Steroid wrote:I don't think it's what they want to do. I think it's what will result from them doing what I think they're most likely to do given the scenario they would face.
Which was covered under "[...] or will do." in my statement. They aren't going to grow the government to 75% of the economy. Even real, actual socialist governments* (not the faux socialism attributed to US liberals). There are only four countries
in the world (as of 2011) that have government spending over 65% of GDP, all of which are impoverished, dictatorships, or both. The nations more often held up as socialist (though even they are more socialist-leaning than socialist) -- Sweden, France, Finland, Belgium -- are all around 50%, even the UK isn't that far from them at 47%. The economic darling of Europe, Germany, is at 43%, as is Israel. The US isn't that far behind at 39%.
You're assuming, as the almost certain result of democratic presidencies, something that is almost entirely implausible.
* With the sole exception of Cuba at 78%, but you should note that Cuba is specifically communist (not socialist), that essentially all of Cuba's problems can be attributed to the US embargo, and that Cuba has been under Castro rule this entire time as well. There are far too many unique traits to them to make a valid comparison to any large, developed nation.
Steroid wrote:[...] until one day after an election (hopefully) or a revolution (more likely), [...]
Yeah.. that's doubling down on your hyperbole loop. Take a step back (a real, actual step back) outside of your own self-assured-belief bubble and look at things. A revolution is not going to happen if democrats win enough elections in a row. You'd have to be deranged to believe that.
Randomizer wrote:the Ronpaul hasn't lost yet.
It's over. He already suspended his campaign. He lost.