|
|
Politics is one of my favorite things. I have been analyzing guys like Obama and Paul for years, and I still keep reforming my thoughts. It can be wince inducing when people get a slice of something then support it. We all do it though
A flip from Obama to Paul is specifically weird because the reasons for liking either are due to opposite positions from the other
Also, I'll update a couple things
Paul is a racist. Well, maybe not, but he certainly has done too much with that newsletters and some of his policies are simply racist (while some are extremely anti-racist). I've spent a lot of breath defending Paul and his policies like private business discrimination, I still don't know exactly where I stand, but I think it's reasonable to say that he "indirectly endorsed" the racist rhetoric in the newsletters, at the least. Those basically made his career and bank account. Also his (and his son's) ideas about civil rights and private property are a big step back racially. However, the anti-drug war and foreign war stuff is very anti-racist. In a way I give him a pass on this stuff. It's more along the lines of I'd rather analyze what he does from here on out instead of getting hung up on ambiguities
I would fully acknowledge that this position might be insulting to some, as the guy has supported some serious racist rhetoric. I just don't know exactly what to make of it all, I guess is my point. He will never win the presidency over it though. Never ever ever. It's too bad, too much, and his responses are too stupid. It has been said that all the good positions Paul holds, he holds for the wrong reasons. Which is true, he's not a particularly smart person, just somebody with some serious convictions. Half of them happen to be good and the other half terrible
Also, the NDAA indefinite detention thing is not as bad as it seems. While indefinite detentions should be abolished altogether, Obama didn't really change any law here. The short of it is that a 9/11 specific law that defined the pertinent terminology (terrorist, enemy combatant, etc) is about to expire, we would then go back to a very vague pre-9/11 terminology, but instead have split the difference and are now less vague than pre-9/11 yet more broad than 9/11-specific. This is a slippery slope problem though, but what isn't. Obama has been drawing down military power, and that's important
I adored the State of the Union. I understand every ounce of hate for Obama coming from progressives, but he never gets credit for what he does well. If this speech was at the beginning of his presidency, people would be going crazy with how he is gonna be the GOAT pres. He had some serious swagger which showed he is becoming more in charge of the children in Congress, he spoke about as strongly as he could, he made several definitive statements about what bills he wants passed and what his administration is unilaterally doing about important issues, and he brought up several extremely big issues that have been lost in the national dialogue
He also explained why he never wanted a public option (the Lincoln quote). I'm not somebody who worships the public option. Other nations do just fine with private insurance markets, just as long as the proper regulations are in. Things along the lines of competition in coverage, inability to drop the insured, and administrative cost controls are basically what's needed, and the law passed has them. It will take over a decade, but the US health care system will rival any some European ones eventually
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by d0zer
