All right Hersh, since you asked 
....
Evil isn't really the right word. I just used "evil" because that's the word that Hersch used, and I wanted to use the same language to help make my point.
I honestly don't think any of the candidates are evil. But I don't think that Ron Paul is any better than the rest of them. Different stance? Yes. But "better"? No. They're probably all good people.
And I also think it's very extremist for MC to say "If you're a real American, vote for Ron Paul!" One candidate does NOT a nation make. Nor does one candidate embody all American ideals.
Our constitution is so flexible and open to interpretation (as the forefathers intended), that every single candidate, no matter how different their views, probably believes themselves to do right by it.
By the same token, I also believe that one candidate will not bring about the "revolution". That's part of the reason why there is such a system of checks in balances in the constitution. Our founding fathers had their fill of giving one person too much power. So the constitution makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for one person to generate tremendous, lasting change in our country.
If there is a "revolution", it must include Congress and the judicial system, too. And it will take years. Maybe even decades, if you consider that Supreme Court judges serve for life.
And honestly, that's why I'm more interested in congressional elections than presidential elections. I believe that change begins with Congress, not the president.
*gets off soapbox*
And one other thing....South Park has some very good social and political satire in it. If you haven't seen it, I suggest it.
....Evil isn't really the right word. I just used "evil" because that's the word that Hersch used, and I wanted to use the same language to help make my point.
I honestly don't think any of the candidates are evil. But I don't think that Ron Paul is any better than the rest of them. Different stance? Yes. But "better"? No. They're probably all good people.
And I also think it's very extremist for MC to say "If you're a real American, vote for Ron Paul!" One candidate does NOT a nation make. Nor does one candidate embody all American ideals.
Our constitution is so flexible and open to interpretation (as the forefathers intended), that every single candidate, no matter how different their views, probably believes themselves to do right by it.
By the same token, I also believe that one candidate will not bring about the "revolution". That's part of the reason why there is such a system of checks in balances in the constitution. Our founding fathers had their fill of giving one person too much power. So the constitution makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for one person to generate tremendous, lasting change in our country.
If there is a "revolution", it must include Congress and the judicial system, too. And it will take years. Maybe even decades, if you consider that Supreme Court judges serve for life.
And honestly, that's why I'm more interested in congressional elections than presidential elections. I believe that change begins with Congress, not the president.
*gets off soapbox*
And one other thing....South Park has some very good social and political satire in it. If you haven't seen it, I suggest it.
-It really doesn't make sense for the Federal government to try to control every single school in America. Just saying that sounds like a line from "V for Vendetta" or something. Yet, look at the amazing failure of No Child Left Behind. (By the way, what a creepy name for a program. Sounds really Orwellian.)
-Think of all of the government programs that our taxes go towards. Do you support every single one of them? If so, why should you pay for something that you don't support? "The government" basically says, "We want to do this....and we want you to pay for it. If you object, we will arrest you." It's a bit heavy-handed and these orders shouldn't come from the executive branch. Legislators are supposed to represent their constituents, but that doesn't really happen anymore.
-Why is the executive branch of our government coming up with reasons to go to war? People are concerned with the fact that the Bush administration lied, they were wrong about WMDs, all sorts of things. The actual problem is that GW and the crew created some evidence and had to justify the war to the country. We're forgetting that national security shouldn't hinge on the White House. Congress, based on intelligence from the FBI/CIA/etc. should create a resolution and vote on it appropriately. The Commander-In-Chief then has the authorization to control the military. War should NOT be sought out by the Executive branch.
-Why in the world does our Federal government care about our personal choices and beliefs? Banning (or amending the Constitution to approve) gay marriage is the first step. What's next? Our choices for dinner? Citizens of this country are citizens, whether they are gay, black, white, etc. It shouldn't even be a debate.
-If hundreds of millions of people in the country are pro-choice, and hundreds of millions are pro-life, why should the Federal government make a law regarding abortion? Either way, a lot of the Constituents (remember the derivation of that word) are being imposed upon and morally offended. It seems like something that should be decided on the state or the local level.
-The fact that people are so offended by the abortion issue that they ask their Federal government to intervene speaks volumes about the state of our country. Why in the world should people ask their Federal government to enforce their personal religious beliefs? If you think about that question, it kind of explains the reason that our Presidential candidates are so terrible.
Like you said, one candidate can't embody "American ideals." I like the candidate that admits that. Ron Paul has repeatedly said that he doesn't want to run our lives, he doesn't want to run the economy. He wants the Federal government to do its job--and that is ensure the freedom and prosperity of United States citizens.
