Comment: But at the same time, it can

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I agree with you (see in situ)

But at the same time, it can

But at the same time, it can be used as propaganda to drive away independents and democrats. While factually true, I think the deeper truth is...

Roe v Wade: Paul is pro-life, but he's also pro letting-the-states-decide. I think overturning Roe v Wade is as much about federal vs state authority than anything else. It's about allowing local communities to decide what is best for them, and not being mandated by a handful of jerks in washington dc.

2nd amendment: Paul is against laws. This is very smart, because laws are made to restrict freedoms and ban things, and to regulate, and generally reduce liberty. Laws don't get made to increase freedoms. If you are pro-freedom, you are anti-laws. Paul is against gun control because it's a double whammy of being unconstitutional AND it's something that restricts freedoms, which Paul is generally against anyway. While it's true Paul is the strongest defender of the 2nd amendment, I think he's also the strongest defender of EVERY amendment.

Opposed Obamacare: We can't afford it, the costs are hidden and kicked down the road (they get "phased in" so it appears to be more cheaper than it is). It is also a sell-out to private insurance companies, so it's anti-free-market but it's also anti-choice and anti-freedom in general. The only people who benefit from Obamacare are large insurance providers, and every taxpayer suffers and every person who needs medical care suffers.

I feel like for Obamacare, we shouldn't be debating philosophical objections. Because this implies that 1) we can afford it (taxpayers can't afford another handout to private industry) and 2) it will actually be effective. Which just isn't true. So the most effective objections are practical ones.