Thoughts on the U.S. presidential candidates?

Alright, realpost

I was riding the Bernie train so hard at first, but then I actually listened to what Trump was saying (btw socialism won't work too good, look at Venezuela)
I know people from a plethora of political backgrounds and ethnicities who are voting for him, you all need to listen closely to what he's saying and do some background checking on what's really happening

Cruz is my second pick, God forbid anything happens to Trump

 

Dems
Bernie: Good guy. Honest, well-intentioned, gentlemanly person whom I can certainly respect as a person. I don't think that America needs more socialism than it already has, though I can understand his reasoning to an extent. Personally I don't think we need more socialist policies than we already do, especially since we're already 19 trillion in debt; socializing america even more won't do anything to aid this. I also don't like how Bernie has bought into regressive leftist ideas like the "gender pay gap" and all the "Black Lives Matter" nonsense, but then again, this is stuff that most left-leaning candidates spout these days because culturally, we're way too far to the left at this point. Still, if there's anything I can say about Bernie, it's that he's principled and well-intentioned. Even so, you know what they say: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Hillary: Untrustworthy and manipulative sociopath and pathological liar. She embodies everything I hate about the far left and about politics as a whole. All of her policies on her website's platform are either way too vague so as to render no meaning whatsoever, or just plain stupid. She should be in jail. The only reason people are voting for her is because she has a vagina. Still, I'd be very amused to see Bill Clinton as first lady.

Lincoln Chafee: Looks like a turtle. I like how he called out Hillary on the e-mails in the debate, but I don't like how the rest of the democratic party, Bernie included, responded to what I thought was a good question.

Jim Webb: Would've been one of my personal favorite choices, but he never stood a chance. I like his stances on gun control and so-called "institutional racism," among other things; he struck me as the most nuanced and well thought-out candidate on the left. Definitely a lot more moderate than Bernie or Hillary, and that's what I like about him; he's on the left without being ideologically beholden to regressive leftist ideas which currently plague the left.

Everyone else: Who cares? Even Chafee and Webb were doomed from the start, even if they're the most sensible candidates from the left. We all knew from the start that Hillary would be the front runner; I was surprised that Bernie even made it this far, especially being an old Jewish socialist.

GOP
Ted Cruz: Looks like a vampire. I'm serious. He basically has the exact same platform as Trump does (including building a wall), and he's a very talented speaker who gives "perfect politician" answers. But this is precisely why Trump will stump him; Trump's appeal is that he's not a politician, and that so many career politicians do exactly what Ted Cruz does. In recent debates, Cruz has tried to stay above the schoolyard-insults that Rubio and Trump throw at one another, yet he always finds a way to add in some veiled insult at the Trump.

John Kasich: His speeches and debates rely too much on anecdotal experiences, and he doesn't talk enough about what his actual platform is. Here's a fun drinking game: every time Kasich says something along the lines of "There's only one candidate on this stage who has done x or y," obviously implying that he's the only one qualified to be president.

Carly Fiorina: I thought she would've been a decent candidate, especially since she struck me as the only intelligent female politician I've seen, among a sea of loons (Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, etc). But here's the rub: the whole identity politics jig won't work as well on the conservatives as well as it works on the liberals.

Ben Carson: Way too conservative and soporific to be electable. Not to mention that there's probably at least a small portion of conservatives who are racist and won't vote for him simply because he's black.

Jeb Bush: Foolish guac bowl merchant.

Marco Rubio: My personal favorite candidate. Sure, he has robotic tendencies ("Domo arigato Marco Roboto!") and seems to be fueled by water bottles, and sure he's awkward as fuck in some debates, but in terms of actual platforms and talking points, I agree almost 100% with what Rubio says. He's in a similar position as President Obama was before being elected, and that's the point he was trying to make with the whole robotic "President Obama knows exactly what he's doing" shindig, but it's unfortunately a point that was lost on the masses. If you take an actual look at each candidate's platforms, you'll notice that Marco Rubio has one of the most detailed and concrete plans, and you'll notice that he doesn't tend to invoke the religion card as often as Ted Cruz or Ben Carson do. That, to me, makes him more electable since I know that his positions are going to be informed primarily by common sense and rational judgment rather than bible-thumping zealotry. I don't like what he has to say on so-called "Social issues" such as gay rights, but to me, those things aren't the primarily issues right now. The primary issues that face America right now are related to foreign policy and economics, and on these things, Rubio has the most to say and makes the most sense. But here's why he won't be president: the only way to stump the Trump is to talk louder, be more outlandish, and be overall more inflammatory than Trump is. Marco Rubio is learning that now, as you can see by his playground insults aimed at Trump (small hands lel), but at this point, it's too late, and to the general public, he looks like the little boy being bullied by the stronger and more alpha Trump.

And lastly, The Trump: It seems fairly obvious to me that this guy's our next president. It's either him or Hillary, but really, if the general election comes down to a bout between The Donald and Hillary, I think The Donald stands a very, very good chance. His remarkable knack for speaking plainly to his viewers, and his talent for smearing and insulting his opponents makes him, in some regards, a better politician than anyone else in the race (politics have been 90% smear politics since Andrew Jackson anyway, and who's better at smear politics than The Trump? Nobody.) If it were a battle between Trump and Hillary, there's just so much in Hillary's checkered past that Donald can bring up to completely undermine and destroy her reputation. The worst that Hillary could do in response is bring up Trump University or Trump Steaks, which, in all honesty, pale in comparison to her awful, despicable track record.

Donald Trump's rhetoric is really quite amazing from a technical standpoint, and I think that the way he speaks makes you feel like the one personally being addressed, and it's easy to listen to--it's a practice he's picked up and refined over decades of being a good businessman. There is some truth to the idea that he's a good businessman and he'd be able to provide the whitehouse with something that no typical politician would bring. There is some truth to the idea that he's beholden only to the American people, since he's mostly self-funded his campaign. There's some truth to the ideas he espouses. There is some truth to the fact that he has a proven track record of getting things down on time and under budget, and that he typically hires very good talent to manage these things. I think these are good things about him.

Yet at the same time, there are aspects I dislike about him. The fact that he's a businessman, rather than a politician, worries me because he's not used to dealing with things in the same way a politician would. Neither his website nor his speeches convey or outline any clear plans for radical ideas like building a wall, deporting all illegals, stopping illegal drug trade, preventing Islamic terrorism, or cutting trade deals with China. And while I think that he does bring up lots of great issues that desperately need to be addressed and talked about, I don't think his solutions are the best or even well thought-out. I also think that, to quote Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump confuses being politically incorrect with simply being rude. I like how Trump isn't politically correct, but I don't like how he's unnecessarily rude and inflammatory to others. There's a way to strike a balance, and Trump doesn't have it. He might make America great again, but he'll probably end up making every other nation hate us because of his bombastic and abrasive personality.

In the end, my thoughts on Trump can be summarized as this: I like his presence in debates, and I think we need someone like him in the political sphere, but I don't think he should be president. He brings up great talking points and his presence completely alters debates, but I don't think he'd be the best president. I think Rubio would be better, considering that Rubio has actual plans and has a way of not insulting everyone else around him. Still, it'd be interesting to see Trump become president, and who knows? He might do some good for our country. He's definitely not my first choice, or even my second or third, but I think he'd be better for the country than Hillary, Bernie, or a lot of the other GOP candidates as well.

 

Excellent explanations! Many of the points you pointed out, I 100% agree with. However there are some issues along that line that I would have to disagree. Just some of my thoughts. :O

Bernie: Even if he is my favorite candidate among the others, I agree with you 100% on not needing anymore socialist members.(I believe the best choice out of everyone else thus my favorite candidate.) If a nation can not survive without its government from overt taxation, we can conclude that our country is not self-sufficient yet. Its basically enforcing "Charitable" works to the government. Look at Affordable Care Act. Back in 2014, penalties were given out to adults that did not meet the standards for the health coverage. It started of at $95 but in 2015 the penalty rose to a whopping $285 per adult. CRAZY! x.x In 2016, the penalty will rise to a $695.... aka we pretty much failed as a socialist nation.

Jim Webb: the other favorable candidate that I was going for as well. I completely agree on his stance on gun control. The 2nd amendment was created to protect the people!

Carly fiorina: I believe she fully supports Rubio's campaign right now.(You should know this if you looked at last nights debate.) Not much to say about her.

Mark Rubio: He started off as candidate that I was going to vote for but after looking at him debating with the other republican politicians, I only see him getting "bullied" by the strong.(Like as you stated above) When he mentioned the small hands to Trump, he pretty much lost my vote. (LOL)

Now the infamous Trump. After watching tonights debate and reading several articles about Bernie vs Clinton in Miami, it comes to my conclusion that he'll definitely become one of the top two candidates left. Why? I do remember reading and watching a news report stating that 33% of Bernie supporters would rather vote for Trump than vote for Clinton. Now with that 33%, Trump can easily catch up to Clinton. However, in this case, I really hope that Trump does not become president. His thoughts on increasing tariffs on imports would KILL the American economy. Most of the products that America buys is mainly from China. Increasing tariffs would not only piss off other nations but they'll also do the same for the American products. Now think about what that'll do to America's economy.. Looking at how America's economy is at right now, RIP. Just last year, america imported 20.2% of its product from china. (In terms of usd $, we spent $486.6 BILLION. now think about that x.x)

In the end, I honestly think it'll be between Trump and Clinton. As much as I dislike Trump, at the rate at its going now, Trump does have a significant chance in wining this election. Truth be told, I'm excited and scared to see how Trump will lead U.S.A if he does win this years election.

 

Best post so far @Pleiades . Would love to hear others' opinions. So far, it seems like its predominantly Bernie supporters here.

 

To the Bernie supporters and the rest, do you guys agree with his stance on climate change? He stated that the climate change right now is the biggest concern facing our country today. Unlike some of the politicians out there, he believes in global warming. I state this because many of the politicians out deny the fact that global warming is actually happening. Im curious on what you guys have to say about this.

 

Did somebody say... "China?"

As for climate change, all I can tell you honestly is that I really don't know. To know the full picture, you need to be a meteorologist or something along those lines, but from what I know with my limited understanding is that, in the big pictures (100,000s of years), the temperature of the earth isn't at an all time high. I think that, to say that climate change is the most important issue facing america right now is to take a myopic view of the history of the earth. If anything, go get on China's case, because China is the country most responsible for putting in ridiculous amounts of emissions into the atmosphere and what have you.

But if anything, we'd need to give it time. Give it another few hundred years and see how it turns out. In a few billion years, earth will be engulfed by the sun anyway.

In regards to Marco Roboto, I kind of like how he's joining the schoolyard banter that Trump started. It shows that The Robot is willing to play The Donald's game, even if he's not quite as proficient at it. Either way, it's funny as hell to watch and none of it detracts from Rubio's platform, which I really like. I would describe myself as something of a moderately right-leaning libertarian, and so because of that, Rubio's platform is most closely aligned to my views.

With Bernie's platform, there are minor things here and there that I either agree with or disagree with, but those aren't the consequential ones; the most important aspects are what he's going to do the economy and what he's going to propose for immigration, and I just can't get behind him on that. The most important thing about Bernie is that he's proposing a large expansion of the socialist systems we already have instated (such as Obamacare and social security), and the introduction of new ones, such as an increased minimum wage and free college tuition. And in the end, I just don't think that more socialism = a good thing for America, especially the working class. Take Bernie's minimum wage plan, for example, and compare it to Trump's tax plan. Under Trump, anyone earning less than $25,000 annually will pay no income taxes. Under Bernie, minimum wage will progressively be raised to $15, and if that were to happen, we'd experience massive inflation, and the corporations would be the ones benefiting since they'd be the ones who could still set the prizes. Basically, under Trump, the little man does reap some benefits, whereas under Bernie, the ones who win the most would be the corporations and the richest 1%--exactly the target that Bernie seeks to hinder the most.

I really like Bernie's idealism and his honesty, and I like how I know that I can trust that he believes in what he says. However I just don't think that his solutions are very feasible in the long run.

 

This is super insulting to Clinton supporters and sexist to assume. Clinton is clearly an extremely qualified person, and it's completely reasonable for people to support her.


I personally support Bernie but will absolutely switch to Clinton in the general if she gets the nominations. It's a little absurd how divided both parties are right now. Trump and Bernie are definitely polarizing candidates, if it's between the two of them it'll definitely be interesting. I think Trump is literally causing a resurgence of Neo-Nazism which is pretty concerning. Regardless of how you feel about his economic policies, a lot of his rhetoric is extremely hateful. Cruz frightens me because of his deep religious ties. I absolutely believe he would try to bring gay marriage back to a state level and create more restrictions on Roe v. Wade. Of the Republicans, I respect Kaisch the most however at this point it's pretty clear he probably doesn't stand a chance.

 

The Miami Dem debate was pretty intense and a perfect example of how two candidates should encourage discussion of different ideals. something something, much better than Republican debates.


Also, this happened today:
HYUUUUGE turnout.

Spoiler

 

Hyun for president~

 

Oh, is it, really? Let me link you several media articles written by Hillary supporters.

"Reason #5: it's about damn time (that we have a woman president)"
"Voting for Hillary because she's a woman is a perfectly valid political decision"
"Yes you should vote for Hillary because she's a woman"
"College students: Vote for Hillary because she's a woman"
"I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman"

I can link several more if needed. The whole "vote for Hillary's vagina" is hardly a strawman, given that there are plenty of people who actually adhere to this mentality. The novelty of having a female president is a major driving force in people's thought processes.

As for it being reasonable to support her, I beg to differ. As I've mentioned previously, none of her planks in her platform make any sense and are so rife with weasel words as to make them either ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness, or espousing batshit crazy far leftist ideas with which no sane person should agree. Here are but a few examples, taken straight from her website.

1. "We can prevent, effectively treat, and make Alzheimer's curable by 2025." I call bullshit. You're not a scientist, and even a scientist who's trained for decades in chemistry and disease prevention doesn't necessarily have the knowledge and wherewithal required to cure Alzheimer's by any given time frame. Sure, a cure for Alzheimer's (and cancer, and every other disease) is desirable, but as a politician, making a promise to create such a cure is empty and meaningless. You can't guarantee to keep that promise. If simply saying "I promise an Alzheimer's cure by year x" guaranteed a cure, I can tell you that we'd have cured the disease a loooooooong time ago.
2. "It’s not enough to condemn campus sexual assault. We need to stop campus sexual assault." Nobody would disagree with this. In fact, most people would probably say we need to stop sexual assault period. But how are you going to do this? I'll tell you: you can't. It's impossible. There will always be criminals, and just as it's impossible to completely stop drug trade and terrorism, you will never stop campus sexual assault. Not to mention that her third-wave feminist figure of "one in five women are raped in campuses" is consummately false and absurd. No serious statistician agrees with the "one in five" narrative.
3. "Our criminal justice system is out of balance." In addition to buying into the third-wave feminist lies, she's also bought the BLM narrative, hook, line and sinker, similarly to the way Bernie has. Either that, or she simply purports to support them to garner the votes from far-leftists.
4. "Every child deserves the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential." Another plank in her platform that everyone agrees with in theory, but this is such a broad statement that's set up in a way such that no sensible person would disagree with it. Of course we want children to prosper and do well, but how's she going go to about doing so? The simple answer is that you can't. Just like it's impossible to guarantee an Alzheimer's cure, making sure a child thrives and succeeds is impossible. There is a plethora of factors that go into a child's growth and development, and very little of it can actively be shaped and molded by larger federal government. This simply isn't an issue that government is able to solve.
5. "LGBT Equality." The funny thing on a federal level is that, in the eyes of the law, people belonging to the LGBT community already have all the same rights as everyone else. Culturally, it's in fact a thing to be celebrated. Look at who got the "Woman of the year award" for instance (ironically, "she" still has a penis, but that's another topic for another day). This is a non-issue at this point, just like women's rights--women in the US already have all the same rights that men do (arguably even some more, considering that women can vote without having to register for the draft).

Her platform is too much of a "perfect politician" platform which is playing directly to the far-leftist crowd, and she doesn't offer enough sensible and feasible solutions for any of the issues which matter. She says things that sound nice at face value, but don't have any substance to them. Bernie at least has concrete plans, even if I disagree with them.

And if being qualified means being a pathological liar and criminal who says what people want to hear, then sure, Hillary is qualified. You don't even need to dig that deep if you want to see Hillary's troubling past. Check out this video to see 13 minutes of her changing her positions over the years. Or alternately, check out this video for a mere 25 of her "scandals, lies, and criminal activities." There are many other articles, videos, and sources exposing her and it's kind of surprising that she's not in jail yet.

I will never in my life vote for Hillary. Not because she's a woman (I honestly don't give a fuck what the gender of a political candidate is; I care about that candidate's qualifications and platform), but because she's a horrible human being and in all likelihood, a sociopath. Don't even get me started on the Clinton Foundation.

As for Trump, I fail to see neo-Nazist leanings in anything of what he says. The worst you could say about him is that he's xenophobic in regards to foreign policy; he wants to halt immigration of Muslims and he wants to deport illegal immigrants, but if you're making the comparison to Hitler (which is pretty ridiculous), it just doesn't work. Hitler wasn't a businessman; he was a career politician. Hitler was obviously racist and anti-semitic; Trump has gone on record for saying "I love the Mexican people, I love their spirit," among other things. His rhetoric is hateful only insofar as it brings attention and light to important issues. He never says "I hate all Muslims" or even "I hate all illegal immigrants;" what he says is that Islamic terrorism and illegal immigration are big problems and that he wants to fix them. That's all I hear from him, and he has a knack at tapping into people's anger at the state of things and using it to his advantage. He's definitely very insulting and has something of a gadfly personality, of course. But I never got the impression that any of these insults he uses were truly hateful comments; he says these things to get a rise out of people and to liven up things. Contrary to what Jeb Bush told him, he can in fact insult his way to the presidency, and he's been remarkably effective at doing so.

 

I agree with you. Everyone should vote.

So for the people that actually do this... I don't know of any that support him.

Regarding his financial policies.. no one I know thinks he has a feasible economic strategy.

I have a graduate degree in taxation. My best friend and her partner have Ph.Ds in various economic fields. All of my professors are Big4 partners of many years, academics, and otherwise extremely qualified people.

Every single one of them thinks Trump knows absolutely shit about economics / public policy / financial systems. Since I specialize in tax, I will only give an opinion [financially] on that right now. His tax proposals are absurd, and despite the fact I know they'd never pass, they're still insane. Not to mention, they primarily benefit the very, very wealthy. He's no different than every other establishment Republican when it comes to helping "Wall Street" (aka, investors that caused all the various financial crises).

No one that actually knows anything about economics / finance thinks that Trump is a good candidate on pure merit. The only people I know that will support him will be doing it because they are diehard anti-Democrats [there's a lot of that in the financial sector]. Yes, even my diehard fiscal conservative "I give money to the Republican party" professors / mentors think that Trump is financially full of BS.


---

I have no desire to attempt and refute some of the claims in here [that are grounded primarily in rhetoric, not logic/fact], but my very serious opinion about all of this is that, generally speaking, the only people that will vote for Trump are the ones that have nothing to lose if he gets elected. In that group of people, a large percent of them are the people that have been feeling threatened at the idea of no longer being in power. There's been a few articles / academic studies on this effect, it's not unique to this particular election cycle. Take it as you will.

*edit: Here is an article that explains in layman terms what I mean:
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11099644/trump-support-authoritarianism

Here is another article that has actual numbers to show who supports Trump:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/
This article actually has data that supports its assertion, instead of googled headlines opinion pieces. Now, I suppose I could say that based on this evidence people only support Trump because they're stupid or ignorant and racist, and he appeals to them, but that wouldn't be a very fair or kind comment. It would be too similar to claiming that people only support Hillary Clinton because she's a woman based on a few op pieces, and I'm sure none of us would be that foolish to make such a statement.

*More reading:
[Interesting if you can get past the headline. I thought the WSJ was above this; they generally tend to be more conservative fiscally.] http://www.wsj.com/articles/angry-white-males-propel-donald-trumpand-bernie-sanders-1457495579

[Pretty interesting look on the Democrats that support Trump.] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/u...st-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.html



(To continue the thought, many people, including myself, have no desire to vote for the Republican Party because we tend to be much more liberally social.

1. The right to abortion is an issue that has come to prominence for a few reasons. First, after the recent death of one of the Justices, and Congress' 'announcement' to delay a nomination, and given the age of some of the judges as well as their political background, there's going to be enough empty seats to influence future decisions for a long time.

A case is currently up in front of the Supreme Court that involves abortion rights in Texas; the case addresses a part of the former Roe V. Wade ruling. Ohio just passed a law about abortion (medical abortion, via the pill), that will most likely be either referenced by the SCOTUS or get taken up there itself. Depending on how the SCOTUS rules, as well the the nature of the judges that are appointed (regarding another recent case involving abortion rights, the Court was split precisely along party lines), abortion rights could be affected (states generally are allowed autonomy when it comes to abortion rights).

2. LGBTQ+ rights. I do have close friends that are transgender, gay, and otherwise belonging to this group. Currently, the Republican Party does not support equal rights for them, and although Trump is not establishment his most recent views on gay rights is that he is opposed to them. He may have updated his views, but late last year/ early this year he was in favor of a separate-but-equal attitude towards gay rights.

As for Trump's comments about different minorities.... they're really disgusting. Aside from his infamous "most illegals are rapists/murderers // they send the bad ones," he, when asked whether or not he would support a database of "all Muslims," said (and this is on camera, so you can actually watch a clip of him answering this question) "I would support a lot more than that." That's really scary to a) people that remember the last politician that attempted to have a database of a certain religion, and b) Asian people that remember the internment camps. He's also gone on air and openly advocated illegal war crimes. Not to mention, saying that we should be trying to murder the loved ones of terrorists is a horrific train of thought. If you have any family in the military, you should find that alarming (because you are the loved one of a terrorist, too). Trump's made comments about black people that would suggest they should bootstrap harder, and ignore the concept of institutional racism. How he handled the KKK problems also show that he knows his voter base, and is pandering to them (to a certain extent). The moment he stops depending on Chinese/Asian tourism for his personal business (he has a lot of casinos in Vegas), I'm sure he'll have some lovely things to say about them too.

While I doubt Trump himself would punch a black person in the face for being black, I do worry about how he enables and emboldens a certain demographic to commit violence and hate crimes. It's already been happening, and tbh I think many racist and sexist people feel as if their views are justified / correct because of what Trump says. I don't really understand why people respect a person that has purposely gamed the system for personal profit, at the expense of other taxpayers, but that part is more understandable at least. Most people do have price tags.

I will add, I don't think he's worse than previous/other candidates. The previous elections had candidates that were no less racist or sexist, only that they were less openly so and pretended, at least, to not be like that. I suppose I should give Trump kudos for being willing to say out loud what many other Republican candidates have campaigned on, but that is hardly a trademark of a good president (I think, personally). It's not as if he realizes he made a mistake and owned up to it, apologizing and learning a lesson. He revels in his rhetoric, and I personally don't want a head of state that openly encourages hate towards others.


It's really not that surprising that many women and minorities (of all kinds- religion, color, sexual orientation, etc) will vote for "not Republican." For many of us, a President's choice in Justices isn't just a theoretical exercise in freedom, it's a decision/series of decisions that can lead to very real consequences for us. Even if you don't agree with any of the reasoning, I think a little empathy would be enough to see why "not Republican" is the most logical choice for us.

 

For me, Bernie Sanders is the choice. Without getting into paragraphs of discussion, I think that social democracy could do wonders for the United States. If health care and higher education are human rights, it is a good way forward. People shouldn't be scared of social democracy, if you look at places like Canada, Germany, France, the U.K., Australia, and Scandinavian countries, they aren't off too bad. Hell, even China is trying to adopt universal health care. Capitalism can exist alongside social programs. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

If you at all think that climate change is an issue or are pro choice, the right is a no-go. John Kasich even signed a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. Despite being from Florida, Marco Rubio doesn't think climate change is a huge issue. Ted Cruz wants to repeal the Iran deal.

Bernie Sanders is for immigration reform without propagating racism and division, for tackling climate change without taking money from fossil fuel and fracking industries, for wall street regulations without taking money from wall street, for common sense gun control without playing to the public's fears.

As for Trump, he's a wild card. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
His positions page is laughably sparse. He has positions on exactly six issues. I don't vote for wild cards, especially not those who represent the big money. He doesn't take donations from big money, because he IS the big money.

And look at that, I tried not to write paragraphs, yet here we are.

 

It sounds very absurd when an American say that they can't handle/don't need more socialism as it is, and then say: "just look at Venezuela". While you could just look across the Atlantic and see dozens of socialist (even more democratic) countries where the middle class is richer, happier and better educated than the American, all while the US is richer than all of them... Bernie want's to increase government earnings and spending, proportionally, which means taxing the richer and using that money to invest in the country; education, rebuilding the infrastructure, affordable healthcare etc.

It seems as if Americans actually think that their country needs more money, which is ridiculous considering you're the richest major country in the world.

Businessmen like Trump or the lobbyists in D.C. have done a great job making people believe that if the taxes grow higher and/or the minimum wage is increased that it would somehow crush corporate America, or do any damage at all, which is simply not true. People like Trump and the other lobbyists in D.C can exist and impose ridiculous breaks for the rich, because the people believe that one can earn their own fortune and one day become one of the top 1%, which is the American dream, and today nothing more than just that, A dream.

I don't have the energy to go into details on every candidate, but this is how I'd summarize them.

Hillary Clinton: A vote for the status-quo. She cares less about the people than Frank Underwood, and she's also one of the biggest flip-flops and liars in political history,

Donald Drumpf: A vote for corporate America, you'll end up as an oligarchy just like Russia and democracy will be a nice, distant memory. He's got a lot of money but nothing much behind his forehead.

Bernie Sanders: A vote for democracy and more rights for Americans. The only candidate with integrity, good policies, historical consistency and he's also the only one who actually cares about people.



But ey, what do I know, I live in Sweden with 320 USD every month from the state for studying at a University, for free of course. And although we take in the most immigrants in Europe per capita, and although we have the 2nd highest taxes in the world we're a growing economy, and one of the richest countries in the world. So I don't know much about the struggles, of the average American, in the richest major country of the world.

I say good luck with your election, choose wisely.

 

Let us not forget that even if the U.S is indeed the wealthiest country in the world, its mainly due to the large population they have. If we look at the GDP per capita(basically average wealth per person) and growth from 00~15, the U.S falls way below the list.

 

No they don't, for all I know. I don't know which lists you've been looking at. But their GDP per capita is around the 10th in the world, ahead of ALL EU countries and just behind Norway and Switzerland.

All of the European union combined with its 500m people has only a SLIGHTLY higher GDP than that of the US with it's 322m people.

America is a very rich country, even divided among their 322m~ inhabitants. Unfortunately, their distribution of wealth is very, very unequal.

GDP per capita lists of 2015, made by IMF, World Bank, and CIA:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

 

I may have been confused there. When you mentioned, "the richest country in the world," I literally took it as context meaning. I took it as the #1 country in the world thus, "The richest country in the world." But anyways, You pretty much mentioned what I just stated above. When you look at you previous post, you quoted, "The Richest country in the world." When you stated, "the richest in the world", I assumed that you meant, the top 1. I'm not trying to say that you're wrong. As an accountant major, what you have you stated is correct. I just wanted to point out that there are other countries that are wealthier than America.
Let me also mention that using Wikipedia as a source would have not been the smartest choice but I see what you were trying to get at.
Here's the source that I've been looking at. I've been using this source in order to write most of my essays and such.
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp-capita.php
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp
P.S, The websites above change on a daily basis.

Oh also, You seemed to have forgotten about what's is happening in Greece.

Oh man with the amount of debt that we're in, I'd say we're digging our hole even deeper.

Just a friendly reminder that I'm not trying to make this post a debate amongst others. (I'm assuming this post will close if this starts happening) I just want to see what your thoughts about the candidates.

 

But look at what's happening in Germany, the U.K., France, Canada, and so many other countries.

EDIT: Furthermore, why is it that we as Americans have to pay out the ass for health insurance and for education in comparison to many other first world countries? Clearly, we pay less in taxes, but is the tradeoff worth it?

 

If you have no issue paying for others' health care and education regardless of whether they work or want to go to school, then the tradeoff is not worth it. Me personally? In an ideal world, I would LOVE if everyone could go to school and get health insurance but the reality is, I've worked hard in life to get where I am. I don't feel it's fair that something I worked for could be just handed to everyone and to rub it in even more, I would have to help pay for it whether I like it or not.

Don't get me wrong, I give to charities and believe in helping those less fortunate. But to me, basically giving them health insurance instead of helping them improve their skills so they can hold a job that would provide them health insurance just doesn't seem fair to me, nor quite frankly, fair to them. And in terms of education, public schools exist which everyone can attend. If you want to go further and study in university for a certain degree, take out loans. That's the way many Americans have to pay for college, and then once they get a job, they pay their loans off.

 

What's happening in Greece is because they're doing the same mistake as the US. They're not taxing their people correctly. That is why both the American and the Greek governments are stuck with huge deficits. America doesn't need more money, your government is just losing too much money on tax breaks and subsidization for people who should be paying way more.

Also, the statistics aren't from Wikipedia, but like I said, from the IMF, CIA and the World Bank.

 

Yes but the way it looks in America, with expensive higher education, makes it either impossible or extremely difficult for many people to even study at a university. That is going to have a very bad long term impact on America when the rest of the world pass you in amounts of people with higher education. And how is a heavily indebted young educated american going to contribute to the economy? And what will happen with all the jobs that don't give enough money for the students to properly pay back their loans? Who wants to be a teacher, or a pilot etc if that means they'll be indepted their entire lives.

Also, if you can't work because you're sick, and thus not get a health insurance, then you shall die? But really, the bigger problem with healthcare in America would be the pharmaceutical and insurance company that are ripping everyone off in an extremely immoral way.