Top ten reasons to vote Democrat

You are equating free enterprise with capitalism, & state control with socialism.
My working definition of capitalism is commercial interest, as against socialism which is public interest.

1. Medical advances are generally achieved by individuals who see the need & use their resources to meet that need, often against the "received wisdom." In the health field, this is seen as treating illness with expensive medicine & surgery, as against keeping people well by diet & living conditions.
In my experience, the professional advice for diabetes has been increasing medication, as the disease progressed. I was expecting to need a wheeel chair 10 years ago as diabetic neuropathy progressed. I resorted to the socialist recourse - an internet forum run by patients, not professionals. As a result, I abandoned the professional diet - complex carbs & very low fat, and adopted the socialist diet - very low carbs & high natural fats. In 3 months my health was restored. 10 years later the professionals are beginning to recognise the healthy diet that has been known & used by patients & ignored by professionals. There's no money in a healthy diet.
But when the ketogenic diet (also low carb, high fat) became known & accepted for epilepsy, the advice given my son for his little girl was "don't try without professional control." She was suffering from 4 powerful drugs before they started on the keto diet - which is working, but the drug effects are disrupting the family life.
People's experience is evidence.

2. British socialism, 1946 to 79 raised our standards of health, education, employment, housing, etc. and

3. individual liberty.

You're thinking that state imposed control of people & resources is socialism. The benefits you claim for capitalism are where the needs of the people are put alongside commercial interests, so that all benefit. That is being reversed, certainly in Britain.

Those are socialism in name only. In fact they are capitalist ventures for the commercial benefit of those in power. Hitler & Stalin et al were hardly acting in the interests of the common people.

Post war British socialism was a success - I know - see earlier post. The "failure" which was "reversed" was when trade unions became avaricious & used their power to disrupt the industries that paid their wages. They should have rested content with the standard of living achieved. The capitalist reversal was by buying cheaper products from countries that were exploiting their work force, in effect exporting jobs - as USA is doing with China. The gains of socialism were lost.

Corbyn is a committed socialist who has stood up for peace & justice, & against racism for many years. He was arrested at an anti-apartheid demo.
In no way is he antisemitic. The recent accusations are because of his support for the Semitic Palestinian people who have suffered 70 years of oppression. He is concerned for justice in Palestine rather than Zionist oppression.
His simple slogan FOR THE MANY, NOT THE FEW explains why he is popular. What used to be public services run for the benefit of all are being run for personal profit at many levels. The result is a vast increase in homelessness - people living rough - as they are turned out of homes as rents are increased. Mothers with children are among those evicted.
The sooner Jeremy Corbyn is elected Prime minister the better.
The big potential problem he will face is the commercial interests of the capitalists who are making money out of the working person's poverty.

 

Here we go again. The same tired routine: “Socialism doesn’t work, because it hasn’t been tried.” “But what about these attempts?” “Those were not socialism. My type would work.” “Until it failed.” Except here your type already failed, and you admit it, but blame sideways.

The truth is that your fellow socialists betrayed you. Welcome to the real world. When you finally admit human nature, there can be reasonable discussion. Until then, there is no point.

‘In theory, theory is the same as practice. In practice it ain’t.’ ... Socialism. Does. Not. Work.

 

No doubt about it, you are a true believer. The biggest problem is that it is the leadership of socialist schemes who have the best lives. Does Jeremy Corbyn have to stand in a line at the NHS? Probably not. Would he, his family members, or the other leadership cadre ever have to wait 6 months for an MRI or two years for a knee replacement? Don't bet on it. How about PM May, does she have to fuss with the NHS monstrosity? I don't think so.

In my country with our health system the ordinary person can get the kind of medical help that the rich and powerful avail themselves of. My Dad was treated at the Wilmer Eye Clinic in Baltimore (Johns Hopkins) where Ambassadors and Kings come for their eye surgeries. Can the average Briton get that kind of care?

In the end the old saying is true: Socialism is for the people, not the socialists.

 

When did it really get good for the British people? It certainly was not in the postwar period as our friend claims. The only thing that those folks got at that time were the very basics - small flat to live in, some basic medical care, and perhaps a government job. The most vacation they could ever hope for was a week in Brighton in some small seaside bungalow once in a great while. After Margaret Thatcher came on the scene and threw off the chains of socialism, the average person was then able to make some money. They bought decent homes, maybe even a summer place in France, or a vacation to the Caribbean.

Prince Williams in-laws would never have achieved the kind of success that they had under the yoke of socialism, and this kind of success was repeated thousands of times over by thousands of people. Capitalism and entrepreneurship gave the people of Britain the higher standard of living they now have, not socialism.

 

Thanks. More good points specifically addressing his posts. To be clear, I never said it got good under socialism, only that his socialism failed, and pointed out that he admitted it failed. He just didn't admit how badly it failed, or who was really to blame.

 

Jeremy Corbyn grows vegetables on his allotment, cycles around so doesn't claim for travel expenses.

Teresa May is a T1 diabetic whose continuous monitor she assures us is available on the NHS. It's not widely available on prescription - it costs many people £1,200 per year, while most still use the finger prick glucose test - every meal time, with test strips on free prescription. As a T2 diabetic, I get medication free, but have to pay for test strips.

In the USA A surprisingly large number of people with diabetes are using less insulin than prescribed because of the rising cost of the drug, putting themselves in danger of serious complications. Those are the findings of a small new study by researchers at Yale University, who found that at one clinic in New Haven, Conn., one in four patients admitted to cutting back on insulin use because of cost.

People who had prospered during the 50s, 60s & 70s - the socialist years - were able to benefit from Thatcher's sell-off of council houses & privatisation share issues. Subsequent generations suffered from her policies - which are continuing under the present government.

You're more familiar with British royalty than I am.

Thousands may be enjoying success, but millions of people are becoming ever more poor.

Socialism did not fail in practice; the problem was partly greed of the trade unions that used their power to claim excessive wage rises by disruptive strikes. The socialists in government sought to restrict pay rises. Also trade union pressure raised safety standards across industry - & safety costs money. Thatcher's response was to destroy our manufacturing & mining industries by buying cheap goods from abroad where slave labour continues.

 

You didn't address my point. Do the elites have to wait in a line like the rest of the citizenry? Prince Charles, Prince William and their families - do they get the exact same care as you, are they waiting months for an MRI or years for a procedure? I 'll take your evasion on this matter as a no.

In other words, socialism is a failure. Someone at sometime in the socialist scheme fails. I'll stick with capitalism thank you very much - it helps more people have better lives than any other system.

 

The British have an average income they can live on and medical care. We don't.

 

If a person does not have medical care, perhaps they should get some. Oh wait, that means a job and I know there are a lot of folks out there who have become accustomed to not working for a living.

 

Just posting statistical facts:

• Based on the Office for National Statistics’s (ONS’s) Living Costs and Food Survey, the UK median disposable household income was £27,300 in the financial year ending (FYE) 2017, up 2.3% on the previous year (after accounting for inflation and household composition).
  • £27,300 = $35,441
• Between 2015 and 2016, US median household income rose 3.2% from $57,230 to $59,039, according to a new report released by the U.S. Census Bureau on Tuesday.
  
  • $59,039 = £45478

For those unfamiliar with statistics, “median” means the ‘middle’ value of a sample and not the average of all values. So exactly half of the population earns more than the median and half earns less. The median is a better measure than the “mean” in groups where extremes (like Bilionaires and people earning nothing) may distort the ‘average’.


UK Health:

• Death rate: 9.4 deaths per 1,000 population
• Life expectancy: 81.0 years
• Infant Mortality rate: 3.8 deaths per 1,000 live births

US Health:

• Death rate: 8.4 deaths per 1,000 population
• Life expectancy: 78.7 years
• Infant Mortality rate: 5.9 deaths per 1,000 live births

(The ‘Universal’ Health Coverage in the UK is allowing more people to die than the ‘Employer’ Health Coverage in the US. The US has more deaths from drugs and suicide lowering the average life expectancy and increasing infant mortality.)

 

You can have Russia. I'll take the UK. OK?

 

Tell that to the KY coal miners and to everyone working full time who still don't have decent insurance.

 

thanks to obamacare

 

The number one reason to vote Democrat is that Hillary promises to end the violence and be civil if she wins.

 

I am against socialism/communism (same thing). I am also a bivo pastor which means I work two jobs. I do ntothave insurance because I cannot afford it. The current insurance available is in excess of 9 to 12000 dollars a year with an equal co-pay. That does me no good if it doesn't cover everyday medical expenses. With such a high co-pay it does me no good.

It's not that people do not have insurance because they do not work. It is because Obamacare drove the costs up so much it is out of reach even when one does work unless your employer provides it.

 

There are many reasons to reject the democratic party, but number 1 has to be this.....

Dismembering living unborn babies is ‘very humane,’ Planned Parenthood backer tells Congress

Not sure how one can even call themselves a democrat with this as their platform. May God forgive them and change their hearts.

 

ObamaCare provided these families with affordable insurance (called KY Direct in KY). McConnell lied to the people of KY when he said he would repeal ObamaCare but they could keep their KY Connect. They're the same thing!

 

Was insurance affordable before Obamacare? Did people with insurance 10 years ago lose out?

The trouble with communism type socialism is that it is imposed from the top down, with the state controlling the means of production & appropriating industry & running it by bureaucrats. Thus the people lose out because control is not local. A better, more Scriptural form of socialism is local cooperative ventures where production benefits the producers, ideally a village situation where strip & rotational farming supports the community, & those with other skills - cooking, preserving, teaching, pastoral care, healing, all seek to serve.

After the English civil war the Levellers - the common people who had fought for their lords sought to establish collectives by farming common land. As far as the lords were concerned, there was no common land.

And the lords make the laws -

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.

The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who takes things that are yours and mine.

The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.​

 

Utterly evil - human sacrifice - but how do we then care for the babies who are born into such poverty that there is society & financial pressure on the mother to sacrifice her baby?

Do we care for the unborn child, while neglecting him once he is born?