Why anyone here would freely support Donald Trump at this point. The man is not anti-left nor conservative. He has made it clear that he values no one except himself.

Some may say he could undo the wrongs of Obama... but so could other Republicans and even Democrats. Because he's an 'outsider' which I would say can be bad especially since he doesn't seem to understand government.

And if it's about policy -many of his promises aren't going to be passed and most overturned.

I mean, is it about Gorsuch? That's what any Republican could have picked.

To spite Obama voters? They were Obama voters! And it creates a toxic environment where it's just to spite others which will negatively hurt any side.

So... why support him? He's not interested in your ideology only his narcissistic ego

It seems there aren't that many that really love Trump. It's just he was the Republican candidate, so the better option of the two (in conservative's eyes). Though I think he does have legitimate support from military and cops, as he seems to stand up for them a lot. 

I'd say his military support is waning though w DACA and the anti-trans policies he's put out

I would say those in the military that support him would actually agree with these policies.

This is a very unnuanced way to frame things. Not all liberals are right-leaning. In fact, I'd argue that the average liberal is further left than the average social democrat (whose politics were inherited by a German monarchist and aristocrat.) Rawlsian liberals and liberal-egalitarians/luck egalitarians are much more committed to what we call "left" as defined by the French Assembly in the late 18th century, than most state socialists who don't give a crap about liberty or hierarchies at all, and really just want to use the same institutions for their own hierarchy of state-controlling bureaucrats/intelligentsia. 

I say all this as somebody on the faaaaaar left, an anarchist. Most state socialists aren't left-wing, they are merely anti-capitalist and don't care about any other hierarchies or power differentials besides capitalism. Social democrats are even worse. A Rawlsian liberal on the otherhand, is actually committed to ending all hierarchies due to their difference principle. Now I personally think the difference principle is somewhat weak in how it treats inequality (at least how Rawls applied it), but it at least tries to create a general principle of how to treat all inequalities and especially hierarchical ones. State socialists on the otherhand, don't care about the hierarchy they just care about who controls it.  

American culture is not predisposed to state socialism, the vast majority of Americans are against the central state consolidating power, are strong positive egalitarians, and this has been the case since before there was a United States. Consequently, the left-wing activism has been mostly anti-centralizing: Jeffersonian Agrarianism, Georgism, Anarchism, other various left-liberalisms and left-libertarianisms, etc. 

When social democracy was tried in the United States (progressive era) it was incompatible to American cultural sentiments to just let other people, some enlightened few, make their decisions for them. That is anti-egalitarian, and therefore anti-left. 

Just wanted to say how annoyed I am with state socialists thinking they are the only left-wing politics, when most of them aren't even all that left-wing. 

United States Centric - The Healthcare Debate of the past several decades

Every other comparable nation (Japan, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Denmark, etc.) has a healthcare system where taxes are levied and then people are covered for medical expenses. The United States does not and has a system of private for profit corporations using "Health Insurance". We have elements of these other nations for the old "medicare" but for what ever reason people reject the notion of expanding that to all American citizens.

1. This is personal to me, I was born and have suffered through life with various hereditary conditions. I spend a lot of time at doctor offices and hospitals for exams and tests or to get prescriptions. I can do nothing about it, I exercise and diet to get into athletic shape, but without my meds my body would shut down within 5-7 days and I would die in agony. It haunts me and is my greatest fear.

2. I work for a massive company, so I get health insurance which I pay a large amount to have. I give $400/month to reduce the cost of living with my conditions to a manageable level. Keep in mind I still regularly have to pay hundreds in deductibles and co-pays. I am, in a sense, a luck one because I earn a living and have a place of employment that affords me this.

3. If I were to be laid off for any reason my entire life would be in a tail spin if I couldn't find work comparable to what I have now. I've been there for a decade and do good work, but 2008 saw massive lay offs of good people. Another recession could be a disaster. If I lost health insurance my medical expenses could easily go to $40,000 to $80,000 a year depending if I had episodes. Devastating my finances and my husband's finances as no amount of planning could make that sustainable over the rest of my life. The number one source of bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses.

4. I hear about individuality and how it "isn't fair" that people like me take more than healthy people. That I am a burden on society and be better off if I died. I didn't choose to be born, to develop my health issues, and I've done all I can to offset them. I've nearly died on four occasions related to these problems. I've been in agony for hours on dozens of occasions. No one who pays in and never uses medicine would want to trade places with me. I would give all my money in a heartbeat to be free and healthy.

5. It comes down to what we as a society value and how we view freedom. Over and over I see military expenditures justified regardless of deficit consequences because we must protect our people to be free. Yet, when it comes to the health and well being people are often pitted against one another while numerous companies rake in massive profits. If any of these numerous companies raised prices I'm helpless to say no.


My question to anyone who thinks I'm wrong is to explain to me why you're okay with our current system? What is it about Canada or Germany that worries you so much? Do you dislike Medicare? If your taxes were raised exactly what you spend on health insurance is that a fair trade? If not is there a number less than that would be for you? I'm sure there can other objections and feel free to state them. I'll try to not get too emotional, but it is personal to me.

Certain polititians who are more concerned about their Nazi voters and have to be pressed for days until they finally find the courage to lie that they think Nazis are not good people.

Why people seem to think the world 'liberal' means something else now. People use like like it's a bad word. To respect other people. That's bad apparently.

I am not okay with the current system. It gives subsidies to for-profit insurance companies, and should end. Having said that, I don't think creating a state monopsony as they've done in Canada is preferable. The German multi-payer system is preferable, but it is also classist in that a the bottom 80% must pay into state insurance funds, and the top 20% get choices. 

I think the best system, and the one most compatible with the United States is the Swiss system, but I'd modify it a bit to suit American sentiments. In the Swiss system people choose among not-for-profit insurance organizations for basic stuff, and then these same organizations provide extra services for higher costs. 

Why do I prefer this system? It does not provide subsidies for for-profit institutions, while retaining choice. Since everybody has different medical needs, and especially in heterogenous populations, it makes sense to have multiple servicers who can best address different needs. 

So far though, Democrats haven't pushed for a Swiss-esque system, and I am not a fan of state monopsony's so, I am not going to support a system that puts most decision-making on health-care into the hands of the state. Especially a state which evangelicals sometimes control and can use to deprive women and LGBT persons of services that specifically help them. 

I haven't seen any of that. And military people I know who have served or are serving do not approve of it. The serving ones say that no one in their facilities or whatever it is they stay in (cant remember the word XD) dont support it. However that is my personal experience. I may be wrong outside of my network of friends