Who are the top democratic presidential candidates for 2020?

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Yesterday I read good news. The USC has just decided to give free tuition to those families with incomes of 80,000 or less and will not include the home value in any calculation to meet the income and asset criteria. Other Cal. schools have begun to adjust their requirements.

This is where change ought to begin. The Gov't did not make folks take out loans, but schools charged and raised tuition so that students became more and more indebted. If we start to look at who is benifitting, perhaps unduly, we could see where the change should begin.

California and New York had wonderful tuition programs years ago. They were considered excellent schools. I paid no tuition. We really can do that again. Bernie plans just make the Fed Gov't pay. Let the private schools do their fair share to redress the excesses. I was actually heartened by this.

Tekate I hope you weren't saying your brother didn't deserve the benefits he got. I would have to disagree with that. He did need them.

Annette

 

[voce]

@Tekate lots of good information you linked in your last post. I took the time to read the Pew research and the links on federal disability. Yes, 99% of people on Medicaid and SNAP are out of the system after four years. It's true that the burden of proof for federal disability is high. I think the federal welfare programs are exactly where they need to be, and I'm not about to advocate for cutting spending on them. Federal welfare on top of the states' welfare, and then you're even talking about expanding welfare...is that really going to solve any systemic problems in the long term?

I read the same information you did, and my takeaway from that was that those who are going to be worst off are people NOT ADAPTING to the times. It's not their fault. They grew up being taught a certain way, and the education system is not preparing them for the types of jobs that are out on the marketplace. I've heard many an employer gripe about the lack of relevance of the textbook information the kids get taught in a 4-year university to the actual practical knowledge needed on the job. People are going out of their way to spend five or six figures on education, but the real skills they need to be an excellent employee, they STILL need to learn on the job, because it's not developed by our education system.

I would argue that what needs to happen is education REFORM, not simply grabbing more money out of the pockets of upper and middle class people to pay for an educational system that is failing people. I think that of the California school system most of all. Yes, you can point to excellent public schools like UC Berkeley, but when the first year dropout rate is 60-70%, that leads me to believe it's the students they select and not the school itself that's responsible for the high rankings.

Make your dollars go further with smarter spending, instead of asking for more dollars to be handed to you! That would be my response to any organization asking for public funding. It's too easy and irresponsible to ask for more, without first exhausting all the possibilities of figuring out how to spend the dollars smarter.

Another pet peeve of mine is when people tell me they're unable to learn. First of all, I understand that if you're pushing retirement age, or if you have a physiological condition that impacts learning, you really are unable to learn. However, most people that say this are trying to give themselves excuses. In most cases--if you tell yourself and accept that you are unable to learn, then the outcome is decided; it's a self fulfilling prophecy. It's a lazy denial of your own potential and rejection of learning; it's a choice of self-deception. Hardworking people in poor countries are forced to learn and improve. In America, no one is forced into anything, so there are many people walking around not thinking about how to improve themselves to be useful and a productive member within the system, instead complaining about how unfair the system is and demanding more handouts. And it's my speculation that these people tend to support Bernie Sanders.

 

[Gussie]

@Tekate lots of good information you linked in your last post. I took the time to read the Pew research and the links on federal disability. Yes, 99% of people on Medicaid and SNAP are out of the system after four years. It's true that the burden of proof for federal disability is high. I think the federal welfare programs are exactly where they need to be, and I'm not about to advocate for cutting spending on them. Federal welfare on top of the states' welfare, and then you're even talking about expanding welfare...is that really going to solve any systemic problems in the long term?

I read the same information you did, and my takeaway from that was that those who are going to be worst off are people NOT ADAPTING to the times. It's not their fault. They grew up being taught a certain way, and the education system is not preparing them for the types of jobs that are out on the marketplace. I've heard many an employer gripe about the lack of relevance the kids get taught in a 4-year university to the actual practical knowledge needed on the job. People are going out of their way to spend five or six figures on education, but the real skills they need to be an excellent employee, they STILL need to learn on the job, because it's not developed by our education system.

I would argue that what needs to happen is education REFORM, not simply grabbing more money out of the pockets of upper and middle class people to pay for an educational system that is failing people. I think that of the California school system most of all. Yes, you can point to excellent public schools like UC Berkeley, but when the first year dropout rate is 60-70%, that leads me to believe it's the students they select and not the school itself that's responsible for the high rankings.

Make your dollars go further with smarter spending, instead of asking for more dollars to be handed to you! That would be my response to any organization asking for public funding. It's too easy and irresponsible to ask for more, without first exhausting all the possibilities of figuring out how to spend the dollars smarter.

Another pet peeve of mine is when people tell me they're unable to learn. First of all, I understand that if you're pushing retirement age, or if you have a physiological condition that impacts learning, you really are unable to learn. However, most people that say this are trying to give themselves excuses. In most cases--if you tell yourself and accept that you are unable to learn, then the outcome is decided; it's a self fulfilling prophecy. It's a lazy denial of your own potential and rejection of learning; it's a choice of self-deception. Hardworking people in poor countries are forced to learn and improve. In America, no one is forced into anything, so there are many people walking around not thinking about how to improve themselves to be useful and a productive member within the system, instead complaining about how unfair the system is and demanding more handouts. And it's my speculation that these people tend to support Bernie Sanders.

Bernie also vilifies some of the most "productuctive members". Taxing the living hell out of the wealthy is criminal imo. Innovation is a result of capitalism. Look at the contributions of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. The US leads innovation for a reason. Without incentive, I doubt we would have as much innovation.

I think I could live without Zuckerberg's junk though.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Bernie has become a movement. When you promise free college and free healthcare, young college kids are showing up in the tens of thousands. The problem is, these same voters are not researching the empty promises. It is not possible! Nothing he is promising is possible or practical.

Nope it isn't, but sadly young kids don't understand simple math.... If Sanders vs Trump, Trump will win easily.

 

[telephone89]

@Gussie Sure, incentive breeds innovation, but do you even realize HOW rich those people are?

I feel like most people would consider Kim Kardashian rich. Like, really rich. Bezos is 33243% richer than Kim Kardashian. He just bought a property that broke LA $ records. It was $165M. This is equivalent to someone who earns $100k spending $134 on a home. He certainly has some cash to spare, and considering how little his company pays in taxes (and how many of his employees sit at the poverty line), he SHOULD be contributing more.

 

[Gussie]

@Gussie Sure, incentive breeds innovation, but do you even realize HOW rich those people are?

I feel like most people would consider Kim Kardashian rich. Like, really rich. Bezos is 33243% richer than Kim Kardashian. He just bought a property that broke LA $ records. It was $165M. This is equivalent to someone who earns $100k spending $134 on a home. He certainly has some cash to spare, and considering how little his company pays in taxes (and how many of his employees sit at the poverty line), he SHOULD be contributing more.

Yes, I do get how rich they are. It is mind blowing when I think of that kind of wealth, but it is theirs, not the governments. I also have a lot of respect for the ones who pledge to give most of it away. I just don't believe in forcing them too. And a wealth/estate tax is double taxation, totally unfair. Not to mention, even taxing the uber wealthy at a high percent still wouldn't even come close to paying for everything Bernie is offering.

 

[Dancing Fire]

@Gussie Sure, incentive breeds innovation, but do you even realize HOW rich those people are?

According Sanders "Billionaires should not exist" if that's true then "Millionaires shouldn’t exist" either. OOops , I forgot Sanders is a multimillionaire....

 

[Dancing Fire]

Cuba here we come!. Come on Dems you can do better than Sanders.

Sanders says 'it's unfair to simply say everything is bad' with Fidel Castro's Cuba

Sen. Bernie Sanders offered a partial defense of Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution, asserting that "It's unfair to simply say everything is bad" with the way the late despot ruled the country.

www.cnn.com

 

[voce]

@telephone89 and everybody else: Jeff Bezos' net worth, and that of Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and anyone who holds a company as their path to wealth, are not in cash assets, so it's not as though they are sitting on a pile of money ready to be given away. Their net worth comes from stock valuations, evaluated at what price the stock trades at from day to day. When it comes to stocks, the more you're selling, the less it's worth. If the stock market loses 30% in a crash, their wealth takes that 30% hit. The value isn't fixed, and what's more, if they sell off their stock, they lose voting rights in the company that they created. Since these entrepreneurs invested so much of their lives into their companies, asking them to divest is like asking them to let go of their brain-children. It's asking a lot of them.

That said, those people like Buffett and Gates who pledge to give away 99% of their wealth, I truly applaud. They're acknowledging other things matter more than building up an empire of wealth to pass on to their descendants.

 

[telephone89]

According Sanders "Billionaires should not exist" if that's true then "Millionaires shouldn’t exist" either. OOops , I forgot Sanders is a multimillionaire....

A millionaire is far different than a billionaire. To lay people they both are "rich" but a billionaire is insanely more wealthy than a millionaire.

 

[telephone89]

@voce Maybe you can explain the taxes to me then. Amazon doubled their taxable income from 2017-2018 (5.6 to 11.2 billion), paid $0 in federal taxes, and actually RECEIVED a $129 million tax refund. How does that even fly in this day and age? Taxing him personally at a higher rate may not work as he only "claims" $80k as his salary, but billion dollar corporations who are actually sucking money should be a priority.

 

[voce]

@voce Maybe you can explain the taxes to me then. Amazon doubled their taxable income from 2017-2018 (5.6 to 11.2 billion), paid $0 in federal taxes, and actually RECEIVED a $129 million tax refund. How does that even fly in this day and age? Taxing him personally at a higher rate may not work as he only "claims" $80k as his salary, but billion dollar corporations who are actually sucking money should be a priority.

Would make for an interesting case study. I'm not a tax accountant, but since I take responsibility for financial decisions at my company and interact with CPAs frequently, I'll take a stab at this.

Let me clarify, I am in favor of a wealth tax, whether individuals or corporations, over $50 million. In accounting, income is easily manipulated, whereas wealth is significantly more difficult, not impossible to hide. Therefore a wealth tax imo will be far more effective in bringing money from the rich compared to revising the income tax.

I know Jeff Bezos is stretching all resources to grow Amazon as big as he can. If the company keeps reinvesting profits and spends them as "expenses", they shrink their profits. And if they put their money into renewable energy AFAIK they can claim 30% of that as a tax break or refund. They could just be pouring a lot of money, more than the taxes they owe, into building green buildings and buying electric cars, for which they are getting these tax breaks. AFAIK it's the progressives who decided to put these tax incentives in place to change people and corporations' energy consumption and so liberals shouldn't be up in arms that these mega corporations are taking advantage of policies they passed. I'm not in favor of the way Jeff Bezos is growing his company, but come on, what did you expect? Is a smart billionaire really not going to game the system when it comes to tax rebates?

 

[NonieMarie]

Stop worrying about Sanders creating a socialist country. He would need the Congress in order to push us that far. Trump has been given the power to destroy our environment, our compassion and standing in the world because the Republican Senate gave him that power. McConnell has dozens of bills sitting on his desk passed by the House, including prescription reform, the Senate is up Trump's rear!

 

[voce]

I'm not worried about Sanders creating a socialist country, so much as creating the perception that Americans voted for socialism. That impacts our image abroad. Do you really want it to be a point of derision for foreign governments to say American democracy is messed up, and therefore other countries should not aspire to democratic institutions? As I've said before, the Russians and the Chinese would love for Sanders to be elected. I imagine they might say something like this for propaganda: "First they elect a far right politician, then a far left. Do Americans really know WTF they want?" "If democratic elections result in socialism, well then why don't we bypass the whole democratic process and head straight to socialism via autocracy?"

 

[telephone89]

@voce Thanks for the explanation. I know your taxes are a bit different than up here.
I think growing the company is crazy smart, but I still feel like they have a duty to their country, and getting millions of dollars in tax refunds while paying none AND paying their employees shit is horrible to me. So when it sounds like people are defending the loopholes they are using to avoid taxes that normal people can't, it sounds really off to me!

 

[telephone89]

 

[Tekate]

My brother got an overabundance of benefits compared to most Americans is what I was saying Smitcompton . I am indebted to the people of this country and state of CA for taking care of my brother, he's not homeless and because he spent 4 years in the navy in Hawaii and SD he get's free mental health care, he has a copay with some of his crazy drugs, he's Section 8 housing, get's free food, has a caseworker for years and years at the VA, got a free scooter since after his strokes he can't walk, he has a free cell phone, a free laptop, has a free cleaning service, so I love CA and the Feds for all they have done to keep my brother safe, but it's a cost that I didn't bear necessarily, I as a taxpayer did, but for 4 years of in and out of rehab, shipping off to Hawaii and living in SD has cost the taxpayer a lot of money, lots and lots, do I think he's worthy? not sure, maybe he would have recovered more if there wasn't this huge safety net for vets. Personal responsibility, my brother also has a BA in History of SUNY New Paltz, under some free program back in the 80s.. he's now going to CC in SD under a bunch of free stuff for veterans and disabled people. ,

I went to SUNY And CCNY in the 70s and nothing was free then, it was inexpensive that is why I went to those schools.

The government didn't make me take out a loan in 72 but I couldn't have gone to SUNY and paid my room and board without it. I didn't have a car, couldn't afford a car or insurance for that matter, living in the city was out as I had no where to live there, no one broke my arm but I knew if I didn't get a degree I would not get as far in life so I did what II had to do. Of course college was much cheaper then prices for college skyrocket but wages haven't.

Hi,

Yesterday I read good news. The USC has just decided to give free tuition to those families with incomes of 80,000 or less and will not include the home value in any calculation to meet the income and asset criteria. Other Cal. schools have begun to adjust their requirements.

This is where change ought to begin. The Gov't did not make folks take out loans, but schools charged and raised tuition so that students became more and more indebted. If we start to look at who is benifitting, perhaps unduly, we could see where the change should begin.

California and New York had wonderful tuition programs years ago. They were considered excellent schools. I paid no tuition. We really can do that again. Bernie plans just make the Fed Gov't pay. Let the private schools do their fair share to redress the excesses. I was actually heartened by this.

Tekate I hope you weren't saying your brother didn't deserve the benefits he got. I would have to disagree with that. He did need them.

Annette

 

[Tekate]

@voce you said:

Federal welfare on top of the states' welfare, and then you're even talking about expanding welfare...is that really going to solve any systemic problems in the long term?

Which/what systemic problems are you talking about Voce? poverty? well yeah it would help those in poverty, I am in favor of expanding welfare and diminishing cheats that rich can do to pay taxes to offset the expansion of welfare for those in need. Systemic problems are just that, a problem with the system.

Cities with the hottest job markets:

Here are the 10 best cities for jobs in 2020

For those serious about making a career move in the year ahead, ZipRecruiter identified the hottest job markets across the county, based on the growing number of job postings and median wage, among other criteria.

www.cnbc.com

Cities with the most people on public assistance:

Neediest Cities in America in 2024

Neediest Cities in America in 2024

wallethub.com

so you see where people are the neediest are not in high cities, but some are in the same state as high job growth areas. So how to move the needy to the hot job markets?

Bay Area job market surges — but “warning signs” surface

The nine-county region added 2,900 jobs in December, led by a gain of 1,500 jobs in Santa Clara County and 900 positions in the East Bay, although the San Francisco-San Mateo region lost 400 jobs.

www.mercurynews.com

So what should Cal do? get the people from LA to SF area and get them employed. As the article above states, the tech sector is the biggest employment creator, but it would also entail tag along industries like store workers, childcare workers, teachers, etc.. now the problems that arise are several: retaining to be a tech worker, education, legal status, and cost of living, which is a killer in SF area. So what good is it to move to LA to get an average job paying 50K a year, where you going to live? the average studio in Bay area is 2,500K+ per month.. how's a family going to pay that, have a kid, car, food.. on 50K a year, copays for health, etc etc.?


It's a serious problem to get people to jobs. I can tell you the biggest hiring done in Maine is the food service business and rents are for a 1 bedroom average about 1300K per month.. also Maine has a declining population, seasonal job due to it being 'vacationland' etc.. Logistics for growth and getting off assistance are very difficult.

 

[voce]

@Tekate I don't see welfare as a solution to the systemic problem of poverty. I see it as putting a band-aid over a deep wound rather than solving the underlying causes of poverty.

 

[Tekate]

@voce yes organizations should be smarter with their dollar. Corporations should be more taxes, I'm for both.

 

[Tekate]

Yes I am not saying it is a cure, what I a saying is it is a stepping stone to a healthier life for kids, as you know, there is no more lifetime assistance Voce, there is the 5 year limit, thank you Bill Clinton. I do know that some people are just not employable too.

I think your ideas are what people say, but the real hard logistics of working to get off assistance and on to a better life are very hard, been there.

 

[Tekate]

Having been abroad many times in the last 10 years, believe me our image in Europe is terrible, I dont think it could get any worse than it has with Trump, I could be wrong but Europeans don't get how we don't have healthcare for all.

Why worry about Russia and China, Russia has been backing Trump (not backing moneywise or working together (altho who knows) the Russians spread false information and the Chinese? I'm sure too but China holds much of our debt and I don't think they would care that much how our government handles internal affairs)

Russia is an authoritarian government as is China. Russia has universal healthcare (socialism!). China has free public welfare (socialism!) and private healthcare you can pay for (as does GB I think).

Why would Russia and China care if we are a socialist democratic country?

 

[Tekate]

@voce I applaud Bill Gates and Buffet, if Bill Gates gives away 99% of his worth that leaves 10billion Dollars! for his family. 3 kids, 3 billion a piece, not bad. Seriously, I think it's great, but I do know the Gates kids have trusts and all kinds of hidden money, plus a few billion+ when their parents die.. Again I applaud him.

 

[Tekate]

@voce have you ever read this: https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-an-introduction-to-tanf

People with children can get further benefits but it is no longer just sitting around and being a 'welfare queen' having another kid and more money etc. You probably know this, but the way people bandy about on this board about 'assistance' I sometimes think people don't really understand the program and the timeframe etc.

I agree with you that there are deep seated and rooted problems that we as a country need to address and work on, but the major money spent on assitance programs by the USG is SSA and Medicare, if you want to cut and make a difference there is where to do it.

 

[jaaron]

I'm not worried about Sanders creating a socialist country, so much as creating the perception that Americans voted for socialism. That impacts our image abroad. Do you really want it to be a point of derision for foreign governments to say American democracy is messed up, and therefore other countries should not aspire to democratic institutions? As I've said before, the Russians and the Chinese would love for Sanders to be elected. I imagine they might say something like this for propaganda: "First they elect a far right politician, then a far left. Do Americans really know WTF they want?" "If democratic elections result in socialism, well then why don't we bypass the whole democratic process and head straight to socialism via autocracy?"

I'm American but have lived outside the US for almost 16 years. I interact with a very international group, both personally and professionally. By in large, there is nothing that could happen that would have more people believing American democracy is messed up more than they do right now, today, this very minute. And we're supposed to make an electoral decision--am I understanding this right?--based on keeping the Russians and Chinese from shit talking our system? Why does them thinking we should 'bypass the whole democratic process and head straight to socialism via autocracy' have any effect on us whatsoever? Unless that's via their stooge...

 

[voce]

I'm American but have lived outside the US for almost 16 years. I interact with a very international group, both personally and professionally. By in large, there is nothing that could happen that would have more people believing American democracy is messed up more than they do right now, today, this very minute. And we're supposed to make an electoral decision--am I understanding this right?--based on keeping the Russians and Chinese from shit talking our system? Why does them thinking we should 'bypass the whole democratic process and head straight to socialism via autocracy' have any effect on us whatsoever? Unless that's via their stooge...

It doesn't have to matter to you. I have the frustration of having a parent who likes to assert over the dinner table that autocracy is superior to democracy for governance because the majority of the population comprises fools.

Why does it have to be Sanders or Trump? I just despise extremists who are dogmatic and won't compromise.

 

[jaaron]

It doesn't have to matter to you. I have the frustration of having a parent who likes to assert over the dinner table that autocracy is superior to democracy for governance because the majority of the population comprises fools.

Why does it have to be Sanders or Trump? I just despise extremists who are dogmatic and won't compromise.

I'm certainly no Sanders fan--would much prefer to see someone else be the nominee.

My point was only that living and working outside the US, I haven't run across anyone who has expressed any opinion that electing Sanders could possibly do any more harm to our international reputation than exists right now. In fact, I hear a fair amount of the opposite--most people in developed countries (at least the ones I've run across) profess absolute bafflement at the American health care model, and, I think would respect us considerably more if we didn't have the reputation of allowing people to go without healthcare or fall into debt due to the lack of it. They also find Americans' attachment to their guns perplexing, but that's another story.

And I was genuinely confused by what seemed to be your assertion that we should select a president based on fear of what the Russians and Chinese will say about us.

 

[voce]

@voce have you ever read this: https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-an-introduction-to-tanf

People with children can get further benefits but it is no longer just sitting around and being a 'welfare queen' having another kid and more money etc. You probably know this, but the way people bandy about on this board about 'assistance' I sometimes think people don't really understand the program and the timeframe etc.

I agree with you that there are deep seated and rooted problems that we as a country need to address and work on, but the major money spent on assitance programs by the USG is SSA and Medicare, if you want to cut and make a difference there is where to do it.

I just read it now.



I am not against welfare itself, but I am against extending/expanding a welfare program when it's not proven to work.

As for people that become a "welfare queen" by having more kids, Octomom definitely comes to mind. I grew up remembering the scandal that it caused that she was paying for a nanny and cosmetic surgery with money for child support from the state. She had her octuplets in the late 90s, and yet this story of welfare fraud proves she was still getting welfare as late as 2013.

Sure, sure, this is only one individual, and perhaps the worst offender, who has taken advantage of the welfare system. I just don't think it's wise to keep throwing more money at the welfare system without reforming the welfare system and the education system first.

The reason there's not as many good jobs for poor people, is that the world has changed through automation so that relative to the population growth, it's harder and harder to get one of the relatively fewer remaining unskilled jobs. If you think you have it bad here, look at India, where they interview like 3000 candidates to fill one position, and young people go through hundreds of interviews to land a job. If you give money through welfare and do nothing else, it does nothing to change the equilibrium of things. For each family helped through welfare, another or even more families will fall into poverty, because you're not solving the root cause of the problem. I advocate for getting to the root cause rather than just trying to give out the fish without making it a requirement for people to learn to fish for themselves. Poverty is a symptom, not the cause of the disease itself. I see the "disease" as people being unequipped to adapt to the times and contribute effectively to their society by meeting the current and future labor demands. Another symptom of the disease is the rise of mental illnesses related to low self esteem of these people unsuccessful at adapting to a changing world. While the symptoms should be treated, surely the more important thing to do is treat the root cause of the disease. Only providing welfare is like giving pain meds to a patient with cancer, no surgery or chemo.

 

[voce]

I'm certainly no Sanders fan--would much prefer to see someone else be the nominee.

My point was only that living and working outside the US, I haven't run across anyone who has expressed any opinion that electing Sanders could possibly do any more harm to our international reputation than exists right now. In fact, I hear a fair amount of the opposite--most people in developed countries (at least the ones I've run across) profess absolute bafflement at the American health care model, and, I think would respect us considerably more if we didn't have the reputation of allowing people to go without healthcare or fall into debt due to the lack of it. They also find Americans' attachment to their guns perplexing, but that's another story.

And I was genuinely confused by what seemed to be your assertion that we should select a president based on fear of what the Russians and Chinese will say about us.

You are taking my remarks way out of context. I was only speaking for myself personally, bemoaning what they will say, because my mother streams what I think is Youtube content created by friends of Chinese state media. She has given up on learning English and prefers those channels with robo-voices. I dread having that kind of crap to have to listen to when I'm cooking with her in the kitchen.

Does this mean I will let that determine who I vote for for US President? No. As I've stated before, if it comes down to Bernie and Trump, I will vote Bernie. I hate Bernie, but to me Bernie is the lesser evil, if only by a slender margin.

I am genuinely confused by you reading my comment as an "assertion that we should select a president based on fear of what the Russians and Chinese will say about us"; please don't read between the lines too much; I didn't write anything between the lines.

 

[jaaron]

I'm not worried about Sanders creating a socialist country, so much as creating the perception that Americans voted for socialism. That impacts our image abroad. Do you really want it to be a point of derision for foreign governments to say American democracy is messed up, and therefore other countries should not aspire to democratic institutions? As I've said before, the Russians and the Chinese would love for Sanders to be elected. I imagine they might say something like this for propaganda: "First they elect a far right politician, then a far left. Do Americans really know WTF they want?" "If democratic elections result in socialism, well then why don't we bypass the whole democratic process and head straight to socialism via autocracy?"

I was genuinely confused by this. I believed I was taking your words on the page quite literally. Please do re-read the above. I have several times, and I really believe it's understandable that I came to the conclusion that I did--there is nothing in the above about your mother and your relationship with her around those issues. Plus, my own opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that no matter who we elect, those countries/channels will find a way to adapt it to their narrative.

I apologise if you think my response was based on reading between the lines--that wasn't my intent.