I wake up often these days and almost ask myself this. I'm watching 24-hour news right now (yea!). Am I missing something? How is a man with Bernie Sanders political philosophy even allowed to be in the running nevertheless giving Hilary a run for her money? RK? Somebody?
Sanders basically has socialist leanings. Oddly enough for me, he's the only one I trust. (with the exception of 2 times, I've always voted Republican) I don't trust Hillary and the GOP is a bunch of clown shoes.
Well, if you're "down" with socialism, I hope you're "down" with more of your paycheck being taken from you in the form of more taxes being used for more "social programs." If you're not ok with that, then, maybe socialism isn't for you. Pesky thing, that "wealth redistribution"...
Sanders' biggest wet dream would be to tax the upper income earners (whatever his definition of that would be) 90% of their earnings, IIRC. Now, I don't know about you, but that wouldn't negatively affect me in anyway. I'm not anywhere near that level of income. And if you actually think about, do you really think he'd be able to pass something like that anyway?? Am I "down" with socialism?? Where did I say that?? Same with that pesky thing called "wealth redistribution". Where did I say I support that?? What I am actually saying is that, of all the candidates (GOP and Dems), the one who is most trustworthy is Sanders, IMHO. As I recall, there's very few things he's flipped on politically. The other candidates seem to have flopped around like a fish out of water on "hot button" topics, or as they call it, "evolved". Do I agree with everything he says and believes in?? Absolutely not. But there are enough things he says and believes in that I do agree with, or at the very least, has peaked my interest. Yes, he is a "socialist". But at least it's out there for everyone to see. Many people would argue how much of a socialist he is, or to what degree. If you want to know what people feel about socialism, ask HisLeast, tango and ProDeo. They live(ed) in countries that have some degree of socialist economic/political leanings.
I couldn't support somebody, anybody, who wanted to tax somebody, anybody, 90% of their income. That's something only a socialist dictator who hates capitalism would do. Speaking of socialist dictators, I've always found it amusing that, for people who "hate" wealth, they always seem to be the exception and it's fine for them to have tons of money...
Your mileage may vary. Could you support a candidate who said (paraphrase), "if I were to run for President, I'd run as a Republican, because Republican voters of stupid". (Trump) Could you support a candidate who was (actually) born in Canada, as opposed to someone who was (allegedly) born in Kenya? (Cruz) Look at congress. There's Democrats AND Republicans who seem to be fine with making and having lots of money and will stop at nothing to insure they will always have lots of money at our expense.
Don't think that taxing "the rich" won't affect you. When tax-happy politicians get into power they tax wealthy individuals and large corporations. The wealthy individuals employ clever accountants to dodge the taxes (it's actually not that hard for wealthier people to avoid taxes, the only question is whether the amount you avoid paying is enough to warrant the expense of avoiding it in the first place). Large corporations merely relocate offshore, hire a few clever accountants, and avoid most of the taxes. That leaves small corporations dealing with the brunt of the taxes and, where corporations can't avoid the taxes, they just pass on the increased costs to their customers. I only loosely follow the electioneering. Since "no taxation without representation" got lost somewhere between the Boston Tea Party and today I don't get a vote so it doesn't really matter what I think of the candidates. From what I can tell Trump is a buffoon, and Hillary is a terrifying prospect. As an aside I'd like to see Hillary and Jeb disqualified simply because in the nation that calls itself the land of opportunity the last thing that is needed is the presidential roll call that already says "Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama" to add another Bush or Clinton to the end. I think Bernie Sanders would have major problems demonstrating how he would fund his proposed schemes but from what I can see he is consistent - he says what he believes in and if you don't like it then vote for the other guy. One problem when people talk about "socialism" is that it can mean so many different things to different people and in different contexts. In principle I oppose redistribution of wealth simply because it allows the government to decide which individuals and which sections of industry are worthy of the money I'd rather spend on something else. That said there are some things that may be best funded centrally. Healthcare is the example that always seems to come up when comparing the US to the UK. Healthcare in the US is a frightening prospect when it presents the choice between being slowly bled dry by insurance premiums or face the constant risk of being totally wiped out by a catastrophic health problem. Some people see the UK as a great healthcare utopia where you can see the doctor without paying, where the first question in hospital is what treatment is needed rather than who is paying the bills, and the ambulance dispatcher wants the address rather than the credit card details. But sadly the reality isn't always that rosy. When anyone can see the doctor without paying the doctors are more likely to get people making an appointment because they have a headache - if you don't have to pay for prescriptions (in the UK people on benefits pay nothing for prescribed medication) then getting the doctor to prescribe you an aspirin saves you a bit of money. It wastes the doctor's time, but if you're not paying anything why would you care? I believe it's rare but it's not unheard of for people to call an ambulance to take them to the hospital, only to discharge themselves and walk home (the ambulance was free; a taxi would have a cost). Some years ago my wife had a badly sprained ankle that we took to the hospital, and they loaned her a crutch until it was better. When I returned the crutch the receptionists were clearly shocked that I had bothered. The levels of waste within the National Health Service (NHS) are truly staggering, and management ineptitude is equally staggering. The standard of treatment varies from so good you'd think the nurses were literally angels in human form to so useless you'd think you were in a banana republic. I had a family member in hospital for a couple of weeks and despite the bathrooms allegedly being cleaned every day the same bar of soap remained on the side of a bath for the whole time. Another family member couldn't sleep at night because someone else on the ward had their TV on loud, and needless to say the rights of the hard-of-hearing person who wanted to watch TV at 3am trumped anyone else's right to sleep. Hey, it's not as if people need to sleep to recuperate, right? In many ways paying your own way for healthcare means taking responsibility for your own decisions. If you smoke like a chimney, drink like a sailor on shore leave and don't exercise you'll pay more for your insurance. That seems entirely reasonable. At the same time when life sometimes just throws a curveball for no discernible reason it does seem desperately unfair for someone to be preparing for bankruptcy as soon as the doctor says "it's cancer". I'd be quite happy with a centrally funded scheme that would provide care for a very select list of critical conditions and let people pay their own way for lesser conditions. Of course another issue is that if people can't afford to see the doctor for minor issues they tend to become major issues, so in some ways it makes no sense to allow someone to use the ER regardless of ability to pay if you won't also let them see the doctor beforehand. But against that there need to be safeguards so that people don't go to the doctor with every sniffle or headache they have. I actually like the idea of having to pay something to see the doctor, simply because when you have to put some skin in the game it makes you stop and think whether you really need it.
I think Trump is a buffoon. I would say I'd vote for anyone to keep him out, but if "anyone" meant Hillary I'd struggle to decide which was the lesser evil. I really don't understand the obsession with where someone was born. I'd agree that to become President you'd have to be a US citizen but whether a born citizen or a naturalized citizen makes no odds to me. I'd love to see term limits on political office for all sorts of reasons. It would be really nice if there were some practical way to make sure that a person leaving office could return to their previous life having not made any more money while in office than they were making in their previous job. I'd like to see people disqualified from political office until they had held down some form of apolitical job for a set period too, so they had at least some experience of how the real world works.
Didn't Sanders point to Scandinavia as a model of socialism? The guy is a dope. Cruz doesn't seem too bad; Hillary would be a nightmare (what, with the illegal e-mail server, Benghazi, covering up her husband's sexual assaults, rapes, etc.). Trump wouldn't be allow to run and win by the powers-that-be regardless of his popularity. As the man said, 'It's election year and the circus is in town // it's time to pick a winner from the line of clowns'.
Sorry, too lazy to break up the post. 0:0 I imagine you're correct about the taxing the rich thing. I just couldn't imagine that it would affect me in a large way, but I could be way off. I agree with your views on Trump and Hillary. Also, as far as Sanders is concerned, it's his "consistency" that appeals to me despite his political leanings. Thanks for your insight on the UK healthcare system.
Again, too lazy to split up the post. 0:0 :.: 0:0 Yep, the fact that this next election could very well boil down to Trump and Hillary is a scary thought. As for the birther deal, I would have to agree with you. But I find it hilarious that where Obama was born was such a huge deal to many R's (politicians and voters alike) but wave off Cruz being born in Canada. (And remember, I'm saying this as someone who's never supported Obama) Agree with you on term limits in all levels of political office.
I'll give Sanders credit for being honest about who he is and what he stands for, but I don't like socialism and I would never vote for the guy. And to address a point you raised in another post, I doubt he could, if elected, make it so that the rich, however he defines rich, would have to pay 90% of their income as taxes. However, the fact he even wanted that bothers me as it shows he is a hardliner socialist who hates that others have money, and anybody that hates money, or at least says they do, is going to eventually take more of mine, not just the wealthy's money. I don't like socialism's premise that says if I don't have enough money I need to take it, with help from the government, from somebody else. No, I don't. If I don't have enough, whatever that is in my mind, I need to go to school, get a better paying job, work harder, etc., to improve my lot. I don't deserve somebody elses' money simply because I live and take up space.
Not sure about Cruz. The guy just gives me a total sleazeball feel. And the Trump gong-show just got a lot more shrill with Palin jumping on board. My 9 year old daughter was looking at us and cringing when she was talking.
To answer the OP's titular question -- you're in a country that has lowered its leadership standards so drastically that the current pool of prospects is at once terrifying, disheartening, and bewildering -- albeit not unexpected, given the trend of things overall. Nobody in this country seems to actually want quality leadership. Our Congress is an absolute mess, and the corruption is so vast and so deep that in order to address it ... well, it would take nothing short of a miracle. At least Trump is realizing that the presidential election is basically a high school popularity show, and he's milking that for all it's worth. He may be a buffoon, but he's nonetheless a very perceptive buffoon who understands the circus our elections have devolved to. May the best clown win. ;.;.