What if the principal parties’ candidates for president really agree more than they disagree?
What if they both support the authority of the federal government to spy on Americans without search warrants? What if they both support confining foreigners, uncharged and untried, in Guantanamo Bay? What if they both believe the president can arrest without charge and confine without trial any American he hates or fears?
What if they both believe in secret courts – kept away from the public and the press – that can take away the rights of Americans? What if they both think the president can disregard the Constitution when it comes to the rights of those the government has confined to speedy trials, to confront witnesses and evidence against them, and to counsel of their choosing? What if they both believe the government can use evidence obtained under torture at trials in American courts? What if they both think the president can incarcerate those he once prosecuted, even after acquittal?
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
6 comments:
Bad news, people. BOTH candidates have stated that they are in favor of INCREASING the powers of the government and the Patriot Act. Since swearing an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution AND secretly "detaining" and imprisoning AMERICAN CITIZENS in the USA are incompatible and opposing ideas, they WON'T specifically say "sure, warrantless searches and such are fine..". They COUNT ON the sheeple, in their mindless stupor, to go right along with all of that, under the supremely stupid philosophy of "if you're not doing anything wrong, then why worry about it..". They obviously didn't have relatives in Germany, Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, or East Germany. Millions of their citizens --- MILLIONS -- weren't doing anything wrong either, but they were still KILLED by their government. But hey, history never repeats itself, so keep cheering.
There is a difference. One candidate would become a
"lame duck" and free to do pretty much anything he wishes without any negative reaction. The other would have the shadow of the possibility of re-election for a second term. Personally, I prefer the later on pretty much anyone.
They are the same except one is red and one blue, it's like coke vs pepsi.
Until we wise up and remove congress nothing will change. It really won't make a lot of difference who becomes president as long as congress can be manipulated into favoring money and power over the constitution.
we are doomed.
And the MSM made sure we ignored Ron Paul again. How's that foreign policy working out for you folks? I thought everyone poo poo'd Ron's "blowback fantasy". They love us so much over there for shoving "Democracy" down their throats with tanks and air strikes. And, we're constantly protecting them from terrorism with those daily drone strikes that whoops!, sometimes takes out the entire wedding party.
Yeah, Ron Paul was a WHACKO! Obama or Robomney, 330 is right, coke or pepsi. Be ready for 4 more years, and Paul is not running next time. America, you made your choice in the primaries..... or have you?
Post a Comment