summary in this way! COOL....keep up the good work. I will be checking back...thanks again! PEACE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:10 am
Don't forget Ron Paul (R). He should be the next president!!! Zomg if you don't know him yet I say look into it!! Either about him, or the issues he wants to fix.He wants to stop the war on drugs, IRS, CIA, FED, much more. In the New American magazine's latest issue, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to score a perfect 100% score. The result isn't suprising since "The Freedom Index" describes itself as " A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution." The average House score was only 40% and Paul was the only Congressman over 90%. A PDF of the article can be downloaded here.Update: A commenter notes paltry the ratings of the other candidates for President who are currently in Congress… Paul (R) - 100Brownback (R) - 75 Hunter (R) - 67 Tancredo (R) - 67 Hagel (R) - 50 Kucinich (D) - 50 McCain (R) - 43 Biden (D) - 10 Clinton (D) - 10Dodd (D) - 0 Obama (D) - 0Also interesting is a look at the other Presidential Candidates who, if elected, would UNDER OATH, swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"… Why should you care about Ron Paul? Because he believes in the Constitution, and your rights. The Constitution protects your rights, and he wants to as well. He is the only Republican who is against the war.I can't stress enough how he should be the next president. He would stop the Patriot Act, giving you your rights back. Also he would stop the Real ID saying it will violate your rights. The Real Id is just one step away from RFID chip. He also wants the US government to be very transparent to the people of this country, we have a right to know whats going on. The only thing people can consciously hate about him is that he is a republican. Meaning his stance on abortion and gay marriage is the same as all republicans. Though he his back covered there, if he wants these things to be restricted, he will allow every state to do what they see fit. Ron Paul works for YOU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:25 am
Yeah Ron Paul says he would stop the war on drugs. I hope he makes it to presidency. Finally someone who has a good purpose for becoming a President. Not just for the war on drugs, but to protect you and your freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:28 am
Gravel is basically identical to Kucinich other than he wants to legalize rather than decriminalize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:22 am
When you hear Ron Paul say that he stands for the Philosophy of Liberty, this is what he means.The philosophy of liberty is based on self-ownership. This simple but elegant and hard-hitting animation will explain exactly what that means. It's a great tool anyone can use to educate children and adults about our right to life, liberty, and the property we create - and our responsibility to think, speak and act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:50 am
ya dunno bout the Green party up here we run tings or at least try to. Big ups to the Democratic party in the states and NDP runnin tings round here in Tdot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:44 pm
hippiefoRk Gravel is basically identical to Kucinich other than he wants to legalize rather than decriminalize. I really hope one of them ends up on the ballot. Because they really have strong attitudes that are similar to mine. Paul would be okay, but he's too pro-life for me to vote for him if one of those two got up there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:29 pm
Nothing wrong with pro-life. I am pro-choice for others, pro-life for self. Paul would be more then ok, he would actually do something. All in all I say if you don't want the war to end don't vote for Ron Paul (war on drugs -or- war).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:18 pm
I truly believe we are being lied to. Ron Paul is being left out of the media, yet he has a lot of supporters. You can't find any dirt on this guy, for he has very good morals, and doesn't play an act, but is true to himself. I listened to an audio that he answers a lot of questions that don't get asked. Found out he has nothing against gays. You can check that out here.I also am aware that this Industrial era will come to a stop unless we find a solution to get us off consuming oil. A good video to watch that could open your eyes in a smiling way would be to watch "Robert Newmans History of Oil". Its only 45 minutes, and is worth the watch. Kucinich is good, yet I don't want a time table or what ever for leaving Iraq. We need out of it NOW. He only scored 50% for constitutional principles. “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” - BushIts a piece of paper that grants you freedom and independence. There was absolutely no Constitutional reason to invade Iraq. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, only Congress can declare war, and consequently our soldiers are not fighting under a constitutional mandate.. If our foreign policy were that of a Constitutional Republic and not a socialist empire, we would not be tangled up in this entire middle Eastern quagmire and sending our money and more importantly, our best and bravest citizens over there to be squandered for the benefit of a handful of individuals. I just can't help but think that if we were not constantly exporting our foreign policy into the middle east they wouldn't have attacked us on 9/11 but then forgive me for not believing George Bushes utterly vacuous statement that "they attacked us because they hate freedom". I am not a sheep. I may be fickle at times, or gullible, but I am no fool to stand by and let elitists take my rights away. I think finally we can actually choose someone who is right for the job of presidency, not the lesser of two evils. Jeez that took a lot of time to type all out sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:00 pm
Ron Paul Betting Odds Could be Impacted by New Voting Rules!Apparently only people signed Republicans can vote in Ron Paul for the Republican party in certain states. California is one of them. If Democrats, Independents and Libertarians are not aloud to vote for Ron Paul, I don't think he has such a good chance, if only Republicans can vote for him (in states like New York) This isn't Constitutional. Also I am wondering if this has died since there has yet to be an update like RaveKitten13 said. peace
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:19 pm
girlfirend Ron Paul Betting Odds Could be Impacted by New Voting Rules!Apparently only people signed Republicans can vote in Ron Paul for the Republican party in certain states. California is one of them. If Democrats, Independents and Libertarians are not aloud to vote for Ron Paul, I don't think he has such a good chance, if only Republicans can vote for him (in states like New York) This isn't Constitutional. Also I am wondering if this has died since there has yet to be an update like RaveKitten13 said. That's for the primaries. If he were to get the nomination, it wouldn't apply. It's still pretty freaking ridiculous, though, despite the fact that I don't like the guy. This sums up what I think of Ron Paul: "In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." Allowing states to do as they see fit on abortion legislation means women getting prosecuted for crossing state lines to have a medical procedure that's illegal in their (redneck, backwater, shithole) state that likely wouldn't have doctors trained in the procedure anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:03 pm
Shoujo Kakumei J-chan girlfirend Ron Paul Betting Odds Could be Impacted by New Voting Rules!Apparently only people signed Republicans can vote in Ron Paul for the Republican party in certain states. California is one of them. If Democrats, Independents and Libertarians are not aloud to vote for Ron Paul, I don't think he has such a good chance, if only Republicans can vote for him (in states like New York) This isn't Constitutional. Also I am wondering if this has died since there has yet to be an update like RaveKitten13 said. That's for the primaries. If he were to get the nomination, it wouldn't apply. It's still pretty freaking ridiculous, though, despite the fact that I don't like the guy. This sums up what I think of Ron Paul: "In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." Allowing states to do as they see fit on abortion legislation means women getting prosecuted for crossing state lines to have a medical procedure that's illegal in their (redneck, backwater, shithole) state that likely wouldn't have doctors trained in the procedure anyway. I don't think that a person would get in trouble for leaving the state, do something that is legal, and come back to the state its illegal and get in trouble for it. Has this happened before? I really don't think this would happen, though My GF said the same thing. If this is your only problem with Ron Paul then thats good. Who would be a better choice then states choosing there own concerns. Oh andd girlfirend I copied your style to be your match. So awesome!! The Democrats are amazing, real acrobats. Even more amazing are the anti-war folks who continue to believe that the Democrats are against war and for the Constitution.Leading Democratic Candidates Refuse to Promise Iraq Withdrawal by 2013 Among Clinton, Obama and Edwards, none was willing to pledge that all combat forces in Iraq would be gone by the end of the next president's term in 2013."It's hard to project four years from now," Obama said. "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," Clinton said. "I cannot make that commitment," said Edwards. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut resolutely answered the question "yes." Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico reiterated his commitment to withdrawing troops within a year of taking office, leaving light equipment behind in his haste. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio pledged to have troops out by spring of 2009. Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel said he thinks the other candidates who are members of Congress should suspend their campaigns, go to Washington and demand daily votes to end the war in Iraq. Source: Obama, Edwards lead charge against Clinton in debateo, if you want to end the war does it make sense to vote Democratic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:45 pm
Not dead. Me spend too much time at ontheissues.org. I can look up any issue with any candidate (including house/senate) and see quotes.
Plus I got to take quiz on social/economic views with people. Socially best with Gravel, Kucinich, or Dodd (all 69%). Economically best with Biden (50%)
Drug views:
Biden (d) says no on increase penalties. Brownback (r) says yes. Clinton (d) keep non violent out of normal prisons by making drug courts and prisons. Cox (r) has no stance. Dodd (d) no increase. Edwards (d) no increases, has smoked marijuana, given a B- on hemp laws (pro hemp), wants consoling rather than incarceration for users, doesn't think crack and powder should have penalty disparity. Gingrich (r) increase penalties because drug free society needs to go after user and dealer. Gulliani (r) drug policy part of foriegn policy. Gore (d) doesn't believe science works with medicinal MJ, mandatory drug testing on prisoners and parolees, drug programs making less use more need to be instigated. Gravel (d) decrimalize hard drugs, legalize use/possession of marijuana. Huckabee (r) education fails while punishment works, more punishment, more federal spending. Hunter (r) against needle exchange and medicinal MJ. Kucinich (d) decrime MJ, A+ on hemp laws, rehab instead of incarciration, war on drugs only good for the prison industry. McCain (r) less methadone clinics, more penalties and enforcement. Obama (d) understands why use happens in youth. Paul (r) A on hemp, legalize hemp and medicinal, war on drugs against bill of rights. Richardson (d) no legalization, mandatory sentences. Romney (r) no stance. Tancredo (r) against needle exchange. Thompson (r and the guy on Law and Order) increase penalties.
Really only 4 people are even worth looking at and one doesn't have much of a stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
