Yes, and via the ballot-box by which we elect "governments" - local, state, national. Then you are contradicting yourself. Then you should be living on some other planet. All countries have "Big Governments". Poor you ... Nope, and never will - what exists today are national governments of large scale on a planet with 7 billion people. You have a preference for something that is ... you on a small island - maybe alone, maybe with a dozen "friends". So, good luck with that one ...
Really? Would you care to elucidate, please? Perhaps "all" European countries. But I do not live in Europe... Actually, I have a preference for the small government that is advocated by the Republican Party. Which may explain why I am a Republican--not a Democrat...
There is no such thing as "small government". (We are nation and market-economy of 320M people that breeds 42M people who live below the Poverty Threshold, which is not only a sin but a calamity.) The smallest entity is found a city in most nations on earth. Laws, particularly tax-codes that are intended for the redistribution of Income are intended for everybody towards regulating fairness (not equality, but equitability). But, that's not the way they work in the good ole USA. Your bad. Free national health care, and free postsecondary diploma for all citizens. They can advocate all they want. There is no "small government" in the USA. There is a upper-income tax-code however that unfairly benefits 0.1Percenters: Yes, only 0.1% of the nation's families own one-quarter of the nation's wealth. And the Trump family is one of them. More's the pity ...
Yes, that's what I propose. I was relieved that Obama won more states than both McCain and Romney and enough popular support so no one could dispute the outcome. In 2000 that dispute in Florida would have given Gore the Presidency with 21 states of 50 (and a low percentage of counties, square miles and any other dividing lines). Some claimed the 2004 win should have waited for the absentee ballot count in Ohio because if Kerry took about 95% of people who don't really live in the state he too would have gotten all the EVs and won with 21 states. Democrats are so close to victory if they pull just a couple of swing states that they've made no effort in about 20 red states with low populations. They can also ignore low population blue states and even most rural and suburban communities. Look at the map by county in any of the last 5 elections and you'll see we're split. Of course those 37-18 combinations wouldn't happen if either party was trying to win California specifically. Hillary would have aimed for 40, Trump for 25. Those voters are least represented. Ohio and Florida get all the attention, but less if they split 15-14 every time.
Post-FDR (and his "New Deal,") and post-LBJ (and his "Great Society"; which was especially deplorable, I believe), it has been harder to find. But the trend may certainly be reversed. Only those on the far left (by American standards; and that is all that really counts, with me) believe such nonsense. Redistributionism is an idea that I find particularly reprehensible... Free Stuff (from a Santa Claus-style government) is not really free. It is paid for through citizens' taxes. And high taxes, coupled with generous government giveaways, is far inferior to low taxes, coupled with no government giveaways, in my opinion. And I am very far from wealthy... Here, apparently, is the real source of your irritation: Donald Trump won the presidential election. Evidently, it is something that you have never come to grips with--and have no intention of ever coming to grips with...
Yes, well, there are some ignorant people still left on this planet who believe in such egotistical nonsense, that of "do-it-all-yourself or not at all". They are dying off, however. The US is the last bastion, it too will fall. Though it may well take another 20-years but it will happen. Time is on my side. The reason why the Replicants wont subsidize "Universal Post-secondary Education" is because they know - in their heart of hearts - that intelligent people will not have anything to do with a party of "it's all about me, me, me - and the rest of you can go to hell". That attitude is a Defense Mechanism first described by the psychologist Alfred Adler: And how is the above manifested in mankind? By the desire to accumulate Wealth as an outward indication of "independence and superior intelligence". Which, of course, it is isn't - the phenomenon as manifested by human behaviour is just an "escape valve" for inbred insecurity ...
Irrelevant. That's your problem (plural), not mine. I live in a Social Democracy, and wont be coming back to the US. I'm not bothered in the least that fellow Americans do not see the benefits of a Social Democracy. I meet plenty of them here, in a group called the Democrats Abroad, who have a similar attitude - having found a "better way to live" than the Monolithic Capitalism that has beset America today. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be ...
I note now this prediction. I've been not that present on political forums before of the elections [I was busy with my other favor passion: history ...]. So that I miss all the discussion and the debates of the pivotal weeks. Anyway I would comment this in particular: the prediction wasn't that excessive. I would have personally predicted something similar, starting from the polls which indicated Clinton as the winner of the popular vote [and this has happened] in a quite homogeneous way ... or at least in all the historically democrat states. [Take a look at these forecast maps, I considered them almost realistic http://www.270towin.com/2016-election-forecast-predictions/]. What happened in reality, it's that the popular vote hasn't been homogeneous. Even in some historically democratic states Hillary has lost [the notorious Mid West]. To predict such a result is not that easy, since you have to put together the intention of votes and the probability that left and right stable electorate will participate to the vote in a less or more numerous quantity. In fact, it seems that the two candidates haven't switched the interest on in the electors [this has affected more leftist voters, making Clinton lose] ... the last Presidential elections have see the lowest voter turnout in 20 years. [http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/]. After the first triumph of Obama [who persuaded a mass of non voters to vote] the turnout of the Dems has diminished well more than the turnout of the Reps. 2008 Winner: Obama Turnout: 63.7% Obama: 33.7% McCain: 29.1% 2012 Winner: Obama Turnout: 60.0% [-3.7%] Obama: 30.6 [-3.1%] Romney: 28.3% [-0.8%] 2016 Winner: Trump Turnout: 55.4% [-4.6% but - 8.3% from 2008!] Clinton: 26.5% [-4.1% but -7.2% from 2008!!!!] Trump 26.3% [-2.0% but only -2.8% from 2008]. In other words the Republican electorate has been well more stable than the Democratic ones. Or to say it better: Clinton hasn't had a news effect which was predictable for the first female candidate with possibility to win. So that, the electorate Obama had persuaded to vote this time has renounced.
I was wrong, and would not even use more Americans voting for Clinton as a mitigating fact. I had repeatedly criticized the Democratic Party's abandonment of the non-college-educated, aging White voter that had once been their base when labour unions made them a player in balancing the power of the corporate elite. Despite the chagrin of many in the GOP at their nomination process, a reality tv performer spouting anger and resentment may have been their only viable option. The ineluctable demographic shift persists, and four years from now, we'll know if 2016 was "the last hurrah" or a tentative step in a different direction.
I think this post reveals (quite obviously) your elitism; your anti-Americanism; and your utter hatred of those who do not agree with you.
Since you obviously like--no love--democratic socialism, I have an idea: Why don't you simply enjoy it abroad, and not attempt to proselytize the rest of us? Oh, and I have yet another idea: Why not simply place me on "Ignore," so that you will no longer have to listen to my (apparently) retrograde ideas? I will do the same with you. (It will spare you any contamination with quintessentially American ideas--which you obviously despise.)
A SORRY PLIGHT You make the same intentional mistake as most miscreants on the Right. That is, attribute "socialism" to Social Democracy. Why? Perhaps because to most Americans, "social" means "church social" and has very little political identity. Whereas Communism and Socialism are both "baddies" since both deny that profits should be generated by means of private enterprise. Of course, that was proven greatly wrong when Communism imploded, as was its just due. Aint nuthin wrong with profits, as long as they are neither exaggerated nor misappropriated (by just one sector of Americans) due to devious machinations of Upper-Income Taxation. Which is America's sorry plight at the moment. Social Democracy is not Democratic Socialism. Because socialism is a non market-economy system and has no free-enterprise. And that difference is key to understanding a Social Democracy, which obviously escapes you ... Avoiding one another is not the purpose of "debate". Confrontation of ideas/notions is its key objective in the battle of ideas - one that began politically with those who signed our Declaration of Independence. Of course, perhaps you prefer a "message board" to promote your "ideas"? You see, this place is called a "debate forum"
I just did the math. It came to 257 for Hillary, 256 for Trump and 25 either for other candidates or unpledged (because no candidate earned the last EV in the state). This would be decided most likely by the House of Representatives as it should be. The numbers keep changing but no tabulation can get Hillary past 259 EVs (270 needed to win). She's at least 4 million votes shy of 50%. No candidate has ever gotten 50% and lost, but it could have happened this year either way. That would be a problem.
