The issues that are most important to me are the economy, national defense and foreign policy, and gun rights.
I recognize that the president doesn't necessarily need to know a whole lot about the economy. That's what economists are for. Really what I don't want to see is a president who thinks they know a lot more about the economy than what they actually know.
I'm still waiting for a debate where a candidate is asked about a specific economic issue and they just say "You know what, I'm not too sure. I'll have to consult with my team of economists and get back to you on that." I would love that!
Raising or lowering taxes may not have the outcome most people would think on certain goods. Some people maybe believe that raising a tax on an item automatically brings in more revenue for that item. It could in fact decrease the revenue, as it may significantly lower the amount of that item sold (especially if it has a highly elastic demand)!
via GIPHY
Maybe don't trust the Small Council though...
I view national defense and foreign relations (especially regarding military action) as priorities as well. Do I mean we need to be the world police? Absolutely not. Do I think we should build a giant wall around our land and only defend it? No! The world is an ever-changing dangerous place, and we need to be ready to deal with threats and prevent genocide and other gross human rights violations.
We have to be careful about what positions we take on issues, the ways we deal with situations, and the affect our actions will have in the long run. I look for a level-headed candidate on these issues, someone who detests war but understands there is sometimes a need for violence.
As is with economics, the President does not need to make all decisions for his or herself; there is a large number of military advisers, strategists, and leaders that the President can lean on, however he or she should have a strong backbone and understanding for these matters.
via GIPHY
That's some good advising right there!
Finally, the topic on everyone's lips. I posted on Facebook about this a while ago but I couldn't find what I said. Basically I understand both sides of the argument on gun control. What it comes down to, is some people want to prevent future mass shootings and the death of innocents, and some people want to prevent future oppression. You may not believe that, but it is what I believe it comes down to.
I will never tell you that you're wrong to support whichever side, but I may disagree with your reasoning. Neither side is necessarily right either, even though I have my own opinions. Now, the specifics of each opinion on each side could vary greatly!
Without going too much into the weeds, I believe the 2nd Amendment was originally added to the Constitution to protect the citizens' ability to fight back against an oppressive government, whether it is foreign or domestic. Given that our country had just overthrown its own former government when the constitution was written, it's safe to say that such a thing was not a foreign concept to them, like it is to us today.
Granted, as of right now, we have no need for such a drastic motion... but one day we may. It could be the federal government, a state government, or even a wildly corrupt police force. American citizens should be able to fight for themselves when nobody else will.
I also look for candidates who are at the very least educated on firearms. If you're trying to ban "assault weapons" but can't even safely handle a firearm, you have 0 credibility with me. For example, check out Senator Feinstein holding some sort of AKS-47 or 74 variant. Notice her finger is on the trigger. One of the first things firearms instructor would teach you is to never put your finger on the trigger unless you're intending to fire.
I actually have a funny story about Senator Feinstein sending a team (of her staff or advisers, I am guessing) to Quantico when I worked there to learn about firearms after there was a ton of backlash over her and her peers mishandling firearms, but that's neither here nor there... so I'll tell the story in the comment section!
I know I have many more reasons for supporting gun ownership, and I'm sure many of you have your own opinions on either side of the fight, but it is definitely an important issue to me as a voter.
via GIPHY
These three, or four, issues of the economy, national defense and foreign relations, and gun rights, are some of the most important issues to me as a voter. While I can see myself voting either Democrat or Republican, the candidate must be competent on these issues, even if that means realizing how little they know compared to their advisers.
via GIPHY
Sorry for the lengthy post! Not sorry for 100% Game of Thrones GIFs.
I have similar feelings about gun control in that I can understand both sides to the issue but I sort of lean towards to allowing guns in the country but for a different reason as you. I believe that if guns were banned in this country it would lead to more illegal activities with people still selling guns on the black market which would possibly make it easier to buy guns. This is only my thinking so I'm probably wrong in some aspects but its what I believe
ReplyDeleteGood post! I appreciate the depth of discussion and the real openness with which you approach these issues. I think it's great that Senator Feinstein at least got staff training after her gun snafu. But maybe she should have been there, too?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you in that a president cannot know everything. Isn't that what the cabinet is actually for? The chiefs of staff? Congress? And didn't one candidate say that they'd confer with themselves? This race is just mind-boggling, and it's starting to feel as unstable as, ahem, the upcoming season of Game of Thrones...
Here's the story about Senator Feinstein's crew...
ReplyDeleteI used to work as an instructor at Quantico. We would often get "VIPs" like generals who wanted to test out our current weapons or our collection of foreign weapons, or CEOs from various organizations. We would take them to the range and let them shoot and have fun.
We even had a teenager from the Make A Wish Foundation who had always wanted to be a Marine. That was an awesome day.
But I digress... When the Senator's group showed up, we handed out ear and eye protection, the group sat on the bleachers near the range, and we gave them some quick lessons on the weapons and the range.
After the "safety brief," every single person went to the various weapons on the firing line, accompanied by an instructor, and began to shoot and have fun (and learn of course).
Except one woman in her late 20s or early 30s. She just sat in the bleachers THE ENTIRE TIME! This was the first time I had ever seem someone do this. Ever! People who don't want to shoot atleast like to go watch or take pictures... after all we had some weapons that most people will never get the chance to see, let alone shoot.
It was astounding. But, later, the other instructors and I decided that it makes sense. After all, it is Senator Feinstein's staff.
I told them, the staff probably will report back to the Senator soon, and she will ask them "Did anyone have fun?"
Of course, all of them will say "yes!" Except the lone girl who didn't shoot. She will say "No! It was horrible!"
And she would be the only one who got to keep her job...