[quote=@mdk] Healthcare -- this is where personal experience is gonna play, which makes it a non-productive conversation. My disability was directly caused by U.S. government-controlled healthcare (VA, TriCare), and that's pretty much going to prevent me from ever supporting anything remotely similar in the US. I mean government healthcare literally ripped me apart. So...... no, not for me. But I respect the other side of the argument -- it's pragmatism and not politics for me. The U.S. is too big and too geopolitically diverse to support NHS or single-payer. State-level care is a whole other beast (think RomneyCare) -- it's reasonable to think a system could be devised that works for Rhode Island, but unthinkable that this exact same system will work in rural Wyoming. Anywho. This won't go anywhere -- my experience leaves me rather unflexible on this account. Turning the page. [/quote] Wow that sucks, I'm sorry that happened to you. I've had some experience with universal healthcare overseas and it has worked adequately if imperfectly. Going bankrupt to pay for cancer treatment (or more generally not paying for it) is not good for the patient or the facility and there are certain aspects of healthcare which will never work in a for profit system. Some insurance is almost always going to be better than no insurance, but I can definitely see how what sounds like outright malpractice and incompetence would turn you off. As for rolling out systems state by state. Hey so long as people get coverage and can afford to see a doctor/not be ruined by medical debt I'm not dogmatic about how it gets done! Big systems like the NHS are able to keep costs low by sheer purchasing power and that might be less true of a patchwork of state systems but you could probably address that by less intrusive federal legislation. [quote=@mdk] Women's Health -- well I'm certainly not qualified to speak to that'n. My position begins and ends with "don't make people do things they don't wanna do." That includes both carrying a pregnancy to term and funding contraceptives. That [i]kinda does[/i] mean that I wind up supporting a lot of those GOP bills about funding PP or whatever -- but I'm not the sort that believes in banning stuff either. It's a weird line and doesn't feel like anyone important is on the same page with me, so I don't wind up voting along this issue. [/quote] I'd rather not pay for alot of things my tax dollars go to ;) I do however support the right of low income women to get access to contraceptives, reproductive services and an array of other services that women need. If the lefts supports that, and it seems they do, then that is attractive to me as a (theoretical) voter. Vote for the sort of stuff you want to see. [quote=@mdk] Social programs -- it's embarrassing how little they accomplish compared to how much they cost. Speaking broadly. We should be allowed to talk about reducing fraud/waste/abuse, but folks like Rep. Maxine Waters -- living in a multi-million-dollar mansion on a "government salary wink wink" -- won't let us have that debate. Gosh I wonder why. [/quote] I'll come out and say that I've never used a social program in the US so I'm short on personal experience. I do frequently deal with people who do and they definitely need help. I'm pro feeding a hungry children regardless of how ineffective the bureaucracy that accomplishes that is. The problem is with the bureaucracy rather than the impulse. It always kind of boggles my mind that people just throw up there hand and claim that government can never accomplish anything. Surely the answer is to build a better system. If inefficiency exists then ways to make them more productive is absolutely a conversation we should be having. [quote=@mdk] LGBTQetc -- all about personal freedoms over here. [/quote] We can agree on that. It would be nice if we could live in a world where people could go to the bathroom they wanted. It would be great if people could all enjoy the same rights and not have to justify their gender choice. Discussion about who is 'completely transitioned' ect are really silly in my view. Also the whole I'm not going to serve you because of your sexual orientation thing is annoying, you couldn't get away with that if you did it on the basis of race so I dont see why its ok with sexual orientation or gender identity. Still another case of voting for the party that isn't manufacturing obstacles for people. [quote=@mdk] Globalism -- yeeeeeeaaaaaah that's a hairy one. See the GOP at-large is ALL ABOUT globalism. The new wave is very much not. Interestingly the democrats of 12 years ago were very much not, back when a Republican was the one dropping the bombs (and I expect if Trump drops a few more, the pendulum will flip again). Internationally, I'm more of a "what's in it for me" type -- I'm not interested in World Police, unless I'm getting something out of it. And I think that's fair. [/quote] Maybe this isn't a partisan issue. Recent Republican rhetoric seems to have been fairly anti UN and alot of public comment is worrying to longtime US allies who wonder if they are going to be left swinging in the breeze. You can already see this in the reasonably timid reactions to Chinese moves in the South China Sea (moves by the allies). Beyond military intervention though I'd love to see more support for global initiatives in general. If it could be done in a smart way it could be a great boon to America and the world. I know World Police is a kind of joke but I think its true that real American engagement is almost always a good thing. Imagine for example an effective economic and policing coaltion to improve conditions in Central and South America. Maybe we could slow the flow of narcotics and illegal immigration by addressing the actual problems at the source. It might be good for everybody. [quote=@mdk] Global Warming: Well........ I mean that's a whole thread. I don't believe there's ANY AMOUNT of regulation of US emissions that would make a dent -- partly because I don't trust the predictive models (they've never been correct), partly because I think the man-made influence is righteously overstated, but mostly because nothing and I mean NOTHING we can do will put a dent in global emissions when you take into account emerging economies. STILL -- if/when clean alternatives come around, let's adapt. They're not good enough yet. [/quote] It may in fact be impossible to halt the progress of global warming, certainly I know climatologists who will privately tell you that we are screwed already. This dosent mean we shouldn't do everything in our power to mitigate it. If the left is willing to take the science seriously and do something about it then great, they get my pretend vote. [quote=@mdk] Immigration -- I want a big, beautiful wall with a big beautiful door. Illegal immigration is hurting legal immigrants in the job sector; when you look at living conditions and wages [i]it's practically slavery[/i] for those who come here illegally; and of course there's the gang and drug violence that exploits that (and other) misery to make big bucks. We're allowed to have control of our border. That's [i]literally the defining feature[/i] of a nation. [/quote] Sure, I get where you are coming from here. I just think that controlling the border has more to do with drug policy and partnering with countries in Central and South America than wasting trillions of dollars on an ineffective wall. I'm certainly glad that the door was open for me to come here, but I'm a well educated woman with alot of advantages. I cant really blame a teenager fleeing the hell of El Salvador or the Mexican drug war for the safe, if illegal life here.