United States presidential election (2016)
 

If you are or if you were an American: who would you vote for? Let me guess: Bernie Sanders?

If I was American I would. In fact I might persuade a non-political friend of mine to do just that if he is--by some feat of magic--elected to run for Presidency.

British proxy votes: we're recovering our thirteen colonies democratically.

Man you hit the nail on the head it's like you read half of "democratic" America's collective mind

Now assuming Sanders doesn't win the primaries, I'm actually uncertain if I'm going to also vote for Hillary for the election, or let it sit and hope Trump wins.

Since USA lacks good candidates, I would vote for the one that hides he's bullshit the least.

Or maybe I'd vote for Hilary, because she has a vagina and that's a legitimate reason to vote for her, right?

Slog Bait, I didn't you were a yankee.

Varrok, do you secretly support Trump?

I don't actually support any candidate, I don't live in US and won't vote.

If I was, I would probably vote Trump (since the lack of better candidates) and will feel a bit bad about it. On the other hand, debates will be way more fun to watch.

It's true I own like 6 guns and everything

The guns are forbidden in Poland.

May I ask: why?

Haha, sucks to suck fukr

From what I know he's against illegal immigration, drug war, tax increase, and gun control.
But it's true that I did not analyze his party very thoroughly, because all in all it's not my county.

Trump's against pretty much all forms of immigration according to his campaign lol

He wants to build a wall to keep mexicans out and close off the borders to the entire country and also wants muslims to wear identification patches so everyone knows they're muslim

Nah, he clearly specifies that he's not against legal immigrants, who go through legal procedures and stuff

If I was American I'd probably vote for Sanders. If he lost to Hilary, then I'd vote for her because while I don't agree to a lot of what she says, at least she's not Trump.

I feel Trump winning the elections would trigger another wave of far-right extremism and people losing their rights in the entire world.

Also

Those are some of the other reasons I'd be opposed to him winning.

I wanted to stay out of this thread but the prospect of Trump becoming the president of the US literally terrifies me.

His personal opinions are all surprisingly liberal but do not reflect his campaign at all. Closing off the borders implies he doen't want any further immigration in the country, and he wanted to deport all mexicans, whether they were legal or not. He also wants to nullify American born citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, which seems odd to me.

The closer we get to the end of the primaries, the more of a Real Person and Cool Dude he seems to be. Doesn't mean he'll be any less incompetent if he gets into office, but it's a toss-up and I'm on the border of preferring him over Hillary, since I feel she's guaranteed to land us in another serious war.

I don't suppose FA ever reads deeper into people than just first impressions.

I'd be way more worried of a "world wide wave of far right extremists" if Cruz or one of the other candidates managed to make it through republican primaries, personally.

I'm pretty sure I trust Cruz more than Trump. At least Cruz doesn't retweet Mussolini quotes.

Ah, retweeting quotes, the biggest fear of civilized humanity.

Er, Trump has shown he actually gives a rats ass about the US and it's current citizens, even if he has a very bizarre way of going about it and has said some pretty unintentionally and intentionally fucked up things. All Cruz has done is show he's your typical extreme right Republican candidate who views the people he may potentially lead as numbers and not actual people, and will willingly go out of his way to strip everyone but the upper class of their rights

Not to mention, Cruz actually has a history and an understanding of politics and given what he's proposed through his campaigns, that's far more terrifying than anything Trump has and will ever say in his campaign.

E- What I'm saying is Trump is way more insular than the other candidates and will likely only focus on The States and The States alone. He's probably going to blow off international relations for the most part, and as a result the only real harm I can see him causing is pissing off a few countries with inappropriate and insenstive comments, and hurting a few economies with his poor business skills.

Cruz would likely just create another Nazi regime or throw us into another war for resources like I believe Hillary will

Hillary Clinton doesn't hold any views. She's a shape-shifting reptile who changes her opinions to match the polls and every word out of her mouth is manufactured. She's the definition of a robot.

I'm telling you, you can trust Trump's word a million times more than you can trust Hillary's.

Obviously Bernie would get my vote.

Interesting. Varrok seems more conservative than the average Oddworld fan.

I don't see how freedom of gun- and drug-having make me a conservative but ok.

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

I feel like Trump's more of the bastard child of Kim Jong-Il and Hitler but less competent and more empathetic rather than being straight up Hitler. He will never have the amount of power Hitler was able to obtain.

I have serious doubts about Bernie. Isn't he a communist supporter?

He's a democratic socialist, which literally just means he's a democrat that believes that accessible healthcare and education are a fundamental right that the government is responsible to provide to it's citizens. That's it. In his words:

Bernie's been very true to his viewpoints and political standings since the dawn of Bernie, and all of his stances are for full legal equality across the board. I can see where wariness comes in, my mom expressed concern not knowing Bernie's history, believing he will be the next Hitler since he can definitely garner the power and the US is at a reasonably low point in it's history so nows as good a time as ever for a figure like that to show up, but considering his entire life he's been involved in nothing but pro-equality movements, showing a complete and accurate understanding of economics, and pointing out when the US was about to make an awful decision with a track record of being surprisingly right, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt by far.

In Poland we've got free public healthcare, free education (including college education), and they all suck.

Since they're being financed from public money, everything is cheap, education (especially higher education) is not about getting people to learn things, but to pass the biggest number of people so the school gets more money, you have to register like half a year before you get an endoscopy, not to mention anything more serious.

Higher education is, by its own definition, not for everyone. If everyone can afford it (when it's free of charge), it's going to be abused and it'll greatly degrade in quality of teaching.

That has to do with the country you're in, not with the fact that they're free. Healthcare is a necessity. Education is a necessity. Taking away these freedoms puts even more power in the hands of the rich.

If everyone can afford higher education it only means more people will be have access to it. Why restrict it on the basis of "you're poor and you should stay poor"? It's not like anyone can be accepted anywhere. Good universities don't accept stupid people.

And free healthcare is 100% necessary. But no, you're poor, you should die, fuck you for being poor am I right?

Education =/= Higher education. Most people *don't* need a PhD. And as far as I know private healthcare and higher education in Poland are vastly better than public ones, which is not a surprize.

Also, I really can see why people *don't* want to pay with their tax money for e.g. people who are too lazy to get a job (you wouldn't believe how many of those we have here).

It's a necessity in your opinion, but not in the opinion of everybody.

Slog Bait, you want to turn America into Europe.

It's not like our health care is any better. I'd rather have shitty healthcare I pay taxes for and know that it makes that shitty health care avialable to everyone rather than shovel out thousands of USD per year for shitty health care that only covers myself that someone less fortunate than me couldn't dream of affording.

Same goes for education. Higher education is definitely not for everyone, and in the end, how effective that education is varies from school to school. Regardless, when higher education isn't available to everyone, whether you regard it as shit or not, it encourages ignorance among a society.

How are we going to ever advance, when the programs that give people the opportunities to study a subject properly are so unaffordable they'd only get the chance to if they were either really lucky or born into wealth. I'd rather pay a minimal amount for mediocre education for myself and others, than pay an arm and a leg for mediocre education for myself.

To put things into perspective: I, right now, an upper middle class citizen of the states, can not afford even a year of community college out of pocket, and that's considered the lowest of the low higher education in the US.

Also if your education system is still for-profit you just outlined why your education system isn't all sparkles and unicorns and why our education system is in such an awful place right now

Also also, education for k-12 is free in the states but the funding keeps getting cut unless the sports program is like super great and that's ass

Europe.

With guns



Also also also, for those interested, found a good Q&A about democratic socialism that elaborates on it really well.

Sure are a lot or base level opinions up in this thread.

The thing is, when you (as a tax payer) don't have to spend your thousand dollars (in taxes) for public healthcare and "free" higher education, plus all the cost of political procedures that make it happen (it's a lot of money), you earn much more money in general and can afford private healthcare, which gets cheaper, because it's a competetive market, because when you have multiple alternatives and you can always choose a cheaper one and then the other one has to change approach if they want to stay in business.

That's never the case in public healthcare. Because it will exist forever as long as the politicians decide to, no matter how petty, pathetic it is.

I mean sure, you'll have more money. If you're the only person you care about that's a good thing. But what about people who don't have any money? Why should everything be treated like a business? Why should healthcare have to stay in business?

There's no reason public and private healthcare should't be able to coexist in the first place anyway.

Stop being a libertarian. It's immature and annoying.

FA, you say your country is great but at the same time you're studying elsewhere. What a Crashpunk.

Stop being right, Varrok.

@FA, You're supporting enforcing people to pay for people they don't care about. I don't. I want to be in charge of my money, that means I can pay for poor people if I think it's a right thing or don't if I think I don't. Charities do exist.

But what do I know, I'm immature and annoying. Not to mention, as bad as Nepsotic.

We're horrible people, Varrok. What we say doesn't count, remember?

I'm not saying my country is great. Also, I'm studying in the UK. Which actually has free healthcare as far as I know.