Back to unreasonable, but vague enough to be meaningless.
There were plenty of “peeps”. But in any case, the outrage was more subdued because there were no troops on the ground, no long term commitment, and no American casualties. That would not hold for any conflict with Iran.
So basically we can go to war as long as we’re only blasting foreigners. Again, what a principled position for Democrats to hold!
Multiculturalism is assimilation.
Not exactly what I said. But blasting foreigners with no risk to Americans is going to be less objectionable to many than blasting foreigners with high risk to Americans.
Probably something along the lines that we are all doomed by our cult of personality. It’s why boring guys make the best leaders.
There is no low risk way to blast away at foreigners. What happens if the foreigners unexpectedly inflict casualties? Do we run away?
Perhaps. But the main point was that a charismatic partisan can temporarily make his followers buck trends. Libertarianism is still the basic direction we are heading in, it’s just that Obama has temporarily arrested that trend among Democratic voters.
Why are you asking me? I don’t want us to use military force anywhere at present.
Kinda hard to go to war blasting anyone else, isn’t it ?
Not on health care.
Resistance is futile either way.
For one thing, because he has never indicated the slightest interest in doing so.
Where are you getting those figures?
I agree with you policywise, the jury is still out on public opinion. The idiot pollsters aren’t actually asking voters what they want.
They want single-payer, that’s been established for years now.
If that was true, the Democrats would have just backed single payer.
Obama took that off the table so fast all that was left was an outline of nematode worms. HE never was interested in single payer, because he’s a Republican Lite. He LURVED Romneycare, though, so he took that and rebranded it under his own name.
That’s not really true, he said that if he had his way, he’d start with single payer. But the political reality is that the vast majority of people liked the insurance they had, which means that you can’t screw with their insurance. Or at least not look like you’re screwing with it when you are trying to pass your bill. Single payer would have been a flashing red light saying, “Your insurance is cancelled.”
Only if “cancelled” means “obsolete.”
That depends on how the law is written. If you establish a public option, that’s one thing. If you say that only the government can pay for basic health care as is done in Canada, or put restrictions on how private insurance can pay for care and what that means if you ever need public care, as Britain does, then it doesn’t make your insurance obsolete, it effectively makes it illegal, or at least very undesirable due to government policy.
See, governments have never been willing to compete on an even playing field with private insurance. Since I’m assured that public insurance is superior, I’d be very happy to test that theory. I actually supported the public option, provided that it was not subsidized and would be allowed to fail if it went bankrupt. Let’s have that test!