Very scattered thoughts on last night's Repulican debate.
It's kind of odd to think that some of these candidates really believe that the answer to illegal immigration involves the impossible task of rounding up every illegal Mexican in the United States and deporting them and the ridiculous concept that building a bigger, badder fence (with robot-alligator moats, I would presume) can solve anything. Obviously, if the current immigration process isn't working, it needs to be changed; howerever, I'm hoping the plans purposed would be better than President Bush's "guest worker" plans.
Gays in the Military:
This one was kind of random. If anything, gay marriage is a far bigger deal than "Don't ask, don't tell" ( I was actually disappointed that the issue wasn't raised). Unfortunately, every single candidate agreed that the system is working. What?! No it's not! How is being dishonorably charged from the military based solely on sexual orientation working? I guess it's okay to discriminate against homos in the military; "we're at war."
Basically, nobody had any insight that struck me as reasonable. The almost unanimous proposal from the candidates to solve global warming (global climate change, whatever) was to increase reliance on nuclear energy. Yes, nuclear emits nothing into the atmosphere, but there is one small caveat to that: nuclear waste only becomes safe after such a long time (6,000+ years half life, depending on the material). We might as well be living in a smog infested, oxygen depleted atmosphere than a radioactive wasteland. WHY does nobody realize this? It's common sense! Geez.
Okay, the big one. Personally, I don't know where I stand on this issue. Though I lean more towards the Pro-Life side, there are still some things that are pushing me into the gray area: I don't believe that this should be regulated at the federal level; and, though I believe in protecting an unborn fetus's opportunity at life, there are times in which a forced birth would be inappropriate. The candidates all took the Pro-Life stance. However, I think Giuliani is pandering and, based on his previous stances he is trying to cover up his past inconsistencies by stating he merely was Pro-State level regulation. Other than that, not much variety in the arguments of the candidates.
None of these candidates really impressed me, though Ron Paul did strike my fancy-- I could never see him as a president, however. Also, who the hell really cares if Mitt Romney is a Mormon? Granted, he does seem a little nutty, but I really could care less if he's a Mormon. Hey! according to Fox News, we already have a radical Islamic democrat running for president, so what's the big deal?