A.B. wrote:I'll restate my thesis for the fourth time, it doesn't really matter what a president believes, what matters is what his expected actions are.
Expected is the wrong word: it implies high probability. Anyone who expects to be able to predict someone else's actions in the multi-year future with high probability is being silly.Rather
: I find that someone lending his name to racist tracts and off-the-wall conspiracy theory tracts to have executed at the least ridiculously poor judgement, and at the worst racist and paranoid sentiments. I am unwilling to trust such an individual with exectutive power over a small company, let alone the US exectutive branch.
But "sane" political ideas are define by the current political spectrum and state provided education, don't you find it's a bit easy to label as nutty rare political ideas?
First, drastic changes to society are dangerous. Even if the change is a good one, the execution can quite easily cause more damage than the results of the change.
So "making what we have work better" in an incremental manner is a solid idea.
Then revamp things one thing at a time
, being careful about it.
Massive revamps? Even if the end state is better, there are costs to rebuilding society along other lines. Paying all those costs at once by engaging in a massive revamp is expensive.
So supporting the status quo with some small improvements? A good default position for an executive to take. Fixing everything at once will break more than it fixes.
Claiming political opponents are mad is an age-old political tactic that peaked in the USSR.
And Hitler liked puppies, so liking puppies is bad?
I don't believe in political opinions, I think there are correct moral stances on right, and incorrect ones that live no room for opinion. I have contempt for socialist policies, not because I disagree with them but because I hold they are inherently evil. But that might take us a bit far.
And having you in any kind of position of power would be disasterous, even if you where right on every major political issue, because you'd cause more damage from your contempt than you'd benefit people from your right answers.
In other words, your position that you should have contempt for people who hold different positions is inherently evil
stephen wrote:Obama was opposed to the war on Iraq from the beginning and voted against it. A leader of a country needs to be able to make tough decisions which may lead their people into war. A majority of the senate, including Hillary Clinton voted for the war on Iraq. A "principled opposition" to war is what Brittain tried in 1938.
And what if Obama looked at the evidence and said "Bush is on crack, this evidence is unconvincing"? What if the evidence was on the cusp of being convincing?
Do you know what evidence the Executive branch showed the Senate?
If someone takes "secret evidence" whose contents we are unable to judge, and produces the right answer -- isn't that evidence of better judgement than producing the wrong answer? Even if more people produced the wrong answer than the right answer from the same "secret evidence"?
Well according to the latest reports, the troop surge is breaking the back of Al Qaeida in Iraq. Wasn't one of the goals of the war on Iraq to help stop terrorist activities in the country?
A war doesn't get credit for stopping terrorist activity when nearly all of the terrorist activity it stops was induced by the war.
The point of the surge is to cut down US casualties and reduce to amount of terrorist attacks in the country to a level which allows the US to work with Iraq to train its own forces to protect and manage itself. It seems to be working.
I've read a neat opinion that the "paying militia members 10$ per day to guard instead of fight" might be a huge part of the downswing in violence.
My real arguement is this: if Obama voted against the war, even when presented with evidence that suggested he should go to war, under what conditions will he go to war?
Prove the bolded statement. Do you know what evidence Obama was shown?
All I know of is the voting record of the Senate -- and that's just evidence that it was convincing to other people who later on where proven wrong, not that the evidence was sufficient to go to war.