[ADRM]

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

Great points. The tough thing about doing it piecemeal is that it's very difficult for states/provinces to adequately fund such a system without significant help from the federal government (our transfer payments to the provinces).

The difficulties you outlined essentially form the main basis of Clinton's criticism of Sanders' approach to healthcare reform.

 

[ksun]

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.

Exactly. And that's why those African Americans are being stupid. How does what Bill Clinton did have anything to do with his wife? Not to mention their marriage probably has been nothing but a political arrangement for a long time.

Additionally, what great things did Bill Clinton do? Provided them with cheap housing which led to the financial crisis 15 years later? Is there any evidence that black lives got better under Bill Clinton?

 

[ksun]

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."

I didn't answer because I thought it was common knowledge. The problem with America is the government has long been in the pocket of the rich. Canada doesn't work like that. France doesn't work like than. Even Russia doesn't work like that.

How can you convince me America is still great? Maybe you should watch the first episode of "Newsroom". America is great in two things today 1) military power 2) science and technology innovation. I call it powerful, not necessarily "great".

 

[ADRM]

I didn't answer because I thought it was common knowledge. The problem with America is the government has long been in the pocket of the rich. Canada doesn't work like that. France doesn't work like than. Even Russia doesn't work like that.

How can you convince me America is still great? Maybe you should watch the first episode of "Newsroom". America is great in two things today 1) military power 2) science and technology innovation. I call it powerful, not necessarily "great".

Good God. Do you base all of your socio-political-economic views off of what you learn in fictional TV shows? Is that how you somehow arrived at the assertion that Russia is somehow less beholden to the financial interests of a select few than the United States (or nearly any country in the world, for that matter)?

 

[salsa]

Good God. Do you base all of your socio-political-economic views off of what you learn in fictional TV shows? Is that how you somehow arrived at the assertion that Russia is somehow less beholden to the financial interests of a select few than the United States (or nearly any country in the world, for that matter)?

Do any of those countries allow unlimited political fundraising by special interests?

 

[ksun]

Do any of those countries allow unlimited political fundraising by special interests?

The answer is no.
Even Putin doesn't represent the Russian oil oligarchs, while Mrs. Clinton is just Wall Street's b*tch.

 

[ADRM]

If you'd objectively followed literally any single shred of news coming out of Russia in the last two years especially, you'd know how ridiculous an assertion that is. It's not even worth the time required to post a litany of articles in refutation—it's sky is blue stuff.

Also, more importantly, get your disgusting misogyny right the hell out of here.

 

[ksun]

Good God. Do you base all of your socio-political-economic views off of what you learn in fictional TV shows? Is that how you somehow arrived at the assertion that Russia is somehow less beholden to the financial interests of a select few than the United States (or nearly any country in the world, for that matter)?

That was just an example. I don't base my view on TV shows, but I lived in the US for quite some time.
You seem to have a romanticized view of the US, but I am afraid the "America is great" slogan ceases to be true since a long time ago. Internally income gap and social mobility are both bad among developed countries, and externally, it invaded multiple countries under all sorts of double standard pretexts without UN approval, eavesdropping leaders of its allies (and was caught!), losing pretty much of all its supposed moral superiority. Why is it great? Because it has Apple and can send man to the moon?

 

[ksun]

Also, more importantly, get your disgusting misogyny right the hell out of here.

Where does that come from? We have no rights to oppose female politicians now?
Trust me, my dislike of her has nothing to do with gender. I dislike her because she is a big greedy hypocrite.

 

[ADRM]

Could you point to one statement I've made on this thread to back up your assertion that I have a "romanticized view of the US"? Have I once come anywhere near reiterating your "America is great" phrase?

In your last post, you identified a number of criticisms with which I agree. Some of which are simply incontrovertible, and I of course have no interest in attempting to refute them (because I agree with them).

Still, the US plays an important role in the world in countless other ways, and is still a country to which huge amounts of people from all over the world flock because of its positives. I really don't have much interest in engaging in a debate over the statement "is country x great?" because it's a hopelessly vague criteria upon which to judge the merits of a country. It's far too overly simplistic to form the basis of a smart debate.

 

[ADRM]

Where does that come from? We have no rights to oppose female politicians now?
Trust me, my dislike of her has nothing to do with gender. I dislike her because she is a big greedy hypocrite.

You called the female candidate for president a "b**ch."

 

[ksun]

You called the female candidate for president a "b**ch."

I will call a male candidate b*tch too. B8tch has no gender, LOL.
Sorry to give you the wrong impression of a sexist. I don't have a problem of female politicians, as long as she is not made a politician BECAUSE of her gender, in which case I think is the biggest disrespect for women.

 

[ADRM]

I don't think you're going to convince many people that that epithet carries no female connotation in its general usage, although I suppose it is good to see you disavow other types of gender-based attacks and putdowns.

 

[Videodrome]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-...tirade/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Trump seems to have learned to disavow anything David Duke says instantly.

 

[interchange42]

Here's the deal, @ksun: I don't care if you would use the term bitch to refer to a man. When you use it to describe a woman, you join the ignoble fraternity who have disparaged women just for being women over the ages: it's automatic, that's the baggage the word comes with. UrbanToronto would prefer not to perpetuate misogyny…

Excerpt from our Rules:
- No sexist, racist or offensive language of any kind will be allowed. Postings of a sexual nature are also prohibited.​

… so either find another word that isn't loaded, or find another Forum.

42