Who should become President of the United States?
By Dark PolitricksThis is a follow on from my seemingly popular article called "does anyone really thinks that voting for Mitt Romney will bring real change to the USA.
As I state quite clearly at the beginning of that article, if you dislike or even hate the current US President, Barack Obama, then I agree with your sentiment.
However is hating someone and their policies enough of a good reason to vote in someone who is potentially worse for your economy, liberty, safety and ultimately your country?
Is voting for Mitt Romney, actually voting for the lesser of two evils and if it is then is voting for any kind of evil morally acceptable?
As a Brit I often get asked to "stay out" of "our" American politics. Or to keep my nose out of American Presidential elections.
However it is pretty clear, at least to me over my adult life, that the US President is not only the leader of the USA but the figurehead of the most powerful super power in the world whose decisions and actions effect the lives of people all across the globe.
Whether the leader of the USA should have this much power over the rest of us is a very pertinent question yet one that is hardly, if ever, mentioned in the US mainstream media let alone the US Presidential debates.
However it is a question that the rest of the world knows the importance of, and people all the way from Pakistan to Australia, China to Germany and Brazil to the UK realise that whoever sits in that chair behind the oval desk can have a dramatic effect over the lives of people across the globes life.
For example if you live in Pakistan the leader of the USA could decide whether your family members are counted as "collateral damage" in a drone strike.
If you are Japanese it's whether a US Army soldier will rape your daughter and get away with it due to the "special contract" America makes any country hosting their soldiers and bases sign.
If your Australian it's whether or new US Navy base will be created to help ring fence China and bring your country into any future war with the next emerging super power.
If your Russian it's whether or not your country is gong to be designated as the top enemy of the USA as Romney stated and whether or not you will be ring fenced in by new NATO members and a missile "defense" system that could be used to attack your nation.
For us Brits it's down to the level of humiliation we will have to suffer by watching our politicians make sickeningly arse licking speeches to your congress as Gordon Brown and Tony Blair recently did.
It is also how far up your arse we will hang as a nation and how many of our young soldiers will die fighting the next war we feel duty bound to join you in.
If it's China it's the level of hostility you can expect to face from the next President. Will they see you as a nation that is propping up your failing economy by constantly buying your worthless Treasury bonds or will you be labelled a currency manipulator and then watch as the fading US star tries to fight it's way out of decline by picking a fight with you over Taiwan or Japan.
If it's Iran it's whether or not you are going to be attacked within 6 months or a year. Whether diplomacy will be given any form of a chance or whether the next President will bend straight over to the next Israeli PM and go to war for that country yet again in the Middle East.
Sending US troops to die in foreign lands to fight in deserts that they have no right being in, for a war that is both hypocritical and pointless on many grounds.
You see we non Americans DO have a voice and DO have thoughts about the way the most powerful country in the world should behave in the next 4 years.
Should it follow the neo-con policy of never-ending war, torture, and going it alone against world opinion. Or will they retreat back inside their own borders, become isolationist and chose to sort out their own economy and decimation of their civil rights before deciding to spread "human rights" and "democracy" across the world again.
Policies that many of us see as hypocritical due to their own behaviour and breeches of Human Rights that have become so famous aka Gitmo, Abu Ghrai, Dick Cheney's personal assassination squad and now Obama's king like behaviour to chose who lives and dies whether they are American or not.
Unlike the "I agree with Mitt, I agree with the President" farce of the last Presidential debate which was supposedly about foreign policy there are in fact third party candidates from parties such as the Libertarian Party or the Green Party who DO debate such questions that we mere foreigners ask. Questions such as:
- Should America be the worlds policeman? Especially during a time of "austerity" in which the US economy is running purely on money conjured out of thin air.
- Should this sham of a financial system in which the FED and the Treasury allow banksters like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan to take advantage of to make themselves rich even exist at all?
- Why do Americans feel the need to dance to Israel's tune and start and then fight wars that are not in the USA's best interest?
- Why is the American political system so corrupt that the Supreme Court can give corporations all the same rights as people apart from the right to be imprisoned or executed for their high crimes and treason.
- Is it fair that overseas countries and corporations can now pump obscene amounts of money into the Presidential election through Super PAC's and the aforementioned Citizens United decision and affect the outcome of an election to their benefit. All whilst home grown political parties such as the Greens or the Libertarians get hard;y any air time to make their point on mainstream media and are excluded from the televised Presidential debates which are designed to keep the two headed snake duopoly of a corrupt and owned political system in it's current broken and corrupt form.
The only problem is that it doesn't really matter who they dump tons of money behind as the same old neo-con, pro-war, pro-Israel. amti-Muslim, anti-civil liberty policies will continue unabated whichever of the two parties leaders get voted in.
Both President Obama and Mitt Romney support:
- Wars of aggression.
- Bypassing Congress and the War Act to carry out wars that seemingly help their enemies gain control of important regions of the world i.e Libya and Syria.
- Their support of rebel armies fighting existing regimes that the USA dislikes such as Syria, which maybe authoritarian in nature but are not full of al-Qaeda members and fundamentalist Jihadists who commit massacres en masse, film them and then upload them to YouTube.
- Supporting drone strikes that kill 50 civilians, women and children for every "Terrorist" killed.
- Both support the curbing of civil liberties at home, the NDAA, the PATRIOT ACT and other authoritarian pieces of legislation that have curtailed American citizens liberties at home.
- Both candidates claim to support the constitution whilst doing everything they can to bypass it - for the good of the American citizen of course.
- Both are big government in their own way.
- Both are just figureheads for their real puppet masters and bend over to powerful lobbyists.
- Both are pro-Israel and seemingly allow that country to literally get away with murder - including the murder of American citizens like Furkan Dogan.
- And the list goes on as my article shows > "Does anyone really thinks that voting for Mitt Romney will bring real change to the USA?
Another third party candidate debate between the Green Parties Jill Stein and Libertarian parties Gary Johnson is happening this week. Make sure to watch it if you can.
This is the first debate between all four third party presidential candidates, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson here.
Please take your time and let me know who you plan to vote for in the election or if you live outside America who you think should become President.