Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean
That supports Moosie's theory that some Sanders supporters are not drunk on Socialist Kool-Aid.
|
Using the word "socialism" like a scare tactic is pretty silly. You appear to have more to offer than that.
We enjoy so many things in this country which exist due to the tenets of socialism that you might not expect - police and fire, roads, education up to 12th grade, etc.
Why do we draw the line where we do? Not sure. Ensuring that every citizen who contributes to this society has access to adequate medical care is somehow a taboo thought? Really? We all benefit when the populace is smart and healthy. Why get in the way of spreading that cost around?
I think it's the fact that capitalism at it's purest is so opposed to socialism at it's purest. And people are under the impression that our country is / can be ONLY ONE! (Like the Highlander movies
)
People afraid that "others" will come and "steal their money / job / security" is what drives a lot of decisions here. It's sad.
So many discount a candidate simply because of their fear of a word, without understanding what the man would legitimately work towards. He's not going to make us a communist state. Or even a socialist state. Or even resemble a scandinavian country. Lest you people forget there are other people in gov't who oppose that...
The point is this: does the conversation in this country, which is driven by the biggest talking head in the world, the US president, continue down the same path for the next 8 years? Are you happy on that path? Do you have reason to believe that Clinton will encourage us down another path? Do you have reason to believe that Sanders will? What about that smacked-ass Trump? Or Cruz? At the very least force the discussion to be had in a new way...a Trump-led discussion sure would be a sight to see, eh?
The president isn't going to do anything but force a discussion to be had. That's not so bad. It's not a kingship or an emperor. He's just the guy who forces certain conversations be had. And that's not so bad I think...we still have the right to say no after the conversation. Don't forget about the power of your local representatives. Yes he can make some executive decisions - but it's akin to sticking an oar off the side of a sailboat. There's not much he's going to do against the prevailing winds.
Vote for the person you think is most likely to encourage discussion in the manner you believe in. Nobody can make you change your beliefs. Stop defending them so vehemently. But don't make a decision based solely on specific words or phrases that inspire an emotional reaction in you, good or bad. That's a sign of trouble...
If you hear something about a candidate and it upsets you, investigate it. Find out for yourself. Decide if the truth behind that scary word or those pie-in-the-sky ambitions are actually worth running from, or towards. Decide if it's a discussion we should be having, or not. That's all your vote is. A hand raised to say "I want to talk about this".