The dance of democracy is in full force currently in the US. After all, it is for the post of President of the US (POTUS). If you are not from the States, or do not take much interest in politics, here is the crux of where the candidates stand and differ:
1. Economy - Romney calls for less govt, less taxes, generally is in favor of making it easier to do business in America. Obama has clearly come out for more taxes on the wealthy, and wants to do something (not clear what) which will create jobs here in the US, and perhaps stop the outsourcing of jobs.
To me, Obama is on a very weak ground here. He is an educated man and one expects better than just socialist moorings of failed ideas from him.
2. Women Rights - Romney has vacillated so much on women's right to their bodies that it is nearly impossible to say where he stands. Obama has been clear and consistent - Women have right to their own bodies and none but them should make choices related to their health and future.
You would imagine that a gentleman like Romney would at least be very clear on something as basic as this topic given his firm belief in capitalism - my property is my business. If I and only I can make a decision about my car (and not be forced by govt.) then how it is that women should not be allowed to make a decision about their own lives and health. Romney seems like a dinosaur on women's rights.
To put the above two points in perspective, think of it this way - if you have a daughter, Romney is likely to teach her to take her own responsibility (and not depend on govt.) but he is likely to subjugate her by curtailing her freedom to her own body.
Obama will give her all the freedom but with his big govt. attitude, he will also make it harder on her in terms of finding a job (because his policies are largely bad for enterprise) and higher taxes (because of an inefficient and blotted govt. that meddles in everything).
Who would you choose.
Me, if I had a vote, I'd have voted for Obamney - a person standing for free enterprise and for equal rights to women in all matters.
1. Economy - Romney calls for less govt, less taxes, generally is in favor of making it easier to do business in America. Obama has clearly come out for more taxes on the wealthy, and wants to do something (not clear what) which will create jobs here in the US, and perhaps stop the outsourcing of jobs.
To me, Obama is on a very weak ground here. He is an educated man and one expects better than just socialist moorings of failed ideas from him.
2. Women Rights - Romney has vacillated so much on women's right to their bodies that it is nearly impossible to say where he stands. Obama has been clear and consistent - Women have right to their own bodies and none but them should make choices related to their health and future.
You would imagine that a gentleman like Romney would at least be very clear on something as basic as this topic given his firm belief in capitalism - my property is my business. If I and only I can make a decision about my car (and not be forced by govt.) then how it is that women should not be allowed to make a decision about their own lives and health. Romney seems like a dinosaur on women's rights.
To put the above two points in perspective, think of it this way - if you have a daughter, Romney is likely to teach her to take her own responsibility (and not depend on govt.) but he is likely to subjugate her by curtailing her freedom to her own body.
Obama will give her all the freedom but with his big govt. attitude, he will also make it harder on her in terms of finding a job (because his policies are largely bad for enterprise) and higher taxes (because of an inefficient and blotted govt. that meddles in everything).
Who would you choose.
Me, if I had a vote, I'd have voted for Obamney - a person standing for free enterprise and for equal rights to women in all matters.
2 comments:
Ah, this is a good effect of you relocating. At least we will get to discuss such things more :)
The concept of free enterprise has worked but with certain jurisdictions. So, would rather go for someone who at least has a clear stand on individual freedom. If that is ensured, a free thinking individual may finally get to change an economic policy. The reverse won't work ?
I agree of course. Individual freedom must be protected. An individual is the smallest minority and the law of the land must protect an individual from the State and its apparatus, which by definition, is formed by a majority in a society. Democracy without minority (individual) rights is just communism.
Post a Comment