[GenerationW]

Because she represents everything that is wrong with present day America, and she and people like her are the reason why America is not "great" any more.
Unfortunately, the non-whites and poorly educated Americans in the south are all rooting for this lying hypocrite, and I feel sorry for their lack of intelligence and judgment. In the end, America deserves the choice it makes.

Most of the "poorly educated Americans in the south" are not voting for her.

 

[ADRM]

There's literally not a single non-ridiculous statement in this entire last post.

1. "Because she represents everything that is wrong with present day America."
> This is a baseless assertion as presented. In what way? What does she represent? What is wrong with present day America?

2. "She and people like her are the reason why America is not "great" any more."
> What are 'she and people like her'? On what criteria are you basing the argument that America "is not 'great' anymore"?

3. "Non-whites and poorly educated Americans in the south are all rooting for this lying hypocrite."
> Even setting aside what seems like it may be thinly veiled racism, assuming you're referring to Clinton, are you aware that of all the candidates that existed in the race at the beginning of last week, Trump is the one whose support overindexes with those who are less educated?

You're presenting opinion as fact, repeatedly. That's not an intelligent form of argument.

 

[salsa]

Most of the "poorly educated Americans in the south" are not voting for her.

Yes they are. Because they sure as hell ain't voting for Sanders.

 

[ADRM]

Yes they are. Because they sure as hell ain't voting for Sanders.

Of all the candidates, most lesser educated Americans support Trump, not Sanders, Clinton, or any of the previous finalist Republican candidates.

 

[salsa]

Of all the candidates, most lesser educated Americans support Trump, not Sanders, Clinton, or any of the previous finalist Republican candidates.

I meant non-whites (which ksun brought up), but I wasn't clear.

 

[ADRM]

I meant non-whites (which ksun brought up), but I wasn't clear.

Gotcha, sorry—getting a little punchy with all the ridiculousness emanating from my screen on this thread.

 

[ksun]

Most of the "poorly educated Americans in the south" are not voting for her.

I am talking about her vs. Sanders. Trump of course is a magnet for the least educated bigots.
Clinton attracts the poor, less educated and the old, and most of the non-white voters.

 

[ksun]

There's literally not a single non-ridiculous statement in this entire last post.

1. "Because she represents everything that is wrong with present day America."
> This is a baseless assertion as presented. In what way? What does she represent? What is wrong with present day America?

2. "She and people like her are the reason why America is not "great" any more."
> What are 'she and people like her'? On what criteria are you basing the argument that America "is not 'great' anymore"?

3. "Non-whites and poorly educated Americans in the south are all rooting for this lying hypocrite."
> Even setting aside what seems like it may be thinly veiled racism, assuming you're referring to Clinton, are you aware that of all the candidates that existed in the race at the beginning of last week, Trump is the one whose support overindexes with those who are less educated?

You're presenting opinion as fact, repeatedly. That's not an intelligent form of argument.

Of courses it is opinion. Everything we say here are opinions.

Just give an example, when Sanders proposes to adopt a nationalized healthcare system, Clinton's first response was "what about the insurance companies". Right, it is the insurance companies' profits that are most important. She is so corrupted, and bought.

 

[ADRM]

"Everything we say here are opinions" is the most bizarre statement today! If one writes or otherwise communicates a clear, incontrovertible fact it is precisely that, and not opinion.

To your second point, Hillary Clinton's core response to Sanders' proposed healthcare reforms are that they would be expensive and that he has not presented a cogent manner of financing (both of which are true), and that such a proposal wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being approved by a Republican-controlled House (which is also true).

And, going back to my earlier points to which you didn't respond, your assertions that Clinton "represents everything that is wrong with America", or that she is "the reason why America is not great anymore" remain presented without any sort of reasoning or proof. Similarly, you've again failed to explain on what basis you're asserting that America is not "great" anymore, or what you mean by "she and people like her."

 

[wild goose chase]

To your second point, Hillary Clinton's core response to Sanders' proposed healthcare reforms are that they would be expensive and that he has not presented a cogent manner of financing (both of which are true)

Americans already pay the most for healthcare of the developed countries, I'm not sure if there is a consensus on if a switch to single-payer ("Medicare for all") paid for by taxes would be cheaper than the current system but most of the criticism of single-payer stateside seems to be about the practicality and feasibility of getting rid of the current system -- I haven't heard discussion on whether or not the costs will go down once the current system is changed, but it's more whether or not the resistance is too strong (from the insurance companies etc., the general public, although most do favour reform if asked on surveys etc.) to change it in the first place.

 

[ADRM]

Americans already pay the most for healthcare of the developed countries, I'm not sure if there is a consensus on if a switch to single-payer ("Medicare for all") paid for by taxes would be cheaper than the current system but most of the criticism of single-payer stateside seems to be about the practicality and feasibility of getting rid of the current system -- I haven't heard discussion on whether or not the costs will go down once the current system is changed, but it's more whether or not the resistance is too strong (from the insurance companies etc., the general public, although most do favour reform if asked on surveys etc.) to change it in the first place.

Yeah, the latter half of your note is right—the biggest problem is that it's not a question of comparing current costs to what costs would look like if they moved toward a single-payer system; the real hurdle would be the cost associated with getting to a system of nationalized healthcare. In the US, the government doesn't itself administer healthcare as is the case with Canadian provinces; they'd literally be setting up their system from scratch, and they'd have to figure out how to administer it to 330 million people, as opposed to 35 million people.

Now, even if we were to completely set aside the costs associated with migrating to a single-payer system, it's reasonable to predict that costs would decrease given, as you noted, that the only industrialized nation without a single-payer healthcare spends more on it than any other country in the world. In other words, their way doesn't work as well as ours (or that of any other industrialized country).

 

[wild goose chase]

Canada is no longer America's largest trading partner although America will be ours for any foreseeable future.

I think it's good if Canada diversifies its trading partners (just like the US has already done) -- it's better not to put all one's egg's in a single basket or so to speak.
I don't know much about the topic but even not too long ago there was that trade agreement between Canada and the EU wasn't there?

 

[ADRM]

I think it's good if Canada diversifies its trading partners (just like the US has already done) -- it's better not to put all one's egg's in a single basket or so to speak.
I don't know much about the topic but even not too long ago there was that trade agreement between Canada and the EU wasn't there?

Diversification is certainly always wise and yes, you're right about the Canada-EU trade agreement (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement); I believe it's working its way through the European Council and European Parliament. There are also compensations negotiations underway in Canada between representatives of the dairy industry and Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland. Freeland recently said she believes CETA should be in place by 2017.

The TPP is a similar effort at broadening Canada's trading partners to increase the focus on Pacific nations.

 

[wild goose chase]

Yeah, the latter half of your note is right—the biggest problem is that it's not a question of comparing current costs to what costs would look like if they moved toward a single-payer system; the real hurdle would be the cost associated with getting to a system of nationalized healthcare. In the US, the government doesn't itself administer healthcare as is the case with Canadian provinces; they'd literally be setting up their system from scratch, and they'd have to figure out how to administer it to 330 million people, as opposed to 35 million people.

Now, even if we were to completely set aside the costs associated with migrating to a single-payer system, it's reasonable to predict that costs would decrease given, as you noted, that the only industrialized nation without a single-payer healthcare spends more on it than any other country in the world. In other words, their way doesn't work as well as ours (or that of any other industrialized country).

It's that age old dilemma of upon finding that a system is bad, do you take the risk of wiping it out and starting from scratch if it'll lead to something potentially better, even if it's a big risk? Or do you just keep an old, inferior system because it's "always been that way" and you think that "it's too late to change". This kind of bind has always been an issue for any kind of system that humans designed which is why we often stick to designs, policies, traditions etc. just because "Oh, well, that's the way it is". "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" as the old saying goes.

I'd imagine that the States, if they wanted to try it would have to do it experimentally maybe with one state or state-by-state (just like our single-payer system started with Saskatchewan). Apparently, Vermont had tried to experiment with single-payer a few years back but it didn't pan out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_health_care_reform

 

[wild goose chase]

I meant non-whites (which ksun brought up), but I wasn't clear.

I think the trend of non-whites preferring Clinton is partly due to a large share of the non-white voter population stateside being older African American voters who grew up in the years where Bill Clinton was very charismatic and popular among the Black community in the 90s.

I think Hispanics are more evenly split and I'm not sure about Asian Americans or other, smaller, minorities.
But younger voters, even younger non-white minority voters, prefer Sanders.